Tubbs
Bluelight Crew
Oh I'm extremely pro gun rights man, think a mental health check should be more in depth, but other than that I'm pretty against strict regulations.
Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread
- Thread starter tathra
- Start date
Oh I'm extremely pro gun rights man, think a mental health check should be more in depth, but other than that I'm pretty against strict regulations.
surely the 10th amendment simply allows states to create laws regulating any issue on which the federal government has not ruled? i don't think it prevents the federal government creating laws to regulate firearms.
alasdair
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Closer to the other way around.
For it to be constitutional, the 10th amendment requires that the federal government have been explicitly granted the power to do something by the constitution. If it's not, then it's a state power. Unless expressly said otherwise in the constitution, state power is the default.
How that applies in this instance is what I'm less sure about.
For it to be constitutional, the 10th amendment requires that the federal government have been explicitly granted the power to do something by the constitution. If it's not, then it's a state power. Unless expressly said otherwise in the constitution, state power is the default.
How that applies in this instance is what I'm less sure about.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Just to bring this back a sec.
I'm definitely pro-gun ownership, but I have to admit something has changed my mind.
I support smart restrictions on gun sales and ammo sales and mandatory gun safety training. That's basically my position. Or was?
The Mandalay Bay shooting injured 851 people.
The idea that more shootings like this one, or school shootings-- which are truly horrific, are likely to happen makes me willing to even cede gun ownership, if necessary, to prevent them.
I'd still prefer smart restrictions, but I can't deny that I would be willing to just give them up if that was the choice.
Am I the only one who doesn't think Mandalay Bay will have copycats?
Ammo seller charged for selling armor piercing bullets to Mandalay Bay shooter
?Please keep kids safe from guns?: How Trump replied to a 7-year-old?s anguished letter
This second link is to an article that is a tear jerker. It was a great reminder to me of who is impacted by school shootings and how deeply.
Also, I thought it was hysterical that she wrote Trump back after she realized that "Trump" (there was no answer as to how involved he was in writing her) didn't answer her question about what he will do to prevent school shootings. Her ideas were good.
Poor little one.
I'm definitely pro-gun ownership, but I have to admit something has changed my mind.
I support smart restrictions on gun sales and ammo sales and mandatory gun safety training. That's basically my position. Or was?
The Mandalay Bay shooting injured 851 people.
The idea that more shootings like this one, or school shootings-- which are truly horrific, are likely to happen makes me willing to even cede gun ownership, if necessary, to prevent them.
I'd still prefer smart restrictions, but I can't deny that I would be willing to just give them up if that was the choice.
Am I the only one who doesn't think Mandalay Bay will have copycats?
Ammo seller charged for selling armor piercing bullets to Mandalay Bay shooter
?Please keep kids safe from guns?: How Trump replied to a 7-year-old?s anguished letter
This second link is to an article that is a tear jerker. It was a great reminder to me of who is impacted by school shootings and how deeply.
Also, I thought it was hysterical that she wrote Trump back after she realized that "Trump" (there was no answer as to how involved he was in writing her) didn't answer her question about what he will do to prevent school shootings. Her ideas were good.
Poor little one.
tathra
bluelighter
jpgrdnr
Bluelighter
Its sort of expected at this point, do they have breakdown by state of the statistical chance to get shot? Post colombine this all becomes a bit boring, and thats the last thing i would want is to become bored with gun violence
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Forget the statistical chance to get shot. You shouldn't care.
The goal here is to avoid dying yes? You don't want to be shot cause it could kill or seriously injure you. Obviously being shot is one way that can happen, but there are many others.
Hypothetically, not saying this is true just hypothetically, say you successfully eliminated gun violence, but knives overtook it to such a point where overall you're actually more likely to die or be seriously injured now having gotten rid of gun violence than back when the guns were around.
That would be bad yes? Few people seem to consider this so maybe I'm wrong but I'd think most people would rather keep the guns of they were less likely to die.
Now, leaving the hypothetical and back to reality. I don't in fact think the above hypothetical reflects reality. I'm just trying to point out as clearly as possible that making the assumption that removing gun violence results in a net benefit is dangerous. People do it all the time with car safety. They make assumptions with policy and they backfire and make things worse.
