St. Louis high school Shooting: Doors Locked; Metal Detectors; Seven Security Guards on Grounds: Shooter Still Gained entry and Killed.

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

I would call them rifles. Military-style weapons aren't the same as what you buy in the gun shop. They may be dressed up to look like them, but they are still semi-automatic small arms. Your party likes to use the term AR-15 for everything but it's not military-style. Maybe addressing the people part of this could actually bring down the mass shootings? Gun laws won't do it. It's a people problem we have in America. The kind of problem politicians love to use for their own "weaponization". 

Maybe it's the unfiltered war games on the computer (making it easier to conceive such a move by these killers)? Maybe it's the lack of parenting in the home? Maybe it's the degradation of the moral compass in this country? Maybe it's the systematic destruction of good v evil? I know I've seen a startling shift in young people the last 15 years. We are paying a heavy price for the sickness that has been created by the ruling class. 

  Full automatic is a red herring issue.

Most of the rifles being used in mass shooter event are being used as semi-automatics.  (One was a semi-auto with a "bump stock" added, which is easily accomplished.)

All of these rifles are capable of firing as fast as you can pull the trigger along with  high capacity, quick-detachable magazines, because they are all based on the military design. 

The fact they don't meet a specific military spec. - for selectable automatic fire - is moot.  After all, the damage that's being done in these mass shooting being done using this "civilian version" of a military assault rifle.

And whatever "people problems" exist,  mass availability of these military grade rifles - thanks to the mass marketing of same - makes things far worse than they have to be.

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,600]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Fine, I'll just call them semi-automatic rifles. I think you'll agree, though, that part of the appeal for many is how much they look like military weapons.

You're making a mistake. I am not a Democrat. True, I support them much more right now than I do Republicans, but that was not the case in the past. I'll admit that my views have shifted on a number of subjects over the years, but I am not in lock-step with Democrats.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the AR-15 not basically the semi-automatic version of the M16? 

Certainly we need to do a better job of addressing mental health in this country, but do you really believe that's the primary driver? Our peers don't have this problem. Do you believe they are doing that much better job at addressing mental health?

Can't help but laugh at the computer games argument. I remember the outcry by Democrats back in the early 90's about violent video games.

As to your statement "It's a problem we have in America"...why? How are our peer nations different that this isn't really an issue for them?

Our peers are apples to oranges with the United States. We're not Europe and I hope we are never Europe. 

Why did you dodge the morality statement? This generation has been taught that life isn't as important as it used to be. The respect for life and a mutual respect for others is lacking in this country. It opens the door for what we have been seeing. Obviously guns will get the blame because they are objects that can't speak for themselves. When do we lay blame where it's warranted? 

[autigeremt 6,600]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

  Full automatic is a red herring issue.

Most of the rifles being used in mass shooter event are being used as semi-automatics.  (One was a semi-auto with a "bump stock" added, which is easily accomplished.)

All of these rifles are capable of firing as fast as you can pull the trigger along with  high capacity, quick-detachable magazines, because they are all based on the military design. 

The fact they don't meet a specific military spec. - for selectable automatic fire - is moot.  After all, the damage that's being done in these mass shooting being done using this "civilian version" of a military assault rifle.

And whatever "people problems" exist,  mass availability of these military grade rifles - thanks to the mass marketing of same - makes things far worse than they have to be.

 

Handguns are semi-automatic. We have laws all over the place for them....yet, they are the leading killers. Once again.....do you believe we should go after the 2nd Amendment?

[Leftfield 2,595]

50 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Our peers are apples to oranges with the United States. We're not Europe and I hope we are never Europe. 

So, even though they're doing this right, you don't think we should do what they do because you don't want to turn into them?

51 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Why did you dodge the morality statement? This generation has been taught that life isn't as important as it used to be. The respect for life and a mutual respect for others is lacking in this country. It opens the door for what we have been seeing. Obviously guns will get the blame because they are objects that can't speak for themselves. When do we lay blame where it's warranted? 

I didn't dodge anything. I don't really agree with it, though. Certainly you can see plenty of examples of violence and horrible actions by people on the news, but in general I actually think young people have more respect for others than they used to. How well were gay people treated when you were young? Certainly far less favorably than today. Race is far less of an issue. Children are far less cruel to others with challenges such as Autism and ADHD, and in fact often go out of their way to help them. I don't buy into the argument that children don't have respect for anyone or care for the lives of others. 

What I do buy into is that the gun lobby has been fostering glorification of guns for decades (It hasn't only been the gun lobby; certainly pop culture has done its share, but rarely did any gun lobbyist speak out against that). Part of that glorification has been to state how uniquely American gun rights are, and that it is an advantage over other countries. You just proved that out with your statement of "We're not Europe and I hope we are never Europe." Other than gun rights, what major differences do we have to a country like Austria? Not much, so I'm not sure why you say you would never want to be Europe, when we are already very similar. In what ways do you see us being markedly different?

As I said, there are certainly areas where we need to improve in mental health diagnosis and treatment, but why would part of the solution not also be to deprive those that would do harm of weapons that have no other practical use? You don't need a semi-automatic rifle for hunting, and it's far less effective for home defense than a handgun. Why should they be easy for the average person to get? How are other countries wrong for not allowing most of their citizens to have them?

In regards to your statement about the decline of parenting and morality, how do you think that can be corrected, and how long do you think it would take?

[homersapien 11,367]

22 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Handguns are semi-automatic. We have laws all over the place for them....yet, they are the leading killers. Once again.....do you believe we should go after the 2nd Amendment?

