Mass/Active Shooters, Part **FIVE**

[JDCrimson]

I wonder if he would answer the same about attempted presidential assassinations?

of course "soft targets" just can't even hold his political propaganda BS in the wake yet another tragedy

in case any of you are wondering, there is a right wing claim that 'gun free zones' create soft targets for shooters. So some statisticians decided to look into it and the early results are, well, let's just say Vance should read more and talk less.

Study suggests gun-free zones do not attract mass shootings

Gun-free zones have often been blamed for making schools, malls and other public areas more attractive to shooters; however, there have been no quantitative studies examining those claims. Now, in a first of its kind study published in The Lancet Regional Health - Americas, researchers at UC...

phys.org

 

[jthomas666]

JD Vance says he laments that school shootings are a 'fact of life' and calls for better security

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance says school shootings are a “fact of life" and the U.S. needs to harden security to prevent more carnage.

apnews.com

JD Vance says school shootings are a ‘fact of life,’ calls for better security

That's gonna get thrown back at him the rest of the campaign: The facts of life: Birds, bees, and bullets

 

[bvandegraff]

Our culture has been broken for decades upon decades and it didn't just start with the rise of mass shootings. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the "right wing loonies" aren't the cause either. You could round up all of "those people", and lock them all up in prison and it wouldn't end mass shootings or decrease them one bit. We seek simple solutions for complex problems because that's how the brain works. My list of things as to why we've gotten to the point in our country won't look like yours, though we probably have some of the same things on our list. But I am not naive enough to believe it's because of "one thing" or one group of people. If it were, this problem would have been solved a long time ago.

Solutions have to be implemented into a society's current circumstances and our current circumstance is there are a massive amount of guns in this country owned legally by millions of law abiding citizens. So whatever solution is brought to the table, if one of them is to remove their right to keep and/or use the guns they currently own you can guarantee you will create a bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve. Granted, I'm not saying you specifically are suggesting this, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are literally MILLIONS of guns legally owned by law abiding citizens who are used to having that right. That is a dynamic that has to be considered when bringing solutions to the table.

This. We allowed this problem to fester for far too many decades, so any solution will seem radical to some degree or another. I don't have a problem with people lawfully and safely owning handguns or rifles for protection and/or sport, but when state legislators think the answer to gun violence is to remove any safeguards and create more loopholes to own and carry guns, we've gone straight into Orwell territory.

EDIT: Just saw the gun insurance post. Very clever idea!

An assault weapon ban is a logical first step, given that so many of these shootings are carried out with AR-15s or similar weapons. This type of weapon didn't exist when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, and nobody outside the military needs them. An assault weapons for cash (or some other incentive) exchange might encourage voluntary turn-ins, then get warrants and SWAT teams to confiscate the ones owned by bad apples. It would at least be a start. I was taught in drivers ed back in the '80s that a car used improperly can become a weapon, so, quite logically, there is a lengthy licensure process we consent to go through for the privilege of driving a car. Since guns actually are weapons created to kill quickly and efficiently, isn't some sort of licensure process to own and operate a gun logical? A background check?

Here's my favorite example of out-of-control gun fetishization. A man from Texas actually petitioned the US Supreme Court to reverse the (Texas!) state law banning domestic abusers from owning guns because he was a domestic abuser and wanted to possess a gun. You know someone or some organization paid his lawyers' fees because they thought they had a shot at getting this court to overturn it on the absurd basis of "original intent", which, to their credit, they didn't. We have this problem because so many people have bought into the phony idea that "the gummint's coming' for yer guns" and too many politicians are cowards, windsocks, or bought and paid for by the gun lobby.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

The recent GOP convention arena was a “gun free zone.” Strange our 2nd amendment champions weren’t demanding to open carry there. Almost seems like a double standard. If guns aren’t the problem, why were they not allowed at the convention?

 

[AlexanderFan]

No, those people are still wrong. I have watched R rated movies since I was old enough, maybe before. I have played violent video games for 20+ years. GTA is one of my favorite game series. I have never had a single thought or urge to steal cars and shoot people. The attacks on video games in the 90's and early 2000s was ridiculous, just like the attack on comic books decades earlier. The people leading these charges are just scared of things they don't understand. The "we didn't need that when I was young" mentality.

Explain this to me, those same video games are available all over the world, but the US is the only country that has this mass shooting problem.

The one constant is the easy access to guns in this country. This is the only country in the world that has more guns then people. The right refuses to do anything to close that "loophole". They try to focus us on other things, oh it' a mental health problem, oh it's a violent movies problem, oh it's rap music, oh it's video games. They don't want us to see the real problem which is the easy access to guns. I don't want to hear the tired line "guns don't kill, people kill." If they didn't have access to the gun in the first place then it would not have happened.

You were so headed in the right direction, but go look at the cultures of the other countries. Far different than the United States.

 

[92tide]

groomers

 

[Go Bama]

To be honest, I see the increased proliferation of social media use and the massive uptick in diagnosed mental health issues to be the primary drivers of this behavior. If I could change one thing about medical prescriptions, I would make it illegal for a standard PCP to prescribe any sort of antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication. These medications should (IMO) only be prescribed by psychiatrists who are thoroughly trained in psychopharmacology and only after a patient has been properly diagnosed.

