Another school shooting

We'll just keep having gun shootings, especially in schools no matter what laws you put on the books. This recent school shooting was with a shotgun and a revolver....were those guns going to be affected by any gun legislation that would be constitutional? Of course not.

 

Important note: any one measure that further limits ones ability to own a gun and shoot up the joint at free will is going to technically “infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights” to someone like Bobby. It is the only time they care about the constitution and certainly the only time they laughably try to make this about discrimination.

Any measures ultimately would increase the cost of gun ownership. Background checks ultimately would be passed down to the consumer. That’s the way capitalism works.

Something will happen in the next few years. Just saying Republicans who believe in free market capitalism should jump at any chance they can to let corporate America self regulate rather than Elizabeth Warren or someone else in 2021.

Slavery wasn’t ruled against in the constitution originally but it was amended to be abolished thank God because it was the humane and smart thing to do. There is almost a school shooting a day now. The constitution can be change eventually if Republicans continue to cower behind it. The south went to war over slavery and that certainly didn’t turn out well for anyone. Why Republicans don’t see what’s coming and learn from history is baffling to me.

Republicans would be idiots not to see where they are on this and act to preserve their precious amendement they care about more than anything... especially the right to vote.

But don’t listening to me. Keep clinging to your guns and recite the NRA talking points. That’ll work out for you.

(Or you could start working or talking about potential solutions instead of “thoughts and prayers” and blaming things like video games.)

At some point it’s on you guys. Do what you want though.

 

I don't have a problem with some gun control measures. I do not believe in banning any more types of weapons. A compromise would be to put AR15 style rifles into the same category as suppressors and short barrel rifles. In short, they become much more regulated (stricter background check, storage requirements, finger prints, passport photos, required to carry legal documentation, etc) but you can still own them. If you look at the statistics on weapons put into this category and used in crimes it is very very small. I do not believe it violates the 2nd Amendment because the majority of weapons would still be available to purchase without the same restrictions. Most pro gun people would not even agree to this.

Another person suggested waiting periods. Ehhh, I don't have a problem with that but can anyone show me where a mass shooter bought the gun the same day he went on his rampage? I'm sure some murders happen that way but seems like grasping at straws.

I would be in favor of strengthening our background checks. For instance, the Sutherland Springs shooter was not supposed to be able to buy a gun. He spent a year in military prison for beating his wife. Yet the Air Force did not upload his criminal history to the background data base. However, the same guy tried to get a concealed carry license in Texas and failed that background check. So maybe we can learn a thing or two from the CHL background system. Dylan Roof, the guy that shot up the church in Charleston, again should not have been able to buy the guns he used. However, a flaw occurred in the background check that did flag him. The FBI didn't get a call back from the local PD that had dealt with Roof so the hold on the background check expired and he got his gun. In fact, there was a bill to fix this but democrats won't vote for it. This is 2 examples where we could have possibly stopped the shooter from getting his weapons but our current system failed.

Here's the bottom line though. Even if we had New York or California style gun control nationwide the shootings would not stop. As pointed out before, the shooter in Santa Fe used a revolver and a shotgun. Nobody outside of the fringe left has been calling for bans that would be as extensive to include those kinds of weapons. The solution has to include security measures at schools. No, I don't mean arming teachers. I'm not a big supporter of that. I don't know many teachers that are pro gun to begin with. What are the odds a teacher with a gun is located on the same hallway a mass shooter decides to target? Not to mention, it took 3 brave police officers to stop this guy with one being nearly killed in the process. I don't expect teachers to become Jack Bauer roaming the halls.

I would look more towards gun sniffing dogs and physical barriers. Some places in our country are using them already. I would minimize the entry points used during a school day. I would have security doors at the front of the school and make all visitors enter through them. The resource officers desk/office would be located by the front door. Visitors can put their bags up to bullet proof glass with perforations and let the dog sniff them. In the mornings have off duty cops help the resource officer with security as kids enter the school for the day. I would station a teacher or principal at every entrance/exit during breaks between classes. No, that won't stop mass shootings but confronting them at the door to the school will limit casualties as people have a chance to get away instead of being trapped in a room with one door and a shooter standing in that lone doorway. I would require a student ID be worn around your neck at all times. We had that when I went to high school. When classes start the doors should be shut and only able to be open from the inside unless you have a key. Again, this won't stop all the shootings.


