I mean this is what they do every time there is bad publicity: they say, "oh, well we just need security measure X (or alternatively, some cartoonish violent fantasy about gunning down the evil-doers in their tracks) which is ridiculously expensive and which we don't intend to carry out anyway", and repeat it just enough times until the crisis blows over. And of course they know they are doing this, because it always works at securing their continuing right to have a firearm without further regulation.

This thing about the security guard reminds me of this old Ben Carson gaffe (wait until the end, or jump to the last 30 seconds):



The idea that people can take down a shooter by senselessly sacrificing themselves in suicidal acts of heroism is obviously ridiculous: the goal with any security measure shouldn't be only be to stop the shooter, it should also be to prevent people from dying. Ben Carson doesn't even seem to be aware of the implications of what he's saying, and how flippantly he's talking about people dying for no good reason at all. Nevermind that, with an AR-15, yes, it is actually possible that a shooter can take everyone down.

Anyway, yeah, how about digging up that 2.5 year old gaffe?

Is it just that they are so courteous to him that he becomes more sympathetic to me, or does that couch couch increase your IQ?

In every single interview I've seen him so far, he seems totally confused and out of his element. At least here he seems pretty comfortable.

About the gaffe you mentioned: it's weird to me how people have fantasies about this kind of thing. Like they are just waiting for the day to go out with guns blazing. It strikes me that the kind of people who feel that way might not be the ones to fare so well in practice (or at the very least, so well as they seem to imagine).

Also, I'm sure you are aware of this, but I think going off about defending himself from an armed shooter pretty much missed the point of the question, which was more along the lines of an sentimental appeal to the faithful, and about as far from ideas on how to survive a death struggle as I can imagine.

yeah it was a peculiar direction to take his response in

that's some very soft spoken knee jerk machismo there

"hey guys! everybody attack!"

If Jesus loses the arm wrestle match with the mass shooter, the socialists win. Press like to help Jesus take down the shooter.

The reason I don't make a good faith effort to discuss the issue here is because it's not possible. The vast majority of you belong to a ravenous, uninformed mob. Now, I had other commitments and stresses since the last time I posted so wading through brain hemorrhage inducing posts was low on my priority. I've skimmed much of them now.

The evil NRA. A group that advocates for protection of a constitutionally affirmed right that many of you openly oppose. Obviously it's needs defense and they've spent about $200 million over the past 20 years doing it. One ranking site I've found doesn't show them anywhere near the top of any political spending chart. One friend of mine's analysis is that what the NRA does deliver is about a 4% consistent chunk of voters. I imagine most of those people would vote against gun restrictions regardless of whether or not they belong to the organization. I was not aware, however, that they supported arming whales. I fully support this because the Japanese simply aren't willing to slow down or stop on their own despite international pressure and another level of deterrence can't hurt.

Assault rifles are selective fire military grade weapons that are already virtually impossible for the average person to obtain. The AR-15 style of weapon is usually capable of firing the same round the US military uses but is of a caliber that most firearms manufacturers consider a "varmint round". Apparently the US military likes lighter and cheaper ammunition because you can carry more and you'll need to since it's less powerful although it can do some really nasty things as it tumbles around a person's insides. It's also a semi-automatic fire weapon only which means it can fire only one round with the pull of the trigger. That fact makes it specifically not an assault rifle which offer the capability to selectively choose semi-automatic fire and some mode of multiple round or fully automatic fire.

I go through that somewhat lengthy description to an audience of mostly gun restricting happy friends because the language should matter and demonstrating ignorance of firearms will lead many to outright dismiss your opinions on the matter and we wouldn't want that. I also do so because sometimes we hear the argument that the second amendment applied back when only muskets existed which really isn't true but even if we agree to agree on that point then it is clear that the modern citizen is already functionally restricted to a significantly lesser degree of firearm than the military today uses.

Regardless, today, as before, the AR-15 is the target of choice but I know I've heard the argument in the past that when some wacko sneaks a handgun into a place nobody should have a handgun or certainly not with the ability to fire more than a few rounds at a time. Really, at a bare minimum the target is any sort of firearm below a length that is only acceptable for hunting or sniping, er, target practice and that will only be when the animal rights fanatics allow the former.

So, I know it's time to act and everything but since massive gun control restrictions and confiscation can't happen overnight, what other factors could be more quickly addressed, you know, in the meantime?

