Another school shooting
- Thread starter Quavarius
- Start date
What I meant by drug war was drugs in general especially harder ones.
There is a report by the Brennan Center that breaks down the decline in crime in the US from the 80s to 2014.
Reasons for decline were multiple things. Here they are:
Decreased unemployment
Growth to income and inflation.
Consumer confidence
Decrease in drug use specifically crack.
Legalized abortion. Less kids in economic strapped situations.
Increased incarceration and police numbers
Decrease in alcohol consumption
Introduction of CompStat.
On poverty people can buy guns in less strict states. Waiting periods, psych evaluations, criminal histories, better accountability of parents (charge them for accessory if guns aren’t being properly contained), make it illegal to purchase guns from a state different from the one you reside in( 60-70% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are purchased out of state), etc. There is regulation out there that can help.
Sorry my wife wanted me to do some drilling for curtains and paintings. Answered.
Since people are asking for solutions, here's a start:
I know this is an argument that is cited by most strict readers of the Constitution, that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect against tyrannical governments. And I don't necessarily disagree with that. But I do think there's enough ambiguity in the wording that doesn't clearly lay out whether the framers intended for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry military-grade weapons in a civilian setting.
But I do think we need to have a hard conversation in this country if defending against the implausible scenario of needing a civilian uprising with rifles and handguns to overthrow a government with the greatest armed forces the world has ever seen is really worth more than finding a solution to the current epidemic of mass shootings in this country.
But I agree that curtailing punishments simply because it could have negative consequences isn't the answer.
Arostook War
Border War
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...urce-officer-thwarts-mass-shooting/615519002/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/dixon-school-shooting.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officer-confronts-armed-man-illinois-high-school/story?id=55204700
- Mandatory, national background checks that include at least a 10-day waiting period. This allows for a cooling off period for the purchaser and more robust database checks for criminal history and a verified mental health screening
- Restricting the ownership of firearms to only those 18 years or older; restricting the possession of firearms to only those 13 years or older as long as they are supervised by a parent or guardian
- Requiring at least a minimum of 5 hours of gun safety and possession training by certified trainers and/or firearm professionals; this must be updated every 10 years by the license holder
- Requiring the purchase or proof of ownership of a safe and/or lockable case for each firearm purchased or possessed by a single person (think of this like car insurance)
- Banning the purchase/possession of firearms for any man or woman convicted of domestic violence felonies
- Banning bumpstocks and any variations on firearm modifiers that impact capacity and/or firing speed
- Reinstating the high-capacity magazine ban that expired in 2004 on all magazines carrying more than 10 rounds
- Banning semi-automatic rifles and assault weapons (I'm aware that terminology can be vague and apply to a wide range of firearm brands and designs; that's something for the experts to delineate as needed)
I know this is an argument that is cited by most strict readers of the Constitution, that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect against tyrannical governments. And I don't necessarily disagree with that. But I do think there's enough ambiguity in the wording that doesn't clearly lay out whether the framers intended for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry military-grade weapons in a civilian setting.
But I do think we need to have a hard conversation in this country if defending against the implausible scenario of needing a civilian uprising with rifles and handguns to overthrow a government with the greatest armed forces the world has ever seen is really worth more than finding a solution to the current epidemic of mass shootings in this country.
This is a good point and a real problem; but that's one of the unintended consequences of our federalism. However, I think that just because a proposed gun reform policy won't solve all of the problems that it should be dismissed out of hand.
Could you provide some examples of this bias and fabrication? I know Trump likes to take shots at the NYTimes, but there's a huge difference between critical coverage and bias. Also, people tend to conflate opinion pieces with hard news coverage, and that's very misleading.
This is certainly a fair point. There have been plenty of examples of mass shootings where individual reform proposals wouldn't have prevented the specific tragedies from happening. Though I do think that's a bit of missing the forest for the trees. If there are solutions that can prevent even one of these shootings that may come with the cost of some modest inconveniences on the gun industry and prospective owners, I think that's well worth it. But I'm sure there are people who will disagree.
So I think this is a well-intentioned suggestion, but there are some real practical hurdles to this being as productive as you may think. What are you going to do for school communities that have a high population of low-income households that can't afford private counseling? What about households where the only parent or both parents work full-time jobs? Sending a kid home to either be alone or have a parent take off work to stay with the kid can be problematic as well. The resources at the school are sometimes your best bet for providing the attention and care that at-risk students need besides simply suspending the student as a primary means of punishment.
But I agree that curtailing punishments simply because it could have negative consequences isn't the answer.
War of 1812
Arostook War
Border War
Just out of curiosity, how did you hear about it in the first place if it wasn't from the "MSM?"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...urce-officer-thwarts-mass-shooting/615519002/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/dixon-school-shooting.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officer-confronts-armed-man-illinois-high-school/story?id=55204700
Last edited:
I agree and most reasonable people probably do as well.