You can't ban your way to safety. If it isn't guns it will be molotov cocktails or homemade bombs or running people over. Our lunatics in this country keep showing each other how to kill more and more people. Unless you want to go full Nazi style security with no freedom and random house to house searches we will never be free of violence. When 2 of our buildings were knocked down and 3000 people were killed by terrorists we invaded 2 countries and spent how many trillions fighting the war on terror? We are way past 3000 victims of mass shooters in this country. Bring our soldiers home and spend the damn money protecting our kids at school.

 

So then you admit that what you are calling for is unconstitutional, well it's good that even you realize the nonsense you are saying has no chance of actually being enacted.....or if it is it would only be enacted till it could be struck down by the SCOTUS.

Conversations that focus on things like this are pointless as they are non-starters. You can keep hope alive that Elizabeth Warren will manage to abolish the 2nd amendment in a few years, but again that's not really adding to the conversation. That's just fantasy that is divorced from reality.

 

Noblesville IN is another small suburban satellite, this time outside Indianapolis.

 

This is nothing but a bold-faced lie.

 

Where did you get your statistics? The reliable ones I found only go back to the 1970s, when the percentage of the population who own guns was 1% higher than in 2017...

https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

 

According to what evidence? Evidence from the rest of the world indicates that there are in fact laws which can drastically reduce the incidences of school shootings.

In your opinion. If there were storage requirements for guns, they would have been affected. Storage requirements wouldn't even have to be imposed by government.

 

He said "in people like bobby's mind," he didn't say that he thought it was unconstitutional.

Just like you have no chance of actually making an argument without using a straw man anytime in the near future.

Maybe, maybe not.

Any conversation on this topic is pointless with someone as intransigent as you.

There's that same straw man you keep tossing out.

No, the narrative you desperately want to believe is divorced from reality.

 

Doesn't matter. You can shoot every child in America and gun nuts still would blame liberals and say we need more guns

We can talk about this again in a few days during the next shooting

 

It's not.

The US isn't the rest of the world. You can't compare what happens in other cultures to what happens in American culture.....for what should be obvious reasons. There isn't any law you can put on the books that will be constitutional that would significantly reduce school shootings, it's a cultural thing, if there's a way to do it then it'll get done. The Santa Fe school shooting happened with a shotgun and a revolver, how were you going to stop that?

Sure, it's possible that he's just an idiot and he doesn't realize that's what he's describing but I'm not interested in playing those kinds of games.

There's really no maybe to it, what was being described was blatantly unconstitutional.

Only when it comes to proposals that are unconstitutional. Like I said, when it comes to stripping civil rights from the people, it's always going to be a non-starter so if that's the only thing you can come up with, yeah you are wasting your time.

That's not a straw man, that's a direct response to him saying that if the people of the US didn't willingly give up their civil rights now that Elizabeth Warren or someone else would strip them of those rights in a few years.

 

Yes, your claim that virtually everyone who is in favor of more stringent gun controls ultimately wants a complete ban on guns is a lie. It is a straw man that you repeat over and over again. Doing so makes you a liar.

No, you and people like you refuse to compare what happens in other cultures to what happens in America because in every single country where more stringent gun controls have been put into place, mass shootings have become somewhere between almost and entirely a thing of the past.

This statement is you saying that you can't actually articulate the reasons, so you have to rely on claiming that the answer "common sense" when your answer is nonsensical, but far too common in our political discourse.

I realize this is your opinion, but it is not based on any facts.

There are ways to do it and people like you are refusing to allow it to get done.

That one could have been easily avoided had the parents been required to secure their firearms.

As usual, you resort to insults when you run out of anything approximating logical arguments.

No, you prefer lies and straw men, those are your games.

In your opinion. However, what was being described is not the only way to approach the issue.

You do realize that the primary way we determine the constitutionality of a law is by passing one and letting the courts decide, right?

Your opinion holds exactly zero weight when it comes to determining the constitutionality of a law.

No, you are the one wasting all of our time by telling lies, tossing out straw men, and refusing to actually discuss any proposals.

