[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[bad_teammate 13215]

1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

I’ve voted for exactly two Democratic candidates in my life. But that’s over. I’m done with everything Republican until that party, my party, gets is head out of its ass.

I've got terrible news for you about the Democrats... they don't give a fuck, either.

Presidency
The Senate
The House

And what are they doing? Jack Fucking Shit

[Homercles 10206]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I've got terrible news for you about the Democrats... they don't give a fuck, either.

Presidency
The Senate
The House

And what are they doing? Jack Fucking Shit

Let me introduce you to two senators in particular who…oh wait this isn’t CR

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

43 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

...I, of course, won't actually vote for anyone who publicly supports them, but I am personally for them...sooooo...yay me!

It wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me to have someone that represents me support a 21 yo age requirement for purchase of rifles. I think that could potentially help with these school shootings. 

[TXSG8R 3362]

So my solution is to treat guns like cars. 

Categorize weapons, eliminate the gray areas like AR pistols. Different age requirements for different weapon categories. Hunting guns are cool at 18. Semi auto pistols at 21. Semi auto long guns, 25. 

License to operate based on categorization. Standard hunting weapons like pump shotguns and bolt rifles?  Standard license. Semi auto? Class B license, little more work to do, etc , etc. Require refresher training/testing at certain intervals  

Insurance requirement for weapons. Categorization drives premiums. Risk factors also drive premiums. You want an AR-15, live in the burbs, and have kids in the house?  Man that’s like making your 16 year old the full time driver of a red Ferrari. You can do it, but it’s going to hurt. Standard hunting guns, no kids, verified gun safe? Pocket change. Discounts based on safety gear and number of years of accident free ownership. Policy does not pay out if your gun is used in a crime. This goes hand in hand with some stiffer civil penalties if your gun is used in a crime.

Registration for weapons. Closes the loop on existing weapons. Enact a sliding scale of wait period based on weapon category, owner age, other factors. Require proof of insurance at pick up. 

 

Will this stop someone from illegally owning a gun, that isn’t registered, that isn’t insured? No, just like all our car laws don’t stop someone from driving a car that isn’t registered or without required insurance. It gives gun owners a financial incentive to do basic things like secure their weapons so a kid can’t use them. It gives the police and prosecutors more things to throw at irresponsible gun owners. Trying to take guns away in this country is a pipe dream, so build a structure around them to increase safety. That’s about the best we can hope for. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by TXSG8R

[aggie08 21505]

19 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

It wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me to have someone that represents me support a 21 yo age requirement for purchase of rifles. I think that could potentially help with these school shootings. 

The people who you want to represent you WON'T support that. That's the point. Maybe they can still count on your vote if they did, but they won't, so it's irrelevant.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

15 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

So my solution is to treat guns like cars. 

Categorize weapons, eliminate the gray areas like AR pistols. Different age requirements for different weapon categories. Hunting guns are cool at 18. Semi auto pistols at 21. Semi auto long guns, 25. 

License to operate based on categorization. Standard hunting weapons like pump shotguns and bolt rifles?  Standard license. Semi auto? Class B license, little more work to do, etc , etc. Require refresher training/testing at certain intervals  

Insurance requirement for weapons. Categorization drives premiums. Risk factors also drive premiums. You want an AR-15, live in the burbs, and have kids in the house?  Man that’s like making your 16 year old the full time driver of a red Ferrari. You can do it, but it’s going to hurt. Standard hunting guns, no kids, verified gun safe? Pocket change. Discounts based on safety gear and number of years of accident free ownership. Policy does not pay out if your gun is used in a crime. This goes hand in hand with some stiffer civil penalties if your gun is used in a crime.

Registration for weapons. Closes the loop on existing weapons. Enact a sliding scale of wait period based on weapon category, owner age, other factors. Require proof of insurance at pick up. 

 

Will this stop someone from illegally owning a gun, that isn’t registered, that isn’t insured? No, just like all our car laws don’t stop someone from driving a car that isn’t registered or without required insurance. It gives gun owners a financial incentive to do basic things like secure their weapons so a kid can’t use them. It gives the police and prosecutors more things to throw at irresponsible gun owners. Trying to take guns away in this country is a pipe dream, so build a structure around them to increase safety. That’s about the best we can hope for. 

