IGX

....and our illustrious president's ridiculous remarks on more gun control shortly afterward and before the bodies were even cold?

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel

Oh, Da Prez just LOVES these types of shootings. Nothing like a flashpoint domestic tragedy to take the eyes and minds of the already brainless populace away from real concerns like the Iran nuke deal, Putin cuckolding our "leaders" in Syria, and the fact that there's about 95 million Americans not participating in the workforce.

The really interesting thing about this shooting is how it will be ultimately treated and what narratives will come from it. I'm sure left wingers will have a field day over the fact that the shooter was a self-proclaimed conservative Republican. Unfortunately for gun control loving Democrats, he doesn't fit the white, racist, Christian, NRA profile that they like to vilify at every chance. On the contrary, he was evidently the mulatto alpha male amongst lonely, atheist, disgruntled, semi-intelligent, 4Chan griefer units. Unlike Dylan Roof, they're going to have a hard time morphing this incident into an attack on whatever offensive totems they'd like to subject to a Stalinesque public burning.

As for that nigger flummoxed community organizer in Washington, I'd love to sit down over coffee sometime and remind him that this many niglets are shot during the average Labor Day weekend in the once great city of Chicago. I'm not sure what gets them so riled up over Labor Day...it's not like they were going to work on Monday, regardless.

For my part to help gun control and promote a more safe nation, I think they should add another line to Form 4473 where you have to specify whether or not you are a red pilled, MGTOW, 4Chan virgin who couldn't get laid even if the family dog was still sedated from its trip to the veterinarian. At that point, not only would they be denied sale of a firearm, but they would be detained until law enforcement arrives so that they can be escorted into the alley behind the store to be executed on the spot.

Kaz I don't get your opening quote... Is trying to address a crisis a bad thing?

I'd like to hear a serious proposal, i.e. one that would have a significant impact on US murders. This rules out laughable shit like an "Assault Weapon" ban or magazine limitations.

As I see it, only Australian-style massive gun confiscation could have any impact. And confiscation would create much disobedience and turmoil.

***

PS - Not clear that Australia's confiscation actually reduced the murder rate. Pretty much a zero effect for such a radical move.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/v ... ntCol.html

johno wrote:I'd like to hear a serious proposal, i.e. one that would have a significant impact on US murders. This rules out laughable shit like an "Assault Weapon" ban or magazine limitations.

As I see it, only Australian-style massive gun confiscation could have any impact. And confiscation would create much disobedience and turmoil.

***

PS - Not clear that Australia's confiscation actually reduced the murder rate. Pretty much a zero effect for such a radical move.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/v ... ntCol.html

This is the part of the debate we never ever get to. Down to brass tacks..what are the best ideas no one is thinking of. Cause classic "gun control" is an abject failure and confiscation is a non starter...cause of like...the Constitution.

Andy82 wrote:....and our illustrious president's ridiculous remarks on more gun control shortly afterward and before the bodies were even cold?

http://www.theonion.com/article/man-can ... anti-51455

Man Can’t Believe Obama Would Use Tragedy To Push Anti-Tragedy Agenda

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:I'd like to hear a serious proposal, i.e. one that would have a significant impact on US murders. This rules out laughable shit like an "Assault Weapon" ban or magazine limitations.

As I see it, only Australian-style massive gun confiscation could have any impact. And confiscation would create much disobedience and turmoil.

***

PS - Not clear that Australia's confiscation actually reduced the murder rate. Pretty much a zero effect for such a radical move.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/v ... ntCol.html

This is the part of the debate we never ever get to. Down to brass tacks..what are the best ideas no one is thinking of. Cause classic "gun control" is an abject failure and confiscation is a non starter...cause of like...the Constitution.

Background checks with systems tied into mental health records. Better access to mental health treatment, and a return to institutionalization of nutbags.

TerryB wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:I'd like to hear a serious proposal, i.e. one that would have a significant impact on US murders. This rules out laughable shit like an "Assault Weapon" ban or magazine limitations.

As I see it, only Australian-style massive gun confiscation could have any impact. And confiscation would create much disobedience and turmoil.

