'No Way To Prevent This,' says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

JohnInCarolina

Battleborn said:

So other than posting random internet memes, what do we propose we do that would actually prevent these shootings? 

My view is that looking for the one solution that would stop all shootings is the wrong way to frame things.  Because it probably doesn’t exist.

But there are things that can be done that a majority of Americans would support which, while they wouldn’t stop all mass shootings, would stop some, and would no matter what save lives.

But it’s a moot discussion, because none of it comes unless we decide to get rid of the legislative filibuster.  And that’s not coming anytime soon.  So we will do nothing, except likely allow states to continue to pass laws that actually go in the other direction.

nolaegghead

Good answers, the discussion needs to happen first.

Battleborn

JohnInCarolina said:

Battleborn said:

So other than posting random internet memes, what do we propose we do that would actually prevent these shootings? 

My view is that looking for the one solution that would stop all shootings is the wrong way to frame things.  Because it probably doesn’t exist.

But there are things that can be done that a majority of Americans would support which, while they wouldn’t stop all mass shootings, would stop some, and would no matter what save lives.

But it’s a moot discussion, because none of it comes unless we decide to get rid of the legislative filibuster.  And that’s not coming anytime soon.  So we will do nothing, except likely allow states to continue to pass laws that actually go in the other direction.

I understand what you say, but I also feel that some of it is shortsighted. Getting rid of a filibuster for one reason opens it up for everything else. If we are open to that, then fine. But we can’t complain if the same thing goes against what we disagree with in the future. 

You are right. There isn’t a singular solution to the problem. It takes a comprehensive look, unfortunately we don’t have the capability to look at it like that. Universal background checks, cool. How would that prevented this? He was legally allowed to possess a firearm. Up the age limit, cool. Let’s also up the age to enlist in the military. I, unlike a lot of people, know personally what gunshot violence actually looks like. Don’t get me wrong, something has to be done. 

Gun technology hasn’t significantly changed in the last 40 years. What has changed is society and the views on responsibility. To me, and disagree of you want, the problem isn’t the tool, but the people that use the tools. Until we address the underlying problems, we will never have true accountability and diversion of heinous crimes. 

This is not a personal attack on your views. I respect your point of view. These types of events are emotional, I understand that. I just think we get caught up on a narrow view instead of actual solutions. My heart breaks whenever something like this happens, which is incredibly too often. But I am pragmatic. What solutions can we come up with on an obscure BBQ forum that we can propose to our elected officials that will make a difference? (Rhetorical question)

I apoliofize in advance in advance for grammatical errors. I am several drinks deep after a long week. 

Battleborn

 

These photos absolutely destroy me. Sometimes something is not enough. 

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/AndySpecht/status/1529643462953521153?s=20&t=tdULkIwWZ3jKswI7r9Lp0g

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1529617687894274048?s=20&t=tdULkIwWZ3jKswI7r9Lp0g

Heartbreaking.  

JohnInCarolina

Battleborn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Battleborn said:

So other than posting random internet memes, what do we propose we do that would actually prevent these shootings? 

My view is that looking for the one solution that would stop all shootings is the wrong way to frame things.  Because it probably doesn’t exist.

But there are things that can be done that a majority of Americans would support which, while they wouldn’t stop all mass shootings, would stop some, and would no matter what save lives.

But it’s a moot discussion, because none of it comes unless we decide to get rid of the legislative filibuster.  And that’s not coming anytime soon.  So we will do nothing, except likely allow states to continue to pass laws that actually go in the other direction.

I understand what you say, but I also feel that some of it is shortsighted. Getting rid of a filibuster for one reason opens it up for everything else. If we are open to that, then fine. But we can’t complain if the same thing goes against what we disagree with in the future. 

You are right. There isn’t a singular solution to the problem. It takes a comprehensive look, unfortunately we don’t have the capability to look at it like that. Universal background checks, cool. How would that prevented this? He was legally allowed to possess a firearm. Up the age limit, cool. Let’s also up the age to enlist in the military. I, unlike a lot of people, know personally what gunshot violence actually looks like. Don’t get me wrong, something has to be done. 

Gun technology hasn’t significantly changed in the last 40 years. What has changed is society and the views on responsibility. To me, and disagree of you want, the problem isn’t the tool, but the people that use the tools. Until we address the underlying problems, we will never have true accountability and diversion of heinous crimes. 

This is not a personal attack on your views. I respect your point of view. These types of events are emotional, I understand that. I just think we get caught up on a narrow view instead of actual solutions. My heart breaks whenever something like this happens, which is incredibly too often. But I am pragmatic. What solutions can we come up with on an obscure BBQ forum that we can propose to our elected officials that will make a difference? (Rhetorical question)

I apoliofize in advance in advance for grammatical errors. I am several drinks deep after a long week. 

