IGX

TerryB wrote:

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.

All true, too. *They* is the word that troubles white liberals, though, because we all know who we are talking about. There is a cultural and perhaps even genetic predisposition to committing homicide in these communities and it's not because they're hungry/unfed or shit, even desperate.

With that said, I had a FB discussion yesterday that necessitates I clarify that does not make me a racist or bigot, but a realist. I have many, many, friends who are various shades of brown and three nephews (my brother's sons) who are also 'brownish'.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: 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.

So you're talking about a fairytale to start with...

If you have this entirely new President, Congress and Supreme Court who want to take extreme steps toward gun control - why are they avoiding confiscation? Do you think the 40+% of Americans who are good with current gun laws even after tragedies are going to say "oh, okay, they're not taking the guns so that's cool"?

In my hypothetical, no more Glocks are sold in 9x19mm parabellum, and none of that ammunition is sold.

That's not "rechambering," which sounds like a plan to modify existing weapons to the new calibers, that's just a ban on a spectrum of both pistols and ammo, which wouldn't (drumroll...) pass muster with the USSC.

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.

Ah, see, now that's the problem - you're not talking about a "non-military caliber" law like Italy and Mexico have, you're talking about bans and restrictions. All needlessly complicated in a climate that would support them to start with.

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.

What you're proposing is 'that hard' - if you've developed a political climate that's amenable to severe gun restrictions, you don't need any of these silly, convoluted plans.

When these events happen, both sides start pulling out statistics and facts in an attempt to find a path to fewer of these things, yet currently we actually have legislated ignorance via a series of rules and policies that explicitly prohibit gathering information and conducting research to get more of these facts and statistics.

A good starting point would be to repeal that bullshit and do the fact gathering and research, so we can eventually start making decisions more on facts and less on emotion.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrBPoX7yMKo[/youtube]

He's fucking annoying and evolutionary psych is a half dozen losers jerking each other off, but skimming through I heard some of the usual talking points.

"Mental health" is a red herring - almost no one who uses that term actually wants socialized medicine that pays for comprehensive mental healthcare. It's a deflection. Likewise "keep the crazies from buying guns" - bullshit that the NRA or any other lobby is going to let the feds create the comprehensive database I referred to earlier.

Blaming it on SSRIs/etc. - are anti-depressants not available in the rest of the developed world where these shootings don't happen on a regular basis?

Men are pussies, feminization of culture, crisis of boys, blah blah blah get the paleo cock out of your mouth - anybody really going to say our culture is more feminized than Spain? France? Japan? New Zealand?

The reality is that this happens because we have essentially unlimited access to guns and nut bags can go buy one at a pawn shop or from their neighbor. Without that access we'd still be more violent than the rest of the developed world, but not quite as violent (and without the mass shootings) as we are today. However, that's irrelevant because the guns aren't going away and if you want to look at it from the FREEEEEEEEEEDOM perspective, a few dozen dead every couple of years from mass shootings is a statistical anomaly in the number of violent crimes and homicides you'll see in a nation of 350 million people with high income inequality, low infrastructure spending and a war on drugs that creates a criminal class.

nafod wrote:When these events happen, both sides start pulling out statistics and facts in an attempt to find a path to fewer of these things, yet currently we actually have legislated ignorance via a series of rules and policies that explicitly prohibit gathering information and conducting research to get more of these facts and statistics.

A good starting point would be to repeal that bullshit and do the fact gathering and research, so we can eventually start making decisions more on facts and less on emotion.

I like the idea of learning more about violence. I do not necessarily trust the people gathering the data if they were the US Department of Justice or the US Centers for Disease Control. They have an agenda.

Given oversight and transparency such data would be useful. If there is over sight. I'm talking heavy oversight, and they would have to public the raw data online.

The CDC fucked itself by abusing its office to promote gun control. I agree that cutting off funding was going too far but letting them hijack the agency for their own pet agenda wasn't right.

Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

All too often, they witnessed that “assumptions are presented as fact:”… that there is a causal association between gun ownership and risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence.” They concluded that “…incestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce a bias into scientific publications…Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... funding/2/

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

"It used to be that smoking was a glamor symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned," he said.