Most of these shootings happen in "gun free zones" so it's obvious that that is not an effective deterrent. Perhaps limiting those restriction to allow the minority of the population that has completed gun carry requirements to carry if they choose would be a safer alternative. It's a fact that the mass killer's spree is usually done before any sort of law enforcement response arrives so it couldn't really hurt.

Speaking of response, I see that some have commented on how armed citizens aren't any more likely to risk themselves but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Of course there was the NRA instructor at the 2016 Texas church shooting that took out the killer (another one that never should have been allowed to purchase a weapon had the Air Force done its job) but what about the football coach in Florida that was shot saving people unarmed? Could have been a different story had he desired to and been allowed to carry. And the deputy outside? That's a whole other topic.

I'm going to stop here for now. It's a wide ranging topic far more complex than the emotional make it.

That sounds great.

Do conservatives really want to lower gun violence, though? Is it a higher priority than fighting for the second amendment? Which is more important? I think at the end of the day we might have to agree to disagree.

The best we could probably do is admit that it is a (conveniently?) intractable problem in practice, so you win by default.

I've already stated earlier in the thread that I can't agree that I want to "lower gun violence" because the definition of "gun violence" includes things like self defense. Sure, I'd like for muggings and home invasion robberies to stop, that would be great. I'd like for all crimes to be preventable. I'd give both my actual arms if that would prevent any further school shootings. Saying that conservatives don't want to lower gun violence isn't helping anything, it's just insulting. The issue here is that we don't agree with you that passing more restrictive gun control laws is going to reduce things like school shootings. And even if it reduces school shootings, is it worth the loss of one of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights if school shootings are just replaced with school bombings or school stabbings or *******s driving trucks through playgrounds?

Remember, we had an "assault rifle ban" and it didn't do anything to reduce violent crime. We have states with very permissive gun laws that have negligible amounts of gun crime. We have states with extremely restrictive gun laws that have high rates of gun crime. Shooting people is already illegal. Buying a gun illegally is already illegal. The only hope you have of actually reducing "gun violence" is by actually significantly reducing the number of guns. That means you have to get rid of hundreds of millions of guns. Use your imagination. If something like this were to pass, the law abiding citizens like me would give up our guns (and be super pissed about it) but the gang bangers and crazies that are actually responsible for the majority of gun crimes (who didn't obtain their guns legally in the first place) are not going to give them up. I don't understand how you think that will make anybody any safer.

My god, what a persecution complex.

Nobody in this thread has suggested this problem is simple. Nobody has recommended a gun ban, even a selective one, or suggested such bans would be effective or feasible. Some people even on the “hippy” side do understand firearms and how to use them (on the subject, thank you very much for your down-talking, but I have used an AR-15 many times and I’m well aware of what those firearms are and how they work). I even talked about what the AWB is really supposed to be - economic engineering behind a veneer of dishonesty and insincerity, far from the high praise you allege - and if you bothered to understand what I posted instead of simply making fun of it, you might have learned something.

But no, instead as usual you decided to be the most uninformed, emotional, and insulting person in the discussion. Attacking an enemy that literally does not exist, refuting arguments that nobody made, and pretending that you are being persecuted for your conservative opinions instead of because you’re a jerk.

Posts like this are why you are our officially designated representative of bad Republicans.

Jon`C I understand where you are coming from with your comment just above this one, but if you read back up people have been suggesting gun bans and getting rid of the 2nd amendment.

I believe your suggestion was something like requiring actual training and licensing. And I'm guessing you mean something more than just an internet-based training and test (like they do for the boater's license in WA state, which is a complete scam, waste of money, and pointless waste of time that has done nothing to increase boater safety whatsoever, at least in my experience). In addition to training and a license to buy/own any gun, do you also recommend licensing/permission/registration for existing guns and for future purchases? (a registry?) This is a major sticking point for a lot of Americans because we frankly don't trust our government in a lot of cases. And even if we do trust some parts or maybe a specific administration that is in power, that doesn't mean we'll trust the next administration.

So, liberals, you want to get mandatory training in place? Maybe try passing it without an associated registry. For states with waiting periods, get rid of the waiting period for people who have taken the training. Treat those that have taken the training as the professionals they are (because your training should be awesome and rigorous and meaningful and not just about safety). Once you trust someone with a gun, trust them with a gun.

