Octopus Overlords

Marco Rubio tweeted out a response to claims that the kids were actors in which he called the accusers disgusting idiots. Still not a fan of his politics, but good on him for taking a stand on the more crazy sector at least.

Meanwhile, Trump Jr. is liking tweets claiming the kids are being coached by the father of one of the students, a supposed anti Trump retired FBI agent.

Little Donny Dickwad continues to be the kind of person his father is: eminently punchable.

Holman wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:24 am The InfoWars-style conspiracy theory is that these were actors, the kids are sinister agents of the Deep State, etc. The slightly more mainstream version is that they are being coached/indoctrinated/used by leftist anti-gun forces.

Apparently it's hard for conservatives to believe that they could really feel the way they feel after watching their school invaded and their classmates gunned down.

These are the type of people that got taken by communism, socialism and all other petty dictators who told them exactly what they want to hear. The funny thing is they actually think they are patriotic, instead of loathsome people. No wonder they are so easily manipulated by Russian social media bots.

Funny thing is Twitter is now banning tons of fake/Russian conservative Twitter accounts and the right wing is furious that they are losing so many loyal "followers". I guess all we can offer them is our "bots and prayers".

An hour by hour comparison of Trump and Obama responding to school shootings

God, I miss having a real President.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:10 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:16 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:57 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:19 pm The biggest issue is determining what that limit should be. 1,000 rounds sounds like a lot but that's maybe 4 or 5 solid sessions at the range. With ammo usually twice as expensive at the range, most people will stock up rather than buy at the range.

Range ammo would be exempt. You can buy what you need and use while you are there.

That's a license for ranges to print money on the markup.

Why wouldn't you just go to the range that has cheaper ammo?

Because I have one to choose from. But it's not about me, I'm just pointing out why it's not as simple as it seems. Well, it may be as simple but there will be a lot of unexpected objections that it's good to anticipate.

Limiting ammunition is about as unenforceable (and therefore useless) of a law as you could make. How do you expect people to prove that they actually used up the previous week/month/year's 'ration' of ammo? People will just hoard more than ever.

And I don't think it would actually help the issue. Unless you're going to set the limit at Barney Fife levels (one bullet), you aren't going to create a limit that would impact these shootings. Las Vegas was 10-15 minutes of nearly automatic fire. 1,100 rounds. By any limit, that's a few months of hoarding, and that scenario is an extreme example. Sandy hook? 156 rounds. No limit is going to stop that.

And I've brought this up before, and it has always pissed people off, but you don't solve the guns problem by focusing on data from mass shootings. If you look at incidents where three or more people were killed, 2017 saw 112 deaths through October, so there were likely well under 200 for the year, and 2017 is considered one of the most deadly years in US history for mass shootings. At the same time, there were in excess of 15,000 gun deaths that weren't mass shootings. It would be stupid to design our gun laws around the 200 and not the 15,000, and it seems unlikely that many of the 15,000 deaths would have been prevented by an ammunition limit.

Mass shootings have an impact, and can be used to bring about change, but we have to make sure it is the right change that actually makes a difference, and not a knee-jerk change that just makes us feel better.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:45 am Limiting ammunition is about as unenforceable (and therefore useless) of a law as you could make. How do you expect people to prove that they actually used up the previous week/month/year's 'ration' of ammo? People will just hoard more than ever.

And I don't think it would actually help the issue. Unless you're going to set the limit at Barney Fife levels (one bullet), you aren't going to create a limit that would impact these shootings. Las Vegas was 10-15 minutes of nearly automatic fire. 1,100 rounds. By any limit, that's a few months of hoarding, and that scenario is an extreme example. Sandy hook? 156 rounds. No limit is going to stop that.

Except that the FBI will then know who is hoarding, just like they know who is buying sudafed. And yes, I am talking about Barney Fife levels of limits. One clip per year with additional being approved by license. My guess is most gun owners fire their weapons at a range and never anywhere else. The next greater percentage is hunters. They do not go through that many rounds and could easily be part hunting licensing. There is a smaller percentage of those who are shooting varmints. You would be able to get an ammo license just like we have the TSA approved lanes for frequent flyers.

