Active shooter thread

[fattyflattie 4636]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Some of the gun reform groups are trying to have a dialogue, but they get shoved aside in the louder discourse. Moms Demand doesn't want to take everyone's guns, but they do want loopholes closed, and some stricter laws on the books so that responsible gun ownership continues to be the norm. It's about ending the violence, not the weapons.

As usual, the center is where the answer likely resides.  Good post. 

[TexArcher 37508]

13 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Are you saying that would be a black flag on my morning or would it be a black flag on my day?

I think it's in your chardonnay.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

49 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

 

IMHO the problem I think is in the thought leadership. 

No shit.  Who would have ever thought the race to the bottom and pandering to fear and loathing, would have led to this?  Glad I didn't vote for the non-thought leaders.

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I think it's in your chardonnay.

My gun rights and my wine rights are one in the same, It's My Way or the Chardonnay.  Or something, I dunno...it was a really big box of wine with ammo at the bottom. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

13 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Well you see he has a point.  It's poignant, because 99.9999999999999% of them will never be used in a mass killing.  But because that .0000000000001%, we must change everything.

 

13 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Aka “I’m a responsible gun owner” argument 

 Heroin, drinking and driving, fireworks in the city, are illegal because 0000000000001% are idiots.

 

13 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Dems da breaks. They should have gotten into the constitution, I suppose. 

Now you have changed arguments and pivoted to the “Second Amendment Forever” argument. 

Rights guaranteed in the constitution are not limitless. Free Speech is limited. You are not allowed to yell fire in a theatre because society recognizes the benefit of limiting ones rights for the safety of everyone...like gun control. You same reason you are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon. 

Would you like to pivot to another argument? Might I suggest Mental Health reform or hunting with my children?

[Dahobbs 17444]

58 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

you can't detain them involuntarily

Sure you can. We do it all the time. 

[aggie08 21431]

You know, I've got a really good feeling that this time doing nothing is going to finally pay off.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Sure you can. We do it all the time. 

I think you are wrong. You can't legally detain someone who presents as sane and not a danger, which are most of the mass shooters a la the Elliot Rodgers near miss outlined above. Can you detain the schizophrenics and such? Sure. But those are largely not the ones committing these crimes. I'd encourage you to read the article:

Quote

 

What brought the person to your attention? Does the person harbor a grievance or carry a grudge? Has the person communicated an intent to attack? Has the person written anything, anywhere, about his or her intentions and ideas? Has the person shown an interest in other attacks or other attackers? In assassins? In mass murders? In terror or terrorists? In weapons? Has the person developed a plan? Has the person acquired weapons?

These are some of the questions that experts like Simons have developed for the purpose of assessing threats. But the hard part is what to do when the questions identify a person as a threat. Most of the time, he—odds are, it will be a male, although female attackers exist—cannot be charged, because he hasn’t committed a crime. He also can’t be committed, because he doesn’t represent an imminent risk to himself or others. He falls into what law-enforcement officials tend to call “the gap,” the place between knowing that a person represents a threat and knowing what to do about it.

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

 Can you detain the schizophrenics and such? Sure. But those are largely not the ones committing these crimes.

 

This is true in terms of the occurrence of schizophrenia and violence. A very small percentage of the population is diagnosed as such and an even smaller percentage are a danger to others more than themselves.

[fattyflattie 4636]

20 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Now you have changed arguments and pivoted to the “Second Amendment Forever” argument. 

Rights guaranteed in the constitution are not limitless. Free Speech is limited. You are not allowed to yell fire in a theatre because society recognizes the benefit of limiting ones rights for the safety of everyone...like gun control. You same reason you are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

I don't know what argument you are assuming I'm making.  I believe there will be new laws and regs, and I think they will come soon.  Probably from this admin, and I think it will help the R's in the election following any meaningful regulatory changes.  

22 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

hunting with my children?

I know this was facetious, but is a MASSIVE reason why there hasn't been any change.  

[Brisketexan 104596]

As usual, the center is where the answer likely resides.  Good post. 

Except that the center has been utterly crushed. The only option that has had any success in the past generation is “do nothing, accept no reform at all.” Don’t talk up the center when the center is as vehemently - and successfully - opposed as the “take all guns” extreme.

The pro gun movement is a zero compromise extremist movement. And why would they change that approach, they’ve done nothing but win? And they’ll continue to do so....until they don’t, and you and I lose our guns forever because we’ve set a clear precedent: only the extremes are acceptable.