No, that is not the ultimate goal for the VAST majority of people who favor more stringent controls, no matter how often you repeat the same lie, it is only a lie.

 

That wasn't my claim, it seems you didn't follow along with the conversation very well. I was talking about what one specific person was calling for. The notion of mandatory "gun insurance" is unconstitutional and I've spelled that out several times already for those who don't know enough to realize that fact by themselves.

That's an intellectually dishonest argument, but I suppose that's what I should expect. What you are referring to is the talking point about Australia that had almost no mass shootings to begin with and a REALLY low murder rate, they had a mass shooting, enacted laws that cannot be enacted here and they still have almost no mass shootings and still have a REALLY low murder rate.

That simply doesn't prove what you wish it proved.

It was probably just me giving you too much credit as a thinker. The fact that different cultures and people who have different situations are different and can't really be compared to one another should be easy enough for a child to understand and that caused me to apparently wrongly believe that you'd be able to understand it on your own.

It's an opinion based on the fact that to date every idea that I've heard thrown around attempting to allegedly combat the problem either wouldn't in any significant way combat the problem or is an unconstitutional suggestion. If I heard an idea thrown around that would significantly reduce school shootings, that could actually be done and wasn't unconstitutional, that actually had any chance of success, then I'd be all for it and I wouldn't say that there wasn't a plan that would do so.

Such as how?

What you mean to say is "IF the parents had adequately secured their firearms", the legal requirement to do so might have helped, and I'm not opposed to charging people for negligence if they fail to reasonably attempt to secure their firearms and those firearms are used in a shooting, but making that a law doesn't fix the problem, it just imposes penalties on those the weapons were taken from after the fact. It also does nothing to prevent those who are old enough to buy their own weapons from using them to harm others. The vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings are purchased legally

Actually in this instance it's you that is insulting the other poster by suggesting that he was stupid. I suggested that he knew what he was saying was unconstitutional, you seemed to think he was too dumb to realize that.

Thus far you've accused me of lying and of arguing against straw men, but you've been wrong every time thus far. I'm starting to think that you don't know what a straw man is and that your grasp of reality might be too tenuous to understand what is a lie and what is not a lie.

No, not in my opinion, based on what the constitution says and based on relevant court precedent that plan would be unconstitutional....that's why it's not worth discussing in any depth.

Then it's probably pretty good that I'm not basing those statements on my opinion but rather basing them on what the constitution says and what the courts have previously ruled. I understand that politicians occasionally decide to pass laws that are unconstitutional in the hopes that they can get away with it and they are usually struck down eventually.

There you go again kiddo making baseless accusations of "lying" and "tossing out straw men", it's pretty tiresome and honestly you should try harder to be better.

I'm all for discussing any proposal that isn't blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately we haven't really heard any brought up for conversation.

You realize that responding to a statement with a comment about something not said is actually a straw man right? You keep throwing out false accusations of straw men and yet here you are. Is it that you don't know any better?

This is a pretty clear situation, I was talking about the specific thing that one poster said and was responding only to that, not making a statement about "the VAST majority of people who favor more gun control"....I honestly can't imagine why this is so difficult for you to understand. Is it that you are intentionally misunderstanding?

 

You said...

"They aren't looking for reasonable regulations, they are looking for either an outright repeal of the second amendment or a de facto repeal of the second amendment."

Your words, which are the straw man or outright lie that you keep telling.

Gun deaths in Australia went from 2.9 per 100,000 to 0.9 per 100,000 after the buyback. Just a fact.

http://theconversation.com/factchec...e-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836

Your insults show that you're the one who has been given too much such credit.

The fact that you can't actually provide any evidence as to the cultural differences and how, exactly, they change how policies would affect our country differently than other countries where they have been enacted clearly shows which of us is engaging in "childish thinking."

In your opinion, devoid of any evidence whatsoever.

In your opinion.

It is telling that the extent of your "discussion" on this topic is limited to "it wouldn't help" (without any evidence that it wouldn't help) or "it isn't constitutional" (which is something that the courts would determine and which wouldn't be dependent on the opinion of Trump supporters, NRA members, or random posters on a basketball forum). You refuse to even attempt to engage in discussion.