I do appreciate the respectful way you responded here, especially being several drinks deep into the evening.  Let me respond here first thing in the morning when I'm slightly under-caffeinated, which for me is equally debilitating.

The legislative filibuster as it currently stands is arguably one of the least democratic structures we have in place in the federal government.  Effectively, it is allowing 40 Senators (who represent perhaps only 1/3 of the actual population of the country) to hold the rest of the country hostage.  It's important to keep in mind that this structure is a relatively new creation in our country's history.  It hasn't always been like this.  It used to be a "talking filibuster" where any Senator or group who wanted to prevent debate from ending had to stand on the floor of the Senate and keep talking.  I'd be fine with continuing that sort of thing.  

While it's true that if they remove it the other side may use it to pass legislation many people don't like, that's democracy.  If you don't like the way representatives vote, you vote for different people.  

It's certainly possible that society's views changing are what has driven this.  I would just like to understand how it is that the US is somehow so unique in this area.  Why is it the case that only the views of Americans have changed?  To me, this is just how the conversation always trends when it comes to the gun debate in the US.  We have this tendency to want to address just about anything, so long as it's not the elephant in the second amendment.  

fishlessman

hard to get a gun in california were they have the most mass shootings.  im thinking you want to be a mass shooter....you can get a gun anyways.  you cant steal mine, i dont have one

JohnInCarolina

fishlessman said:

hard to get a gun in california were they have the most mass shootings.  im thinking you want to be a mass shooter....you can get a gun anyways.  you cant steal mine, i dont have one

Like I wrote above, you won't find a law or even a set of laws that will 100% prevent all mass shootings.  And yet they're still worth passing, because they will prevent many, not to mention a whole lot of other gun-related deaths.  That's a big part of the reason why other countries that have far more restrictive gun laws just don't see anywhere near the same number of mass shootings that we see in the US.  

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1529800967851585538

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1529800967851585538

American journalists could learn a thing or two from those folks.  They almost never hold reps to account like that.  

dmchicago

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1529800967851585538

American journalists could learn a thing or two from those folks.  They almost never hold reps to account like that.  

Boiler plate NRA talking points.

HeavyG

This would be a reasonable place to start...

nolaegghead

The cause and effect between availability of guns and gun violence is in black and white when you look at all the countries in the world.  If you reject this relationship, the only other explanation is that Americans are more evil, deranged and psychopathic than citizens of any other developed nation.  I don't think that's true, with the exception of the scale of buy-in on the NRA's flawed logic justifying their opposition to just about ANY type of legislation on guns. 

Battleborn

Ultimately, I think you are going to have to change the constitution through the amendment process to get “meaningful” change. Good luck with that. Even the most liberal of circuit courts (the 9th) are ruling against gun laws that are brought before them. 

I believe that if we begin to address things like mental health we would see a drastic decline in these types of events. Our county jail is the #1 provider of mental health services in the state. That seems crazy to me. 

JohnInCarolina

Battleborn said:

Ultimately, I think you are going to have to change the constitution through the amendment process to get “meaningful” change. Good luck with that. Even the most liberal of circuit courts (the 9th) are ruling against gun laws that are brought before them. 

You wouldn't have to change the constitution to get meaningful gun regulations put into law.  

An amendment to the constitution would only be needed to ban all guns, but I don't see anyone asking for that.  Maybe that's what you meant by "meaningful" in which case I just disagree.  

I mean, just as an example, fully automatic weapons are currently banned.  That aspect seems to have been perfectly upheld for some time now.  

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1529296898317860864?s=20&t=ZORqqIkSTRWNp4NOkvd1GQ

I don't know guys, I don't see a pattern here...

Battleborn

What I am saying is, everybody wants “common sense” gun reform. What does that mean? 

Universal background checks? That would not have stopped this. In order to legally purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer you have to pass a background check. You can’t purchase a firearm off the internet and have it delivered to your house. It has to go to a dealer. The only thing that law would do is make it illegal to sell a firearm privately without involving a third party. I’m personally fine with it, but it doesn’t solve a problem. 

Assault weapons ban? Let’s start with the definition of an assault weapon. What is it? You are right, automatic weapons are generally prohibited. To me, that is an assault weapon and it is already generally banned. I think most people think of rifles (AR-15’s and AK’s) as assault weapons. Rifles account for ~3% of gun deaths in this country. That number would indicate to me that it isn’t the problem. 

Botch

Battleborn said:
I think most people think of rifles (AR-15’s and AK’s) as assault weapons. Rifles account for ~3% of gun deaths in this country. That number would indicate to me that it isn’t the problem. 