“The center” is preposterous and unacceptable to the powers that control the pro gun movement, and that’s how it’s going to stay.

[Guadaloopy 10921]

A few years ago, I read an article from Malcolm Gladwell on the topic of mass shootings that really resonated with me and changed my thinking about how we need to deal with them.  He theorized that mass shootings (school shootings, specifically, in the article) are like a slow-motion riot.  
 

In a riot, it’s the folks with a low threshold for breaking societal norms who act out first.  The riot grows as those who have higher thresholds see others engaging in destructive behaviors and then join in.  The bigger the riot gets, the more personal thresholds are overcome as people see more and more examples of others engaging in the behavior.  
 

In a riot, we rightly expect that authorities will take emergency measures that temporarily limit or impact Constitutional rights in order to get the riot under control.  
 

That’s where I am now.   We need to take some temporary emergency measures that limit freedoms in order to get things under control.  We need to reset people’s thresholds and then try to gradually re-introduce freedoms.  

I don’t know exactly what those measures would be, but I am open to a lot more ideas than I used to be.  We’ve gone far past the point where these events are acceptable “cost” of our freedoms.  
 

 

[wildcat09 29237]

Centrism is quite possibly the dumbest political philosophy ever created. You might as well wear a sign that says "I'm open to any and all forms of manipulation!" 

[Dahobbs 17444]

50 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think you are wrong. You can't legally detain someone who presents as sane and not a danger, which are most of the mass shooters a la the Elliot Rodgers near miss outlined above. Can you detain the schizophrenics and such? Sure. But those are largely not the ones committing these crimes. I'd encourage you to read the article:

 

Well, you just added a bunch of qualifiers that didn't exist in your initial post. I represented folks in commitment hearings during law school so I know a little bit about it.    In general, a person can be involuntarily committed if they present as a danger to themselves or others, or if they are suffering severe deterioration and unable to make rational choices about treatment (at least for Texas). Frankly, it sounds like our most recent shooter may have fit that criteria before the shooting. But, the problem is that there may not be sufficient time between that level of deterioration and the violent outburst. But I do agree that a good percentage mass shooters wouldn't have fit that criteria prior to their actions. 

Part of the problem is that even if someone meets the criteria, the state often times doesn't have the resources to detain or treat the person. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Dahobbs

[cactusflinthead 27594]

7 hours ago, slorch said:

My kids and grandkids will fight over them.  Hell, because guns and ammo are in the same room, they'll probably all just spontaneously start shooting, right?

Damn, and like that my line will have ended... because guns are dangerous like that.  Eradication of my family or guns is quite the choice, eh?

Oh, wait...guns have existed within our family for multiple generations and none of us has ever committed a crime* with a gun.  How can that fucking be?

 

* gun crime being an act of violence or even brandishing, to my knowledge.  We have possessed some modified firearms that have a purpose on private property.

Neither you nor stanco will be alive to determine what happens to any of your stuff. You can't prove a negative. Even in a protected and secure location there are risks, no matter how far fetched. 

Yes, it might be unlikely that our firearms will be used in a crime, but there are no guarantees.

[Sawbonz 27423]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

This is older, first read it yesterday on Readers Digest of all places, but originally written in Esquire: https://www.rd.com/article/stop-mass-shooters/

Essentially it outlines the problem of mass shooters in that there is a "gap period" which happens after being made aware of someone who is capable or psychologically prone or could be predicted to be a mass shooter and before they are actually are a mass shooter by acting out. Legally there isn't much of anything you can do. Elliot Rodgers was confronted and had police/wellness check done a week before he shot up the place. You can't thoughtcrime / pre-crime people, you can't detain them involuntarily, it's a problem in that there is no real proactive measures once these people enter the "gap period". It's 1000% reactive at that point.

So knowing that there are two proactive measures you can try. 1) Gun reform 2) Mental wellness health programs to identify and work with these kids/people, or both.

IMHO the problem I think is in the thought leadership. We don't have our best and brightest working on these two problems to create a strategy that is good and will be effective and have cost controls. All those folks are busy advising F500 CEO's on how to digitally transform and create new ways to make money from people. I still say that, like with education and the huge problem of public schools, if some really smart people and teams dedicated energy and efforts on these things, they could be the next Nobel Laureates. The problems are that complex, difficult and meaningful. 