Agree completely. We also need stiffer penalties for crimes committed with a firearm. You carjack someone using a firearm, 50 years no parole.  Going to play gangster and stay strapped as a teenager, maybe 30 years without chance of parole, for something as simple as illegal  possession will slow that down some.  If we are really trying to lower gun violence.   

[TwiceHorn 31495]

41 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Agree completely. We also need stiffer penalties for crimes committed with a firearm. You carjack someone using a firearm, 50 years no parole.  Going to play gangster and stay strapped as a teenager, maybe 30 years without chance of parole, for something as simple as illegal  possession will slow that down some.  If we are really trying to lower gun violence.   

Nah, won't make a dent.

Psychos and hardcore criminals aren't deterred by stiffer penalties.  It will just have unintended effects.

Like people arrested in a drug trafficking offense that have a .22 in the closet get an extra five years, mandatory and minimum.  

I'll say it again for the 1000th time:  deterrence via stiffer penalties is a pipe dream.

Deterrence via criminalizing previously lawful behavior has a big effect.

Deterrrence via increasing the likelihood of apprehension and prosecution has an effect.

[cmontexas 3272]

We shouldn't have laws, because criminals are likely to break them

[tbone_ 14128]

I've got terrible news for you about the Democrats... they don't give a fuck, either.
Presidency
The Senate
The House
And what are they doing? Jack Fucking Shit

It’s far from my preferred solution I promise.

[Homercles 10206]

16 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

It’s far from my preferred solution I promise.

It’s also stupid that an entire party’s ambitions can be essentially held hostage by two people

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nah, won't make a dent.

Psychos and hardcore criminals aren't deterred by stiffer penalties.  It will just have unintended effects.

Like people arrested in a drug trafficking offense that have a .22 in the closet get an extra five years, mandatory and minimum.  

I'll say it again for the 1000th time:  deterrence via stiffer penalties is a pipe dream.

Deterrence via criminalizing previously lawful behavior has a big effect.

Deterrrence via increasing the likelihood of apprehension and prosecution has an effect.

So then why should we have insurance and do all the right things suggested above? Do we want to reduce violence via firearm, or dissuade law abiding owners from owning? Because it’s sounding a lot like making it much more difficult for you and I, and continuing the status quo for those that use them in the methods we don’t prefer, which is the only reason we’re having the discussion in the first place. 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/05/31/very-angry-uvalde-locals-grapple-with-school-chiefs-role/

 

 

Some interesting quotes in there. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

6 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So then why should we have insurance and do all the right things suggested above? Do we want to reduce violence via firearm, or dissuade law abiding owners from owning? Because it’s sounding a lot like making it much more difficult for you and I, and continuing the status quo for those that use them in the methods we don’t prefer, which is the only reason we’re having the discussion in the first place. 

You're not understanding his post. He isn't saying don't have laws. He is saying very specifically that harsher penalties don't have an additional deterrent effect. There is a quite a lot of research behind this. You get a deterrent effect by criminalizing conduct. And you get a deterrent effect by increasing the chance of apprehension. But, we don't see significant increases of that effect by increasing the punishment for an existing offense (e.g., increasing jail time for an offense). 

Increasing the age limit for purchase would be good. Waiting periods would be good. Requiring licensing would be good. Requiring proper storage to prevent access by others would be good. 

 All of those do create additional barriers to 'law abiding owners," but I'm not sure that phase has any significant meaning. Until he shot up the school, the Uvalde shooter was a "law abiding owner." While those additional barriers would be a marginal burden to law abiding owners, they certainly can't be said to be unreasonable or insurmountable. 

[Bookman 4639]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean it does, and doesn't.  It explains a purpose, and then the language that follows is pretty unequivocal.  Whatever it does, the prefatory phrase is damn near impossible to read as a limitation or condition on the mandatory phrase.

It's not impossible. All you have to do is presume it had some meaning.

[Dahobbs 17625]

11 minutes ago, Bookman said:

It's not impossible. All you have to do is presume it had some meaning.

Yeah, just throwing out the cannon of construction that words shouldn't be interpreted to be pure surplusage was pretty jarring.  

