Days Since Last Shooting II

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

So why have any laws then?

I'm not saying don't have laws.
We need some ground rules for interaction.
But we've slid to a place where we follow and enforce the laws that are convenient.

We've defined down deviancy.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

But we've slid to a place where we follow and enforce the laws that are convenient.

That is entirely a funding problem. And it's on purpose. And it's one sided.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I understand and empathize with the gun control response to this incident and others like it. It's terribly frustrating to feel there's no answer and more gun restrictions might at least help.

One of the questions that always comes into my mind is, was this a mass shooting, or a mass killing? If you follow me there. The ones off the top of my head mostly seem to be the result of a lot of premeditation and planning, not just some loon that decides in five minutes this is what he's going to do, so I tend to think of it as the latter.

[Drew S.]

I'd have the gun purchase process include required safety training, statement of need, criminal background check, and psychological evaluation. Hand guns would be more difficult to purchase than hunting rifles.

Mandatory registration, no ammo purchase without matching registration. Limits on ammo purchases (tracked in a database like cold medicine purchases).

Mandatory buyback and destruction of assault rifles.

I wouldn't personally be a fan of these, but they are very well thought out and I think they would be reasonably effective(at least compared to some of the other nonsense that gets proposed.)

How would you pay for the buyback and would you pay fair value for the guns?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I understand and empathize with the gun control response to this incident and others like it. It's terribly frustrating to feel there's no answer and more gun restrictions might at least help.

One of the questions that always comes into my mind is, was this a mass shooting, or a mass killing? If you follow me there. The ones off the top of my head mostly seem to be the result of a lot of premeditation and planning, not just some loon that decides in five minutes this is what he's going to do, so I tend to think of it as the latter.

A professor of criminology on the TV this morning I think correctly pointed out that you're not going to prevent the next one of these mass killings. They're too difficult to prevent. However, he did say that if we do things around mental illness and guns it will mitigate a lot of the smaller stuff that we don't necessarily see in the news but does impact people's lives every day. I think that's a worthwhile endeavor.

[Drew S.]

No reason why police can't have higher capacity handguns than private citizens.

I most definitely wouldn't be in favor of that. They should never be able to outgun private citizens.

[BassAle]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I wouldn't personally be a fan of these, but they are very well thought out and I think they would be reasonably effective(at least compared to some of the other nonsense that gets proposed.)

How would you pay for the buyback and would you pay fair value for the guns?

I'd pay for it the way everything gets paid for these days -- deficit spending ;P

honestly, I don't know. I do know if I were supreme dictator I'd cut the military budget in half (at least) and I'd raise taxes on the upper income brackets and inheritance.

The guns would no longer have market value because they can't be sold (they'd have value on the black market), but I would envision a buyback at well below what the retail price of the gun was prior to the ban.

[joecct]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

How does society stop a mass murderer from committing mass murder?

If you limit guns, he'll use a truck.
If you limit trucks, he'll use explosives.
If you limit explosives, he'll use chemicals.

A terrorist is going to try to commit mass murder no matter what. You can't reason with a fanatic. But fortunately there frequently are tells that may tip off law enforcement to stop the terrorist in time. One would think that having an arsenal at your house should solicit a friendly visit from the cops to see what the heck is going on.

Apparently (and unfortunately) it does not.

But how can anyone stop John Q. Public who wakes up one morning and snaps & commits mass murder?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

But how can anyone stop John Q. Public who wakes up one morning and snaps & commits mass murder?

See my post below. You can't. But there's a lot of pain and suffering on the margins that could be prevented that isn't. That's where the benefits are.

[BassAle]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I most definitely wouldn't be in favor of that. They should never be able to outgun private citizens.

I'm reminded of what I observed in London -- lots of cops walking the beat didn't have guns at all. In areas that needed extra security some specially trained officers had machine guns, which private citizens wouldn't have access too.

Does someone giving a traffic ticket really need a gun? I live in a national park town, the "LO" (law enforcement) rangers wear body armor and carry guns and tasers. Usually all they are doing is giving out warnings for illegal parking or under age drinking/smoking pot in the campgrounds. (I think the body armor requirement happened after a couple rangers at Mount Ranier were killed by a nut job with a gun that decided to go on a rampage.) Most cops only draw and shoot their gun at a firing range.

[BassAle]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

One would think that having an arsenal at your house should solicit a friendly visit from the cops to see what the heck is going on.

Apparently (and unfortunately) it does not.

there is nothing in the law that says I can't buy as many guns as I want. it's my constitutional right.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Does someone giving a traffic ticket really need a gun?

Are you serious?

Of course they do. If for nothing else than deterrence.


Officers have no idea who they've pulled over or who else may be in the vehicle or what else may be in the vehicle.

[Drew S.]

I'm reminded of what I observed in London -- lots of cops walking the beat didn't have guns at all. In areas that needed extra security some specially trained officers had machine guns, which private citizens wouldn't have access too.

Does someone giving a traffic ticket really need a gun? I live in a national park town, the "LO" (law enforcement) rangers wear body armor and carry guns and tasers. Usually all they are doing is giving out warnings for illegal parking or under age drinking/smoking pot in the campgrounds. (I think the body armor requirement happened after a couple rangers at Mount Ranier were killed by a nut job with a gun that decided to go on a rampage.) Most cops only draw and shoot their gun at a firing range.

I think what they do in London makes a lot of sense. What we're doing here is completely insane. I read a year ago or so Ellsworth was going to spend like $10K on new AR-15's, what a complete waste of money. It sends completely the wrong message too. In a small town like that you don't need cops running around with those guns.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

In regards to how police are armed, a real escalation in police armament was in response to this incident in 1986 as well as some other similar events.

[unofan]

Are you serious?

Of course they do. If for nothing else than deterrence.


Officers have no idea who they've pulled over or who else may be in the vehicle or what else may be in the vehicle.

99% of officers will retire having never drawn their weapon on duty, let alone fired it.

The myth that the traffic stop is the most dangerous activity a cop performs needs to end.