Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

[luthervol]

I tip my hat to you gun non-control advocates. You win! And, consequently, 17 teenagers in Florida die.

Congratulations!

That's a trade they are more than willing to make. They will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they are standing on some type of great American principle and that their stance is not causing the death and destruction of thousands every year. They will be viewed with ever increasing disgust and disbelief by rational people world wide.

It is not only a national embarrassment but also a disgrace.

The lunatic fringe will view as victory anything that ensures the flow of guns. In the much to near future, when another gun nut goes on another killing spree, they will recycle the same pathetic arguments while talking about how sad they are over the massacre.

 

[hndog609]

Its probable cause to seize long enough to evaluate the threat. Teachers and school officials are in the best place to figure that out. If they say a kid is a potential threat, I think that should be enough to deprive the kid of guns long enough to assess it.

I've seen enough zero tolerance lunacy to believe overreation is not only possible but flat out unavoidable. How about teachers et al forward concerns to a sort of (or even actual) grand jury?

 

[Squints]

Unfortunately, in this case the pendulum is swinging towards much stricter control. Last poll I saw, roughly 60% of the population felt guns were the main problem and they wanted more restrictions. Refusing to even hold a discussion will swing it even further.

The pre-election polls also had Hillary winning.

Also, I responded to you earlier and gave you some scenarios. You’ve yet to answer them at this point.

So, don’t feed me the BS line about you don’t know what I’m talking about, and if you don’t, my comment was a cue for you to respond to my points. Unless, of course, you have no answers, which I’m betting on.

Edit

To help you out further, it’s comment #559.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I won't get into the validity of polls, but after Sandy Hook, I think the percentage was up to 70% or higher if memory serves.

After about six weeks, and constant education, that number dropped significantly to around 50%.

Facts are finicky things. The media as a whole won't report the "facts" or report bogus/twisted information (see my post about the WaPo article) because it won't sell papers or buy ad time.

I wasn't talking about a poll conducting in the wake of an incident like Sandy Hook or this one. Dissatisfaction with incidents like this occurring is on the rise overall and guns are the easy target.

Personally, I believe that guns are only part of the equation. I don't really think that "assault rifles" should be banned. I think that it is probably more likely that these weapons are chosen for their looks by these nut jobs not for effectiveness. Just as much damage can be done with other guns, but they don't look cool. There are elements of gun control relating to mag size or bump stocks etc that I believe need regulation, but the assault rifle debate makes little sense to me.


However, it's beyond me how anyone can defend the position that guns should not be in the hands of nut jobs. That has to be the discussion. How can we do a better job of identifying these people and keeping guns out of their hands.

 

[Grand Vol]

That's a trade they are more than willing to make. They will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they are standing on some type of great American principle and that their stance is not causing the death and destruction of thousands every year. They will be viewed with ever increasing disgust and disbelief by rational people world wide.

It is not only a national embarrassment but also a disgrace.

The lunatic fringe will view as victory anything that ensures the flow of guns. In the much to near future, when another gun nut goes on another killing spree, they will recycle the same pathetic arguments while talking about how sad they are over the massacre.

Luther, I applaud your passion here, but you are so closed minded you cannot see there are so many levels to this and that gun control is not the only option to cure the problem.

Once you open up to a rational and logical discussion, that's when change can happen. Once you and others that think like you stop putting this on the table first and demanding it be implemented without any concessions of your own, nothing will change.

Let me ask you this, did you support the Manchin-Toomey Bill?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The pre-election polls also had Hillary winning.

Also, I responded to you earlier and gave you some scenarios. You’ve yet to answer them at this point.

So, don’t feed me the BS line about you don’t know what I’m talking about, and if you don’t, my comment was a que for you to respond to my points. Unless, of course, you have no answers, which I’m betting on.

I didn't see your queries directed at me, but what I have seen of your posts has not made me want to search for any I may have missed.

Your initial point is a illogical talking point relied upon by too many people lately. One poll being wrong does not equate to all polls being wrong. I bet there are polls saying the majority of Americans believe murder is wrong. Are those polls incorrect?

 

[luthervol]

I heard that being on the terrorist watch list does not keep one from being able to legally purchase a gun.