[TXSG8R 3362]

35 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're not understanding his post. He isn't saying don't have laws. He is saying very specifically that harsher penalties don't have an additional deterrent effect. There is a quite a lot of research behind this. You get a deterrent effect by criminalizing conduct. And you get a deterrent effect by increasing the chance of apprehension. But, we don't see significant increases of that effect by increasing the punishment for an existing offense (e.g., increasing jail time for an offense). 

Increasing the age limit for purchase would be good. Waiting periods would be good. Requiring licensing would be good. Requiring proper storage to prevent access by others would be good. 

 All of those do create additional barriers to 'law abiding owners," but I'm not sure that phase has any significant meaning. Until he shot up the school, the Uvalde shooter was a "law abiding owner." While those additional barriers would be a marginal burden to law abiding owners, they certainly can't be said to be unreasonable or insurmountable. 

Yea, it won’t impact the criminal side of things really, because criminals gonna criminal. I think the age requirement will head off some of the bigger body counts by limiting the output of the weapons they can buy. Generally most people get better at controlling their anger, or at least cooling off before making decisions as they get older. An 18 year old can still kill people with a revolver, or pump shotgun, but it’s a hell of a lot less than he could with an AR or semi auto pistol and a bag full of magazines. 

All of this would also need to go hand in hand with stricter laws on gun sales. You sell a restricted gun to an 18 yo, you don’t just get a fine. You go to jail, lose your gun sales license, etc. Ramos would have killed a lot less kids if he couldn’t get an AR.  I doubt he knows any black market dealers for guns, so maybe he cools off during the mandatory waiting period and doesn’t shoot grandma.  Or maybe he still goes forward, but the SRO and other cops aren’t as scared of a kid with a revolver or shotgun, so they don’t wait a fucking hour to engage. 
 

None of this stops crime. None of this stops gun ownership. The goal is to reduce body counts and accidental deaths without giving the right the easy excuse to say no because they are taking muh guns away.

[Prepuce of Doom 21079]

Delete - probably better for CR. 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Prepuce of Doom

[Deej 76830]

1 hour ago, TXSG8R said:

Or maybe he still goes forward, but the SRO and other cops aren’t as scared of a kid with a revolver or shotgun, so they don’t wait a fucking hour to engage. 

Doubtful. 

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 minute ago, Deej said:

Doubtful. 

And that’s fair. 

[ohchaucer 1443]

It’s also stupid that an entire party’s ambitions can be essentially held hostage by two people

Majority of the country’s ambitions

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You're not understanding his post. He isn't saying don't have laws. He is saying very specifically that harsher penalties don't have an additional deterrent effect. There is a quite a lot of research behind this. You get a deterrent effect by criminalizing conduct. And you get a deterrent effect by increasing the chance of apprehension. But, we don't see significant increases of that effect by increasing the punishment for an existing offense (e.g., increasing jail time for an offense). 

I understood his post, we’ve gone back and forth on it in other regards, and I’ve read the links he’s posted in the past.  My point is we look to be trying to stop one very narrow type of gun violence (an 18 yo with an AR15 in a public place).  The VAST majority of “mass shootings” aren’t that.  They are situations like the McDonalds on the magnificent mile 2 weeks ago that got 11. Or the 6th street after bar debacle from 6 months ago.  

[TKthunder2 4992]

2 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

Ramos would have killed a lot less kids if he couldn’t get an AR. 

Would he?  He was in there for over an hour.  He could have done the same amount with a standard .22 it just wouldn’t have looked as scary.

Shit is broken here. Ban ARs again, I don’t fucking care, but that’s just a fart in the wind and won’t solve the problem. Background checks, raising the age on gun purchases, locking up guns for those having mental health issues (trying/adjusting to medications) and preventing them from buying new firearms could all work.

Requiring gun safes and gun insurance is going to be a major stretch and the juice is not worth the squeeze as it mostly fucks with legal guns owners.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Would he?  He was in there for over an hour.  He could have done the same amount with a standard .22 it just wouldn’t have looked as scary.
Shit is broken here. Ban ARs again, I don’t fucking care, but that’s just a fart in the wind and won’t solve the problem. Background checks, raising the age on gun purchases, locking up guns for those having mental health issues (trying/adjusting to medications) and preventing them from buying new firearms could all work.
Requiring gun safes and gun insurance is going to be a major stretch and the juice is not worth the squeeze as it mostly fucks with legal guns owners.

