re: A hundred school shootings a year wouldn't change my mind

quote:

---

Share this statistic.

---

It's in the same study I posted. Your parents did your homework for you apparently, stop being a lazy child and do your own work for once.

quote:

---

As i stated and asked you repeatedly, you tell me what law would stop yesterday,and we can "try".

---

Rumor right now is the kid, an 18 year old, acquired his gun through a private online seller almost exactly on his 18th birthday. Regardless of private or licensed retail seller though(the Buffalo shooter got his this way, but the West Texas killer the other year circumvented the retail sale and went to a private seller after failing a background check), there are any number of additional checks that could be put into place to better vet someone like this kid from quickly acquiring a gun. First would be subjecting private sales to the same requirements retail sales require. None of these are magical panaceas, but they are steps that can be taken to improve the situation.

In Canada for instance, where gun ownership is still high, but issues of mass shootings are not. Owning a gun requires the completion of a licensing and safety program, which must be renewed and completed every 5 years. An interview and evaluation process is done to verify competency and mental stability before any purchase is finalized(unlike in America, where there is a three day time limit for an inconclusive return on a background check, a common problem for the underfunded system). In Canada this includes formal criminal record background check, third party references to vouch for your competency(including guardians), and evaluation of your mental stability, and whether you have any history of violence or threats of violence. Guns have ~28 day waiting period and by law require meeting a threshold of safe storage.

You could also allow the ATF to actually do their jobs. Right now they are so understaffed and legislatively locked into adhering to out of date processes that has backed up the system months, even years(and thats before getting into the bans on allowing the ATF to just put together a searchable database of gun registrations to make policing and doing their job actually functional). So if a cop needs to investigate a suspected stolen cache of weapons, it could be 6 months before the ATF can actually process the requests and determine the origin of the guns so the police can develop any sort of actionable patterns to stop the black market pipeline the police may have uncovered, and by then, the info might just be worthless.

You could then focus the FBI and other federal agencies into a national gun buyback program and place new emphasis and funding on shutting things down like the Iron Pipeline, where black market dealers funnel guns from lax gun states to restrictive states for profit. Australia managed a program like this and the black market price for a pistol jumped from a thousand or so dollars to nearly 15 thousand dollars due to removing an enormous amount of guns from circulation and reducing the supply side. Therefore making the barrier to attaining a pistol for criminal activity prohibitively expensive, if they can even find one.


And none of that is "banning" guns.

But endless escalation and proliferation of guns is not some Laffer Curve where eventually violence magically stops, if people truly claim they want more properly trained and mentally competent good guys with guns and fewer bad guys with guns, that requires putting more controls in place to identify and weed out the bad guys, and to use the toolsets America has to get the guns in criminals hands off the street as best as possible and promote a culture where guns are not toys, but something that require accountability and responsibility, and to enforce that before, during, and after the point of purchase. While simultaneously leveraging America's vast network of law enforcement to go after the criminal side of the gun supply.

You didn’t link or name the study you quoted an unrelated portion of.

Let me know when you hit the point of high school when you have to cite your sources.

quote:

---

All I've asked you to admit is that guns lead to more violence, all else equal.

---

quote:

---

Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

---

Violence is not dependent on the weapon. Violence doesn't end with banning a weapon. I don't acknowledge your premise.

quote:

---

And you also haven't addressed whether any form of gun restriction is necessary.

---

You never asked me.

quote:

---

Should they be allowed in airports? Should there be age restrictions?

---

Airports? I'm not sure. I say no. Age restrictions - no. I owned guns as a child for recreational use. You need to be more specific.

quote:

---

If gun laws don't work, then why have any gun laws at all?

---

What gun laws? None of you will answer that question. What gun laws do you want that would have prevented yesterday. No one can answer this simple question.

quote:

---

Do you truly think we should just remove all restrictions?

---

No. I mentioned it earlier. I think current background checks are fine. But i also acknowledge not a single gun law short of full banning of all firearms, MIGHT have stopped this.

quote:

---

Defend your position on exactly how guns should or should not be regulated. Be concrete.

---

I think i have. I will do so, assuming you state your position. What gun laws do you want that would have prevented yesterday?