This would allow anyone who has a reasonable function for their firearm to have enough ammo to perform that function. Hunt? check. Defend your home? Check. Shoot it in a protected environment? Check. Anyone that wants more gets licensed.

And I've brought this up before, and it has always pissed people off, but you don't solve the guns problem by focusing on data from mass shootings. If you look at incidents where three or more people were killed, 2017 saw 112 deaths through October, so there were likely well under 200 for the year, and 2017 is considered one of the most deadly years in US history for mass shootings. At the same time, there were in excess of 15,000 gun deaths that weren't mass shootings. It would be stupid to design our gun laws around the 200 and not the 15,000, and it seems unlikely that many of the 15,000 deaths would have been prevented by an ammunition limit.

Mass shootings have an impact, and can be used to bring about change, but we have to make sure it is the right change that actually makes a difference, and not a knee-jerk change that just makes us feel better.

I totally agree.

There is more than a single problem associated with guns, so I would think it would make sense to take more than 1 action that addresses the various aspects. As I mentioned, mass shootings have their own, damaging effect on the country that has nothing to do with stats.

Gun deaths in Chicago are not the same as gun deaths in tinytown, USA, are not the same as school shootings, are not the same as home accidents etc etc. Trying to find 1 fix-all solution is a red herring, so refuting any solution proposed because it doesn't solve everything is not an honest argument.

So, every time someone says "X solution designed for Y problem won't work because of problem Z" I assume they have no interest in actually taking any action whatsoever.

I'll just point out that "making people feel better" is a tangible benefit, so let's not presuppose that the illusion of safety is completely worthless. People who are afraid to fly are at the same risk as those who are not afraid to fly. One is in complete terror when they fly, and the other naps peacefully until it's time to land.

Obviously I want to reduce the stats in a meaningful way. But I also would like the horror show that is the monthly mass shooting to be reduced as well, even if those are just a drop in the bucket, comparatively.

If an onerous system of rationing and registration could remove any chance of ever having a mass shooting again, would you implement it? How much inconvenience are people willing to weather in order to keep people alive? If the answer is "none" then this is a short conversation. If it's "some" it might help to try to identify how much "some" is.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:10 pm The next greater percentage is hunters. They do not go through that many rounds and could easily be part hunting licensing.

Do you know what is involved in re-zeroing a scope after you bump it on a branch?

This would allow anyone who has a reasonable function for their firearm to have enough ammo to perform that function. Hunt? check. Defend your home? Check. Shoot it in a protected environment? Check. Anyone that wants more gets licensed.

I have no problem with a license to buy ammo. But how would you track/enforce limits on the unlicensed purchasers? I would think that anyone buying ammo would need a license and then you'd have a different license for the higher quantity purchasers.

It isn't like we don't have methods to limit and license purchasing products. We keep people from buying pseudoephedrine pretty effectively. Even if it is imperfect.

What do you think the ammo limit should be set to for those who view gun ownership as a way of protecting themselves from tyranny? Because I'll be honest, the more virulent NRA members view it purely in that fashion.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:10 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:45 am Limiting ammunition is about as unenforceable (and therefore useless) of a law as you could make. How do you expect people to prove that they actually used up the previous week/month/year's 'ration' of ammo? People will just hoard more than ever.

And I don't think it would actually help the issue. Unless you're going to set the limit at Barney Fife levels (one bullet), you aren't going to create a limit that would impact these shootings. Las Vegas was 10-15 minutes of nearly automatic fire. 1,100 rounds. By any limit, that's a few months of hoarding, and that scenario is an extreme example. Sandy hook? 156 rounds. No limit is going to stop that.

Except that the FBI will then know who is hoarding, just like they know who is buying sudafed. And yes, I am talking about Barney Fife levels of limits. One clip per year with additional being approved by license. My guess is most gun owners fire their weapons at a range and never anywhere else. The next greater percentage is hunters. They do not go through that many rounds and could easily be part hunting licensing. There is a smaller percentage of those who are shooting varmints. You would be able to get an ammo license just like we have the TSA approved lanes for frequent flyers.