Actually, the last para would probably prevent more gun deaths than all the other measures. At-home suicides and accidents are a big chunk of gun deaths. Secured firearms stops a bunch of those.

[Dahobbs 17625]

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I understood his post, we’ve gone back and forth on it in other regards, and I’ve read the links he’s posted in the past.  My point is we look to be trying to stop one very narrow type of gun violence (an 18 yo with an AR15 in a public place).  The VAST majority of “mass shootings” aren’t that.  They are situations like the McDonalds on the magnificent mile 2 weeks ago that got 11. Or the 6th street after bar debacle from 6 months ago.  

Why do you think that more strict gun regulations, particularly age limits, license requirements, background checks, and waiting periods, aren't going to impact those sort of shootings too?  The person in the McDonald's incident you cite was 23. My proposal is limiting purchases to 25 and up. Basically, there isn't any reason that the young and dumb should be able to buy weapons. And we should make sure that people that do buy weapons are properly trained and can pass regular safety tests as part of a licensing requirement, aren't buying weapons in the heat of the moment (thus the waiting period), and don't otherwise have red flags that would indicate they cannot be responsible gun owners. And I think we should have additional checks depending on the type of weapon being purchased. Limiting the availability of weapons is a proven way to decrease gun violence. 

[Pato del Muerto 52522]

9 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Would he?  He was in there for over an hour.  He could have done the same amount with a standard .22 it just wouldn’t have looked as scary.

Shit is broken here. Ban ARs again, I don’t fucking care, but that’s just a fart in the wind and won’t solve the problem. Background checks, raising the age on gun purchases, locking up guns for those having mental health issues (trying/adjusting to medications) and preventing them from buying new firearms could all work.

Requiring gun safes and gun insurance is going to be a major stretch and the juice is not worth the squeeze as it mostly fucks with legal guns owners.

I will assume that if he has a .22, a pair of .22s, or really any caliber of handgun, that the cops aren’t too scared to go in and get him. So, fewer overall casualties, and also fewer fatal casualties from the combo of 1) fewer overall casualties, 2) shorter wait time for aid, 3) less damage done from lower energy rounds. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, the last para would probably prevent more gun deaths than all the other measures. At-home suicides and accidents are a big chunk of gun deaths. Secured firearms stops a bunch of those.

Suicides are by far the largest portion of gun deaths every year.

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why do you think that more strict gun regulations, particularly age limits, license requirements, background checks, and waiting periods, aren't going to impact those sort of shootings too?  The person in the McDonald's incident you cite was 23. My proposal is limiting purchases to 25 and up. Basically, there isn't any reason that the young and dumb should be able to buy weapons. And we should make sure that people that do buy weapons are properly trained and can pass regular safety tests as part of a licensing requirement, aren't buying weapons in the heat of the moment (thus the waiting period), and don't otherwise have red flags that would indicate they cannot be responsible gun owners. And I think we should have additional checks depending on the type of weapon being purchased. Limiting the availability of weapons is a proven way to decrease gun violence. 

My point was that someone who disregards these new rules needs to be removed from society for a long period of time, more strict than we have now. Don’t think of it as a deterrent, think of it as removing a gun that will cause harm from the equation. Gun laws either need to be serious, or not. But you can’t have the same guys who aren’t causing problems now being the only ones following the new rules, or you’ll have the same exact situation. 

[TKthunder2 4992]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Actually, the last para would probably prevent more gun deaths than all the other measures. At-home suicides and accidents are a big chunk of gun deaths. Secured firearms stops a bunch of those.

I’m not saying they wouldn’t be effective, just that it’s a very long shot to get it done.  Most of us are thinking about these new restrictions from an urban/suburban point of view, plenty of rural and wilderness people still living in the US that have a loaded shotgun/rifle over the door frame just like we have out at the ranch and hunting lodge when we are there.

Barriers to entry are easier to accomplish than barriers to existing owners.  NRA will champion the rights of Wyoming man attacked by bear/wolves or whatever all the way to the Supreme Court and likely win if you put in any nationally mandated secure storage or insurance requirements.

[Dahobbs 17625]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

My point was that someone who disregards these new rules needs to be removed from society for a long period of time, more strict than we have now. Don’t think of it as a deterrent, think of it as removing a gun that will cause harm from the equation. Gun laws either need to be serious, or not. But you can’t have the same guys who aren’t causing problems now being the only ones following the new rules, or you’ll have the same exact situation. 

