News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

School murder

Started by Ecurb Noselrub, May 04, 2022, 12:17:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

US "culture", with respect to firearms, was not always like this. It is a phenomenon of the past 20 years or so. One way to fix it is to ban assault weapons and body armor. The shooter here was able to buy a WMD and body armor too easily. We can fix that with tighter restrictions on fire arms. We can ban magazines that have more than a certain number of bullets. There are things that can be done. Like racism, we can't get rid of the inner issues, but we can fix some of the outer ones.

People used to be satisfied with a shotgun or deer rifle, and a pistol for target practice. 25 years or so ago there were no assault weapons.  Now, lots of people have them, but people having these weapons does not stop shooters from killing children in school. So, that is not a good argument for having them. Arming teachers is even worse - if you have armed personnel in school, someone is going to get shot.  Armed guards don't even help if the shooter is wearing body armor, as we saw in Buffalo. Just ban assault weapons. If you don't have access to them, you can't buy them when you turn 18. We can all keep our hunting rifles and pistols for self-protection, but we don't need assault rifles for that.

Asmodean

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 25, 2022, 10:57:50 AMUS "culture", with respect to firearms, was not always like this. It is a phenomenon of the past 20 years or so. One way to fix it is to ban assault weapons and body armor. The shooter here was able to buy a WMD and body armor too easily. We can fix that with tighter restrictions on fire arms. We can ban magazines that have more than a certain number of bullets. There are things that can be done. Like racism, we can't get rid of the inner issues, but we can fix some of the outer ones.
Would you, though? Be rid of those outer issues?

To put it this way, let us assume that I am a drug cartel, moving me some nice white powders into the United States. I know that the US government has made it harder to get an "assault weapon," whatever that means, with a high capacity magazine. I know that them Americans do love some boomstick, and so I start moving them. In that scenario, it would be as "hard" to get an automatic rifle as it is to get heroin. That's not far from the situation I find myself in. If it occurred to me to shoot up a school and I decided to act on it, the biggest hassle would honestly be getting the ammo (Assuming the same drug cartel doesn't move that, too)

QuotePeople used to be satisfied with a shotgun or deer rifle, and a pistol for target practice. 25 years or so ago there were no assault weapons.
For those of us less versed in US terminology, what makes a weapon "assault?"

QuoteNow, lots of people have them, but people having these weapons does not stop shooters from killing children in school. So, that is not a good argument for having them.
Do they actually argue that the reason for having one is protection from mass shootings? I mean, there are far better reasons. For instance, if you happen to be defending against a group of violent rioters, being able to take down multiple targets quickly may well save your ass.

The best thing is, of course, not to be in a violent riot, but if they break the windows and get into your home, where your children are... What, by that point, is the reasoning behind not being able to hose them down with machinegun fire?

QuoteArming teachers is even worse - if you have armed personnel in school, someone is going to get shot.  Armed guards don't even help if the shooter is wearing body armor, as we saw in Buffalo. Just ban assault weapons. If you don't have access to them, you can't buy them when you turn 18. We can all keep our hunting rifles and pistols for self-protection, but we don't need assault rifles for that.
I agree that the solution probably is not arming more people with heavier weapons - that would be the definition of an arms race. A ban, however... How much would it actually solve.

Let's look at the abovementioned Buffalo, for instance. What would that shooter have had to do to get an equivalent weapon if he could not have walked into a store and bought one? How many more steps would that take? How much more time? Would it have caused the would-be shooter to... What? Just give up? Go on a stabbing spree in stead? Cook up a fertilizer bomb?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Tom62

The problem is not so much the guns themselves. Yes, assault weapons should not be easily available for the common public but on the other hand no reasonable, sensible person will go on a killing spree with them. Like Asmo already said, there is any law that could and will stop a determined crazy person to get hold of such a weapon. It would be a bit more problematic here in Europe than in the USA, but there are ways to get them (for example on the Dark Web).