As I stated before, storage requirements could easily have stopped the Santa Fe (and others) shooting.

Personally, I like the idea of letting the market take care of it. Insurance companies know how to price risk efficiently and would be much better than government at charging people appropriately based on the level of risk they pose.

Kids in the house? Higher rates unless there is secure storage.
Haven't proven competency? Higher rates until you go to a gun range and show you can handle your firearm.

I know, your mindless mantra is that requiring insurance is unconstitutional, but the right to travel has been a well established right since the Articles of Confederation, and requiring insurance on automobiles doesn't unconstitutionally restrict that right. The solution I think would be the most effective in this case is to make the market take care of it.

Insurance would have taken care of all of it. If the parents had chosen riskier storage options, they would have been charged for it or may have made better decisions in order to get lower rates. If a person has a demonstrated history of mental illness, their rates would be higher and might price them out of the firearm market altogether. Criminals would be ineligible for insurance and as such would not legally be able to own firearms.

Seriously? I love how you backpedal from your insults after you are called out for them. This seems to be the GOP playbook these days, just scream that the other guys are doing what it is completely evident that you are doing and hope that the tribal sheep just nod along.

See your quote above. That is the lie, you've repeated it over and over in this thread.

Based on your opinion of what you think is "relevant court precedent," yes. You just chant "unconstitutional" over and over again to avoid even trying to have a discussion. We have an established process for determining the constitutionality of laws and at present, that process does not include anyone that I'm aware of named "bobby."

Your opinion and interpretation of the Constitution aren't relevant.

Feel free to quote a precedent determining that firearm insurance requirements are unconstitutional.

And if the courts struck down the laws passed to reduce mass/school shootings, I would accept their rulings. However, the opinion of a random poster on a basketball forum just doesn't have any relevance.

No, boy, you should try not to lie and use logical fallacies in these discussions as you have done repeatedly in this thread.

You just repeat the mantra "unconstitutional" in order to avoid having any discussion at all.

Stop telling the lie and I will stop calling you a liar.

Yes, for those who refuse to think at all about the situation, it is very clear.

I quoted you above. Try again, rookie.

 

You are mixing different conversations together, in that statement I was arguing against the notion that there is currently no 2nd amendment for 80% of Americans. When you take conversations out of context and apply them to later conversation you are being intellectually dishonest. When you further frame the out of context quote so as to make it look like I was saying something I wasn't.....well, that's just outright dishonest.

The full quote was

"When it comes to the 2nd amendment, sure it's been watered down A LOT over the years but I wouldn't go so far as to say that "There is no true second amendment in this country for 80% of Americans", it's difficult to get high explosives and novelty full auto weapons, but I don't think those are unreasonable regulations due to the nature of those weapons. There's reasonable regulations....and then there's the stance of what was once the fringe left that is now the mainstream left. They aren't looking for reasonable regulations, they are looking for either an outright repeal of the second amendment or a de facto repeal of the second amendment."

That's neither a straw man or an outright lie, that's just the truth of the situation, I was talking about a very specific group of people, not everyone.

I'm not sure what you thought that you'd accomplish with this ridiculousness, but it's pretty transparent.

I knew that was the talking points you were trying to regurgitate. The decline in homicide rate in Australia started well before the gun confiscation program and it simply continued. Also, it's not something that can be done here legally so it's not worth discussing.

Maybe, but that's a lot like saying that a speed limit will stop people from driving fast. It might work, it might not, but at least you'd be able to punish people right?

That's not letting the market take care of it, you'd have to mandate coverage which in this instance would be clearly and obviously unconstitutional. It would be no different than a poll tax....a financial burden intended to prevent citizens from exercising their civil rights, the precedent is clear. I know you struggle to grasp this and I knew you'd try to bring up auto insurance despite the fact that there is no national requirement for auto insurance and more importantly there is no constitutional guarantee suggesting a right to own or operate a car like there is for firearms. The best I can do is spell it out for you and hope you figure it out.

The ONLY reason you'd be pushing for this is to hope to make gun ownership more expensive in order to prevent more people from exercising their civil rights. This would be an attempt at a de-facto repeal of the 2nd amendment for many Americans.....and it's the 2nd thing you came up with.