My position is:
1) Making guns "more illegal" doesn't stimey crime.
2) Banning guns creates victims out of the vulnerable.
3) I don't think people with clinical psychosis should own guns. Though i believe this is covered in the background checks. And, as we've seen, we already have safeguards in place to hopefully prevent this (see buffalo shooting) but they are often ignored by the same bureaucrats that push for these measures. I also recognize that allowing an administration to define sanity, is about as steadfast as the breeze.

So, what is the solution? If you ask me, it isn't "MORE GUN CONTROL" because no one can define what that means.

What do I think the solution is? The only conceivable measures that would have prevented yesterday is:
a) full lockdowns of schools.
b) Security escorts for children traveling from building to building
c) significantly increase security at all schools
d) School perimeter patrols

I don't think any of those solutions are fully viable. That doesn't mean the next best thing is nebulus legislation.

I would like to see the reopening of nuthouses/insanse asylums/ mental institutions. We have GUTTED this program beginning in the 60's.
You won't like it, but the return to Judeo-Christian principles.
Destruction of social media - this mindset festers in these little enclaves.

Even then, i don't believe that would stop all school shootings.

quote:

---

Know about guns, how they work, what they are, what they aren't. Draw clear divides between myth and reality, and make it well known that you, the authorities at issue, know full well that the suburban dad with 12 ARs is not the enemy.

But none of what you're talking about is going to work with the authorities charged with evaluating applications or revocations or whatever are openly, rabidly, anti-gun owner. We simply do not trust you, and for very good reason.

---

This. Bronc, your list sounds good, IF we could trust government. We don't. Because one measure is NEVER enough. The federal government is the size it is because of slippery slopes. If they were funded for ONLY the specifics of each legislation that were the intended purpose, you could likely eliminate 40% of all government spending.

If you have a knowledgeable Democrat (and Republican) in regards to firearms, that knew what they were talking about, then you could begin a conversation. But instead we have Gavin Newsome and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. All of whom may not own guns, but are protected behind a wall of men with guns.

Most pro gun people will not change their minds. Most pro gun Senators will do nothing but offer thoughts and prayers.

What happens when it's their kids who are murdered in a mass shooting?

quote:

---

Except they don't. The CDC did a study on the effectiveness of various gun laws in the US and found they had no impact on violent crimes involving firearms.

---

Yea lets not act like they've done a study on all the potential laws or even for a long enough period of time for it to be accurate. The CDC is now the end all be all for gun violence. I'm sure all the people point to the CDC for gun laws were definitely on board for the vaccines too right?

quote:

---

Nobody has suggested mandating teachers be armed. The idea is to let teachers that are willing and want to be armed do so. If you are going to make a point, be honest about it.

---

Refer to my last post. I commented on willing vs mandate.

I probably own more guns than %90 of this board. I'm a gun guy. But my reaction to constantly seeing little kids getting gun down is to think of ways to make it better. Arming teachers isn't the way. I think stricter gun laws could possibly help, it might not, but I think it would. But arming a bunch of potential teachers that don't know how to do jack shite with a handgun just because they are willing to, isn't the answer.

quote:

---

Tyranny from a government that's never done anything to take guns away = a price too high to pay.

Tyranny from citizens that are killing innocent children in schools = a price that "pro-life" people are willing to pay.

Normally I just like to frick with y'all about how stupid you are. But this isn't stupidity, it's evil incarnate.

---

What gun laws do you want that would have prevented yesterday.

quote:

---

I think stricter gun laws could possibly help, it might not, but I think it would.

---

Please stop repeating this if you don't know what it means. I will ask you, like everyone else....

What gun laws do you want that would have prevented yesterday?

quote:

---

While I don't support the measures you're proposing, if one did, the best first step imaginable would be for ATF/Democrats and other anti-gun entities to work tirelessly to regain credibility with the country on guns.

---

Majority of Americans support more gun control

quote:

---

An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.

---

A PBS Poll showed 83% support for private sale background checks, 73% for a national Red Flag Law, 72% to require licensing before all purchases, 61% for banning high capacity magazines, and a slight majority support a federal buy back program.

So basically everything I listed already has majority support, the credibility gap is the other way, and convincing someone like you by demonstrating aptitude regarding a bunch of red herrings about technical and granular gun knowledge, when you literally said you wont support something like a universal background check anyways, seems like the definition of a fools errand IMO, and really just a post hoc excuse.