Armed with the facts about the danger of guns, Rosenberg said, the public will move beyond the impasse between advocates and opponents of gun control.

The Center for Injury Prevention is already doing research in this area and is expected to announce a major new grant to researchers in Atlanta this week to find out more about the number of young people with access to firearms and to monitor a new citywide program to reduce adolescents' demand for guns.

Part of the difficulty in stopping youth violence, Rosenberg said, is that little is actually known about how teen-agers buy these weapons, though it is known that they often use black markets.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1994-1 ... -rosenberg

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 many rounds do violent people require? Do you seriously believe that professional criminals can't buy up all of the "new" ammunition that they want or need? These are professionals, they bid as high as needed to get what they require. These people who do most of the shooting?

There are millions of Americans who make ammunition. They make new "wildcat" rounds all of the time. You might as well outlaw growing marijuana. Right?


Do you think with 3D printing and CNC devices that they can't make new bullets? New firearms?

http://www.guns.com/2013/11/07/solid-co ... 911-video/



Even China is having problems with illicit firearms, and they have tighter bans then would be possible in the US. The article below says that the Chinese state has confiscated 150,000 "illegal" arms. How many more are floating around out there in China, a nation that has no gun culture to speak of?

http://www.ibtimes.com/china-seizes-100 ... ar-1571395


It's way too late to consider confiscation. Time to work on violence. Something that should have been the first thing to be tried.

Finnish guy discusses "Cat Sneeze" rounds, which were reduced loads intended for poaching. The Finns used old sub-machinegun ammo, which they took apart and loaded into Mosin-Nagant cases.




http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html

milosz wrote:What you're proposing is 'that hard' - if you've developed a political climate that's amenable to severe gun restrictions, you don't need any of these silly, convoluted plans.

Yes you do. There will always be the "cold dead hands" crowd that won't tolerate confiscation, regardless of the political environment. You just cut off the ammunition supply to those folks.

That's not "rechambering," which sounds like a plan to modify existing weapons to the new calibers, that's just a ban on a spectrum of both pistols and ammo, which wouldn't (drumroll...) pass muster with the USSC.

You don't sound like a lawyer. Here's a counterpoint describing historical movement of the court on firearms legislation from a Supreme Court Justice:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

How many rounds do violent people require? Do you seriously believe that professional criminals can't buy up all of the "new" ammunition that they want or need?

In the real world, it doesn't shake out like that. You can buy a Glock in London, but it costs $5k on the black market and you have to know somebody.

These are professionals, they bid as high as needed to get what they require. These people who do most of the shooting?

You're willfully ignoring economics. Supply elimination dries up supply, which ups the cost, which affects buying behavior.

Um, SPELLS!, what you're failing to recognize is we have many decades worth of ammo that is and will be serviceable enough for the bad guys. "Supply elimination" only hurts good guys in this scenario, period. You somehow think it's ok to suffocate law abiding citizens by way of ammo control and that will somehow keep the ammo from getting chambered in the guns of the bad guys. How do you reasonably think your idea will trickle down to "them"?

Hey, I've actually caught people who have murdered people with guns.....none of them go to anything resembling Cabela's or Gander MTN to get their gats.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: Yes you do. There will always be the "cold dead hands" crowd that won't tolerate confiscation, regardless of the political environment. You just cut off the ammunition supply to those folks.

If they're small enough to not impede all the new bans you're talking about... then you don't need to pay them any mind for a real, effective total ban and confiscation.

That's the fundamental absurdity of what you're proposing - a political climate that becomes overwhelmingly anti-gun (which would be required)

You don't sound like a lawyer. Here's a counterpoint describing historical movement of the court on firearms legislation from a Supreme Court Justice:

Um, yeah, Heller and associated decisions are a fairly radical new take from the Court on the 2nd. What's your point? This is the court we have and similar to the court we're going to have for many years to come. The best case scenario for liberals is that a Democrat wins in 2016 and RBG at least gets replaced with a young liberal. Kennedy and Alito are aging but rich people who don't work much live forever - they could outlast even a two-term Democrat. Alito, Thomas and Roberts are good for 20 more years.

Of course, you're not going to get an actual liberal - latter-day JPS - on the Court today, given the way Congressional Dems get bullied like an eight year old fat kid.