The problem will not solve itself. Implementing stronger anti-gun laws may sound great on paper, but are very ineffective. For example Chicago has very strong gun laws, but that doesn't stop people to kill each other there in great numbers on a daily basis.

I believe that you should solve problems by the roots. That means addressing mental health issues and making sure that mentally unstable people are identified as quickly as possible and are offered help to bring them back to normality. In this particular case (and several others) the gunman posted on social media what he was going to do. That should have raised many red flags.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Asmodean

Quote from: Tom62 on May 25, 2022, 12:18:35 PMIn this particular case (and several others) the gunman posted on social media what he was going to do.
That practically screams "stop me," doesn't it?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Tom62

Germany has very strong anti gun laws. Nevertheless there was a school shooting in Bremerhafen six days ago (one person injured) and another one in Heidelberg in January of this year (one dead and three injured).

It also pays off to check social media. In the beginning of this month investigators in Germany's city of Essen said they foiled a school bomb assault, as they arrested a 16-year-old who is suspected to have been planning a "Nazi terror attack". Police in Essen stormed the teen's room overnight, taking him into custody and uncovering 16 "pipe bombs", as well as anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim material.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

billy rubin

#20
ive thought abiut this a lot. there are guns all over where i live. i always assume the people i stop to chat with on my dirt roads are armed. they genenerally are, as am i. i have a concealed carry permit, and i always have a semiautomatic pistol with me.

there are around 400 million guns in america. even if it wouldnt caise widespread civil disobedience, registration, general licensing, and confiscation wont work. tbe guns are here to stay.

but things can be done:

- license all semiautomatic long guns and charge a large federal fee to own one. grandfather the ones here. this is why machine, submachine, and machine pistols disappeated from tbe american market.  this would be very unpopular, but lever action, bolt action, and pump action guns are all multi shot and work for defense, hunting, and targe t. this means my innocuous 22 caliber semi auto rifle would be regulated in the same way as an AK47.

-- require universal background checks. this is a no brainer, and is done every day in ten minutes at gun shows. if you cannot legally own a gun, you should not be able to buy one.

-- make the owners responsible for locking up their guns. half the american school shootings since 1990 could have been prevented this way. like the oxford parents, if they dont take respobsible safeguards, make them criminally liable for death and injury.

-- ditch tbe constitutional carry crap. the second amendment reqires a "well regulated" militia. so require classroom instruction and live fire training to buy and carry a gun. we already require gun training before a kid can get a hunting license. make training mandatory. do the backgtound check then too.

-- make and enforce redflag laws. if a judge decides that you are a dNger to yourself and ithers, then have him issue a court order to remove your guns and store them until you show c a use why the order should be rescinded.

 none of this addresses the root causes, but im happy to treat the symptoms until we figure out what the root causes are. tuff like this could move the country closer to a balance point between tbe constitutional right to own a gun and the constitutional right to be secure in your person.



more people have been to berlin than i have

Ecurb Noselrub

I think billy's suggestions are good. To answer the Asmo, an assault weapon is typically semiautomatic, with some other feature like large magazines or bayonet attachments.  As we have seen with racism, if you treat the symptoms, eventually people's attitudes change. Very few people today seriously advocate for slavery as they did in 1860 or segregation as they did in 1960. The legal fixes eventually resulted in a more tolerant society. Of course, racism still exists, but nothing like during Jim Crow.

So, if we change gun laws to provide for more serious background checks, eventually (years later) it could result in changed attitudes. People didn't like seatbelts when they were first mandated, but now they are second-nature. 

Ecurb Noselrub

A little history on Uvalde. It was the home of John Nance Garner, a former US Speaker of the House, and Vice-President for two terms under FDR. Garner State Park north of Uvalde is named for him. Now it is predominantly Latino.

This killing was not racial/ethnic: it was a Latino killing mainly Latinos. Obviously, the killer had mental health issues of some sort, but we may never know. Word is that he was bullied in school and had stopped going to class. So all kinds of layers here. 