***

PS - Not clear that Australia's confiscation actually reduced the murder rate. Pretty much a zero effect for such a radical move.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/v ... ntCol.html

This is the part of the debate we never ever get to. Down to brass tacks..what are the best ideas no one is thinking of. Cause classic "gun control" is an abject failure and confiscation is a non starter...cause of like...the Constitution.

Background checks with systems tied into mental health records. Better access to mental health treatment, and a return to institutionalization of nutbags.

That would go a long way towards minimizing mass killings. Massive police and social service intervention in violent disintegrated communities and attacking gang culture across society would help with the Chicago type of murder mayhem.

Both require tons of money and will. Better to just retreat into our corners and fight ideological enemies I'm afraid. When 40% of the US hates another 40%, it's hard to do difficult things.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Massive police and social service intervention in violent disintegrated communities and attacking gang culture across society would help with the Chicago type of murder mayhem.

Plenty of resources are already dumped into those communities, or readily available for access. You can get housing assistance, medical care (esp. for children), utility bill assistance, food assistance, free education (with special interventions for kids with problems), free cell phones and service, etc etc.

They still shoot each other every day.

NICS tied into mental health would, rightly, be seen as remarkably intrusive. Do we really want the federal government to have a database of every doctor's visit you've ever had and the findings? As a somewhat radical civil libertarian I'd sooner see confiscation than that.
Nor would it be a solution. You can still steal guns or buy them face to face (banning F2F transactions is... unlikely to be effective IMO). Not to mention the number of crazy and depressed people who wouldn't be in that database.

As a nation with almost as many guns in private hands, largely untraceable, as we have citizens there is no real answer to this. My liberal friends are shitting on Jeb, but for once he ain't wrong. Crazies gonna crazy as it has been since the dawn of time. Mass shootings still account for a minute percentage of non-suicide gun deaths and if you want to start talking about reducing those you need to start looking at what other, less homicidal, states are doing better than us aside from confiscation (being utterly unrealistic).

All solutions hit a brick wall insofar as no developed nation that introduced successful confiscation/possession laws had nearly as many guns in private hands as we do.

I pretty much think nothing can be done about mass shootings. Even if an armed guard was posted at each location, either they 1) would shoot the guard first or 2) attack far enough away from the guard so significant mayhem could be done.

I've been thinking about it all day, and the only thing that would help is if everybody was well-fucked by someone who liked them.

We have a track record of getting rid of guns we don't want. We don't have a Thompson SMG or BAR problem any more (not sure how much of one we had, but they're gone nonetheless).

johno wrote:As I see it, only Australian-style massive gun confiscation could have any impact. And confiscation would create much disobedience and turmoil.

Assuming the political will was there, but not all the citizens were on board, which is pretty much the best you can hope for, you pass a Registration and Rechambering Act.

New firearms get as tough to buy other developed countries.
New firearms are sold in new calibers or cartridge lengths incompatible with pre-Act firearms.
Ban manufacture and import of old-caliber ammo above .22 cal, and conversion kits.

There will still be a black market for the old ammo, but it will become insanely expensive and difficult to acquire.

That's if the goal is to have a measurable impact on across-the-board shootings in a single piece of legislation. Most people would be pretty happy with less.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:We have a track record of getting rid of guns we don't want. We don't have a Thompson SMG or BAR problem any more (not sure how much of one we had, but they're gone nonetheless).

johno wrote:As I see it, only Australian-style massive gun confiscation could have any impact. And confiscation would create much disobedience and turmoil.

Assuming the political will was there, but not all the citizens were on board, which is pretty much the best you can hope for, you pass a Registration and Rechambering Act.

New firearms get as tough to buy other developed countries.
New firearms are sold in new calibers or cartridge lengths incompatible with pre-Act firearms.
Ban manufacture and import of old-caliber ammo above .22 cal, and conversion kits.

There will still be a black market for the old ammo, but it will become insanely expensive and difficult to acquire.

That's if the goal is to have a measurable impact on across-the-board shootings in a single piece of legislation. Most people would be pretty happy with less.

