Octopus Overlords

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:31 pm

Every country is unique, snarky names or not. The US suffers from an extreme lack of homogeneity that most other countries don't have to deal with.

And yet the Federal government reaches its long arm of the law into each of those regions.

You've failed to draw a connection between diversity and gun control. Please elaborate.

Ok. There are wide swathes of this nation that would be genuinely moved to armed rebellion should anyone attempt an actual wide-ranging ban on weapons, and any politician from a third of the nation would immediately end their career the moment they supported said ban.

That swathe of the nation? They think the current state of affairs, with mass shootings happening every other day, and schools being shot up to the point where it's a common occurrence, is just fine and that no changes can or should be made. If that chunk of the country thought this wasn't fine, they'd be willing to find ways to fix it. They'd propose something, any goddamn thing. Instead, all they do is shoot down any proposals from the gun control folks saying "that won't help" or "that isn't realistic". They're unwilling to propose any solutions or make any personal sacrifices to stop this, because the violence and killings they see is a reasonable price to pay for their freedom to own guns.

Meanwhile, my wife is talking seriously about home schooling because she doesn't want to send our kid to school where he'll be trained to hide from gunmen, and if confronted by a gunman, make himself as much of a distraction as possible before he's killed, in hopes of buying time for other kids to be saved.

This is American Exceptionalism. Every other first world country has managed to avoid these problems, but here we are, sacrificing kids on the altar of the second amendment.

Chaz wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:43 pm That swathe of the nation? They think the current state of affairs, with mass shootings happening every other day, and schools being shot up to the point where it's a common occurrence, is just fine and that no changes can or should be made. If that chunk of the country thought this wasn't fine, they'd be willing to find ways to fix it. They'd propose something, any goddamn thing. Instead, all they do is shoot down any proposals from the gun control folks saying "that won't help" or "that isn't realistic". They're unwilling to propose any solutions or make any personal sacrifices to stop this, because the violence and killings they see is a reasonable price to pay for their freedom to own guns.

Yeah, but it's not happening to them (hopefully). Hence, they don't care.

When you remember the conservative motto, it makes perfect sense: I got mine, so fuck you.

It usually goes "Fuck you, I've got mine," but yeah, I know. I live among them up here. The town over from me is trying to do a big renovation to the high school. There's a ton of local resistance because:

- those greedy teachers are just trying to take all your tax dollars, and they're already lazy and overpaid (they get summers off!)
- the school has been fine for the last 40 years, it doesn't need any upgrades
- I don't have kids that go to school anymore, why should I have to pay for it?
- kids don't need school anyway. Just teach them to work hard and do what's right, and everything will just kind of sort itself out.

And that's for school renovations. The responses to talk of building some affordable housing complexes (full of those people) were worse.

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:51 pm If people want to make a difference in the larger issue (gun violence), then the dramatic, sweeping changes that need to happen (and could happen) are in a solution to violence itself. Available mental health care, destigmatizing mental illness, poverty, education, law enforcement. Fix those, and violence will decrease (as it already has been for a long, long time.) In the meantime, you can start looking at how to make guns less attractive to people in ten years, and more so in 20, and perhaps in another 40 we can start talking about broad-reaching bans.

It isn't fun to say, but it is reality.

Human violence has been around for millions of years. It would be easier and more effective to get rid of the guns.

But, as you say, that's not going to happen. Dead kids all around, I guess.

Chaz wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:54 pmAnd that's for school renovations.

Have they considered a fundraiser raffle?

You know what might work in the here-and-now? A gun control lobby with the same resources as the NRA. Let's call it the NoRA. There are a lot of anti-gun groups out there, but they are too small and fragmented to be effective. What if they banded together to buy congressmen the same way the NRA does? Some of the measures that enjoy widespread popular support might actually be enacted.

Why is political power so lopsided? Why isn't there a NoRA?

Because nuance is divisive.

Kraken wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:04 pm You know what might work in the here-and-now? A gun control lobby with the same resources as the NRA. Let's call it the NoRA. There are a lot of anti-gun groups out there, but they are too small and fragmented to be effective. What if they banded together to buy congressmen the same way the NRA does? Some of the measures that enjoy widespread popular support might actually be enacted.

Why is political power so lopsided? Why isn't there a NoRA?

This is an excellent suggestion.

I'm not at all against gun control. I'm just tired of spending time repeating arguments for plans that can't work, the same 'would-have, could-have, should-have' we've been cycling through after every shooting since OO was founded.

And the simple fact is that you're not going to pass legislation in the US until a significantly larger portion of the population either supports it (or more likely, doesn't care enough to oppose it.)