All the deaths were in one classroom. One can only imagine the horror.

billy rubin

#23
i once counted up deaths in recent mass shootings- 4 or more deaths, iirc

most people in mass shootings were killed with pistols, shotguns, and non semiautomatic rifles

but the shootings that killed the most people in one go were mostly AR15 clones.

the assault rifle killings are the ones thst get the attention, because so many people die at once. but more people are killed in total with more garden-variety guns.

we have had 27 school shootings in the states this year. most were not assault rifles.

the assault rifles get the press, but regulating other guns will save more lives



more people have been to berlin than i have

Anne D.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 25, 2022, 12:14:48 PM
QuoteNow, lots of people have them, but people having these weapons does not stop shooters from killing children in school. So, that is not a good argument for having them.
Do they actually argue that the reason for having one is protection from mass shootings?

Yes, this is a frequent refrain on the American right after a mass shooting.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 25, 2022, 12:14:48 PMI mean, there are far better reasons. For instance, if you happen to be defending against a group of violent rioters, being able to take down multiple targets quickly may well save your ass.

The best thing is, of course, not to be in a violent riot, but if they break the windows and get into your home, where your children are... What, by that point, is the reasoning behind not being able to hose them down with machinegun fire?

What? This is a truly bizarre imagined scenario. It reads like a personal fantasy where you imagine yourself playing the hero. I'm not recalling any instances of violent rioters breaking into family homes to kill one's children. On the other hand, the U.S. has a mass shooting at least monthly.

billy, I like your listed proposals; they make a lot of sense.

Asmodean

#25
Quote from: Anne D. on May 26, 2022, 01:44:11 AMWhat? This is a truly bizarre imagined scenario. It reads like a personal fantasy where you imagine yourself playing the hero. I'm not recalling any instances of violent rioters breaking into family homes to kill one's children. On the other hand, the U.S. has a mass shooting at least monthly.
It may be bizarre, but it is precisely how I would justify acquiring a "military-grade" weapon.

When it comes to simple home defence, a pump action shotgun - or even a double barrel one can be utterly devastating in most circumstances. Good stopping power vs unarmoured targets, the spread of projectiles means that you don't have to be very accurate to be very deadly and it's not hard to learn, operate or maintain. Except.

...Except when the attackers are many. And by that, I mean three or more. And in what situation can a person expect to encounter so many attackers in their own home or place of business? A violent riot seems like an excellent example. And when faced with multiple attackers, a semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifle of sufficient calibre can provide you with exactly the edge to emerge alive from that situation - and/or to see that those you try to protect do.

As an aside, it doesn't really matter if they break in specifically to kill your children. If a reasonable parent in those circumstances would be expected to think that their children's (or, heck, their own - I just brought kids in it from personal perspective. I would probably hesitate to kill another person for me. For someone I love..? A-whole-nother story.) life and/or health was in danger, they would have the right to use lethal force in defence.

So yeah... I think something like, say, an AR15 can have its niche in self defence. I don't think you should just be able to walk into a store and buy one - for instance, I think a gun licence with a maintenance requirement would be quite in order, but I don't think that you should not be able to get or keep one as long as it's reasonable to assume that you would not use it in an unlawful or unsafe manner. But then, I would apply that to hunting and hobby weapons as well - be it a bow, a musket or a rocket launcher.

A other aside; I do like most of billy rubin's suggestions, though the sceptic in me wonders how much they would achieve in actually deterring a determined would-be killer.