Point being. You don't want a state by state comparison of being shot. You want a state by state comparison of someone intentionally harming or killing you.
Then we can overlap it with gun control and get some useful info. There are other considerations that have to be made too. Population density for one.
But it's far more useful than just going by gun violence alone. Because while I've never seen evidence to suggest gun control puts people in more danger. I have seen evidence of it failing to make people safer. Because other forms of the same crime filled on the gap. They didn't overtake it so the net result was the same as before the gun control.
But that leaves the gun control, that form of it anyway, the form used where we have the data. As useless for this goal.
And speaking for myself, I can't support anything that limits freedom unless it has a worthwhile goal and unless evidence suggests it was effective at achieving that goal.
The goal here is to avoid dying yes? You don't want to be shot cause it could kill or seriously injure you. Obviously being shot is one way that can happen, but there are many others.
Hypothetically, not saying this is true just hypothetically, say you successfully eliminated gun violence, but knives overtook it to such a point where overall you're actually more likely to die or be seriously injured now having gotten rid of gun violence than back when the guns were around.
That would be bad yes? Few people seem to consider this so maybe I'm wrong but I'd think most people would rather keep the guns of they were less likely to die.
Now, leaving the hypothetical and back to reality. I don't in fact think the above hypothetical reflects reality. I'm just trying to point out as clearly as possible that making the assumption that removing gun violence results in a net benefit is dangerous. People do it all the time with car safety. They make assumptions with policy and they backfire and make things worse.
Point being. You don't want a state by state comparison of being shot. You want a state by state comparison of someone intentionally harming or killing you.
Then we can overlap it with gun control and get some useful info. There are other considerations that have to be made too. Population density for one.
But it's far more useful than just going by gun violence alone. Because while I've never seen evidence to suggest gun control puts people in more danger. I have seen evidence of it failing to make people safer. Because other forms of the same crime filled on the gap. They didn't overtake it so the net result was the same as before the gun control.
But that leaves the gun control, that form of it anyway, the form used where we have the data. As useless for this goal.
And speaking for myself, I can't support anything that limits freedom unless it has a worthwhile goal and unless evidence suggests it was effective at achieving that goal.
BehindtheShadow
Bluelight Crew
I just saw something on the news now about a Florida school shooting? Sorry if this has been brought up I'm still a bit groggy this morning
^ sadly, yeah:
There have been 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018.
To further put that into context, it's 18 shootings 30 school days.
There have been 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018.
To further put that into context, it's 18 shootings 30 school days.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I for one pay little attention to "number of school shootings so far" unless it includes the number of dead to qualify as a school shooting and that number is at least higher than 5 or so.
Yes yes every student shot dead is tragic etc etc.
My point is that when people talk about school shootings they're talking about what the media means when they talk about school shootings. And rightly or wrongly, that number is fairly high. Usually at least 10 or more dead.
My point is that when people use stats that say something like "20 school shootings so far this year" I've found those stats are giving a deceptive impression. Suggesting that those school shootings are like these school shootings. It's dishonest, that's my problem with it.
Just to he clear, I have no idea what the real numbers are. I'm just saying ice seen stats like this that were very misleading so I'm not quick to trust them.
I'm not saying that it's not horrible at any number, just that I don't like stats that seem to give people a false impression.
If most people would assume a far higher number of total fatalities from hearing that there has been 20 school shootings so far than what that statistic says. Then the definition of school shooting used by the stat is different to what people intuitively think of. And when people hear stats they should know what they're really hearing.
That's all.
Yes yes every student shot dead is tragic etc etc.
My point is that when people talk about school shootings they're talking about what the media means when they talk about school shootings. And rightly or wrongly, that number is fairly high. Usually at least 10 or more dead.
My point is that when people use stats that say something like "20 school shootings so far this year" I've found those stats are giving a deceptive impression. Suggesting that those school shootings are like these school shootings. It's dishonest, that's my problem with it.