Mass shootings aren't perpetrated by repeat offenders. Again, the Uvalde shooter was a law abiding gun owner right up until the moment he wasn't. You can look up all of the highest casualty mass shootings and find the same pattern. These weren't repeat offenders. You're repeating a false narrative. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105154]

I’m not saying they wouldn’t be effective, just that it’s a very long shot to get it done.  Most of us are thinking about these new restrictions from an urban/suburban point of view, plenty of rural and wilderness people still living in the US that have a loaded shotgun/rifle over the door frame just like we have out at the ranch and hunting lodge when we are there.
Barriers to entry are easier to accomplish than barriers to existing owners.  NRA will champion the rights of Wyoming man attacked by bear/wolves or whatever all the way to the Supreme Court and likely win if you put in any nationally mandated secure storage or insurance requirements.

I think you could write around that. Hell, even in the city, my guns aren’t locked away when I have them out to clean, or am getting them ready to take hunting. And yes, when out at the ranch, we often have all of our rifles lined up on a rack in the house.
But you could write that rule to apply within city limits, with exceptions for maintenance/preparation to take the gun somewhere to be used. In other words, if you’re someplace where it’s legal to fire a gun (ranch, hunting lodge, gun range), you don’t have to have it locked away. These “challenges” can be solved, rather easily.

[Guest]

I stopped posting here a few months ago, but logged back in to share what may have already been mentioned, but I think is important that everyone knows.

March For Our Lives is having a rally at the Texas Capitol on June 11. There are other demonstrations around the country.

https://marchforourlives.com/march22/

I've never demonstrated about a damn thing in my life. The murder of 19 children and two teachers in our own backyard is too much. If this doesn't rise to the high enough level for you to take some sort of action, I'm not sure what will. I am going to be there, along with family. I hope all of you will be there as well.

If you are at all feeling that "fading" feeling about this tragedy as time goes on, then watch the video below from Parkland. It's awful enough, but imagine that happening to a fourth-grade classroom in Uvalde, or a first-grade classroom in Newtown. This problem has to end now. 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by FirstTimeCaller

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

Since Heller seems to be the topic of the day, here is an interesting read from two Scalia clerks who worked on the opinion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/supreme-court-heller-guns.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Spoiler

In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.

Justices Scalia and Stevens clashed over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep a usable handgun at home, which meant the District of Columbia law prohibiting such possession was unconstitutional. Justice Stevens argued that the protections of the Second Amendment extended only to firearm ownership in conjunction with service in a “well-regulated militia,” in the words of the Second Amendment.

We each assisted a boss we revered in drafting his opinion, and we’re able to acknowledge that work without breaching any confidences. Justice Scalia had a practice of signing one opinion for a clerk each term, which permitted the clerk to disclose having worked on that case, and for John, that was Heller; Justice Stevens noted in his 2019 autobiography, “The Making of a Justice,” that Kate was the Heller clerk in his chambers.

We continue to hold very different views about both gun regulation and how the Constitution should be interpreted. Kate believes in a robust set of gun safety measures to reduce the unconscionable number of shootings in this country. John is skeptical of laws that would make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe that firearm ownership is essential to protecting their families, and he is not convinced that new measures like bans on widely owned firearms would stop people who are willing to commit murder from obtaining guns.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

 

Kate believes that Justice Stevens’s dissent in Heller provided a better account of both the text and history of the Second Amendment and that in any event, the method of historical inquiry the majority prescribes should lead to the court upholding most gun safety measures, including the New York law pending before the Supreme Court. John believes that Heller correctly construed the original meaning of the Second Amendment and is one of the most important decisions in U.S. history. We disagree about whether Heller should be extended to protect citizens who wish to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and, if so, how states may regulate that activity — issues that the Supreme Court is set to decide in the New York case in the next month or so.

But despite our fundamental disagreements, we are both concerned that Heller has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws. In the 14 years since the Heller decision, Congress has not enacted significant new laws regulating firearms, despite progressives’ calls for such measures in the wake of mass shootings. Many cite Heller as the reason. But they are wrong.

Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller. Some progressives, for example, have blamed the Second Amendment, Heller or the Supreme Court for atrocities like Uvalde. And some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues.