First, I don't think the fact we are also awash in handguns that kill more people than military rifles in total is a valid argument we shouldn't recognize and act on the problem we have with assault rifles (a much more lethal weapon ).

Regarding the 2nd amendment,  I believe we should interpret it as allowing regulations prohibiting the mass merchandising of such military weapons - just like we prohibit mass merchandising of other types of military weapons. 

Regarding handguns, we should consider whatever seems to be working well in peer countries that don't seem to have these problems.  But IMO, there are plenty of options to further restrict availability and control of handguns - restrict production, tax them, buy them back, more regulation....

If that's not possible with the existing amendment, we need to change it until it is.

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,600]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, I don't think the fact we are also awash in handguns that kill more people than military rifles represents in total is a argument we shouldn't recognize and act on the problem we have with assault rifles (a much more lethal weapon ).

Regarding the 2nd amendment,  I believe we should interpret it as allowing regulations prohibiting the mass merchandising of such military weapons - just like we prohibit mass merchandising of other types of military weapons. 

Regarding handguns, we should consider whatever seems to be working well in peer countries that don't seem to have these problems.  But IMO, there are plenty of options to further restrict availability and control of handguns - restrict production, tax them, buy them back, more regulation....

If that's not possible with the existing amendment, we need to change it until it is.

 

This right shall not be infringed. I guess you will have to try something else. 

[homersapien 11,367]

18 hours ago, autigeremt said:

This right shall not be infringed. I guess you will have to try something else. 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...

Like I said, if it can't be done using this part of the amendment (which is totally obsolete) we should change it.

Our situation with guns in this country today has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia" and it's certainly not helping our security.  Just the opposite.

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,600]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...

Like I said, if it can't be done using this part of the amendment - which I submit is totally obsolete - we should change it.

Our situation with guns in this country today has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia" and it's certainly not helping our security.  Just the opposite.

 

 

 

Your opinion. Sorry 

[homersapien 11,367]

17 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Your opinion. Sorry 

Yep.  My opinion.  Sorry 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Do tighter gun laws reduce murder rates?

[homersapien 11,367]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do tighter gun laws reduce murder rates?

Well higher availability of guns increases murder rates:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/effect-gun-availability-violent-crime-patterns

So, maybe a better question is, do tighter "gun laws" reduce the availability of guns?

Probably not in areas surrounded by areas with lax regulation - which pretty much means anywhere else in the country outside of the jurisdiction of the gun laws. 

Bottom line, I don't see how gun laws that aren't enforced nationally will have much impact on availability anywhere.

Edited November 10, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,462]

20 hours ago, autigeremt said:

This right shall not be infringed. I guess you will have to try something else. 

I agree.  We should go with the textualist/originalist version of the Constitution.  Every American is entitled to a musket.  Absolutely no restrictions on single shot, muzzle loaded guns.

There now,,, we can all adhere to the original intent of the Constitution and, not have mass shootings.

 

[autigeremt 6,600]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  We should go with the textualist/originalist version of the Constitution.  Every American is entitled to a musket.  Absolutely no restrictions on single shot, muzzle loaded guns.

There now,,, we can all adhere to the original intent of the Constitution and, not have mass shootings.

 

Yeah I’m sure your opinion hits the mark. Oh well….good try 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

11 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Yeah I’m sure your opinion hits the mark. Oh well….good try 

Is that not what the founders put forth?  How convenient to call that "opinion".

 

[autigeremt 6,600]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Is that not what the founders put forth?  How convenient to call that "opinion".

 

I have  different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It's more in line with national defense AND self defense from an overly oppressive government. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I have  different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It's more in line with national defense AND self defense from an overly oppressive government. 

I see.  I just do not understand the willingness to depart from the practical world for the sake to the paranoid world.

[autigeremt 6,600]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

I see.  I just do not understand the willingness to depart from the practical world for the sake to the paranoid world.

I don't understand the willingness to not accept my view and move on. You ignore history way too often. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I don't understand the willingness to not accept my view and move on. You ignore history way too often. 

What history have I ignored?

[autigeremt 6,600]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

What history have I ignored?

You are smarter than that. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

3 hours ago, autigeremt said:

You are smarter than that. 

Nice dodge.

[autigeremt 6,600]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Nice dodge.

Nice inflection point. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 11/10/2022 at 1:56 PM, homersapien said:

So, maybe a better question is, do tighter "gun laws" reduce the availability of guns?

For law abiding citizens, sure. For individuals hell-bent on shooting up a school, I am inclined to say no; tighter gun laws would not meaningfully reduce their ability to get a gun. 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

For law abiding citizens, sure. For individuals hell-bent on shooting up a school, I am inclined to say no; tighter gun laws would not meaningfully reduce their ability to get a gun. 

I agree.

[homersapien 11,367]

23 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

For law abiding citizens, sure. For individuals hell-bent on shooting up a school, I am inclined to say no; tighter gun laws would not meaningfully reduce their ability to get a gun. 

That's not what the actual history of these shootings suggest. 

And most - if not all - of these school shootings were committed by "law abiding citizens" until they went on a rampage.  None of them had any problems obtaining assault rifles.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

That's not what the actual history of these shootings suggest. 

And most - if not all - of these school shootings were committed by "law abiding citizens" until they went on a rampage.  None of them had any problems obtaining assault rifles.

 

Okay. Do you think generally someone who is hell-bent on shooting school children would likewise purchase a firearm illegally? Can you imagine a scenario where it would actually be easier to buy a firearm off of the black market as opposed to legally purchasing one?