Sad to say but the reason we aren’t making progress in mental health is there is no  money in it. This is going to some rub people the wrong way but there is a strong argument to be made that all patients with paranoid schizophrenia and many of those with schizoaffective disorder should be confined to secured facilities. They tend to be violent (not always guns) towards family members and strangers, and meds have poor efficacy for controlling their delusions. Plus with all the side effects there is very low compliance with taking them, so what limited effect they may have is further diminished. 
 

At a minimum people with these diagnoses and bipolar IMO should be banned at the federal level from owning guns. 

[Brisketexan 104596]

38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Centrism is quite possibly the dumbest political philosophy ever created. You might as well wear a sign that says "I'm open to any and all forms of manipulation!" 

Well, if you define "centrism" as "everything between 'do nothing' and 'ban all guns,'" I gotta say I disagree.  In that light, "centrism" is the only sane path.  There are a million sane scenarios between those two extremes -- maybe they are closer to one end or the other, as opposed to dead-center, but that's where we are.  Almost anywhere along that spectrum is better than where we are now.

And Gladwell's take cited above makes a good bit of sense.  As a society, we've lost our fucking mind when it comes to guns.  We have fostered and coddled an extreme element that fetishizes guns, uses them as an emblem of their manhood, and periodically uses them to lash out against society as a whole because they feel bad about something.  We need to send some fucking message that this is bullshit, and needs to stop.

When it's a riot, we put in a curfew, we shut down certain streets etc.  America is indeed in a slow-motion riot, and we have a political class that protects those rioters at all costs.  It's insane.

[fattyflattie 4636]

46 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

That’s where I am now.   We need to take some temporary emergency measures that limit freedoms in order to get things under control.  We need to reset people’s thresholds and then try to gradually re-introduce freedoms.

guyingreenshirtlaughing.gif

The next thing we get back will be the first since prohibition?

44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Centrism is quite possibly the dumbest political philosophy ever created. You might as well wear a sign that says "I'm open to any and all forms of manipulation!" 

How?  Half this board didn't want to live in this country under Trump.  The other half don't want to live in a (truly) progressive country.  Centralism slows both sides down.  It's how you keep Steven Miller from rounding up mexicans and putting them in camps, or from Warren taking a personal vendetta against any and all successful people we've produced as a nation.  

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Except that the center has been utterly crushed.

As it has in every facet of our governed society, unfortunately. Goes far beyond this issue, friend.  But I'm not interested in joining the fringes.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Sad to say but the reason we aren’t making progress in mental health is there is no  money in it. This is going to some rub people the wrong way but there is a strong argument to be made that all patients with paranoid schizophrenia and many of those with schizoaffective disorder should be confined to secured facilities. They tend to be violent (not always guns) towards family members and strangers, and meds have poor efficacy for controlling their delusions. Plus with all the side effects there is very low compliance with taking them, so what limited effect they may have is further diminished. 
 

At a minimum people with these diagnoses and bipolar IMO should be banned at the federal level from owning guns. 

Wow strong take. I like the vigor. I don't fully disagree, though I do think there is room for improvement in your take.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Does anyone think it would violate 2A if there was a tiered classification system that goes something like:

1) self defense and hunting. Bolt action rifles, revolvers, breach load shotguns, pump action shotguns with 8 or less capacity. No registration or permits needed.  Certain giant calibers excluded?

2) semi auto pistols and long guns. Some additional level of registration, safety, and/or mental evaluation needed. 
 

3) the larger/deadlier calibers if they are excluded from above.  Along with suppressors and high cap mags, must provide a documented need along with registration/safety/mental.  

 

[SydneyCarton 47874]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Sad to say but the reason we aren’t making progress in mental health is there is no  money in it. This is going to some rub people the wrong way but there is a strong argument to be made that all patients with paranoid schizophrenia and many of those with schizoaffective disorder should be confined to secured facilities. They tend to be violent (not always guns) towards family members and strangers, and meds have poor efficacy for controlling their delusions. Plus with all the side effects there is very low compliance with taking them, so what limited effect they may have is further diminished. 
 

At a minimum people with these diagnoses and bipolar IMO should be banned at the federal level from owning guns. 