This would allow anyone who has a reasonable function for their firearm to have enough ammo to perform that function. Hunt? check. Defend your home? Check. Shoot it in a protected environment? Check. Anyone that wants more gets licensed.

And I've brought this up before, and it has always pissed people off, but you don't solve the guns problem by focusing on data from mass shootings. If you look at incidents where three or more people were killed, 2017 saw 112 deaths through October, so there were likely well under 200 for the year, and 2017 is considered one of the most deadly years in US history for mass shootings. At the same time, there were in excess of 15,000 gun deaths that weren't mass shootings. It would be stupid to design our gun laws around the 200 and not the 15,000, and it seems unlikely that many of the 15,000 deaths would have been prevented by an ammunition limit.

Mass shootings have an impact, and can be used to bring about change, but we have to make sure it is the right change that actually makes a difference, and not a knee-jerk change that just makes us feel better.

I totally agree.

I do too, but good lord the rise of mass shootings is starting to be more statistically significant. Not scientific of course, but some colleagues and I were talking about how each of us has a link to mass shootings within a couple degrees of separation.

Enough wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:10 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:45 am Limiting ammunition is about as unenforceable (and therefore useless) of a law as you could make. How do you expect people to prove that they actually used up the previous week/month/year's 'ration' of ammo? People will just hoard more than ever.

And I don't think it would actually help the issue. Unless you're going to set the limit at Barney Fife levels (one bullet), you aren't going to create a limit that would impact these shootings. Las Vegas was 10-15 minutes of nearly automatic fire. 1,100 rounds. By any limit, that's a few months of hoarding, and that scenario is an extreme example. Sandy hook? 156 rounds. No limit is going to stop that.

Except that the FBI will then know who is hoarding, just like they know who is buying sudafed. And yes, I am talking about Barney Fife levels of limits. One clip per year with additional being approved by license. My guess is most gun owners fire their weapons at a range and never anywhere else. The next greater percentage is hunters. They do not go through that many rounds and could easily be part hunting licensing. There is a smaller percentage of those who are shooting varmints. You would be able to get an ammo license just like we have the TSA approved lanes for frequent flyers.

This would allow anyone who has a reasonable function for their firearm to have enough ammo to perform that function. Hunt? check. Defend your home? Check. Shoot it in a protected environment? Check. Anyone that wants more gets licensed.

And I've brought this up before, and it has always pissed people off, but you don't solve the guns problem by focusing on data from mass shootings. If you look at incidents where three or more people were killed, 2017 saw 112 deaths through October, so there were likely well under 200 for the year, and 2017 is considered one of the most deadly years in US history for mass shootings. At the same time, there were in excess of 15,000 gun deaths that weren't mass shootings. It would be stupid to design our gun laws around the 200 and not the 15,000, and it seems unlikely that many of the 15,000 deaths would have been prevented by an ammunition limit.

Mass shootings have an impact, and can be used to bring about change, but we have to make sure it is the right change that actually makes a difference, and not a knee-jerk change that just makes us feel better.

I totally agree.

I do too, but good lord the rise of mass shootings is starting to be more statistically significant. Not scientific of course, but some colleagues and I were talking about how each of us has a link to mass shootings within a couple degrees of separation.

It kinda throws off the curve, but I went to college with a columbine survivor. ️

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:59 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:10 pm The next greater percentage is hunters. They do not go through that many rounds and could easily be part hunting licensing.

Do you know what is involved in re-zeroing a scope after you bump it on a branch?

I'm guessing you could do that at a range?

<redacted>

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:59 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:10 pm The next greater percentage is hunters. They do not go through that many rounds and could easily be part hunting licensing.

Do you know what is involved in re-zeroing a scope after you bump it on a branch?

I'm guessing you could do that at a range?