We can already identify mentally and emotionally unstable people, the problem is the NRA gun nut zealots will fight every attempt to restrict the sell of guns.

 

[luthervol]

Luther, I applaud your passion here, but you are so closed minded you cannot see there are so many levels to this and that gun control is not the only option to cure the problem.

Once you open up to a rational and logical discussion, that's when change can happen. Once you and others that think like you stop putting this on the table first and demanding it be implemented without any concessions of your own, nothing will change.

Let me ask you this, did you support the Manchin-Toomey Bill?

I don't know anything about the bill. If it would reduce the number of guns in circulation, I would support it. If it would reduce the types of guns in circulation, I would support it. If it made the purchase of guns more difficult, I would support it. If it placed any reasonable restrictions on who could buy a gun, I would support it.
If it put reasonable limits on the number of guns a person could purchase or own, I would support it.

 

[Grand Vol]

I wasn't talking about a poll conducting in the wake of an incident like Sandy Hook or this one. Dissatisfaction with incidents like this occurring is on the rise overall and guns are the easy target.

Personally, I believe that guns are only part of the equation. I don't really think that "assault rifles" should be banned. I think that it is probably more likely that these weapons are chosen for their looks by these nut jobs not for effectiveness. Just as much damage can be done with other guns, but they don't look cool. There are elements of gun control relating to mag size or bump stocks etc that I believe need regulation, but the assault rifle debate makes little sense to me.

However, it's beyond me how anyone can defend the position that guns should not be in the hands of nut jobs. That has to be the discussion. How can we do a better job of identifying these people and keeping guns out of their hands.

Three things.

I'm not a nut job.

Mag restrictions won't be effective at this point since they went into mass production mode after both the sunset of the AWB and Sandy Hook. We're talking probably hundreds of millions of them in circulation. There is no good option on limiting them save an outright ban. And you run into all sorts of legal and financial issues with that one.

I don't think anyone has or will argue against the crazy people being denied access to firearms. My argument, as it very well should be your argument as well given your profession, is how it's determined they are crazy. And furthermore, how to get around laws already on the books about health care information reporting. Such things are confidential per the HIPAA laws and would have to be modified prior to anything like a national registry of crazy folks goes into effect. NOBODY has addressed that even though I keep bringing it up.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

I heard that being on the terrorist watch list does not keep one from being able to legally purchase a gun.

We can already identify mentally and emotionally unstable people, the problem is the NRA gun nut zealots will fight every attempt to restrict the sell of guns.

At the end of the day it’s all about money. They don’t care who buys guns as long as it’s benefitting their bank accounts. Nobody needs ARs or any other guns within that loop. Before the car argument is brought up my car wasn’t created to kill things. The sole purpose of guns is to kill

 

[lawgator1]

Doesn't pass the "reasonable belief" test.

We are also not just talking about children here. Shouldn't this same program be implemented for adults?



Now, here's the problem. You place faith in them to determine the right from wrong and would gladly allow them a pass on the 999 times they are wrong. Sorry, but I think there needs to be far stricter criteria for reporting in the first place and not just a "gut feeling."

I don't disagree on the principle if it prohibits one of these mass shootings from occurring. I do disagree on the amount of leeway you seem to be giving to educators.

But again, the system you are proposing is designed for abuse. And again, at what point are the wolf criers ignored and dismissed?



Disagree. Most parents these days don't think their children's poo smells and would defend them to the nth degree.

Psychology is by its very nature largely subjective.

You guys on the right have rejected out of hand all of our calls for gun control, and said the real problem is mental illness.

Then, when we start suggesting ways to keep the mentally ill away from guns, your response is that its too subjective.

You can't have it both ways. You can't avoid gun control by blaming it on the failure to detect mental health problems, then confess those are so hard to identify it will never work.

 

[Squints]

I didn't see your queries directed at me, but what I have seen of your posts has not made me want to search for any I may have missed.

Your initial point is a illogical talking point relied upon by too many people lately. One poll being wrong does not equate to all polls being wrong. I bet there are polls saying the majority of Americans believe murder is wrong. Are those polls incorrect?