I mean, I'm all for this idea, so don't misunderstand me. That being said, something like 3% of Americans are currently diagnosed as some form of bipolar, are they not? And I bet a fuck ton of those have other issues, and probably also own a lot of guns. And if you force some kind of test in advance of being sold a firearm for bipolar disorder, well, it's probably something more like 8-10%. But lets stick to 3%. You're telling 10 million or so folks that they can't own guns. The outcry will be deafening if you remove their right to own firearms. 
 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, you just added a bunch of qualifiers that didn't exist in your initial post. I represented folks in commitment hearings during law school so I know a little bit about it.    In general, a person can be involuntarily committed if they present as a danger to themselves or others, or if they are suffering severe deterioration and unable to make rational choices about treatment (at least for Texas). Frankly, it sounds like our most recent shooter may have fit that criteria before the shooting. But, the problem is that there may not be sufficient time between that level of deterioration and the violent outburst. But I do agree that a good percentage mass shooters wouldn't have fit that criteria prior to their actions. 

Part of the problem is that even if someone meets the criteria, the state often times doesn't have the resources to detain or treat the person. 

I thought it was obvious in my first post I was not talking about very obviously mentally ill people who answer the door and let you see the hoard and cat feces they live in while in a schizo episode or manic state.

Those aren't the people who commit mass murder. They are people who, like people who commit suicide, desperate and irrational and can fake feeling okay. They are equally looking online for encouragement and in real life for someone to stop them. You can't detain these people legally if they are confronted and tell you they are fine and you don't have a search warrant. 

And I agree that if there was money in it, we'd have figured it out or be well on that way hence my opinion around not having the right people engaged in the problem and not having the best minds and thought leaders working on a solution. That's the American way.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33842]

 

[Brisketexan 104596]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, I'm all for this idea, so don't misunderstand me. That being said, something like 3% of Americans are currently diagnosed as some form of bipolar, are they not? And I bet a fuck ton of those have other issues, and probably also own a lot of guns. And if you force some kind of test in advance of being sold a firearm for bipolar disorder, well, it's probably something more like 8-10%. But lets stick to 3%. You're telling 10 million or so folks that they can't own guns. The outcry will be deafening if you remove their right to own firearms. 
 

A shitload of Americans are blind, so they are not allowed to drive.

A shitload of Americans have a criminal conviction, so they can't vote (although that's changing some).

We restrict "rights" all the time.  Freedom of movement between places and states is actually a right.  So is actual freedom/liberty (which we take away by imprisoning people).  So is voting.

So long as a standard is set that is reasonably within the scope of the state's police power, the action taken is narrowly tailored to protect the interest covered by that police power, and due process is provided.....that's exactly the formula for taking away people's most basic right -- their liberty -- when we convict them of a crime and imprison them.  That formula applies across the board.  So long as there is due process, the state could find that person X suffers from a condition that makes him a danger to himself and others if he possesses certain things (like firearms), and issue an order that they may not possess a weapon (note....we already do that with individual restraining orders from time to time -- if a guy threatens his ex with violence, courts can sometimes issue a protective order that bars him from traveling to certain places, possessing firearms, and things like that).

So many people talk about this sort of measure as "impossible, no way that would be legal!"....when we already do a crapload of things just like it.  If you get diagnosed as a schizophrenic or bipolar, and that condition makes you a heightened danger, then after a hearing/adjudication that provides you due process, we should be able to say that you cannot own, buy, or possess a firearm.

[Dahobbs 17444]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I thought it was obvious in my first post I was not talking about very obviously mentally ill people who answer the door and let you see the hoard and cat feces they live in while in a schizo episode or manic state.

Those aren't the people who commit mass murder. They are people who, like people who commit suicide, desperate and irrational and can fake feeling okay. They are equally looking online for encouragement and in real life for someone to stop them. You can't detain these people legally if they are confronted and tell you they are fine and you don't have a search warrant. 

And I agree that if there was money in it, we'd have figured it out or be well on that way hence my opinion around not having the right people engaged in the problem and not having the best minds and thought leaders working on a solution. That's the American way.

We can change the laws so it easier to detain someone for treatment. The idea that it can't be done is wrong. Whether or to what extent we should do so is a different question. In my opinion our current laws may be too restrictive in that they'll only catch people after they have really gone off the deep end. @Sawbonz just made the argument that we should make a change. I don't think I can disagree with him. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

13 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Does anyone think it would violate 2A if there was a tiered classification system that goes something like:

1) self defense and hunting. Bolt action rifles, revolvers, breach load shotguns, pump action shotguns with 8 or less capacity. No registration or permits needed.  Certain giant calibers excluded?