What are you defining as the overall "problem"?  Overall gun deaths, it is a small part of the problem.  Mass shootings, it's close to 100% of the problem, as that graphic JiC posted illustrates rather starkly.  You'll never stop one-on-one murders in our current society (they also use knives, strangling, poisons, big rocks etc).  But you can cut down on mass shootings, and in fact that's exactly what happened during the assault gun ban that ended in, 2004?  And it's jumped up ever since.  
 
EDIT:  Wow, first chart of my search:

(oh, and this doesn't necessarily show just "mass shootings", its not worded the best: "gun massacres and fatalities"?)  

A somewhat-related issue.  Lots of folks think the AR-15 is a favorite of the macho types because it was the standard-issue Army rifle.  The Army just selected a new design that uses a 6.8mm round, rather than the old 5.56mm of the -15.  What requirement changed that?  The Army needed rifle rounds that were capable of penetrating body armor, so that's what they're now getting.  It'd be great if that larger round is banned from civilian sales, but a) Sig Sauer is already selling a civilian version of this rifle, and b) I fear for our first responders when the assailant can pierce a sheriff's body armor.  
Hell, 5.56 is bad enough.  It must have been terrible for those TX parents to have to provide a DNA sample, because so many of the kids were so ripped up they were unrecognizable.  F*ck.  

Legume

Battleborn said:

What I am saying is, everybody wants “common sense” gun reform. What does that mean? 

Universal background checks? That would not have stopped this. In order to legally purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer you have to pass a background check. You can’t purchase a firearm off the internet and have it delivered to your house. It has to go to a dealer. The only thing that law would do is make it illegal to sell a firearm privately without involving a third party. I’m personally fine with it, but it doesn’t solve a problem. 

Assault weapons ban? Let’s start with the definition of an assault weapon. What is it? You are right, automatic weapons are generally prohibited. To me, that is an assault weapon and it is already generally banned. I think most people think of rifles (AR-15’s and AK’s) as assault weapons. Rifles account for ~3% of gun deaths in this country. That number would indicate to me that it isn’t the problem. 

How about we address magazine capacity - we afford game birds greater protection.

And to me the problem with AR’s is that they represent the soldier fantasy - video games, movies, etc. that’s why they’re bad - it’s not just functionality, it’s what they represent to a large part of their market and how people see them being used.

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/RealCedricDark/status/1529630100299337730

Battleborn

Botch said:

Battleborn said:
I think most people think of rifles (AR-15’s and AK’s) as assault weapons. Rifles account for ~3% of gun deaths in this country. That number would indicate to me that it isn’t the problem. 

What are you defining as the overall "problem"?  Overall gun deaths, it is a small part of the problem.  Mass shootings, it's close to 100% of the problem, as that graphic JiC posted illustrates rather starkly.  You'll never stop one-on-one murders in our current society (they also use knives, strangling, poisons, big rocks etc).  But you can cut down on mass shootings, and in fact that's exactly what happened during the assault gun ban that ended in, 2004?  And it's jumped up ever since.  
 
EDIT:  Wow, first chart of my search:

(oh, and this doesn't necessarily show just "mass shootings", its not worded the best: "gun massacres and fatalities"?)  

A somewhat-related issue.  Lots of folks think the AR-15 is a favorite of the macho types because it was the standard-issue Army rifle.  The Army just selected a new design that uses a 6.8mm round, rather than the old 5.56mm of the -15.  What requirement changed that?  The Army needed rifle rounds that were capable of penetrating body armor, so that's what they're now getting.  It'd be great if that larger round is banned from civilian sales, but a) Sig Sauer is already selling a civilian version of this rifle, and b) I fear for our first responders when the assailant can pierce a sheriff's body armor.  
Hell, 5.56 is bad enough.  It must have been terrible for those TX parents to have to provide a DNA sample, because so many of the kids were so ripped up they were unrecognizable.  F*ck.  

You’re right Botch, that must have been terrible for those parents. I can’t begin to have any idea what it felt like for them. But don’t for a second think that I don’t know what seeing the carnage a gunshot leaves behind is like. I deal with it on a regular bases. Whether it has been holding someone’s intestines inside their abdomen or sticking my fingers inside someone to stop blood from coming out of gun shot or seeing the death it leaves behind. I get it. I’m not apathetic. 

Every single one of those instances, with the exception of Route 91, could have been done with pistols and achieved the same death count. 

Trust me, I’m not advocating for status quo. Something has to be done. I would rather spend time, money and resources in people rather than fighting doing the same on an object. 