Just to he clear, I have no idea what the real numbers are. I'm just saying ice seen stats like this that were very misleading so I'm not quick to trust them.
I'm not saying that it's not horrible at any number, just that I don't like stats that seem to give people a false impression.
If most people would assume a far higher number of total fatalities from hearing that there has been 20 school shootings so far than what that statistic says. Then the definition of school shooting used by the stat is different to what people intuitively think of. And when people hear stats they should know what they're really hearing.
That's all.
BehindtheShadow
Bluelight Crew
Agreed but I heard something on the news but don't have all the facts
Am a little under the weather
Am a little under the weather
zephyr
Ex-Bluelighter
Theres never a good outcome to discussing these shootings as it just ends up with the whole "right to bear arms" thing .
Its sad that it seems just normal and expected these things will happen and are not an incentive to do something about it.
Oh well.
Its sad that it seems just normal and expected these things will happen and are not an incentive to do something about it.
Oh well.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Well, sometimes that's true. That bad things happen and we shouldn't always do something about it.
Not saying that's the case with this, but sometimes it is. Lots of problems can happen and bad situations made worse by people refusing to accept "good enough" and constantly striving for perfection where it's impossible.
There are so many young people here in Australia I know who don't have a driver's license now long after the age I did, because the people on charge and the population have this mindset that they HAVE to do something to reduce the number of young people dying on the roads. So they introduce new rules and regulations. Naturally it doesn't totally eliminate deaths on the roads, so they introduce even more. Same thing happens, they introduce even more.
Nobody cares to check if any of it works, so previous policies and rules are never removed on the grounds that they didn't work. They just keep adding more and more challenges. And since these rules are all made by middle aged people and they're ageist, most of the rules only apply to people 25 and younger.
So increasingly it's becoming the case that, well, it is reducing the number of young people dying on the roads. By simply keeping them from driving at all until they age past the rules anyway.
Then they can make inexperienced mistakes and die on the roads at an older age. But now they're old enough that society doesn't care so much so its OK.
I know people in their 30s who still don't have a full license cause of how much effort and cost it involves. The cost is a big one. If you're poor you're fucked. It's a lot more expensive when you're required to get your license in stages using simulated driving machines.
It just doesn't stop. Nobody will accept that sometimes people die and we can't just always regulate it out of existence to make things better.
Modern swimming pool regulations in Australia are another one.
Now just to be clear. I don't actually care at all as far as Australians go. Fuck em. I brought up the swimming pool one once to a bunch of Australians and got called a kid killer cause I thought requiring fencing and mandatory signs and mandatory periodic inspections for a home with no kids anywhere in the neighborhood was excessive.
So now whenever I hear about these kinds of problems, like that someone can't have a pool cause they can't actually meet the excessive regulations or that they are being fined because of rules that are excessive and contradictory. I just laugh. Fuck em. They did it to themselves so this is the consequence.
But I will say it when it involves people from countries not quite so obsessed with safety at all costs. Don't be Australia. Before you know it you'll have no freedom left because they just never stopped trying to solve an unsolvable social problem with increased regulation.
Fun fact, mandatory bicycle helmets decrease rider safety. Bicycle safety increases when more people ride them, because more drivers expect them and know how to react. Helmet laws decrease the number of people willing to ride resulting in a net decrease in safety. Check the stats yourself if you don't believe me.
Australia has mandatory helmet laws for everything. They have an attitude that says that's OK. I'm sure if I disagreed among Australians I'd be told I want to kill them too. So fuck em, let em die.
But please America, don't become like that while I'm gone.
And getting back on topic, while yes, this is a different situation and it is out of control and probably something really should be done about it. I understand that. All I'm saying is, not every social problem is bad enough to require action.
All in all, these school shootings are a blip on the radar. They barely count for anything in the statistics. I know how cold that sounds. But if you REALLY wanna save people, you gotta be cold enough to be able to see the reality of the situation. To know what are real problems and what aren't.
If you wanna save a person here or there among the immediate people you know, you can care. But if you wanna save large numbers of people, you have to be heartless enough to not overreact when you hear about bicyclist killed not wearing a helmet.