How are those measures add up to any more of a nonstarter as confiscation? Under the current case law, you'd have to make some very tortured arguments that this is not just as infringed as registration...which is probably the only legal step that could be taken. I'd argue it won't do shit but full registration is very likely defensible.


As for the question of select fire weapons, we never had an actual auto-weapon problem...ever, in fact I'd lay odds that there are more select fire weapons in legal circulation now, than were ever in circulation before the law changed. This goes to the original question though.....why do we continue to misrepresent the actual technical issues of shooting a whole slew of people...Nothing can be done with rapid fire weapons that can't be done just as readily as your grandfathers M1.

Until a public health wonk with balls is willing to make the (essentially unarguably correct) case that mass shootings are not a gun issue. Thousands of ghetto kids with pocket .38's are the actual public health concern.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:How are those measures add up to any more of a nonstarter as confiscation?

If you mean practicality of implementation, it's less of a non-starter as it doesn't require much in the way of cooperation from people who want to keep their guns. Regulating factories and imports is easy by comparison.

If you mean political non-starter, I obviously agree.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:We have a track record of getting rid of guns we don't want. We don't have a Thompson SMG or BAR problem any more (not sure how much of one we had, but they're gone nonetheless).

We didn't have a problem with them and they were perfectly legal to manufacture for civilian sale up until 1986 with some paperwork to deal with it. Technically both are still perfectly legal for civilian ownership (in most states) with that paperwork, only they command an absurd premium.

New firearms get as tough to buy other developed countries.

This is where the cultural aspect gets difficult - people with no familiarity with guns don't realize that everything manufactured in the last 115 years will essentially last forever. Move into the past 30 years and... you can't kill a Glock. There are examples that have fired hundreds of thousands of rounds without breaking. Other developed countries banned or confiscated much smaller numbers and (Australia aside) much older firearms. Cut off the supply of new firearms in the US tomorrow and it's irrelevant outside of driving prices on legal firearms incredibly high. Guns being moved gray or black market would still be cheap (cf. the cost of a 'legal' and 'illegal' automatic firearm is a difference of tens of thousands of dollars) because they are plentiful and, as noted, can last forever.

New firearms are sold in new calibers or cartridge lengths incompatible with pre-Act firearms.
Ban manufacture and import of old-caliber ammo above .22 cal, and conversion kits.

Both of these wouldn't get past our current Supreme Court (de facto violations of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment) and in the event that you got a more gun control-amenable Court in place, would be unnecessary - they'd just reverse Heller and open the path to bans and confiscation.

I know it's not satisfying for liberals but the best course of action is to wait - an urban population is a gun control friendly population and that's where we're headed. The number of people growing up shooting a .22 in the woods is shrinking and that cultural acceptance of firearms is a major factor on the political side. Things have phase-shifted with the GOP requirement of a hard right stance on everything, but you could see regional differences in firearms before - a Texas liberal being likely to be more okay with guns than a New York conservative and all of that.

milosz wrote:NICS tied into mental health would, rightly, be seen as remarkably intrusive. Do we really want the federal government to have a database of every doctor's visit you've ever had and the findings?

HIPAA would need to be tweaked, it kind of conflicts with itself in this regard. The as medical records get digitized, it would be easier from a technical standpoint though.

Serious conversation/research about prescribing SSRI and the known side effect of suicidal tendencies. How many of these guys are/were on them? Anecdotal, but I don't remember these things happening before the early 90s, when did SSRI's start getting commonly prescribed? Just looking for a causal relationship.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... 44825?pg=2

"In some cases, children, teenagers and young adults under 25 may have an increase in suicidal thoughts or behavior when taking antidepressants, especially in the first few weeks after starting or when the dose is changed."

Heard this mentioned yesterday, it's a quick, interesting read, the actual paper is 4 pages and linked in the article below. Lott's previous work is much longer but also linked for those interested.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-even ... -research/

Kazuya Mishima wrote:"You never let a serious crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel

Oh, Da Prez just LOVES these types of shootings. Nothing like a flashpoint domestic tragedy to take the eyes and minds of the already brainless populace away from real concerns like the Iran nuke deal, Putin cuckolding our "leaders" in Syria, and the fact that there's about 95 million Americans not participating in the workforce.