WA state does this. (minus the training requirement) Once you pass the background check (and get fingerprinted, and register with the sheriff's office, and pay your fee) and get your concealed pistol permit, you can buy a handgun without the waiting period. Prior to a couple of years ago there was no registry, either, but they got rid of that with the "universal background check" law which also makes it illegal to let anyone borrow a gun, or even hold it I guess? They couldn't even get this passed through the legislature so they spent millions on a "people's" initiative and worked everyone up into a frenzy with fake reports about "gun show loopholes" which didn't exist. Anyway, it's still easy to buy a gun, but now the state has a record of who owns what (unless you sell it illegally, or transfer it to a family member, or it gets stolen and you don't report it).

I know liberals hate the NRA and love to badmouth them, but if you actually read their literature they recommend everyone take real, in-person training courses and they want you to continue your education/training throughout your life. (It also helps that they sell these training courses, so they earn money for their causes, but they will also recommend non-NRA courses as well.) The NRA doesn't want crazy nutjobs out there with guns. They want people who are trained and comfortable and people who stay trained.

But what about all the stuff Jon listed that you gotta do in Canada to even be able to use a firearm? If we instituted similar requirements for gun ownership for the next generation, I imagine we could reduce the number of people who own firearms who really aren't qualified to use them.

Edit: I see now you've talked a bit about this in your last post.

I don't have a huge stake in this issue, and I don't own a firearm. I confess I may have been blowing this issue out of proportion simply because it's been in the news. But I can't help but think we can do a better job, even if I'm not the one to say how.

For the record, I didn't mean to suggest that we ban the guns, or confiscate them. The only reason I suggested getting rid of the Second Amendment was to imply that conservatives were possibly using it as a shield to stop reasonable laws that would restrict the kind of person who would own a gun to a more responsible subset. I don't know if this is actually, legally the case, but from these kind of discussions where conservatives seem to be saying that we can't do much more than we already are, one can't help but wonder.

For the record, I just searched this thread, and not once has one of us suggested that firearms be banned or confiscated.

People suggested revising or abolishing the second amendment if it effectively prevents any sort of firearm legislation. That’s not saying guns should be banned, or that firearm ownership shouldn’t be constitutionally protected. It’s a criticism of the second amendment and its modern interpretation specifically, not the idea in general.

Yes. For example, the Canadian test requires you to demonstrate proper handling and operation of a variety of firearms or replicas (it does not require you to actually fire any of them, which is kinda ****in dumb imo, but at least you have to demonstrate for a range instructor that you can load, unload, inspect, and use safe stances and grips with a pretty wide variety of different firearms).

Maybe, but not for all firearms. The majority of gun crimes (other than mass shootings) are committed with pistols, not rifles. Pistols probably should be registered. Rifles shouldn’t. Canada requires you to register pistols, and there is some evidence that registration (even if only the paranoia of doing so) has reduced gun crime. However, we’ve abolished our long rifle registry because it was pretty conclusively doing nothing.

It’s a solution that works for Canada. We generally approve of our government, though. You don’t, and having lived there for a while I feel like you have good reason not to. So maybe a firearm registry isn’t a good idea for you.

Yes, this is how it works in Canada. There is a mandatory 28 day waiting period when you apply for a Canadian PAL. After it is issued there is no waiting period for an unrestricted firearm. There may be a waiting period for transferring a pistol or other restricted firearm, depending on how long it takes your local police department to issue you an ATT for a restricted firearm, but there is no statutory waiting period AFAIK.



Criticism of the NRA is about their (successful) efforts to promote a wildly liberal and historically unprecedented interpretation of the second amendment.

Of course they want safe gun ownership. Everybody who likes guns wants to get rid of the bozos, they ruin it for everybody else.

Teachers, why wait for the government to give the green light to arming yourselves?



https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/monterey-county-california-teacher-fires-loaded-gun-in-classroom-the-day-before-mass-student-protests.html

I'm not sure I understand your point. "Professionals" make mistakes all the time. Look at all the unjustified and/or accidental police shootings that happen all the time. There are a zillion youtube vidoes showing the exact thing you describe above. It doesn't just apply to firearms but also automobile instructors or teachers in every walk of life.

The key thing here is that there is already a law against bringing a gun into the school, and this guy broke the law, so he should be thrown in jail.

I don't think any sane person would pull out a gun and be waving it around in a classroom. This is probably more a reflection of the type of people Californians hire to police themselves. /snark

Yes, I agree! This was my only point. This guy is an idiot.

And I certainly imagine he wouldn't have been so careless if it was law for him to have a gun in class (since he would have been given rules / training against what he did), but who knows? Though I'm not trying to insinuate anything here.