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:20 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:04 pm You know what might work in the here-and-now? A gun control lobby with the same resources as the NRA. Let's call it the NoRA. There are a lot of anti-gun groups out there, but they are too small and fragmented to be effective. What if they banded together to buy congressmen the same way the NRA does? Some of the measures that enjoy widespread popular support might actually be enacted.

Why is political power so lopsided? Why isn't there a NoRA?

This is an excellent suggestion.

I'm not at all against gun control. I'm just tired of spending time repeating arguments for plans that can't work, the same 'would-have, could-have, should-have' we've been cycling through after every shooting since OO was founded.

And the simple fact is that you're not going to pass legislation in the US until a significantly larger portion of the population either supports it (or more likely, doesn't care enough to oppose it.)

Thank you. I made it up myself.

There are already clear majorities for sensible gun controls among the public. The trick is persuading congress to go along with them. If the root problem is the NRA's outsized influence, then countering it is the solution.

Now it's up to the rest of you to put that into effect. I've done my part.

Rip wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:40 pm Not to mention that many of us value personal liberty above all else.

Then many of you are fucking monsters, if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.

Dead children vs. your right to pretend you have a big penis in public. Tough call.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:51 pm

Rip wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:40 pm Not to mention that many of us value personal liberty above all else.

Then many of you are fucking monsters, if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.

Kinda funny since I don't currently own a gun. Perhaps someone else will let me love on theirs.

The very concept that you are fighting for your personal liberties is laughable. Every second of every day you’re following rules set down by your government. I mean sure, it sounds cool to some folks. But it’s a crock of shit all the same.

Kraken wrote:

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:20 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:04 pm You know what might work in the here-and-now? A gun control lobby with the same resources as the NRA. Let's call it the NoRA. There are a lot of anti-gun groups out there, but they are too small and fragmented to be effective. What if they banded together to buy congressmen the same way the NRA does? Some of the measures that enjoy widespread popular support might actually be enacted.

Why is political power so lopsided? Why isn't there a NoRA?

This is an excellent suggestion.

I'm not at all against gun control. I'm just tired of spending time repeating arguments for plans that can't work, the same 'would-have, could-have, should-have' we've been cycling through after every shooting since OO was founded.

And the simple fact is that you're not going to pass legislation in the US until a significantly larger portion of the population either supports it (or more likely, doesn't care enough to oppose it.)

Thank you. I made it up myself.

There are already clear majorities for sensible gun controls among the public. The trick is persuading congress to go along with them. If the root problem is the NRA's outsized influence, then countering it is the solution.

Now it's up to the rest of you to put that into effect. I've done my part.

I 80 to 90% range for some regulations

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:51 pm

Rip wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:40 pm Not to mention that many of us value personal liberty above all else.

Then many of you are fucking monsters, if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.

Exactly. Much like how our Corporations are sociopathic so has become our Government with respect to protecting the lives of the majority of its citizens. I suppose it comes down to the citizens who matter don't realistically face this threat so why bother.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:51 pm if you value what the NRA has sold you as "personal liberty", over dead kids...again and again. Fuck your gun love.

+1

The NRA hasn't sold me anything. I don't own a gun and never have. I don't vote for NRA favored politicians because they are usually Republican and I'm a librul. I certainly don't give them money. To me it is a fight for liberties because I currently, right now, have the right to buy a gun. There are people who'd like to take that right way. What else do you call this kind of struggle?

A fight to convince people that one particular civil liberty isn't worth the price we pay for it.

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:14 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:46 pm
Not really. They don't try to ban a specific aesthetic. They just ban all semi-auto rifles or handguns or both.

Which of those options did Canada do?

They went the full licensing route. I'm fine with that. In fact I live under a similar state-implemented system right now (Illinois FOID).

Canada also has a firearms registry for restricted firearms, which includes all handguns and most semi-automatic rifles. I'm ok with that too, but that one would be a tough sell in the US. Many see that as a come-get-me-first list.


Here's what the Canadian list looks like.

gameoverman wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:15 pm There are people who'd like to take that right way. What else do you call this kind of struggle?

Vain?

Regulations arise after a demand from the public or a safety concern is proven. Your forbearers lost the right to drive a car without getting a license, the right to buy liquor before they were 18...then 21, the right to buy cocaine from your corner grocery store, etc.. Stop trying to turn this into some noble struggle. It's not.

If more people want more regulation and they vote for it, then you lost a political fight. Not a moral one.

p.s. the majority of folks calling for reform aren't demanding a complete ban. Just more/better regulation. So unless you have a history of mental illness and want to buy a firearm, routinely threaten to use a gun on people, need a specific type of gun that the majority considers too dangerous, or can't wait for a background check, then you're crying wolf.

hepcat wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 am

gameoverman wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:15 pm There are people who'd like to take that right way. What else do you call this kind of struggle?

Vain?

