Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 21631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #315 on: February 23, 2018, 03:25:44 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3449
  • Tommy Points: 581
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

True. But just because it wouldn't be super effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yeah, but there is a real danger that we will fall for the trick of passing what is essentially meaningless and useless legislation and certain politicians will hide behind it as 'tough gun legislation' and 'standing up to the NRA!'.

Let's raise the age to 91.  That might actually be effective. 
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #316 on: February 23, 2018, 03:34:51 PM »

Offline jaketwice

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1372
  • Tommy Points: 102
Ra ra ra! I'm a Republican! My party tells me to oppose gun control so I oppose it!

Blind faith. #notinteresting


Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #317 on: February 23, 2018, 03:47:10 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18688
  • Tommy Points: 2079
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Ra ra ra! I'm a Republican! My party tells me to oppose gun control so I oppose it!

Blind faith. #notinteresting

There's...almost none of that in here.  A lot of thoughtful individual perspectives instead.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #318 on: February 23, 2018, 03:51:33 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 917
  • Tommy Points: 80
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

True. But just because it wouldn't be super effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yeah, but there is a real danger that we will fall for the trick of passing what is essentially meaningless and useless legislation and certain politicians will hide behind it as 'tough gun legislation' and 'standing up to the NRA!'.

Let's raise the age to 91.  That might actually be effective.

It's a good point, we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum and call it victory. But at this point it would feel like victory.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #319 on: February 23, 2018, 05:55:29 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12876
  • Tommy Points: 1468
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

True. But just because it wouldn't be super effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yeah, but there is a real danger that we will fall for the trick of passing what is essentially meaningless and useless legislation and certain politicians will hide behind it as 'tough gun legislation' and 'standing up to the NRA!'.

Let's raise the age to 91.  That might actually be effective.

It's a good point, we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum and call it victory. But at this point it would feel like victory.

When you hold the line so firmly as the NRA and its favored politicians like Rick Scott and Marco Rubio have done for so many years and then let go of just a tiny piece, the tendency is to call that "movement" or "a start" or "progress".   But this is the game they've been playing for decades, and I think most people would agree that gun violence is just getting worse.   They continue to close the door on anything that has to do with restricting the sale of "war guns" or high capacity magazines.  They continue to use inflammatory rhetoric to rationalize their positions and label those who oppose them with the harshest of characterizations: if you want to ban AK-47's you are an enemy of individual freedom.   Wayne Lapriere listens to no one.  When reasonable people talk about wanting to preserve the 2nd amendment but modify it's scope, or re-interpret it based on current conditions (as we've done with the first amendment), he rallies the base with hyperbole and fear-mongering.  It is no different than when liberals mischaracterize conservatives as racist.  The hatred is wrong and it is killing this country, body and soul.  We need senators and congress to open the dialogue to consider (consider)  measures that could, in a package proposal, have an impact. We all know there is not a singular approach that will do the job.   We also know that ""bump-stocks", raising the age to 21, and strengethening background checks are all VERY low-hanging fruit.   I refuse to say "movement" or "progress" until our leaders are seriously addressing and including the banning of war guns and high capacity magazines.  If this congress can't handle it, VOTE THEM OUT. 



Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #320 on: February 23, 2018, 06:55:39 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33460
  • Tommy Points: 5516
NRA losing sponsors over stance after Parkland:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/366548002

Dana Loesch: "Many in legacy media love mass shootings."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/dana-loesch-cpac-media/index.html


« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 07:19:19 PM by nickagneta »

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #321 on: February 23, 2018, 07:07:27 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35924
  • Tommy Points: -27666
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Dana Loesch: "Many in legacy media love mass shootings.

I donít think sheís wrong. Terrorism, child abductions, school shootings, natural disasters, car wrecks.
That stuff sells, so the media eats it up.  Corporations donít have much of a social conscience.



The above is a good movie exploring some of that.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #322 on: February 23, 2018, 07:15:15 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35924
  • Tommy Points: -27666
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #323 on: February 23, 2018, 07:23:36 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8229
  • Tommy Points: 903
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #324 on: February 23, 2018, 07:34:12 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35924
  • Tommy Points: -27666
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

Yes, officers that respond to crimes with regularity.

The SRO is a coward, but I guess I can understand how people get complacent in a job like his.  The other officers presumably more regularly respond to dangerous situations, or it was at least likely theyíd do so.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #325 on: February 23, 2018, 07:34:15 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12876
  • Tommy Points: 1468
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent.  Trump has this notion that delusional and dissociated individuals, whether they are world leaders ("Rocket Man") or school shooters (Lansa; Cruz), actually think rationally.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #326 on: February 23, 2018, 07:41:27 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8229
  • Tommy Points: 903
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

Yes, officers that respond to crimes with regularity.

The SRO is a coward, but I guess I can understand how people get complacent in a job like his.  The other officers presumably more regularly respond to dangerous situations, or it was at least likely theyíd do so.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. I think that just comes from within. Whether he was handling calls daily or dealing with kids skipping school the fight or flight was clearly leaning one way with him. Besides, handling calls daily wouldn't replicate the echoing sounds of an AR and the overall situation he was dealing with, so he would've hid no matter his current assignment.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #327 on: February 23, 2018, 07:47:04 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8229
  • Tommy Points: 903
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #328 on: February 23, 2018, 08:02:38 PM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 641
  • Tommy Points: 136
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #329 on: February 23, 2018, 08:27:09 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8229
  • Tommy Points: 903
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.