I would add that people should be have to reapply for permits as well as have their mental health be evaluated after a certain amount of time. We have to have our driver's license renewed every few years because things happen in life that may effect our ability to be a safe driver that didn't when we initially obtained our license.
All of that said, we still need to better secure our schools. I don't understand how we get laughed at for suggesting that. (Not by you)
Waiting periods to cool down are great. Not like you could just illegally buy a weapon and shoot the person who needs to defend them selves while they wait 10 days to die.
How do all these fantastic suggestions get around the second amendment?
It flatley states:
How do you get around "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
Sorry folks. We have a constitutional right to own guns.
I will fight anyone trying to take that away from me.
It flatley states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How do you get around "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
Sorry folks. We have a constitutional right to own guns.
I will fight anyone trying to take that away from me.
I honestly think we need to find a way to weave in social media into background checks. Not sure how that would work, but it’s growing in terms of significance relating to identifying potential menta heath issues.
I said this about the Parkland shooter and all of the visible signs that he was leaving on his social media. Believe it or not, a liberal told me that his posts on social media were protected under the privacy act. Which are covered in the same amendments as self incrimination, protection from illegal search and seizure and freedom of speech. Which is odd, because they say they want to change the second amendment to prevent attacks, but this particular liberal shut me down by saying the government can't ignore the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments by following their social media accounts without them having committed a crime. Even though they had reasons to monitor him because of all of the people who made complaints that he was going to do something horrible. Like...... shoot up the school that he shot up.
Do you also believe that you have a constitutional right to own automatic weapons and that the current ban on them is unconstitutional?
No sir. Automatic weapons were outlawed in 1923, if I remember correctly. It was constitutional.
Hell I said that I have have no problem in restricting AR-15's and AK-47's; however, the Democrats that hate guns try to redefine those "assault" rifles to cover .22 semi-automatic rifles. Bottom line is I don't trust the anti-gun lobby across the steet from me much less in legislation.
You act like I am a total fool by that question.
Thanks for responding. So I guess my question would be - how do you determine which gun reform laws would violate your constitutional right to bear arms? Is there a clear "line in the sand" that goes beyond the limitations that you have outlined above, regarding automatic and some semi-automatic weapons? As you mentioned, there are already some limits to the Second Amendment that most people agree are common-sensed and don't infringe on the basic tenants of that Constitutional right.
I think very few people are talking about out-and-out repealing the Second Amendment and outlawing guns. And anyone who is doing so is likely doing more harm than good to the broader movement of gun reform.
That is the problem with the right and the NRA. Trump ran on saying the left wanted to take away their second amendment which is completely false. We just want people to use their brains and let common sense prevail. The biggest deterrent and problem is the NRA. They don't want to take responsibility for the gun problems in this country. They play a huge part in nothing getting done.
On another note of idiiots....My cousin was a soldier and he thinks him and his retired Army buddies have a chance if the government turned against us. I told him...do you think your old arse can take on a team of current soldiers who are in better shape if they wanted to eff you up? Really? Or a drone attack? or Missiles being fired from across the country or world? Or fighter jets? Or a tank? People act like they can stand up to our military...the biggest in the world by a lot....with guns......delusional. There are a ton of these people out there.
The U.S. Supreme court is the entity that determines what is constitutional or not, so don't ask me. But many legal scholars could probably write legislation that would pass Constitutional muster.
CardinalBoiler, no one would suggest outlawing guns because most congressmen would never vote for a ban and even severe restrictions because the Supreme continually rule in favor of an individual’s right to own and bear arms. But some want to do the ban incrementally. It should never happen as the Second Amendment is so straight forward beginning with “Congress shall make no law….”. That is a high bar to overcome so I don’t see how congress can ban guns without repeal of the Second Amendment; which will not happen.
Our Constitutional Republic is totally different than France, Canada, Britain and Australia. They do not have a bill of rights in their constitutions. So, it is easy to make laws restricting rights. All three have basically make it nearly impossible to freely own guns.
Many parts of the 1994 "Assault Rifle" ban was constitutional, so I would suggest that restrictions could be made on guns specifically named in the law.
During my term as mayor the anti-gun movement assaulted our Commission meetings for months, after the Sandy Hook shooting, trying to force severe restrictions of gun rights in our little town. I got up to speed quick and it is shocking how nasty those imported bastards can be. Nothing was done as the U.S. Constitution is pretty straight forward.
The far right is as stupid on gun control as the far left is on abortion. There is a common sense middle ground. I call both out. Do you?
Disagree on abortion. I think it is a woman’s right and a child being born into poverty isn’t always grand. Part of the study I mentioned earlier said a piece of the reduction in crime was related to the legalization of abortion in Roe Vs. Wade. Less poor people committing crimes because their families don’t have the funds to support them. It’s not a physical being dependent of itself and is a piece of the mother. Another debate though as I am in the belief that we need to control population and an atheist as well.