You have to care about the people who can't thank you cause theyll never realize they were saved. Not the people already dead on the news.
As it pertains to this issue in particular. I'm of mixed feelings. Obviously if there is a way to stop school shootings that has a net benefit to society, that's something worth fighting for.
But I'm mindful of how small a number this is in a population of 300 million. And how much energy is being devoted to solving such a small number that could be spent trying to solve something much more solvable that would save far more.
Not saying that's the case with this, but sometimes it is. Lots of problems can happen and bad situations made worse by people refusing to accept "good enough" and constantly striving for perfection where it's impossible.
There are so many young people here in Australia I know who don't have a driver's license now long after the age I did, because the people on charge and the population have this mindset that they HAVE to do something to reduce the number of young people dying on the roads. So they introduce new rules and regulations. Naturally it doesn't totally eliminate deaths on the roads, so they introduce even more. Same thing happens, they introduce even more.
Nobody cares to check if any of it works, so previous policies and rules are never removed on the grounds that they didn't work. They just keep adding more and more challenges. And since these rules are all made by middle aged people and they're ageist, most of the rules only apply to people 25 and younger.
So increasingly it's becoming the case that, well, it is reducing the number of young people dying on the roads. By simply keeping them from driving at all until they age past the rules anyway.
Then they can make inexperienced mistakes and die on the roads at an older age. But now they're old enough that society doesn't care so much so its OK.
I know people in their 30s who still don't have a full license cause of how much effort and cost it involves. The cost is a big one. If you're poor you're fucked. It's a lot more expensive when you're required to get your license in stages using simulated driving machines.
It just doesn't stop. Nobody will accept that sometimes people die and we can't just always regulate it out of existence to make things better.
Modern swimming pool regulations in Australia are another one.
Now just to be clear. I don't actually care at all as far as Australians go. Fuck em. I brought up the swimming pool one once to a bunch of Australians and got called a kid killer cause I thought requiring fencing and mandatory signs and mandatory periodic inspections for a home with no kids anywhere in the neighborhood was excessive.
So now whenever I hear about these kinds of problems, like that someone can't have a pool cause they can't actually meet the excessive regulations or that they are being fined because of rules that are excessive and contradictory. I just laugh. Fuck em. They did it to themselves so this is the consequence.
But I will say it when it involves people from countries not quite so obsessed with safety at all costs. Don't be Australia. Before you know it you'll have no freedom left because they just never stopped trying to solve an unsolvable social problem with increased regulation.
Fun fact, mandatory bicycle helmets decrease rider safety. Bicycle safety increases when more people ride them, because more drivers expect them and know how to react. Helmet laws decrease the number of people willing to ride resulting in a net decrease in safety. Check the stats yourself if you don't believe me.
Australia has mandatory helmet laws for everything. They have an attitude that says that's OK. I'm sure if I disagreed among Australians I'd be told I want to kill them too. So fuck em, let em die.
But please America, don't become like that while I'm gone.
And getting back on topic, while yes, this is a different situation and it is out of control and probably something really should be done about it. I understand that. All I'm saying is, not every social problem is bad enough to require action.
All in all, these school shootings are a blip on the radar. They barely count for anything in the statistics. I know how cold that sounds. But if you REALLY wanna save people, you gotta be cold enough to be able to see the reality of the situation. To know what are real problems and what aren't.
If you wanna save a person here or there among the immediate people you know, you can care. But if you wanna save large numbers of people, you have to be heartless enough to not overreact when you hear about bicyclist killed not wearing a helmet.
You have to care about the people who can't thank you cause theyll never realize they were saved. Not the people already dead on the news.
As it pertains to this issue in particular. I'm of mixed feelings. Obviously if there is a way to stop school shootings that has a net benefit to society, that's something worth fighting for.
But I'm mindful of how small a number this is in a population of 300 million. And how much energy is being devoted to solving such a small number that could be spent trying to solve something much more solvable that would save far more.
zephyr
Ex-Bluelighter
I cant think of a single reason why any gun should be in a school.