Please. Nothing is going to happen. Sure, confiscation would work but that Constitution thing sort of gets in the way and changing it requires a lot more than half the populace agreeing to do so and that is not going to happen. Politicians on either side of the argument don't even want change - they want to say a few words to keep their special interests passing enough cash their way to run for re-election (or donate to their library).

People don't have the attention span to see a reasonable solution through or even have a real discussion. Anything that doesn't fit on an Internet meme doesn't gather enough support to influence policy and people won't even be paying attention to this story by the end of the week.

Granted, I don't have any answers either. I used to argue that mental health needed to be addressed until I saw people (online) calling for a visit to a counselor or psychiatrist as reason enough to strip Second Amendment rights from a person and the more I think of it, the more I realize the gov't would screw this up. Besides, people who do these type of things usually aren't seeing a therapist regularly and, as somebody said a page or so back, SSRIs are in every developed country in the world and nobody else is going off shooting up places.

I do wonder why the US has guards in their shopping malls and (some) grocery stores but none in (many) schools though perhaps this has changed in recent years.

Secured entry into buildings seems like the simplest, most effective route. You want in? Go through security. You will have to start your rampage by having a shoot out with armed guards who are possibly behind bullet proof glass.

Protobuilder wrote:I do wonder why the US has guards in their shopping malls and (some) grocery stores but none in (many) schools though perhaps this has changed in recent years.

Money. They are guarding money, and so there is money to pay for the guards. The people that go into malls and stores have a rational motive, and so can be predicted and deterred.

Good post and thoughts, Proto.

IMHO, we knee jerk the fuck out of ourselves with these mass shootings. As ugly and despicable as they are, they are barely a pimple on the ass of American gun crime. But they are 'popular' because they have a very macabre appeal to all of us.

I think you're a lawyer if I'm not mistaken, although I don't know what kind of law you practice. For any and all of us who have had any taste of law enforcement regarding street crime, we know the guns that are typically used are galactic pieces of garbage and most certainly not purchased legitimately and brand new.

There is no answer in getting guns (or gasoline and padlocks) out of the hands of emotionally disturbed persons hellbent on killing people en masse.....nothing. The good news is, this particular percentage of homicide is barely metric worthy it's so small, albeit very intense.

nafod wrote:

Protobuilder wrote:I do wonder why the US has guards in their shopping malls and (some) grocery stores but none in (many) schools though perhaps this has changed in recent years.

Money. They are guarding money, and so there is money to pay for the guards. The people that go into malls and stores have a rational motive, and so can be predicted and deterred.

Back in the ugly 80s, the White Castle on Queens Blvd had an armed guard and bulletproof glass. You have any idea how hard it was/is to have an armed, non-LEO in NYC?

Many veterans have expressed interest in providing guard service for their kids' schools, etc.

It could easily be done with some simple construction and a little funding. After crazies started parking truck bombs in front of federal buildings and barracks (Khobar Towers), we figured out pretty easy ways to prevent it with a few concrete pillars, twisting driveways, and guard houses.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:Good post and thoughts, Proto.

IMHO, we knee jerk the fuck out of ourselves with these mass shootings. As ugly and despicable as they are, they are barely a pimple on the ass of American gun crime. But they are 'popular' because they have a very macabre appeal to all of us.

Fact is, they have an emotional impact way, way, way bigger than what the body count suggests. You can try to rationalize and argue people into saying it's just a blip, but emotionally it is the elephant in the room. Pretending otherwise is simply not going to work. It is not (just) the media coverage.

The Beslan Massacre had a similar outsized impact.

I briefed my students on Friday on what we will do with an active shooter incident. We'll evacuate the building. If we can't do that, we will barricade in place (room locks from the inside). If a shooter gets in, we will not lie down. We will take everything we have and throw it right at his eyeballs while surging forward, grab the weapon, and sit on his chest until he stops all movement. Then treat the wounded. They were freaking a little, but it needed to be said.

nafod wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:Good post and thoughts, Proto.

IMHO, we knee jerk the fuck out of ourselves with these mass shootings. As ugly and despicable as they are, they are barely a pimple on the ass of American gun crime. But they are 'popular' because they have a very macabre appeal to all of us.