Neither is fair. Rather, we think it’s clear that every member of the court on which we clerked joined an opinion — either majority or dissent — that agreed that the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.

Justice Scalia — the foremost proponent of originalism, who throughout his tenure stressed the limited role of courts in difficult policy debates — could not have been clearer in the closing passage of Heller that “the problem of handgun violence in this country” is serious and that the Constitution leaves the government with “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller merely established the constitutional baseline that the government may not disarm citizens in their homes. The opinion expressly recognized “presumptively lawful” regulations such as “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” as well as bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” like schools, and it noted with approval the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Heller also recognized the immense public interest in “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

 

Nothing in Heller casts doubt on the permissibility of background check laws or requires the so-called Charleston loophole, which allows individuals to purchase firearms even without completed background checks. Nor does Heller prohibit giving law enforcement officers more effective tools and greater resources to disarm people who have proved themselves to be violent or mentally ill, as long as due process is observed. Heller also gives the government at least some leeway to restrict the kinds of firearms that can be purchased — few would claim a constitutional right to own a grenade launcher, for example — although where that line could be constitutionally drawn is a matter of disagreement, including between us. Indeed, President Donald Trump banned bump stocks in the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

Most of the obstacles to gun regulations are political and policy based, not legal; it’s laws that never get enacted, rather than ones that are struck down, because of an unduly expansive reading of Heller. We are aware of no evidence that any mass shooter was able to obtain a firearm because of a law struck down under Heller. But Heller looms over most debates about gun regulation, and it often serves as a useful foil for those who would like to deflect responsibility — either for their policy choice to oppose a particular gun regulation proposal or for their failure to convince their fellow legislators and citizens that the proposal should be enacted.

The closest we’ve come to major new federal gun regulation in recent years came in the post-Sandy Hook effort to create expanded background checks. The most common reason offered by opponents of that legislation? That it would violate the Second Amendment. But that’s just not supported by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment in Heller. If opponents of background checks for firearm sales believe that such requirements are unlikely to reduce violence while imposing unwarranted burdens on lawful gun owners, they should make that case openly, not rest on a mistaken view of Heller.

Justices don’t control the way their writings are interpreted by later courts and other institutions; certainly law clerks don’t. So we’re not asserting that our views on Heller are in any way authoritative. But we know the opinions in the case inside and out.

As the nation enters yet another agonizing conversation about gun regulation in the wake of the Uvalde tragedy, all sides should focus on the value judgments and empirical assumptions at the heart of the policy debate, and they should take moral ownership of their positions. The genius of our Constitution is that it leaves many of the hardest questions to the democratic process.

 

[Snake Diggity 4625]

12 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

So my solution is to treat guns like cars. 

Categorize weapons, eliminate the gray areas like AR pistols. Different age requirements for different weapon categories. Hunting guns are cool at 18. Semi auto pistols at 21. Semi auto long guns, 25. 

License to operate based on categorization. Standard hunting weapons like pump shotguns and bolt rifles?  Standard license. Semi auto? Class B license, little more work to do, etc , etc. Require refresher training/testing at certain intervals  

Insurance requirement for weapons. Categorization drives premiums. Risk factors also drive premiums. You want an AR-15, live in the burbs, and have kids in the house?  Man that’s like making your 16 year old the full time driver of a red Ferrari. You can do it, but it’s going to hurt. Standard hunting guns, no kids, verified gun safe? Pocket change. Discounts based on safety gear and number of years of accident free ownership. Policy does not pay out if your gun is used in a crime. This goes hand in hand with some stiffer civil penalties if your gun is used in a crime.

Registration for weapons. Closes the loop on existing weapons. Enact a sliding scale of wait period based on weapon category, owner age, other factors. Require proof of insurance at pick up. 

 

Will this stop someone from illegally owning a gun, that isn’t registered, that isn’t insured? No, just like all our car laws don’t stop someone from driving a car that isn’t registered or without required insurance. It gives gun owners a financial incentive to do basic things like secure their weapons so a kid can’t use them. It gives the police and prosecutors more things to throw at irresponsible gun owners. Trying to take guns away in this country is a pipe dream, so build a structure around them to increase safety. That’s about the best we can hope for. 