Regulations arise after a demand from the public or a safety concern is proven. Your forbearers lost the right to drive a car without getting a license, the right to buy liquor before they were 18...then 21, the right to buy cocaine from your corner grocery store, etc.. Stop trying to turn this into some noble struggle. It's not.

If more people want more regulation and they vote for it, then you lost a political fight. Not a moral one.

p.s. the majority of folks calling for reform aren't demanding a complete ban. Just more/better regulation. So unless you have a history of mental illness, routinely threaten to use a gun on people, need a specific type of gun that the majority considers too dangerous, or can't wait for a background check, then you're crying wolf.

Style being the operative word. Last thing we want is weapons with the wrong kind of style.



Edit: I see you edited. You can change the words but the effort will still be against how certain guns look.

Good thing you used that word and I didn't.

hepcat wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 am

p.s. the majority of folks calling for reform aren't demanding a complete ban. Just more/better regulation. So unless you have a history of mental illness and want to buy a firearm, routinely threaten to use a gun on people, need a specific type of gun that the majority considers too dangerous, or can't wait for a background check, then you're crying wolf.

Some of those are already on the books. Reform wouldn't be adding them, but actual enforcement and perhaps more restrictive definitions.

hepcat wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:58 am Good thing you used that word and I didn't.

Good thing you edited it out before I could respond.

Rip wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:01 am

hepcat wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:58 am Good thing you used that word and I didn't.

Good thing you edited it out before I could respond.

No, I didn't. I make it very clear in my post that it's about how dangerous a gun is, not how it looks. Nice try, though.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:01 am

hepcat wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 am

p.s. the majority of folks calling for reform aren't demanding a complete ban. Just more/better regulation. So unless you have a history of mental illness and want to buy a firearm, routinely threaten to use a gun on people, need a specific type of gun that the majority considers too dangerous, or can't wait for a background check, then you're crying wolf.

Some of those are already on the books. Reform wouldn't be adding them, but actual enforcement and perhaps more restrictive definitions.

The latter at least is often fought against by the NRA and their bought politicians in Washington.

Apologies if someone already posted this, but I think a dose of perspective would be useful here: Gun data: Being shot is a common way to die in the US

A couple of cherry-picked data points:
— Chances of dying by assault by gun = 1 in 315
— Chances of dying in a mass shooting = 1 in 11,125
— Chances of dying in a foreign-born terrorist attack = 1 in 45,785

What’s interesting to me is the cost/benefit analysis that drives us to advocate for preventative policies that none of us actually want to have to enact.

Every time I go through the TSA bullshit at the airport, I think about how absolutely crazy it all is. The chances of dying by terrorist attack are so infinitesimally small, yet we willingly put up with ridiculous security lines and air travel restrictions.

Similarly, the chance of dying by mass shooting is incredibly small, and the chances of dying in a mass school shooting is orders of magnitude smaller than that. Yet, there seems to be a growing sentiment that we should be fortifying our schools or even home-school our kids in order to keep them out of a dangerous and scary environment. Why? It’s driven by irrational fear.

We also see mass (and quickly dissipating) movements for gun control every time there’s a mass shooting, but we have so much more to legitimately fear from regular, everyday (non-AR15) gun violence. The statistical gap between shootings by semi-automatic rifle and shootings by handgun (typically cheap, crappy revolvers) is as wide as the Grand Canyon. But people seem to be much more inclined to rally around gun control measures targeting sinister looking, high tech weapons. Again, irrational fear, not rational analysis.

Personally, I think it’s incredibly stupid that civilians can easily own semi-automatic rifles, but I don’t really lose much sleep over it. I’m much more concerned with the vast numbers of handguns that are floating around out there.

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:27 pmSimilarly, the chance of dying by mass shooting is incredibly small, and the chances of dying in a mass school shooting is orders of magnitude smaller than that. Yet, there seems to be a growing sentiment that we should be fortifying our schools or even home-school our kids in order to keep them out of a dangerous and scary environment. Why? It’s driven by irrational fear.

No, it's driven by the fact that reality isn't a math problem, and that the children being murdered in Wood Shop aren't acceptable losses in a spreadsheet.

Most adults in this country drive on roads. Car accidents are an accepted risk of driving on the roads with millions of other cars every day. So even though there is a much greater chance of me dying in a car accident, we all acknowledge that every time I get behind the wheel I do so knowing and accepting the risk that I might get into an accident.

Being shot in the face while solving for X in Algebra II is decidedly *not* an acceptable risk of being in Algebra II. And so our reaction to trying to prevent it is different. It's not "irrational fear" that's driving it. It's the fact that it's fucking unacceptable that it's even a possibility.

Uhh, yeah. That. Not all 'equivalent' risks are equivalent.

So while the fight over gun control/regulation continues to stalemate, why can't we at least agree to other solutions?

Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.

This seems like a no brainier, even if we still ban Ar-15s and whatever else. Banning all firearms, let alone just a few types, won't make it impossible for someone to walk into a school and shoot kids. So why not afford kids the same protection we give our money and judges and air travel? By all means, take your side on the gun control debate but why not secure schools as well? Surely the best scenario is whatever proper gun control/regulation plus additional security.

It's already in place in war weary schools in NY and Chicago.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:31 am
Canada also has a firearms registry for restricted firearms, which includes all handguns and most semi-automatic rifles. I'm ok with that too, but that one would be a tough sell in the US. Many see that as a come-get-me-first list.

To the best of my knowledge the registry was a boondoggle with little to show for the billions spent on it. The conservatives nuked it from orbit by deleting all the data in a scorched earth approach.

It's gone and wasn't very effective when it existed.

Perhaps Max as ex-military knows more. Not being a gun owner I admit I didn't pay it much attention.

Schools in Florida already have armed cops. There seems to be some confusion over whether the cop in this latest shooting was actually on campus. I’ve heard sound bytes of the sheriff saying he was, but he never encountered the shooter. Some news reports online question that though.

Still, I grew up in Orlando and we had cops on campus every day. It might have been a response to Columbine, which happened at the end of my freshman year in high school. I don’t remember cops on campus during middle and elementary school.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:28 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:31 am
Canada also has a firearms registry for restricted firearms, which includes all handguns and most semi-automatic rifles. I'm ok with that too, but that one would be a tough sell in the US. Many see that as a come-get-me-first list.

To the best of my knowledge the registry was a boondoggle with little to show for the billions spent on it. The conservatives nuked it from orbit by deleting all the data in a scorched earth approach.

It's gone and wasn't very effective when it existed.

Perhaps Max as ex-military knows more. Not being a gun owner I admit I didn't pay it much attention.

My recollection was that the registry requirement for prohibited firearms was scrapped but it was still in place for restricted firearms. I could be wrong though.

Registries always stuck me as the weakest part of effective firearm regulation.

Also, most schools have large fences surrounding them. I remember my middle school had large fences with barbed wire. This was pre-Columbine.

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:09 pm Uhh, yeah. That. Not all 'equivalent' risks are equivalent.

I don't really get this. Actually, I guess I kind of get it. If we were saying, "all things being equal," I'd rather prevent kids dying from mass school shootings than I would kids dying from random drive-bys. While drive-bys are awful and tragic in their own right, it could be argued that school shootings are even worse because schools should be a place where kids should feel safe and need to feel safe in order to produce a decent learning environment.

But the point is that all things are not equal. As I understand it, the risk of kids dying from mass school shootings are dwarfed by the risk of dying from other kinds of gun violence like drive-bys. These mass shootings are just breathlessly reported on by the media because they are sensational and guaranteed to get eyeballs and clicks. The magnitude of the problem is in no way proportionate to the coverage or our instant reaction. Perhaps part of the reason that initial reaction does not galvanize into actual action is that, on some level, we know the risk is so minimal.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.

We could, but again, given the risks involved, do we really want to turn our schools into fortresses? Also, if we have $15B to $25B in extra funding for education, I'd much rather see it actually go to, you know, education.

msteelers wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:34 pm Schools in Florida already have armed cops. There seems to be some confusion over whether the cop in this latest shooting was actually on campus. I’ve heard sound bytes of the sheriff saying he was, but he never encountered the shooter. Some news reports online question that though.

Still, I grew up in Orlando and we had cops on campus every day. It might have been a response to Columbine, which happened at the end of my freshman year in high school. I don’t remember cops on campus during middle and elementary school.

I don't mean resource officers. And definitely not SBLEs.I mean a dedicated officer for each school who's only job is to protect students from threats. Often resource officers have multiple schools on their patrol. And they're there to deal with a little bit of everything. That won't work.

I also could be wrong.

Not sure why there would be registry for prohibited guns, since those guns by definition aren't allowed.

I remember talk of long guns and registry together. I seriously doubt you can legally own a handgun in Canada without telling the gov about it (i.e. license or register).

The little I looked into handgun ownership, there was the option to leave it locked up at the range of your choice. Transporting a gun probably has some onerous legal requirements.

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:39 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.

We could, but again, given the risks involved, do we really want to turn our schools into fortresses? Also, if we have $15B to $25B in extra funding for education, I'd much rather see it actually go to, you know, education.

Our airports and courthouses are fortresses. Don't kids deserve the same protection?

On the spending side, appropriations doesn't really work that way. Unfortunately.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:44 pm I also could be wrong.

Not sure why there would be registry for prohibited guns, since those guns by definition aren't allowed.

They're allowed if you owned them before they became prohibited. There's a lot of grandfathering up there.