The hypocrisy on the left and right on abortion is one side is OK with killing people for harsh offenses and is not OK with abortion or assisted suicide. The other side is OK with abortion and assisted suicide and not OK with the killing people for harsh offenses. Reason I say harsh offenses is some of these people are OK with killing drug dealers.
Me personally, I am pro choice, pro assisted suicide and pro death penalty.
I wonder how different the bill of rights would be if written in the 21st century vs 18th. Also, I wonder if the guys who wrote it would write it the same way knowing what we know now. Most likely not.
With our advances in AI, big data analytics and data science, we are almost to the point where the best leader we can find, with out bias and driven objective data is machines. I'm all for it and we should put more effort into it as a society.
For example, if the data shows that guns are a problem and the matrix calculates improved quality of life, economy and other factors, then the only thing preventing legislative action is human bias. And the same thing works to the converse. If the data shows no causal link then that's the end of the conversation.
With our advances in AI, big data analytics and data science, we are almost to the point where the best leader we can find, with out bias and driven objective data is machines. I'm all for it and we should put more effort into it as a society.
For example, if the data shows that guns are a problem and the matrix calculates improved quality of life, economy and other factors, then the only thing preventing legislative action is human bias. And the same thing works to the converse. If the data shows no causal link then that's the end of the conversation.
Would be interesting, but I agree with a lot of this. Probably wouldn't have written the constitution the same way, but its impossible to predict society 200+ years into the future.
As far as the problem, my guess would be any sort of matrix would calculate somewhere in between of both of your results.. that the amount and control of guns is one of a few really important factors that get us to where we are right now on the issue.
See, I think anyone okay with allowing abortion in viable, uncomplicated, 3rd trimester pregnancies is an idiot in the same way we agree that people that oppose all gun legislation are. That is a baby capable of sustaining life outside of the womb and killing said baby outside of pregnancy complicatinons is disgusting. When you support a woman’s right to terminate a healthy pregnancy at 39 weeks for any reason she chooses then you look every bit as bad as the gun nuts that can’t see a middle ground on gun control.
Last edited:
I can see your point in that. The problem with people on both spectrums are that you give them an inch and they want a mile. Abortion laws are created and swatted down on the regular now.
On another note from my previous post, I was looking at something earlier where 75% of abortions are from people below poverty or around it. If the right wants abortion, will they give all these people the additional funds they require to limit the extra crime and a liveable wage for these families? Darwinism exists in the economy as well. Need people to flip burgers, etc. Not everyone is born with a fighting chance or a similar chance. As much as you fight it and work your butt off you have a high chance of still being poor.
Yes, not being able to give an inch and agree on common sense middle grounds is a problem.
I don’t buy the chance of a baby growing up poor being an excuse to kill that baby so close to term.
Wait so you think that citizen's with their guns could take down the army, navy, Airforce etc if push came to shove? Or were you just imaging fighting actual congressmen?
Go look through twitter and I’m not talking about trolls. I’m talking about verified individuals. There are plenty of prominent liberals and even some democratic senators that have gone and called for full repeal or an outright gun ban. It’s talked about more than I think people believe.
This particular shooting was a parental, school security and social problem. This individual did not own any guns, they were his father's. Leaving weapons available to anyone in the family should be a crime. Lots of accidental shootings due to this as well. Everyone knew he was stalking his first victim. It was a revenge shooting. She publicly humiliated him in a class room setting plus the kid was not very social. Big Red Flag. The kid had problems, again, and no one provided any counseling or guidance. Also having the availability to just walk in the school with firearms, I cannot fathom in this day and age of technology.
Way to step in right on time.
Its quite simple actually: the number of armed citizens would make it much harder for a takeover or any sort of government hostility, whether it be US or foreign. No, I'm not saying the government wouldn't win. But it would be a much harder situation than citizens having no protection at all.
Now, please come back with your witty and unintelligent response, mocking conservatives who disagree with you. Its what pretty much every lefty has done ITT. So here's your chance.
I think he might be laughing at your take on abortion. A 39 week baby is cable or sustaining life outside of the womb. You’re okay with killing an intrauterine 39 week old but a prematurely born 32 week old is murder to you. That is the logic a lot of common sense folks find laughable,
@IU_Btown_Chicago
Why are there so many people still supporting a woman’s right to abortion in the third trimester if no one ever does it for any reason outside of pregnancy complications?
You seem to suggest that people do and should be allowed to abort a 2nd/3rd term pregnancy for financial reasons but why is that stipulation needed if no one would ever do that?
LOL. Did you and SNU the dumbass miss my point in where I said I see your point? I wasn’t getting into specific details about abortion with the post.
I didn’t. He might have and that’s why I figured he may be laughing at that (and not the gun part of the post).
Then the dumbass should learn to read more than one thread before responding.
Similar threads