Fact is, they have an emotional impact way, way, way bigger than what the body count suggests.

No argument from me. And that's a problem in itself as we do have a collective softening going on. Last but certainly not least, to me, it's not about the 'how'. I keep pointing out Happyland in The Bronx from 1990 and lessor known, but far more disgusting, the East Harlem event in which I was on a detail for the open caskets of murdered kids (plural) not a single shot fired in either event. It's not about the guns, fellas.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote: It's not about the guns, fellas.

It is very much about the guns. These mass shootings are predominately being done by super gun enthusiasts. Not just gun owners, but gun obsessors. We've had 294 mass shooting this year so far. I challenge anyone to come up with 294 mass killings not done with guns.

Guns have a unique psychology thing going on with these shooters.

nafod wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote: It's not about the guns, fellas.

It is very much about the guns. These mass shootings are predominately being done by super gun enthusiasts. Not just gun owners, but gun obsessors. We've had 294 mass shooting this year so far. I challenge anyone to come up with 294 mass killings not done with guns.

Guns have a unique psychology thing going on with these shooters.

Approximately 300 mass shootings this year and approximately 300 million known guns in CONUS. Miniscule. A problem? Yes. Newsworthy? Yes. Miniscule relative to other gun crime and more importantly the lack of gun crime by gun owners? Yes. I daresay if ANY of your 300 could not get their hands on a gun, they'd take another approach. (Have I mentioned Happyland in The Bronx?)

Shoot back. There are not easy answers to address the active shooter issue. But establishing the idea that if you roll up on a school or mall or theatre and start shooting, somebody and probably more than one will shoot back will change the game.

Interesting that the majority of these nuts passed background checks.

powerlifter54 wrote:Shoot back. There are not easy answers to address the active shooter issue. But establishing the idea that if you roll up on a school or mall or theatre and start shooting, somebody and probably more than one will shoot back will change the game.

Absolutely. And let's face facts, many if not most, will *not* have the balls to shoot back; but there is an off the shelf answer that can be kept everywhere--to include a kindergarten teacher's desk: Wasp Spray.

In addition to firearms, knives, perhaps a pipe or three and several hardwood 'sticks' that can split a skull, I have a half dozen cans of wasp spray around the house. The six year old can spray it in the face of a bad guy if need be. A mother protecting her young can spray with accuracy from 20 feet away and then club the shit out of the blinded and gagging mope in a home invasion setting with the empty can....only a well fitted gas mask would make wasp spray ineffective. On that note, fuck mace/pepper spray that civilians get.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:I daresay if ANY of your 300 could not get their hands on a gun, they'd take another approach. (Have I mentioned Happyland in The Bronx?)

There is zero evidence to suggest that, and in fact a pile of evidence going the other way. A quick google...

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s...

Assuming that
- being a murderous nut case does not correlate with owning a gun, and
- using the 35% gun ownership number
then that means for every mass shooting incident we should see about 2 mass bomb/poison/car crash/arson murder events. Yet I can't think of a single one for this year. Definitely a lot less than 294. Definitely a smaller percentage than the 590 mass bomb/poison/car crash/arson murder events you would expect to see.

nafod wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:I daresay if ANY of your 300 could not get their hands on a gun, they'd take another approach. (Have I mentioned Happyland in The Bronx?)

There is zero evidence to suggest that, and in fact a pile of evidence going the other way. A quick google...

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s...

Assuming that
- being a nut case does not correlate with owning a gun, and
- using the 35% gun ownership number
then that means for every mass shooting incident we should see about 2 mass bomb/poison/car crash/arson murder events. Yet I can't think of a single one for this year. Definitely a lot less than 294. Definitely a smaller percentage than the 590 mass bomb/poison/car crash/arson murder events you would expect to see.

OK, the tangent is present and we're both running with it. Why has the percentage of gun ownership dropped so much in America by population? Simple: the population since the time you referenced has exploded with immigrants who are not authorized to buy a gun. The other piece is the 'softening' I mentioned earlier. So you're google-fu (as well as mine) is only referencing an estimation of legitimately owned/purchased guns. If you somehow take the guns away from the sicko 300 you mentioned earlier, they will find another way is all I'm saying.