The really interesting thing about this shooting is how it will be ultimately treated and what narratives will come from it. I'm sure left wingers will have a field day over the fact that the shooter was a self-proclaimed conservative Republican. Unfortunately for gun control loving Democrats, he doesn't fit the white, racist, Christian, NRA profile that they like to vilify at every chance. On the contrary, he was evidently the mulatto alpha male amongst lonely, atheist, disgruntled, semi-intelligent, 4Chan griefer units. Unlike Dylan Roof, they're going to have a hard time morphing this incident into an attack on whatever offensive totems they'd like to subject to a Stalinesque public burning.

As for that nigger flummoxed community organizer in Washington, I'd love to sit down over coffee sometime and remind him that this many niglets are shot during the average Labor Day weekend in the once great city of Chicago. I'm not sure what gets them so riled up over Labor Day...it's not like they were going to work on Monday, regardless.

For my part to help gun control and promote a more safe nation, I think they should add another line to Form 4473 where you have to specify whether or not you are a red pilled, MGTOW, 4Chan virgin who couldn't get laid even if the family dog was still sedated from its trip to the veterinarian. At that point, not only would they be denied sale of a firearm, but they would be detained until law enforcement arrives so that they can be escorted into the alley behind the store to be executed on the spot.

Kaz, Before the days of PC polite, we called the Obama approach to solutions Nigger Logic. Do you remember? He is clearly a master of that with all his followers.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:I pretty much think nothing can be done about mass shootings. Even if an armed guard was posted at each location, either they 1) would shoot the guard first or 2) attack far enough away from the guard so significant mayhem could be done.

I've been thinking about it all day, and the only thing that would help is if everybody was well-fucked by someone who liked them.

Concealed carry. I have no 15lb brain solution to this issue but if the POS who do this grasp there is a really good chance somebody may shoot back the incidence probably drops. YMMV but not going to run and hide or run to the sound of the guns unarmed.

milosz wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: New firearms get as tough to buy other developed countries.

This is where the cultural aspect gets difficult - people with no familiarity with guns don't realize that everything manufactured in the last 115 years will essentially last forever. Move into the past 30 years and... you can't kill a Glock.... Cut off the supply of new firearms in the US tomorrow and it's irrelevant outside of driving prices on legal firearms incredibly high. Guns being moved gray or black market would still be cheap (cf. the cost of a 'legal' and 'illegal' automatic firearm is a difference of tens of thousands of dollars) because they are plentiful and, as noted, can last forever.

You replied quoting me but maybe missed the rechambering part. Current guns will last 100 years. That's why you eliminate the ammunition supply by selling new weapons and ammo with different cartridge length or calibers, and ban manufacture and import of the old stuff.

New firearms are sold in new calibers or cartridge lengths incompatible with pre-Act firearms.
Ban manufacture and import of old-caliber ammo above .22 cal, and conversion kits.

Both of these wouldn't get past our current Supreme Court (de facto violations of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment)[/quote]
Post said at the top that it assumed the political will was there. That includes all branches.

Using round numbers, if there are approx. 300,000,000 guns in the US and there are approx. 30,000 gun deaths. 99.999% of guns are minding their own business and hurting nobody.

The vast majority of the problems are with criminals and maniacs. Couldn't we just focus on that and leave everyone else alone?

I realize that's an impossible concept for libs to accept, but wouldn't it be nice?

Grandpa's Spells wrote: You replied quoting me but maybe missed the rechambering part. Current guns will last 100 years. That's why you eliminate the ammunition supply by selling new weapons and ammo with different cartridge length or calibers, and ban manufacture and import of the old stuff.

No, I covered that - with the current USSC makeup, de facto bans aren't going to fly. In the event that you get a 5-4 or 6-4 liberal court, you just reverse Heller and start banning so this scheme is irrelevant.