There you go, being a damn liberal. I did not make those dots, and you shouldn’t have assumed that connection. That’s where you’re flat ass wrong. My comment was merely intended to show that polls are incorrect at times. Furthermore, a poll like that, and at a time like this, is inherently skewed, if even legitimately conducted. I’m dubious of any poll released directly after an event the poll concerns, regardless of the subject.

For instance, in 2013, droves of Vols thought BJ was Neyland incarnate. Ask the same ones how they felt after the FL game this past year, and the responses would have been night and day.

You’re using a logical fallacy to justify your position. I posed this to you in my comment (#559) that you’ve yet to answer. Anyone intent on inflicting carnage through atrocities will find a way to commit these heinous acts, no matter how much you censor their right to bear arms (e.g. black market, alternate attacks, etc.). If you can’t reconcile that, then I hope the US has 5 guns to every one person. Nothing like pissing one of you off....

 

[Grand Vol]

I heard that being on the terrorist watch list does not keep one from being able to legally purchase a gun.

We can already identify mentally and emotionally unstable people, the problem is the NRA gun nut zealots will fight every attempt to restrict the sell of guns.

If your only argument is to fall back on the "NRA! NRA! NRA!" answer all the time, you don't have an argument. Because you don't have a clue as to what the laws already on the books consist of.

I don't know anything about the bill. If it would reduce the number of guns in circulation, I would support it. If it would reduce the types of guns in circulation, I would support it. If it made the purchase of guns more difficult, I would support it. If it placed any reasonable restrictions on who could buy a gun, I would support it.
If it put reasonable limits on the number of guns a person could purchase or own, I would support it.

Now see, this is why many just can't take you seriously. If you know nothing about the history of gun control legislation or what was in it, how can you even be in this debate?

 

[AirVol]

I heard that being on the terrorist watch list does not keep one from being able to legally purchase a gun.

We can already identify mentally and emotionally unstable people, the problem is the NRA gun nut zealots will fight every attempt to restrict the sell of guns.

MSNBC Richard Maddow spout that off her tongue, and so you heard?

 

[DancingOutlaw]

At the end of the day it’s all about money. They don’t care who buys guns as long as it’s benefitting their bank accounts. Nobody needs ARs or any other guns within that loop. Before the car argument is brought up my car wasn’t created to kill things. The sole purpose of guns is to kill

Then all but a few of mine are broken. They’ve yet to kill anything.

 

[Grand Vol]

Psychology is by its very nature largely subjective.

You guys on the right have rejected out of hand all of our calls for gun control, and said the real problem is mental illness.

Then, when we start suggesting ways to keep the mentally ill away from guns, your response is that its too subjective.

You can't have it both ways. You can't avoid gun control by blaming it on the failure to detect mental health problems, then confess those are so hard to identify it will never work.

You guys lol

I'm hammering holes in your pet theory and showing the problems that could (and likely would) arise from implementing such a program. Now, you can offer reasonable alternatives or even get me to change my stance on the matter by using reason and logic. In reality, I'm actually discussing the merits of your proposal and trying to make it better. But your ego is getting in the way.

So, you act like all those little children in Congress by claiming I'm an obstructionist because I'm not willing to settle on your first draft and you stand firm as it's the bestest and wonderfulest idea ever.

My issue with your whole idea (which I agree to in principle) is it's a system designed for abuse. As well as the legal loopholes in the system you created. Do you honestly think any executive department of the local, state or federal government should have that kind of power? Take firearms out of the equation and ask if you trust government officials to determine if any other right you currently have is a "threat" based on nothing more than their feelings.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

Then all but a few of mine are broken. They’ve yet to kill anything.

Are you really this shallow? You don’t think guns are machines made to kill things? I guess my car isn’t something made to take me places then

 

[zeppelin128]

Trump Jr is pure trash.

Donald Trump Jr. Just Liked a Tweet Blaming the Florida Shooting on the Russia investigation – Mother Jones

 

[hog88]

Are you really this shallow? You don’t think guns are machines made to kill things? I guess my car isn’t something made to take me places then

Humans are made to kill things, we got to eat.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

Psychology is by its very nature largely subjective.