Legume said:

Battleborn said:

What I am saying is, everybody wants “common sense” gun reform. What does that mean? 

Universal background checks? That would not have stopped this. In order to legally purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer you have to pass a background check. You can’t purchase a firearm off the internet and have it delivered to your house. It has to go to a dealer. The only thing that law would do is make it illegal to sell a firearm privately without involving a third party. I’m personally fine with it, but it doesn’t solve a problem. 

Assault weapons ban? Let’s start with the definition of an assault weapon. What is it? You are right, automatic weapons are generally prohibited. To me, that is an assault weapon and it is already generally banned. I think most people think of rifles (AR-15’s and AK’s) as assault weapons. Rifles account for ~3% of gun deaths in this country. That number would indicate to me that it isn’t the problem. 

How about we address magazine capacity - we afford game birds greater protection.

And to me the problem with AR’s is that they represent the soldier fantasy - video games, movies, etc. that’s why they’re bad - it’s not just functionality, it’s what they represent to a large part of their market and how people see them being used.

I can get behind a magazine capacity limit. Maybe that is a place to start. 

JohnInCarolina

@Battleborn - again I would just like to commend you for the respectful nature of the discussion on this topic.

It seems to me that we all agree that no single thing will prevent all mass shootings.  By the same token, in principle there also seems to be to be some agreement that there are some things that could be done that would have a positive impact.  From my standpoint, even just regulating firearm licenses to the same level of rigor we ask of auto vehicle licenses would be welcome.  That certainly wouldn't stop all mass shootings, but it seems to me like it's something that targets both the tool and the person using it.  

But I think we all know what's likely to happen here, which is that we'll continue to see just the opposite, which is states continue to pass laws that actually loosen restrictions.  I just struggle to understand the universe where any of that makes sense, and yet it's been our pattern over the last couple of decades.  

nolaegghead

Every year, a few hundred kids get gunned down with some adults and they die.   Most die quick, some are maimed for life. 

The largest IMPACT of the ability of ANYONE being able to buy a weapon whenever they want - even criminals through loopholes or on the street since we're flooding the market with guns that can be sold without documentation...the largest IMPACT to our children is they live in constant fear someone they piss off or know or who's nuts at the school will come in guns blazing.  This anxiety really f*cks up kids, maybe to a degree they are less resistant to vent through buying a gun and using it.  Money - think about how much we spend on metal detectors, prison-like policies, security, etc.

That's a HUGE amount of self-inflicted damage our country sustains, and it's getting less and less sustainable.  There's nothing intrinsically freedomy-liberty-righty about a dangerous mechanical device.  Except for hunting, there are alternatives where we can all still live happily ever after. 

The entirety of developed nations don't have this problem and they see us as totally f*cking crazyballz about this.  I'm sick of the regurgitation of NRA talking points which are catchy but total f*cking bullsh!t.

nolaegghead

Oh, and f*ck everyone (and be sure to dislike all my posts, I like that!)

nolaegghead

Oh, and sorry if my diatribe was less civil than the requested decorum.

JohnInCarolina

nolaegghead said:

Oh, and sorry if my diatribe was less civil than the requested decorum.

I don’t accept your apology!!!

Botch

I am happy to see you support minimizing Mag capacity limits.  Thank you.  But...  << said Botch; quoting intelligently on this forum is difficult.
 
Battleborn said:
Every single one of those instances, with the exception of Route 91, could have been done with pistols and achieved the same death count. 

Trust me, I’m not advocating for status quo. Something has to be done. I would rather spend time, money and resources in people rather than fighting doing the same on an object.

No, I can't agree with that statement at all.  Many kids were able to flee during reloading (and I have no clue about how big a clip can be loaded into a pistol) during several attacks in the past.  The type of weapon DOES matter.  
 
Finally, I'm completely unfamiliar with "Route 91"; do you have a link/background?  Thanks.    

dmchicago

Botch said:

I am happy to see you support minimizing Mag capacity limits.  Thank you.  But...  << said Botch; quoting intelligently on this forum is difficult.
 
Battleborn said:
Every single one of those instances, with the exception of Route 91, could have been done with pistols and achieved the same death count. 

Trust me, I’m not advocating for status quo. Something has to be done. I would rather spend time, money and resources in people rather than fighting doing the same on an object.

No, I can't agree with that statement at all.  Many kids were able to flee during reloading (and I have no clue about how big a clip can be loaded into a pistol) during several attacks in the past.  The type of weapon DOES matter!  
 
Finally, I'm completely unfamiliar with "Route 91"; do you have a link/background?  Thanks.    

The Vegas shooting I believe. 

Hard to keep track. 🤷‍♂️