Accidental discharges happen, they just do. Having more guns and letting teachers handle them carries risk and it is going to cause some number of accidents. If you think teachers should be armed, you need to understand that some amount of ****'s gonna happen, and that it might very well make schools more dangerous on average than just letting mass shootings happen. You need to be ready for that to be the case.

But people are really bad with probability and risk, so even if arming teachers does make schools safer, this is how firearms in classrooms is gonna go.


There will be several accidents. Some students and teachers are going to die because of the guns the government put in schools. You have 340 million people, accidents are going to happen somewhere, somehow. Deal with it.

The media will make a fuss because that's how the media makes money. Then the public will demand more training and firearm safety in the classroom.

Wonks and consultants recommend teachers secure their firearms and handle them less. School boards mandate storing firearms unloaded, in a locked case, with a trigger lock.

There will be more accidents or thefts. Lazy teachers will "forget" to store their firearms safely. Lazy teachers will leave firearms in their classroom desks because they aren't paid enough to deal with that ****. Kids in gangs will steal the whole case because crime is rad. Again, 340 million people, this is going to happen.

The media will make a fuss because that's how the media makes money. The public is outraged, demands more safety, program will be criticized as the government arming teen gangs.

Wonks and consultants recommend that teachers cannot be trusted to safely handle firearms and suggests that the firearms be secured inside safes. School boards and governments and taxpayers don't want to pay the tens of billions of dollars it would cost to have gun safes installed in every classroom, so they install a single gun safe in the faculty lounge.

All guns are now stored, locked, unloaded, in the faculty lounge. They are now useless for self defense.

School shootings decrease anyway because violent crime is trending downward on its own. Gun companies and lobbyists take the credit.

Maybe the government should do nothing about gun laws. It's quite evident that our gun debate conversation has very little to do with the facts of the issue. If a tiny die every year from spectacular mass shootings (even small compared to the total number of non-homocide gun deaths), perhaps the number one way to address it is to stop publishing the names of shooters, so nobodys stop believing that it's an easy way to become famous. Hopefully that will deter some of them at least, and the rest of us can live with the fact that these events are so rare that they're not worth getting worked up about (and I think we really can live with it). The idea that we're going to start terrorizing children throughout the country by conducting unnecessary school shooter drills is horrible. Just horrible. Can't they at least be some kind of generic catastrophic incident drill instead?

Liberals already claim to have this kind of unperturbed attitude about Islamic terrorism. I don't see why they can't have the same attitude about mass shootings.

Because liberals pay the social costs and get none of the benefits, same reason conservatives want to ban pot and immigration.

The local rock station I listen to does this. Every time something happens, they only refer to them as "coward", "douchebag", whatever. Their names are never used.

I haven't been in the States for many months, but I've heard a number of Americans express to me anxiety about being victims of gun violence. Folks, It's no more likely to happen to you than it was several weeks ago, before this all started, and you never even thought about it. I think Americans enjoy the thrill of feeling endangered. The entertainment quality of the news goes beyond the CNN panel debates. There's also taking pleasure in the fright of tragedy, and imagining (or fantasizing) about it happening to you.

But do liberals actually pay the social costs? Many live in states or cities that have stringent and effective gun control laws. I suppose you do have some exceptions, like Chicago. But do federal gun laws really add much value here? I think not.

I mean, maybe a federal gun registry would be helpful, because then it'd be easier to track guns as they change hands after their initial purchase, or to press charges against someone if they purchased arms illegally.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html



I'm curious why there are so many fewer guns per capita in NY than Chicago. Is it only because of Chicago's closer proximity to states with more lax gun laws? If so, that seems like it'd be a good argument that federal laws are important, because it would suggest state gun control laws aren't effective if guns can come in from one state over. But it seems unlikely, since guns are still traveling quite a ways to Chicago from Texas and other distant states. And besides, if, as the article says, a quarter of Chicago's guns are coming from 10 stores, it seems like more could be done to target those stores.

When you spend most of your time out of the US, it's really easy to forget how bad American TV news is. It shocks me every time I go there. Everything gets punched up, and I don't know how they've figured out how to paraphrase someone during a video interview, but they do it.

I don't think Americans enjoy being terrorized by their media, but it keeps them glued to their TVs anyway.

What strikes me is just how different the content is between American news outlets. I don't mean the tone (it's all panic-inducing slop regardless), but the stories. So Fox News targets working-class middle America, and they make all of the stores about the dangers of immigration and liberal treason and whatever. Then CNN targets white collar coastals, and they make all of the stories about rednecks with guns shooting up malls - well, not that it's actually the rednecks doing it, but taking the guns away from the rednecks is the answer.