[EDIT] Just another side note; I do find the notion that having a arsenal big enough to outfit some standing armies makes The Government(tm) fear you laughable. Yes, force can be used to devastating effect as an instance of diplomacy. However, there are tools there that prove just as effective. Manipulation. Bribery. False flagging. Others - that toolbox runs deep. You may think that you defend your freedom with your guns - and willingly give it away. I have heard that argument be made, and have had some tête-à-têtes here and there, and while some arguments are more plausible than others... Yeah... No. A civil war is not the population fighting their government - it's a part of the population fighting another. As a private citizen, you are unlikely to bring something to the table that your opponents won't - at least on a strategic level. I would expect The Government(tm) to be aware of that to the point that in the event of such a conflict, their "head count" would go towards the military, local authorities and the like before it ever gets to revolutionary or counter-revolutionary civilians.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

Quote from: Asmodean on May 26, 2022, 06:43:40 PMA other aside; I do like most of billy rubin's suggestions, though the sceptic in me wonders how much they would achieve in actually deterring a determined would-be killer.


they wouldnt. nothing will deter someone bent on killing people, except for a paradigm shift in tbe reasons american white men run amok.

the only solution i have is pragmatic. i am armed with a weapon whenever i leave tbe house. when i sleep, there is a loaded weapon within easy reach of me at all times. when i work on something at the farm i may not have a weapon on my person but there is one nearby.

my personal guns are always loaded and i keep additional loaded magazines with them.

my kids are familiar with guns and tbeir use, and my oldest son carries a concealed pistol, just like i do. i have told both my daughters that if they choose, i will buy them a carry gun and pay for the safety and legal traini g they should have in order to carry it.

this is not a difficult decision for me. theres no way to tell whether precautions like this will ever be of any value should i or somepne i am responsible for be put in danger. but i have been too close to too many mass shootings to pretend that it cant ever happen to me.



more people have been to berlin than i have

billy rubin

just as an aside, whats with the new fashion in mass shootings of wearing body armour? they used to want to get killed as part of the finale. now tbeyre outfitting themselves like tbeyre in a video game?

i would restrict body armour to police and licensed security personell. i cant think of a law abiding reason to need body armour.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Bluenose

As an outside observer of the US gun related problems, I would like to make a couple of observations.

The propensity to blame mass shootings on mental illness completely misses the point, IMHO.  The real cause is the sheer number of guns in private hands in America. Limiting access to certain (new) weapons will never solve the problem, given the number already out there.  As unpalatable as it may seem, some sort of process to reduce the number of firearms in private ownership needs to occur.  What about the Second Amendment, I can already hear the ammosexuals asking?  Well, first I fail to see how the current situation has anything to do with a well regulated militia, but furthermore, if the US Constitution can be amended before it can be amended again.  Repeal the bloody thing!

The right-wingers often claim that "they're coming for our guns".  Well, maybe that is exactly what needs to happen, more or less.  Compulsory buy-back schemes can actually work: vide the semi-automatic buy-back in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre.

My suggested ideas are:
  • Require a license for all firearms
  • Police check required to get a license
  • Limit hand guns to members of pistol clubs (for recreational target shooting only)
  • All firearms to be registered
  • All firearms to be securely stored when not in actual use
  • Ban all semi-automatic long arms (buy-back existing guns)
  • Limit magazine capacity (6 rounds?)

This is never going to be easy, but unless we start to look at the real issues rather than throw our hands in the air and shout "it's all too hard", we will continue to read about more senseless killings of defenceless, innocent children.

+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett


Ecurb Noselrub

The states with the most guns have the most gun deaths. A lot of them are suicides, but they are still gun deaths.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/gun-violence-data-what-matters/index.html

Looking at these states, they are basically Red. States with fewer gun deaths are Blue. Gov. Abbott in TX once stated that he was embarrassed that California had more gun sales.  https://news.yahoo.com/texas-gov-greg-abbott-tweeted-075023711.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFQtgEGTkbCqXdRKtOCnnvKHZZYE9LZDzPbn4zOoh3lzSiyQj7sZdYaWSDtdvzMZxoZK6CI78oO29s1nIHYvoLYHzGuMbWXjKJeF_XTvuyTneX5pyBVec-WTdOUuMSGMJzoRL6Fl1uVntlvjHkEwvIG8HPgN2QeaV9DWPpADRwSh

It seems pretty clear that if you have fewer guns, you have fewer gun deaths. So....