Add a 2-4 week waiting period to purchase any firearm and you’ve covered everything I think is reasonable and effective.  Unfortunately I think we are still probably 10-15 years away from that kind of legislative overhaul being politically feasible.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Add a 2-4 week waiting period to purchase any firearm and you’ve covered everything I think is reasonable and effective.  Unfortunately I think we are still probably 100-150 years away from that kind of legislative overhaul being politically feasible.

FIF our utterly broken, gerrymandered system.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So then why should we have insurance and do all the right things suggested above? Do we want to reduce violence via firearm, or dissuade law abiding owners from owning? Because it’s sounding a lot like making it much more difficult for you and I, and continuing the status quo for those that use them in the methods we don’t prefer, which is the only reason we’re having the discussion in the first place. 

Sane, rational firearm owners who might respond to deterrent tactics are not the problem. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You can look up all of the highest casualty mass shootings and find the same pattern. These weren't repeat offenders. You're repeating a false narrative. 

So you’re worried about the small percentage of “mass shootings” like Buffalo and Uvalde, not the “mass shootings” that happen daily across the US.  Definitions are all over the place, but “3 or more victims, not necessarily fatalities” seems to come up a lot.  Stopping someone from a bar fight shooting is not the same as stopping the guy from Ulvalde.  

[Pato del Muerto 52522]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So you’re worried about the small percentage of “mass shootings” like Buffalo and Uvalde, not the “mass shootings” that happen daily across the US.  Definitions are all over the place, but “3 or more victims, not necessarily fatalities” seems to come up a lot.  Stopping someone from a bar fight shooting is not the same as stopping the guy from Ulvalde.  

Well I for sure am more concerned with the mentally unstable people who decide to show up to a crowd and start shooting than I am with some assholes that pick fights and then escalate all the way up to shooting one another, or gangs shooting each other. Even though it happens less often. 
 

it’s easy to not be able to not be in those situations. 
 

it’s less easy to not be in a crowd. 

[midtown 3346]

23 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Add a 2-4 week waiting period to purchase any firearm and you’ve covered everything I think is reasonable and effective.

If you exempt a few firearms like shotguns and bolt action rifles (which are not really part of the problem) you can avoid the "I need and have the right to protect my property and family" objections.   If you really want to have a home defense gun a shotgun is pretty much the best choice anyway.

[Beau Vine 54253]

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sane, rational firearm owners who might respond to deterrent tactics are not the problem. 

That’s my point. So while I’m ok with, prefer really, the new rules and regs @TXSG8R outlined because I have the time and means, what are we accomplishing?  An insane, non-rational that wants to cause harm might be deterred, ok, that’s an absolute solid win. Or he buys it off someone for an extra few hundred bucks and flies in the face of all the new regs, and since we don’t want to assign stiff punishment to those regs since it’s not a deterrent, we are back to the boards to argue further.  At some point, we need to make the punishment for ignoring these rules actually hurt, or no one will change. I understand your argument it’s not a deterrent, but I’d be curious to see if something that’s typically a 5 yr issue was an immediate 20 yr issue won’t change anyone’s mind. Maybe that single someone is the next Ulvade killer? 

[Dahobbs 17625]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So you’re worried about the small percentage of “mass shootings” like Buffalo and Uvalde, not the “mass shootings” that happen daily across the US.  Definitions are all over the place, but “3 or more victims, not necessarily fatalities” seems to come up a lot.  Stopping someone from a bar fight shooting is not the same as stopping the guy from Ulvalde.  

I'm worried about both. But, for obvious reasons, I'm more concerned with the indiscriminate mass killings that make up the deadliest mass shootings in our history. Calling those "the small percentage of mass shootings" is blatantly misleading. In terms of killed and wounded, they make up a disproportionate share of so called mass shootings. The type of mass shootings you're talking about almost all center around some sort of personal dispute between individuals or groups. They weren't random of unassociated individuals. At any rate, you haven't answered why the regulations I've proposed wouldn't help prevent these other shootings. I honestly don't understand what point you think you're making. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Calling those "the small percentage of mass shootings" is blatantly misleading. In terms of killed and wounded, they make up a disproportionate share of so called mass shootings.