Meanwhile FT and The Economist are talking about bank deregulation.

Guess what issue really matters?

lol, no. Violent crime in America is incredibly concentrated. Most of the US is very safe.

But Liberals think they pay the social costs, and that's what's important. Just like how Conservatives don't actually pay the social costs of marijuana or immigration, but they think they do.

Heh, reminds me of when I was still in college, and I'd fly back to the States from Canada. It always made me feel like I was in a police state when I landed, and suddenly there were TVs everywhere playing CNN or Fox News in the airport. Why would anyone need to see the news at the airport? It always dumbfounded me. The only reason I could think of for why they were there was sinister: I thought they were there to make you paranoid, or just to keep you glued to it, although the two do seem to go hand in hand. American media seems designed to keep you hooked by keeping you alarmed, one dopamine hit to the next. Social media and smartphones just take it to the next level.

Damn, I'm being cynical right now. :p

I'm more inclined to attribute liberal views on gun control to culture war than any kind of cost benefit analysis based on the perception of being endangered, although I suppose the two are difficult to disentangle. Still, I think many find the mere thought of being near a gun physical repulsive (I've talked to many people like this), and think anyone who would own one must be nuts (and maybe even dangerous).

I don't own a television unless you count my computer monitors. I have one hooked up to a vhs/dvd player where I watch old westerns and vhs movies from the 90s, the rest of my media consumption is obscure videos on YouTube, most of which are music videos. Every time I go the the cafeteria at school (which is always playing Fox, obv) or especially when I have flown in the past, I get dizzy and convinced my name is Winston.

Spook please

[quote=The Guardian]
A Michigan candidate for US Senate has proposed arming homeless people with pump-action shotguns in an effort to reduce crime.

Brian Ellison, who is running against Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow, says homeless people are “constantly victims of violent crime” and providing them with firearms would provide a deterrent.

Ellison, a Libertarian who is expected to be the party’s candidate in the November midterm election, said he had settled on pump-action shotguns for practicality purposes.

“Frankly I think the ideal weapon would be a pistol,” he told the Guardian, “but due to the licensing requirements in the state we’re going to have a hard enough time getting homeless people shotguns as it is.

“Getting them pistols is probably next to impossible. The pistols need to be registered, people have to have addresses.”

Carrying a concealed pistol is illegal without a permit, Ellison said, “whereas open-carrying a long gun is completely legal”.

“So we thought that pump-action shotguns were a suitable alternative to a pistol.”

Ellison, a former soldier who has served in Iraq, said he decided to run for office “just to try and make a difference”. As well as the shotgun plan, he would focus on minority rights and said he would oppose foreign military intervention.

Regarding the pump-action shotguns, Ellison said he and his team would aim to “pre-qualify” homeless people who wanted shotguns and were deemed suitable candidates to own them.

The homeless people would not be forced to carry pump-action shotguns, Ellison said.

“The first thing that we’re gonna do is ask them if they think this is something that would benefit them. We’re certainly not trying to force anything on anybody.”

Ammunition would be provided with the shotguns, probably in five- or six-shell magazines, Ellison said.

More shells would be provided if the owners legitimately used their guns to defend themselves, however, if people spent their ammunition “shooting cans in somebody’s private property” then they would not be given more shells.

Ellison said he did not think the plan was dangerous.

“Well, are you worried about the police being armed with military weapons?” he asked.

“I am. The world we live in is a scary world, where the police who used to dress in short-sleeved shirts and carry a revolver now have long rifles with scopes and bulletproof vests and armoured vehicles.

“And quite frankly that scares me much more than a homeless person trying to defend themselves with a shotgun.”
[/quote]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/15/us-senate-candidate-proposes-arming-homeless-people-with-shotguns

I'm sorry I will try not to be offensive anymore

Jonesie, that plan sounds amazing. I for one notice a distinct lack of gunfights in homeless camps and as a veteran, think we should remedy this problem immediately.

I know, right? I don't even know why we have to rely on libertarian candidates for Senate to dream up this stuff.

I don't understand why they are searching for specific demographics to arm. Just arm everybody.

It's funny because there are specific demographics which we probably don't want to arm. I mean, if you think about how those shotguns are likely to be used, well, the suggestion of the Senate candidate is actually pretty ****ing sick. Either that, or maybe "libertarian" is just a name we give to people who like to talk about politics but are bad at thinking through the larger ramifications of their ideas....

hmm...