You guys on the right have rejected out of hand all of our calls for gun control, and said the real problem is mental illness.

Then, when we start suggesting ways to keep the mentally ill away from guns, your response is that its too subjective.

You can't have it both ways. You can't avoid gun control by blaming it on the failure to detect mental health problems, then confess those are so hard to identify it will never work.

I'm totally for having qualifying requirements, that include many hours of real training, real testing and even some mental testing in order to purchase a firearm of any kind. This would only change how the killers purchase their weapons. Crazy Johnny would just go to the local blackmarket and pay double for his next weapon. What does he care, not planning on living any longer in most cases. He could gain access to his relatives guns. He could steal the gun. Congress talking about gun control is like 2 fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

 

[tumscalcium]

Are you really this shallow? You don’t think guns are machines made to kill things? I guess my car isn’t something made to take me places then

You car was made to kill. It’s 2 tons, designed to go over 100 mph and you can aim in in any direction.

You decide to use yours to take you places.

In fact, cars have killed significantly more people as of late.

 

[Grand Vol]

Are you really this shallow? You don’t think guns are machines made to kill things? I guess my car isn’t something made to take me places then

There is a duality with firearms. They are designed to kill.

But they are also designed to protect.

In the wrong hands, it's used to murder.

In the right hands it's used to save a life.

Funny how that works.

 

[T-TownVol]

Are you really this shallow? You don’t think guns are machines made to kill things? I guess my car isn’t something made to take me places then

Take the emotion out of it Francis.....

 

[05_never_again]

Psychology is by its very nature largely subjective.

You guys on the right have rejected out of hand all of our calls for gun control, and said the real problem is mental illness.

Then, when we start suggesting ways to keep the mentally ill away from guns, your response is that its too subjective.

You can't have it both ways. You can't avoid gun control by blaming it on the failure to detect mental health problems, then confess those are so hard to identify it will never work.

1. The United States has a "gun culture." I'm not saying it is good or bad; it just is. Guns being part of the fabric of wide parts of the society and the wide availability of guns would continue even with more restrictive gun laws.
2. To my knowledge, the United States is the only large country (i.e., over 100m population) with said gun culture. Other countries that have a tradition of guns (i.e., Switzerland) are much smaller, more ethnically homogeneous societies and aren't good comparisons.
3. All countries have crazy people, but the United States (again, to my knowledge) is the only large country to have a gun culture coupled with crazy people (and crazy people on lots of medication).

The reason lots of European countries don't have lots of gun crime or massacres like this isn't because they have restrictive gun laws. It's because the populace just simply really isn't into guns. The UK can do a handgun ban, or Australia can do a "turn your guns in" campaign because there simply aren't that many in the country. In the UK, for example, their rates of crimes committed with guns is lower (there aren't many in the country to begin with), but their overall crime rate is much more comparable to the US, with rates for some non-gun crimes (car theft, kidnapping, breaking and entering, etc.) actually being higher than the US.

The United States is unique because more restrictive gun laws are not going to solve the problem, and standards of who we deem "mentally ill" are pretty arbitrary and subjective. I bet you can define damn near half the population as having some kind of "mental issue" if you wanted to. Just look at the amounts of medication that is prescribed and consumed. It isn't having it both ways; it's just true.

 

[Burhead]

I heard that being on the terrorist watch list does not keep one from being able to legally purchase a gun.

We can already identify mentally and emotionally unstable people, the problem is the NRA gun nut zealots will fight every attempt to restrict the sell of guns.

Posted this in the other school shooting thread:

My issue is this: let's start enforcing the laws on the books first. The Texas church shooting could have been prevented had the existing law worked. Instead government negligence by the USAF, by failing to alert the FBI of the shooter's dishonorable discharge, allowed the suspect to purchase the weapon. Theoretically the law we had already would have stopped that incident.

Another issue is we don't need to make policy and constitutional decisions in the immediate aftermath of tragedy. We did so after 9/11 and that led to the passing of the Patriot Act and other government surveillance bills to pacify the fears of the population. I', but I'm not comfortable allowing emotional overreactions dictate policy.