Again, this is a non-starter. Literally no chance of happening, time to move on.

 

Must be a day that ends with 'Why' or even 'Y'

Rocket River

 

Yes, in that statement, you claimed that the "mainstream left" wants a gun ban complete with a repeal of the second amendment. I'm not sure how you could misunderstand your statement so completely.

Claiming that the "mainstream left" wants to repeal the second amendment is both a lie and a straw man.

Your inability to understand that you're using a logical fallacy is crystal clear to anyone paying attention.

Not a "talking point," just a fact.

The statistic in the article I posted had nothing to do with homicide rates. Read it again until you understand.

You don't think speed limits stop people from driving fast? Seriously?

No, I haven't brought up punishing anyone. Why don't you try making an argument about what I actually wrote.

In your opinion. Feel free to quote a relevant court opinion.

You mean like automobile insurance prevents citizens from exercising their right to move freely?

Post the precedent, then. Stop posting your opinion and post the opinion of a judge who set the precedent.

I love it when you toss out insults. Try an argument next time.

Where did I say it had to be a national requirement?

You would have to start by using facts rather than your opinion.

No, the ONLY reason I would push for this is to force people to be financially responsible for the risks they pose.

So requiring automobile insurance is an attempt at removing people's right to own automobiles, using that "logic." There isn't a in the entire world big enough.

Again, your only responses are your opinion that everything is unconstitutional or has zero chance of happening. You refuse to even discuss the issue.

Try again, rookie, you're still flailing.

 

Yes, and it's an accurate statement. Once upon a time it was only the fringe left that supported a repeal of the second amendment either and now it has become a mainstream left stance.

Now you see how that's not saying "virtually everyone who is in favor of more stringent gun controls ultimately wants a complete ban on guns" right? That was just something you made up....you know, a straw man.

LOL, they stop some people from doing it, but people drive faster than the speed limit all the time. Do you honestly think that speed limits prevent people from driving fast? I mean, are you having a giggle?

Sure you have, you suggested that a law punishing people for not keeping their weapons secured could have been helpful in the Santa Fe shooting, when in reality it would just give you someone to punish for failing to keep their weapons secured.

LOL, if you don't realize that putting up financial barriers specifically to prevent citizens from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights is unconstitutional, there's nothing I can do to help you. It's honestly not worth discussing, either you get it, or you don't meet prerequisites for this kind of conversation.

A few things here.

1. A person not having an automobile does not prevent them from moving freely.
2. There is no federal requirements to own auto insurance
3. There is no right to own or operate a vehicle.

It's not an insult, it's a fact, you do struggle to grasp the concept that placing financial burdens on citizens with the intent of preventing them from exercising their civil rights is unconstitutional. I mean, you've gone out of your way to prove over and over again just how much you struggle to grasp that concept.

Fair enough, even if it wasn't a national requirement it would still be unconstitutional and on top of that you might get maybe a handful of states to go along with it before it was struck down by the SCOTUS which means it wouldn't have been effective even if it wasn't struck down.

I mean, that's obviously a lie, your goal would be less gun ownership, the fact that you can't be honest about that even when discussed in theory doesn't say a lot of good things about your ability to discuss this topic.

Automobile ownership isn't a right and even if they were, the two situations are not comparable. Over 100 people die every day due to automobile accidents in the US alone....just over 1 person dies every day due to accidents with guns. Even if there wasn't a constitutional guarantee of the right to own firearms which would prevent an insurance mandate, there's almost nothing to insure unless you are talking forcing people to get insurance for potential willful acts...and if that's the case, why not require everyone to get insurance based on their risk of robbing others or any other potential crime?

See how this ridiculous idea just falls apart with essentially ANY scrutiny? Even if you personally fail to understand why it would be unconstitutional and why on top of that it's a pretty stupid idea that would have no chance of doing any good even if it was implemented in a few states before being struck down by the SCOTUS it doesn't change the fact that it's a non-starter. It's a total and complete waste of time to discuss stupid things like this. You'd be much better sticking to more rational policies that have some chance of working while being able to be implemented without being struck down by the SCOTUS....and not some bizatro world scenario where the SCOTUS is just 9 Justice Ginsburg's which seems to be the fantasy.