2) semi auto pistols and long guns. Some additional level of registration, safety, and/or mental evaluation needed. 
 

3) the larger/deadlier calibers if they are excluded from above.  Along with suppressors and high cap mags, must provide a documented need along with registration/safety/mental.  

 

No, but in several aspects, that's more lenient that what we have now? Especially #1.

Can someone explain to me why suppressors are such a bad thing, other than the ability for extra tax on them?  NZ is strict af, and they nearly require them on hunting rilfes.

[SydneyCarton 47874]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A shitload of Americans are blind, so they are not allowed to drive.

A shitload of Americans have a criminal conviction, so they can't vote (although that's changing some).

We restrict "rights" all the time.  Freedom of movement between places and states is actually a right.  So is actual freedom/liberty (which we take away by imprisoning people).  So is voting.

So long as a standard is set that is reasonably within the scope of the state's police power, the action taken is narrowly tailored to protect the interest covered by that police power, and due process is provided.....that's exactly the formula for taking away people's most basic right -- their liberty -- when we convict them of a crime and imprison them.  That formula applies across the board.  So long as there is due process, the state could find that person X suffers from a condition that makes him a danger to himself and others if he possesses certain things (like firearms), and issue an order that they may not possess a weapon (note....we already do that with individual restraining orders from time to time -- if a guy threatens his ex with violence, courts can sometimes issue a protective order that bars him from traveling to certain places, possessing firearms, and things like that).

So many people talk about this sort of measure as "impossible, no way that would be legal!"....when we already do a crapload of things just like it.  If you get diagnosed as a schizophrenic or bipolar, and that condition makes you a heightened danger, then after a hearing/adjudication that provides you due process, we should be able to say that you cannot own, buy, or possess a firearm.

Oh, you mean the United States of America applies it's power and rules inconsistently? You don't fucking say!

Listen, chooch, in case you forget, my first sentence was essentially agreeing that bipolar folks shouldn't own guns. So thank you for the long winded explanation of how the US could ban bipolar people from having guns, all the while ignoring the reality of that kind of provision passing any kind of law or rulemaking that would be debated and then adopted by the congress and/or senate.

You know, technically the senate can function with a 60 vote majority as it exists right now. We can pass all the voting rights and gun protection laws we want, we just have to work hard to make it happen! Oh wait, that's just technically true. In reality we're going to need to nuke the fucking filibuster because some shit IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN in the current makeup and climate of America. Yeah, technically we can make anything into a law if we want, including re-implementing Prima Nocta if we fucking felt like it and had the votes and support. But, you know, that shit is never going to happen. 

[Brisketexan 104596]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Oh, you mean the United States of America applies it's power and rules inconsistently? You don't fucking say!

Listen, chooch, in case you forget, my first sentence was essentially agreeing that bipolar folks shouldn't own guns. So thank you for the long winded explanation of how the US could ban bipolar people from having guns, all the while ignoring the reality of that kind of provision passing any kind of law or rulemaking that would be debated and then adopted by the congress and/or senate.

You know, technically the senate can function with a 60 vote majority as it exists right now. We can pass all the voting rights and gun protection laws we want, we just have to work hard to make it happen! Oh wait, that's just technically true. In reality we're going to need to nuke the fucking filibuster because some shit IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN in the current makeup and climate of America. Yeah, technically we can make anything into a law if we want, including re-implementing Prima Nocta if we fucking felt like it and had the votes and support. But, you know, that shit is never going to happen. 

Oh, I've spent the past several posts acknowledging the truth you are spouting: nothing that is good or makes sense will happen.  I'm agreeing with you.

All I'm doing with my post is pointing out that the arguments against taking such steps are hot garbage.  The logic and legality is all there, laid out.  But agreed -- we won't do any of it.  The extreme position of "do nothing, and do it with vigor and commitment to the death" has won, completely and totally.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

We can change the laws so it easier to detain someone for treatment. The idea that it can't be done is wrong. Whether or to what extent we should do so is a different question. In my opinion our current laws may be too restrictive in that they'll only catch people after they have really gone off the deep end. @Sawbonz just made the argument that we should make a change. I don't think I can disagree with him. 

I think you are missing my point. My OP was saying and I'll paraphrase "that today, as it stands, currently, there is a gap and this is why...and here are how these get changed 1) gun reform 2) mental health wellness reform or both." 