My DEA license has to be renewed every couple of years. I have the ability to prescribe any medication. However, I limit the prescriptions I write to drugs that will help my patients and that I am familiar with. Some patients will ask for a drug their PCP usually prescribes. When this happens, I simply tell them no, that drug is beyond my purview.

The point here is that anyone with a DEA license who has not restricted their license on the application can prescribe any drug.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Washington Post gift link

The case for mandatory gun-liability insurance
You have to buy insurance to drive a car. Why not if you own a gun?

One possibility — long advocated by some economists — is to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. This would create a several-hundred-billion-dollar incentive for insurers to find ways to reduce gun violence. Relative to other regulations, this requirement might even appeal to some gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association wouldn’t support it, of course, but it might win support from conservatives looking for a market-based approach that wouldn’t have much impact on responsible gun owners.

Gun insurance would accomplish two goals: First, it would raise the cost of gun ownership for people whose firearms are deemed relatively more likely to be used in crimes (by themselves or others), based on an assessment of risk factors made by insurance companies. That would make those people less likely to obtain guns in the first place. Second, it would provide a strong financial incentive for gun owners to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who might commit crimes with them. Granted, mass shooters won’t be concerned about their future premiums — but many owners would take steps to ensure their weapons are well secured. And a 21-year-old with a history of violent behavior might find it much harder to obtain a gun if insurers insist that they pay premiums equal to several times the purchase price of a weapon. (Insurance would be a condition of ownership.)

Pretty obvious from these posts it’s an, “assimilation by taxation” kind of thing. Live like I want you to live, or be taxed into oblivion.

Can we do abortion the same way? Gender swapping surgeries?

We can just swap massive tax increases as each party takes control.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

groomers

Gun fetish on display.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

I’ve got live coverage from the courtroom where the school shooter and his father will appear.

There are 18 family members of those slain on the front row to see/ confront the ones responsible for the deaths.

 

[Its On A Slab]

More tots and pears. That's the answer. It's been working all along.

Well, that and pray the guns away.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I didn't say that

I own guns

Maybe I misread your post and maybe my math was wrong but a 10,000.00 % tax would make one box of ammo for my .45 approximately $2,500. Which I couldn't afford

If that math is correct then basically it would make ammo unaffordable which by default would make the gun I legally own unusable. Only the rich would be able to afford ammo. So in trying to make the gun unuseable for a potential killer you're also making unuseable for me and a lot of other law abiding citizens.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Here's you're problem The Packers and the Raiders fans. They'll be the two to shoot up a school. A list came out this week on the worst fanbases in the NFL. These two made the top 10. It's always good to be able to identify potential killers.

 

[Jon]

Maybe I misread your post and maybe my math was wrong but a 10,000.00 % tax would make one box of ammo for my .45 approximately $2,500. Which I couldn't afford

If that math is correct then basically it would make ammo unaffordable which by default would make the gun I legally own unusable. Only the rich would be able to afford ammo. So in trying to make the gun unuseable for a potential killer you're also making unuseable for me and a lot of other law abiding citizens.

no one is going to rob a liquor store for a couple hundred bucks with 1000$ worth of bullets

 

[Chukker Veteran]

If the cost of cutting way back on gun crimes is to make sport shooting extremely expensive I’d take that bargain.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

no one is going to rob a liquor store for a couple hundred bucks with 1000$ worth of bullets

And outside of the rich, most law-abiding citizens couldn't afford to have a gun. I appreciate the idea because I asked for ideas, but you're basically taking gun ownership away from law-abiding citizens (who'll never kill one person) without doing it in the literal sense.

 

[AlexanderFan]

That's gonna get thrown back at him the rest of the campaign: The facts of life: Birds, bees, and bullets

Yea, funny thing about that quote. You should go look at the changed “headline”. Adds some context.

Media is balanced though.

 

[NationalTitles18]

And outside of the rich, most law-abiding citizens couldn't afford to have a gun. I appreciate the idea because I asked for ideas, but you're basically taking gun ownership away from law-abiding citizens (who'll never kill one person) without doing it in the literal sense.

Every single idea presented after being asked for gets shot down (pun not intended?).

So why don't you present some ideas you could support instead of shooting down every idea presented?

Is there any restriction on gun ownership from background checks on guns and ammunition to magazine size limits to anything else that you would support?

Would you support mental health reforms and other indirectly related ideas that are often cited by gun rights advocates as being the real cause?

General ideas are appreciated, but specific proposal are certainly even more welcome.

I just don't see how the onus can be put on others to come up with ideas while you just sit back and shoot holes in those ideas continually. Tell us what you ideas are.

 

[92tide]

i hear the connells are going to release a new song, “jd’s lament”

 

[Chukker Veteran]

And outside of the rich, most law-abiding citizens couldn't afford to have a gun. I appreciate the idea because I asked for ideas, but you're basically taking gun ownership away from law-abiding citizens (who'll never kill one person) without doing it in the literal sense.

i know that seems extreme but what we’ve seen out of the gun lobby has been extreme inflexibility towards any gun regulation. Meanwhile we are told school shootings are a fact of life we will have to live with. That seems extreme also.