I guess one would be if everywhere else has them and schools dont that would make them an easy target.
Im sure theres heaps of shootings at schools across the world .
Im glad I grew up without the risk of being shot personally.
I guess one would be if everywhere else has them and schools dont that would make them an easy target.
Im sure theres heaps of shootings at schools across the world .
Im glad I grew up without the risk of being shot personally.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
And once again, all the care is about being shot. I suppose you're perfectly OK with being stabbed to death? Just not shot. Screw it I've already made that argument in depth and I'm sure not making it again. Not this soon anyway.
The idea already was that the schools are "gun free zones". Can't tell you how many times ive heard pro gun types point out how most shootings happen in gun free zones.
They aren't entirely wrong though. Attempts to get rid of any guns in the area only result in disarming the law abiding gun owners. It would be one thing if they actually worked, but they don't.
My point is I find it very strange that you'd comment that you can't see any reason why there should be a gun in a school. It's almost like you're suggesting that we could have prevented this if we'd just explained to the shooter than guns weren't allowed on school property.
Now, I don't entirely believe this "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" (another one I've heard a million times) point of view. The one that's implied by the suggestion shootings happen in gun free zones. But I do thing that the idea of a gun free zone in an armed society is retarded.
It might well be that putting in place stronger gun control in American society is a good thing. But in its absence, just putting up a sign and making a rule that says an area is a gun free zone is just eliminating one of the few advantages of having such an armed society provides. It's taking a problem, and getting rid of one of the positive side effects as well. It's stupid. Either have an armed population or don't, but if you do, just disarming the law abiding ones in select areas is a retarded idea when the actually dangerous people will just ignore it.
Honestly though, I don't know why I bother posting any of this at all. I can spend half an hour typing up an argument, working out and preempting all the ways it could be intentionally misunderstood for political milage. And editing it for ages until it's presented so simply that even a child should be able to follow the logic. Only for it to either be ignored, or for me to have missed a way it could be intentionally misunderstood and have the reply completely misrepresent it. Because people have mental boxes, and if you express support for a particular position, or seem to, then most people immediately put you in that box and decide exactly what you believe about everything by virtue of being in that box.
I don't know what's worse, that people do that, or that most of the time, doing that is accurate because most people really can be put in boxes that easily.
And yet, for everything I write on bluelight, I probably delete half my posts either before they're submitted or very soon after cause I know just how little point there is to it.
I wouldn't even normally post at all in this kind of thread. Gun control along with abortion and some other subjects are things I never talk about anymore cause of the futility. The exception right now is this thread brand new, and that's the best time to post something if you're gonna post anything. When it's early enough that you can get in before it all becomes so predictable you could probably generate it dynamically with a computer.
The idea already was that the schools are "gun free zones". Can't tell you how many times ive heard pro gun types point out how most shootings happen in gun free zones.
They aren't entirely wrong though. Attempts to get rid of any guns in the area only result in disarming the law abiding gun owners. It would be one thing if they actually worked, but they don't.
My point is I find it very strange that you'd comment that you can't see any reason why there should be a gun in a school. It's almost like you're suggesting that we could have prevented this if we'd just explained to the shooter than guns weren't allowed on school property.
Now, I don't entirely believe this "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" (another one I've heard a million times) point of view. The one that's implied by the suggestion shootings happen in gun free zones. But I do thing that the idea of a gun free zone in an armed society is retarded.
It might well be that putting in place stronger gun control in American society is a good thing. But in its absence, just putting up a sign and making a rule that says an area is a gun free zone is just eliminating one of the few advantages of having such an armed society provides. It's taking a problem, and getting rid of one of the positive side effects as well. It's stupid. Either have an armed population or don't, but if you do, just disarming the law abiding ones in select areas is a retarded idea when the actually dangerous people will just ignore it.
Honestly though, I don't know why I bother posting any of this at all. I can spend half an hour typing up an argument, working out and preempting all the ways it could be intentionally misunderstood for political milage. And editing it for ages until it's presented so simply that even a child should be able to follow the logic. Only for it to either be ignored, or for me to have missed a way it could be intentionally misunderstood and have the reply completely misrepresent it. Because people have mental boxes, and if you express support for a particular position, or seem to, then most people immediately put you in that box and decide exactly what you believe about everything by virtue of being in that box.