Is it?  One fight at a McDonalds accounted for 50% of the tragedy in Ulvalde.  And groups of 4-5 happen every. Single. Day.   They are all tragic.  Standing outside on 6th shouldn’t be any deadlier than the poor folks in Buffalo. Of course the kids are the most tragic.  My point is we need to make sure the guy that shoots 4 people gets the same punishment as the kid that did Ulvalde.  If you commit a violent act with a gun, you’re done.  That curbs the everyday gun violence you also care about. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s my point. So while I’m ok with, prefer really, the new rules and regs @TXSG8R outlined because I have the time and means, what are we accomplishing?  An insane, non-rational that wants to cause harm might be deterred, ok, that’s an absolute solid win. Or he buys it off someone for an extra few hundred bucks and flies in the face of all the new regs, and since we don’t want to assign stiff punishment to those regs since it’s not a deterrent, we are back to the boards to argue further.  At some point, we need to make the punishment for ignoring these rules actually hurt, or no one will change. I understand your argument it’s not a deterrent, but I’d be curious to see if something that’s typically a 5 yr issue was an immediate 20 yr issue won’t change anyone’s mind. Maybe that single someone is the next Ulvade killer? 

What? No one is saying that the new regulations shouldn't contain some sort of punishment. We are just saying increasing existing punishment doesn't add additional deterrence. However, if existing punishment isn't actually enforced, that is a separate problem. @TwiceHorn already said that increasing the chance of apprehension (and thus punishment) does have an additional deterrent effect. Rather than arbitrarily increasing the penalties for laws that are already not enforced, you should look to actually enforcing existing laws, and adding new laws and regulations as discussed. 

[aggie08 21505]

14 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I've got terrible news for you about the Democrats... they don't give a fuck, either.

Presidency
The Senate
The House

And what are they doing? Jack Fucking Shit

Oh, we all deserve blame for tolerating politicians who say, "Aw golly, gee shucks, we tried, but the other guys said no" and then move right along until the next shooting. They need to be screaming from the rooftops, and plastering ads and statistics all over TV and the internet. Every committee meeting should begin with pictures of dead kids, and calling Ted Cruz the smarmy cocksucker that he is.

But pretending that shit wouldn't get done--and done quickly--if gun control advocates could count on 60 votes is dishonest. But they can't.

[midtown 3346]

Lol at the dude about the hammers.  Guns aren't even our problem at this point.  It's morons and brainwashed people like that dude who is probably armed to the teeth 

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Rather than arbitrarily increasing the penalties for laws that are already not enforced, you should look to actually enforcing existing laws, and adding new laws and regulations as discussed. 

Instead of adding additional laws, you should look to actually enforcing existing laws. 
 

Sounds pretty much spot on to what 2nd proponents have been saying for years.  

[Dahobbs 17625]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Is it?  One fight at a McDonalds accounted for 50% of the tragedy in Ulvalde.  And groups of 4-5 happen every. Single. Day.   They are all tragic.  Standing outside on 6th shouldn’t be any deadlier than the poor folks in Buffalo. Of course the kids are the most tragic.

This is blatantly false. 2 people died in that McDonald's shooting, 7 wounded. 21 people (19 children) died in Uvalde, not including the shooter, and another 17 were injured. Last I checked, 2 isn't 50% of 21. And 9 isn't 50% of 38.  

Quote

My point is we need to make sure the guy that shoots 4 people gets the same punishment as the kid that did Ulvalde.  If you commit a violent act with a gun, you’re done.  That curbs the everyday gun violence you also care about. 

I'm sorry, do you really think a person that shoots 4 other people doesn't get punished? We already have plenty of laws that feature use of guns as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? 

[Dahobbs 17625]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Instead of adding additional laws, you should look to actually enforcing existing laws. 
 

Sounds pretty much spot on to what 2nd proponents have been saying for years.  

That's not what I said and I'm negging for the misquote. 

The question is what actions increase deterrence. The data is pretty clear on this:

(1) Outlawing/regulating conduct that wasn't previously regulated; and

(2) Increasing the odds of being apprehended for criminal conduct.

What doesn't increase deterrence is additional punishment, particularly when the laws you're talking about (murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon) all feature already heavy punishment, including potentially the death penalty and heavy jail time (oh yeah, and a prohibition from owning guns). 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Dahobbs

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

18 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Instead of adding additional laws, you should look to actually enforcing existing laws. 
 

Sounds pretty much spot on to what 2nd proponents have been saying for years.  

What sort of fuckery is this post? Negged, be better.