I think changing the laws to make it easier to detain someone falls under the #2 and is the most precarious slippery slope, in my opinion. Again, not disagreeing with you either, just think once you start allowing the legal system and state start detaining folks with more subjective/fuzzy/lax criteria, you'll almost assuredly see 1) abuse by the lowly state/legal employees and 2) racial inequality by virtue of the bias in the state/legal employees as we can extrapolate from today, so you have BIPOC people being detained more often than white people and that's another identity politic battle.

[workswithseed 2036]

1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

  That’s where I am now.   We need to take some temporary emergency measures that limit freedoms in order to get things under control.  We need to reset people’s thresholds and then try to gradually re-introduce freedoms.  

I don’t know exactly what those measures would be, but I am open to a lot more ideas than I used to be.  We’ve gone far past the point where these events are acceptable “cost” of our freedoms.  
 

 

I hear the Japanese had thiers temporarily taken. You should ask if they'd like that again.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33842]

what an amazingly uninformed take.

[workswithseed 2036]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

what an amazingly uninformed take.

That’s where I am now.   We need to take some temporary emergency measures that limit freedoms in order to get things under control.  We need to reset people’s thresholds and then try to gradually re-introduce freedoms.  

What does this mean to you? Tell me, didn't the Japanese have their freedoms temporarily taken away, and then given back? 

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

That’s where I am now.   We need to take some temporary emergency measures that limit freedoms in order to get things under control.  We need to reset people’s thresholds and then try to gradually re-introduce freedoms.  

Yeah, problem with that is that once the govern restricts freedoms they rarely ever return.  

[atomheartbevo 89416]

16 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Give gun owners an easy, accessible, no fee system to run background checks on private sales and I think that you will see that the vast majority of law abiding gun owners are happy to engage that system.  Create layers of bullshit built around loop hole narratives and you will see pushback. Problem is that no one wants to talk about actual real outcomes oriented solutions. Just political posturing. 

7 hours ago, Bookman said:

The Republican strategy of doing nothing is eventually going to fail. Columbine was 22 years ago, which means for 22 years this has been an issue for schoolchildren. The people can only take so much, and at the breaking point it will be too late for Republicans to play defense.

6 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

They’re too dumb to understand that the perpetual failure to give an inch usually results in the taking of a mile. 

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Was not aware the Colorado had universal background check requirements. Asshole was mentally ill, had a prior assault conviction, and was apparently on FBI radar. None of that flagged the transfer apparently. 

Gun owners who refuse to budge a single inch on things like improved background checks and red flag laws are dumb.  Most law-abiding gun owners are not dumb and would be more than happy to support improved background checks and red flag laws that keep guns out of the hands of nutcases, because they know it would reduce pressure for future legislation that could affect law-abiding gun owners, but they are not the loudest group of gun owners.

Republican politicians who refuse to consider those things are not dumb. They are appealing to a very small minority of gun owners who refuse to budge a single inch - maybe because they are not so law-abiding, or are afraid a red flag law would be used against them, who knows. Or maybe those gun owners are benefitting financially from the current system.  But the sleazier Republican politicians also know that as long as we have these kinds of events, they can make this a cheap and easy, and very polarizing, campaign issue to use against anybody with a (D) against their name, and they need all of the polarizing campaign issues they can muster to help them retain power.

The problem for legal gun owners, and @Bookman and @Judge Roybeanbag touch on this, is that Republicans are playing a prevent defense, and we all know how that goes.  By refusing to be a part of any legislation to address the nutcases, Republicans are completely cutting themselves, and law-abiding gun owners, out of having a hand in how future legislation is crafted.

Republicans may be ahead on the gun issue by a field goal, but every one of these mass murders gives the the anti-gun another first down and takes a little more time off the clock, and eventually the anti-gun folks are going to run it in for a touchdown with no time left on the clock.

 

[Guadaloopy 10921]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, problem with that is that once the govern restricts freedoms they rarely ever return.  

Except for the fact that they do.  All the time.  

There have been curfews implemented for various reasons in multiple jurisdictions.  I’m not aware of any permanent curfews in place in the US today.  Those restrictions on freedom were all removed when no longer needed.

Martial law has been enacted and then rescinded several times throughout US history.   

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Holy fuck, when did 9mm ammo get so expensive.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, problem with that is that once the govern restricts freedoms they rarely ever return.  