If you have a range designed for it, with tables and sandbags, plus an adequate distance (anywhere from 100-200 yards depending on the hunter and where they hunt.) FWIW, most indoor ranges are not going to be suitable (although some are.) Even that assumes you have access to a range, and the people who hunt the most (people in rural areas who hunt to feed themselves) are the least likely to have access to a range.

The problem I have with the approach that doing something to make people feel better has value is that it's going to cost, in the case of guns it's going to cost rights and a whole lot more.

If it didn't cost, then yes by all means let's experiment. If it's going to cost money, well, it's just money right? If it means giving up a right? Hold on there! Not so fast! There will be consequences, big ones, to this experiment.

As evidence I'd point to the War On Drugs. This attempt to remove the scourge of drugs from our country has made billionaires out of street criminals. It has led to the corruption of governments and law enforcement. It has resulted in large numbers of people being imprisoned. It has caused violence to increase as people fight over all that drug money. Yet hilariously enough, it has done nothing to impede the availability of these drugs in this country. Do we really want to see the sequel to this with guns and ammunition instead of drugs as the main character?

That's a hell of a thing to do in an attempt to make people feel better. Or is there some reason I'm missing why the War On Guns would go better than the one on drugs?

Regulation is not prohibition.

If the War on Drugs had started as a War on Addiction rather than a War on Drug-Users, you might have a metaphor.

My skills as a psychiatrist are definitely just as powerful as an AR-15.

If only they spoke fluent irony.

Rip wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:09 pm https://twitter.com/KaraFinnstrom/statu ... 6995532801

More here. Of note:

The interaction quickly led to a conversation with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Hours later, investigators searched the teen's home and recovered two semiautomatic AR-15 rifles, two handguns and 90 high-capacity magazines.

I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why he possessed "90 high-capacity magazines". Like he was really into hunting or target shooting.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:38 pm

The interaction quickly led to a conversation with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Hours later, investigators searched the teen's home and recovered two semiautomatic AR-15 rifles, two handguns and 90 high-capacity magazines.

Bullshit gotsta stop.

https://twitter.com/ZoeSCarpenter/statu ... 8517181440

link

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:38 pmI'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why he possessed "90 high-capacity magazines". Like he was really into hunting or target shooting.

I'm told that only people who don't know what they are doing use high capacity magazines.

msteelers wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:12 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:38 pmI'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why he possessed "90 high-capacity magazines". Like he was really into hunting or target shooting.

I'm told that only people who don't know what they are doing use high capacity magazines.

This is another translation thing.


30 round magazines are standard for AR-15s. Most people familiar with the platform wouldn't call that high capacity. 60 and 100 round magazines would be "high capacity."

However, 30 rounds would be high capacity for a handgun, no matter who you talk to.

Media reports (and police reports) will probably call any magazine over 10 rounds "high capacity."

I think the "proper" definition is any magazine with greater capacity than the magazine that comes standard with the firearm.

I'm not making an argument for 30 round magazines. Just pointing out that "high capacity" is a poor term to use since it is not at all objective.

And no, there's really no compelling reason to have 90 magazines for 4 firearms. AR mags are often sold in lots of 10 so it's not uncommon for someone to have 20 or 30. Let's say 40 for the two ARs. That's still 50 mags for two pistols.


However, 90 magazines are basically too many to use anyway. If they're 30 rounds each, that's 2,700 rounds. No way anyone is carry that around. Marines don't usually carry more than 200-300 rounds into combat. So it's odd but not horrifying. Like if someone has 100 rifles. One person with 100 rifles if far less dangerous than 100 people with 1 rifle each.

Could they be using the California legal definition?

Found a picture:


Bottom row of stacks look like larger than 30 rounds; not sure about the top row.

Listening to Trump talk to the survivors and saying that the whole problem is that the school is a "Gun Free Zone" -- What the hell...

The Capitol Building is another "Gun Free Zone" - right?

Unagi wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:39 pm Listening to Trump talk to the survivors and saying that the whole problem is that the school is a "Gun Free Zone" -- What the hell...

The Capitol Building is another "Gun Free Zone" - right?