But, I mean, on the rechambering front, what's the point? What do you think a 9mm Glock can be "rechambered" to (passing Constitutional muster, which would mean not rendering private property useless without recompense and without violating the current interpretation of the 2nd) that's less dangerous?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:How are those measures add up to any more of a nonstarter as confiscation?

If you mean practicality of implementation, it's less of a non-starter as it doesn't require much in the way of cooperation from people who want to keep their guns. Regulating factories and imports is easy by comparison.

If you mean political non-starter, I obviously agree.

If this cat ever get skinned it will probably be via this method or the (in my mind more acceptable method) of tax stamps and tiered licenses.

milosz wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: You replied quoting me but maybe missed the rechambering part. Current guns will last 100 years. That's why you eliminate the ammunition supply by selling new weapons and ammo with different cartridge length or calibers, and ban manufacture and import of the old stuff.

No, I covered that - with the current USSC makeup, de facto bans aren't going to fly. In the event that you get a 5-4 or 6-4 liberal court, you just reverse Heller and start banning so this scheme is irrelevant.

You're still not quite following me. I was talking about an alternative to confiscation that assumed a President, Congress, and Supreme Court who wanted a solution that took guns in circulation out of the equation.

But, I mean, on the rechambering front, what's the point? What do you think a 9mm Glock can be "rechambered" to (passing Constitutional muster, which would mean not rendering private property useless without recompense and without violating the current interpretation of the 2nd) that's less dangerous?

In my hypothetical, no more Glocks are sold in 9x19mm parabellum, and none of that ammunition is sold. The new 9mm Glocks are 9x15mm or "9mm GAP" or some other currently non-existent caliber incompatible with current guns. This bypasses confiscation by rendering the guns in circulation useless once contemporary ammunition gets old, and ammo is much more difficult to acquire in the meantime.

The guns you can actually get ammo for have restrictions for purchase similar to that of other developed nations. Wackjobs and would-be school shooters have about as good a chance of pulling that off as they do in Tokyo or London.

Again, we can't get a better background check law passed, so NFW will this happen in the current climate. But the answer for "How would we do it even if we wanted to?" isn't that hard.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:We have a track record of getting rid of guns we don't want. We don't have a Thompson SMG or BAR problem any more (not sure how much of one we had, but they're gone nonetheless).

johno wrote:As I see it, only Australian-style massive gun confiscation could have any impact. And confiscation would create much disobedience and turmoil.

Assuming the political will was there, but not all the citizens were on board, which is pretty much the best you can hope for, you pass a Registration and Rechambering Act.

New firearms get as tough to buy other developed countries.
New firearms are sold in new calibers or cartridge lengths incompatible with pre-Act firearms.
Ban manufacture and import of old-caliber ammo above .22 cal, and conversion kits.

There will still be a black market for the old ammo, but it will become insanely expensive and difficult to acquire.

That's if the goal is to have a measurable impact on across-the-board shootings in a single piece of legislation. Most people would be pretty happy with less.

How are those measures add up to any more of a nonstarter as confiscation? Under the current case law, you'd have to make some very tortured arguments that this is not just as infringed as registration...which is probably the only legal step that could be taken. I'd argue it won't do shit but full registration is very likely defensible.


As for the question of select fire weapons, we never had an actual auto-weapon problem...ever, in fact I'd lay odds that there are more select fire weapons in legal circulation now, than were ever in circulation before the law changed. This goes to the original question though.....why do we continue to misrepresent the actual technical issues of shooting a whole slew of people...Nothing can be done with rapid fire weapons that can't be done just as readily as your grandfathers M1.

Until a public health wonk with balls is willing to make the (essentially unarguably correct) case that mass shootings are not a gun issue. Thousands of ghetto kids with pocket .38's are the actual public health concern.

Eggzactly......and the only weapons that are confiscated are those that are legit owned. The many thousands of guns on the street are possessed by people who don't have them 'er, registered or anything. That pesky Stop, Question, and Frisk concept for all its fallibility and imperfection, is the very best way to get those guns out of the hands of guys who would use them for nefarious purposes.....like it or not.

Last but not least your last paragraph is bulletproof correct.