Take it up with this guy, Mr. "Libertarian" wolf cryer.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

37 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

That’s where I am now.   We need to take some temporary emergency measures that limit freedoms in order to get things under control.  We need to reset people’s thresholds and then try to gradually re-introduce freedoms.  

What does this mean to you? Tell me, didn't the Japanese have their freedoms temporarily taken away, and then given back? 

The Japanese had all of their freedoms taken away. They were incarcerated for being of Japanese heritage. That isn’t remotely the same as taking away only the right to bear arms. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

There are currently 2 parties in this country.  One wants to take away your right to vote, the other wants to discuss ways to improve things.  The choice between the two is pretty fucking obvious, and if you land in the former party, well, god help you because me and my AR-15 that I might buy tomorrow won't help you.

[Anastasis 23394]

Little early to be on the sauce beanbag. 

@Guadaloopy, perhaps getting a little more specific would be helpful.  What specific short term restrictions do you see as necessary, and what would be the specific plan and timing for removing those restrictions.

[SimonBolivar 10915]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The Japanese had all of their freedoms taken away. They were incarcerated for being of Japanese heritage. That isn’t remotely the same as taking away only the right to bear arms. 

Yeah but it's historical so it has to be a valid comparison!

[fattyflattie 4636]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Republicans may be ahead on the gun issue by a field goal, but every one of these mass murders gives the the anti-gun another first down and takes a little more time off the clock, and eventually the anti-gun folks are going to run it in for a touchdown with no time left on the clock.

That's one way to look at it.  Another look is that one group is continually running their walk on back into the backs of a Charlie Strong Oline, only to alternate plays by letting Tyrone Swoops chunk hail marys. I've seen that game too, and sometimes, there is no touchdown. 

Lots of talk of blame on the R's and what they are and aren't doing, but where is the talk of SJL and Feinstein's insane bills? They do as much damage to the "come to some terms" cause than anyone.  And they should be chastised for it by D's, same as the R's should be shouting down the small factions of we want nukes/tanks because my 2nd.  How in the fuck can you have a rational discussion about either of those bills?

[Lurch 5921]

Interesting thread

[workswithseed 2036]

9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The Japanese had all of their freedoms taken away. They were incarcerated for being of Japanese heritage. That isn’t remotely the same as taking away only the right to bear arms. 

I don't give a shit why. And he didn't just say only one, he said freedoms. What the fuck? People wonder how Hitler got into power.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

48 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Holy fuck, when did 9mm ammo get so expensive.

About a year ago

[Foosters 17730]

17 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I don't give a shit why. And he didn't just say only one, he said freedoms. What the fuck? People wonder how Hitler got into power.

Let me guess. You watched a youtube video that told you Hitler took power by banning guns?

[workswithseed 2036]

7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Let me guess. You watched a youtube video that told you Hitler took power by banning guns?

Did I have to to know that happened? Did you have to watch a video that Hitler put people into camps? What a dumb question, and if you don't want to be called a NAZI? Don't do NAZI shit.

Edited March 24, 2021 by workswithseed
Fuck OU

[Foosters 17730]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Did I have to to know that happened? Did you have to watch a video that Hitler put people into camps? What a dumb question, and what don't want to be called a NAZI? Don't do NAZI shit.

LOL, spends 4 years defending Trump administration from every charge that they are acting like Nazis. Dems propose regulations on firearms and its . . .

"NAZIS! NAZIS!"

 

[hornmpa96 2598]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Republican politicians who refuse to consider those things are not dumb. They are appealing to a very small minority of gun owners who refuse to budge a single inch - maybe because they are not so law-abiding, or are afraid a red flag law would be used against them, who knows. Or maybe those gun owners are benefitting financially from the current system.  

 

Most of the Republican politicians don’t care about the actual gun owners at all. They do care about the gun manufacturers who make money selling as many guns as possible. What do they care if some of them are used to murder children in school and grocery shoppers?

[workswithseed 2036]

Just now, Foosters said:

LOL, spends 4 years defending Trump administration from every charge that they are acting like Nazis. Dems propose regulations on firearms and its . . .

"NAZIS! NAZIS!"

 

Moving goal posts. 

That’s where I am now.   We need to take some temporary emergency measures that limit freedoms in order to get things under control.  We need to reset people’s thresholds and then try to gradually re-introduce freedoms.  

Where does it say Dems?