I don't know what's worse, that people do that, or that most of the time, doing that is accurate because most people really can be put in boxes that easily.
And yet, for everything I write on bluelight, I probably delete half my posts either before they're submitted or very soon after cause I know just how little point there is to it.
I wouldn't even normally post at all in this kind of thread. Gun control along with abortion and some other subjects are things I never talk about anymore cause of the futility. The exception right now is this thread brand new, and that's the best time to post something if you're gonna post anything. When it's early enough that you can get in before it all becomes so predictable you could probably generate it dynamically with a computer.
aihfl
Bluelight Crew
Mealy mouthed Jeff Sessions was just on TV talking about the importance of mental heath treatment to curb these kind of tragedies. Yeah right. Until Obamacare came along it was difficult to get approval until mental health parity. That's rich coming from an administration that's trying to undo Obamacare. Nothing will happen and these kinds of tragedies will continue.
EDIT: Gov. Skeletor aka Rick Scott is on TV now spouting the same tired old talking points about how to keep guns away from the mentally ill. Nothing will change. Nothing.
EDIT: Gov. Skeletor aka Rick Scott is on TV now spouting the same tired old talking points about how to keep guns away from the mentally ill. Nothing will change. Nothing.
Last edited:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Correct you are. Nothing will change.
There are lots of reasons people like to cite for while, most of which I think are nonsense. My belief is that it won't change for reasons that are quite obvious. A lot of Americans don't want gun control. And people generally suck at resolving or even comprehending these kinds of disagreements. So it's dead in the water.
But I'm sure soon enough someone else will come along and say it's all the fault of the gun lobby. Cause everything that ever happens is really because of lobbiests and money and capitalism blah blah and never just that other ordinary people might disagree with you.
I mean, seriously. If a bunch of people on bluelight who all already have a lot in common can't agree or rationally discuss this among many other controversial issues on CE&P, what chance does the rest of the world have?
There are lots of reasons people like to cite for while, most of which I think are nonsense. My belief is that it won't change for reasons that are quite obvious. A lot of Americans don't want gun control. And people generally suck at resolving or even comprehending these kinds of disagreements. So it's dead in the water.
But I'm sure soon enough someone else will come along and say it's all the fault of the gun lobby. Cause everything that ever happens is really because of lobbiests and money and capitalism blah blah and never just that other ordinary people might disagree with you.
I mean, seriously. If a bunch of people on bluelight who all already have a lot in common can't agree or rationally discuss this among many other controversial issues on CE&P, what chance does the rest of the world have?
about a year ago: Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
alasdair
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
I think it's absurd that people can go to "gun shows" and get assault weapons (or any guns) without any background checks. I think it's absurd to reduce background checks or reduce the ability to get ba gun. People who are allowed to have guns (non-felons, basically) can get guns through legal channels, non-automatic or semi-automatic weapons that are appropriate. I don't think we should take guns away, even if I did it's too late for that, we have a gun culture. But why can any old person walk into a gun show and buy an assault weapon? It's insane.
Yeah, mass shootings would still happen, but so many deaths could be eliminated if assault weapons weren't available, and if people couldn't get guns so easily. Yes, people can go to the black market; that's irrelevant. Why make it easier for people to get guns legally? And why in god's name would anyone repeal a law making it harder for the mentally ill to get guns? Why would we want it to be easier for the mentally ill to get guns?
Yeah, mass shootings would still happen, but so many deaths could be eliminated if assault weapons weren't available, and if people couldn't get guns so easily. Yes, people can go to the black market; that's irrelevant. Why make it easier for people to get guns legally? And why in god's name would anyone repeal a law making it harder for the mentally ill to get guns? Why would we want it to be easier for the mentally ill to get guns?
from trump's statement on the shooting:
just a few of his absolutely bullshit statements emphasised
alasdair
president trump said:
just a few of his absolutely bullshit statements emphasised
alasdair