So is Mar-a-Lago and every NRA national convention.

malchior wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:29 am I think that sometimes the problem with the ultra-conservatives is a lack of empathy. They have no exposure to the people and problems that other people face. Whether it be gun violence or health care issues or many other problems. They take it as an attack on their 'way of life' versus people just trying to find solutions for those problems.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status ... 6661508096
link

Here's a picture of Donald Trump listening to a parent talk about their child being murdered.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:00 pm Could they be using the California legal definition?

Maybe, but I think Lawbeef's definition sounds the most correct. Unless we want to simply classify standard AR mags as high capacity. If the typical mag is 30 rounds, then a 30 round mag is standard capacity in my opinion.

Holman wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:53 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:29 am I think that sometimes the problem with the ultra-conservatives is a lack of empathy. They have no exposure to the people and problems that other people face. Whether it be gun violence or health care issues or many other problems. They take it as an attack on their 'way of life' versus people just trying to find solutions for those problems.

Here's a picture of Donald Trump listening to a parent talk about their child being murdered.

He doesn't look defensive at all.

Imagine being through a horrific murderous assault, losing many of your friends, then having to deal with Drumpf. Haven't they been punished enough? I'm dead serious. He can only make it worse for them, and nothing they say will have any impact whatsoever with whatever he decides to do/not do.

It's political theatre except with traumatized children.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:03 pm Imagine being through a horrific murderous assault, losing many of your friends, then having to deal with Drumpf. Haven't they been punished enough? I'm dead serious. He can only make it worse for them, and nothing they say will have any impact whatsoever with whatever he decides to do/not do.

It's political theatre except with traumatized children.

I was just thinking the same exact thing when I re-read the first point on his crib sheet: "What is the one thing you would like me to know about your experience".

I just can't imagine how horrible it would be to be in their shoes, in his presense... and to have to act like it's worth it... after all they have just gone through.

Unfortunately, I do not believe anything will ever be done about gun violence unless there is a massive, very massive change in American culture. Gun advocates are totally right when they say banning "assault" weapons will not make the problem go away. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles out there that don't fit the "assault rifle" profile, some which can also have high capacity magazines. You're going to need bans/severe limits on semi-automatic rifles and/or high capacity magazines, and unfortunately the gun culture is just too strong and fanatical about it. When the one side sees the problem as too many guns and the other side sees the problem as too few guns, well, there's jut not much room for reasonable compromise there. Politicians may tinker around the edges but that's all they will do. So we will muddle on with more and more of these events and they will become a part of life, just part of the cost of the right to bear arms, just like traffic deaths are a part of the cost of driving (a common analogy of gun advocates by the way). If the murder of little children in Newtown did not change anything, well, what's a few more high school students every year? Sure they can protest and make speeches and appeals but they'll just be waited out by gun advocates. Kids will grow up, go off to college and memories will fade.

wonderpug wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:21 pm Found a picture:


Bottom row of stacks look like larger than 30 rounds; not sure about the top row.

Those look like 30 round mil spec. The black one on top of the right stack is 15.

The perspective makes them look bigger in the photo next to the Sheriff's hand but I'm pretty sure they are 30.

The handguns look like .45 1911s with 8 round mags.

The CNN Florida town hall on guns is live, and Marco Rubio is being eaten alive by teenagers. He's practically getting a swirlie.

Grifman wrote:Unfortunately, I do not believe anything will ever be done about gun violence unless there is a massive, very massive change in American culture.

It's already here. Look at the polls. An overwhelming majority of Americans want tougher laws. Including gun enthusiasts. Across the political spectrum.

I think what you saw today, with thousands of kids marching, with upset parents staring congressmen in the face and telling them they're tired of this shit - that's what's finally going to make something happen.

We've never had this large a reaction to a mass shooting that I can recall, with people in multiple states marching in the streets.

That's not to say I believe gun violence is magically going to go away because of this incident and these marches. But today the needle moved. Just a tiny bit, but it moved. And that's a hell of a lot more than it's done for every mass shooting prior to this.

One day we may look back at Trump and thank him for being so reprehensible that people finally said enough is enough.