Right? More backstory is surely on the way.
7 Likes
From the victimsâ perspective, this is true in the sense that they are often not intending to be shot. The shooter is much more important to the event, and cutting down the death toll by denying the shootersâ role in a statistical lie wrapped in the guise of incurious skepticism about statistics is simply wrong-headed or dishonest. I donât need to know which of the two it is to call it horseshit.
1 Like
Fuckâs sake, America. Havenât you yet figured out this is not the sort of thing in which you should be a world leader?
5 Likes
You are aware that the Constitution can be amended, right? And that weâve actually taken the step of repealing an amendment to the Constitution when it became abundantly clear that it was destructive to the safety and security of the people in this country? The Constitution is not the Bible. Itâs not a religious document. Even freedom of speech could be repealed if there were ever sufficient support for doing so.
Guess itâs time to re-post my list, thenâŚ
First:
Abolish the second amendment. It was created over 200 years ago when you could fire a single-shot musket once every 5 minutes or so, and had basically even odds of hitting someone with your shot. It was not designed to deal with the kinds of weaponry and standing armies we have today. The second amendment is not sacrosanct, it can be modified or repealed through a new constitutional amendment.
To improve the general safety and accountability of gun ownership commensurate with the danger these weapons pose:
- Create a national registry of firearms and link them to their owners. We do this (at the state level) with cars and even some prescription drugs, so doing it with a lethal weapon doesnât seem like a terrible stretch.
- Require a license for all firearms, which must be renewed annually through a re-application process requiring no less than three hours of firearms training relevant to the type of weapon being licensed, as well as a psychiatric evaluation to assess the mental fitness of the potential owner.
- Every additional firearm purchased by an individual must require similar registration, training, and screening.
To reduce the dangers of criminals with guns:
- No firearm may be sold without first having its barrel rifling pattern recorded along with its serial number, so that in the event of a crime, its owner can be located.
- Gun owners who lose their guns or have them stolen from them will be obligated to file a police report, and gun sales must be reported to a state authority.
- If a weapon is not reported as sold, lost, or stolen and the firearm is used in a crime, the original owner will be considered to have aided and abetted in the commission of that crime.
- In the event of a stolen weapon being used in the commission of a crime, negligent ownership on the part of the rightful license holder will be grounds for criminal charges, regardless of whether the weapon was reported stolen.
- Create a fund, backed by the addition of a tax on gun and ammunition sales, that can be used to institute a permanent federal gun buy-back program (ideally one which rewards more than 100% of the gunâs current value). If a registered gun is stolen and then traded in to the buy-back program, the owner can file a report, the gun can be returned to them, and the person who traded it in would also be on record to pursue for the theft.
To aid in the process of âmaking wholeâ those families who are victims of gun violence:
- Require every gun owner to carry insurance for their firearms.
- Eliminate liability lawsuit immunity for gun manufacturers.
- Establish a fund, also backed by the firearm/ammo sales tax, that can be tapped by victims and their families to provide for medical care and/or funeral costs.
20 Likes
Agreed, the only way to have a civilized society is to politicize things at least 20 years after theyâve happened so as to not get anyone upset. So, really these shooters with their pesky repetitiveness are keeping us from politicizing this volatile issue - I guess we should thank them, nobody likes politics.
2 Likes
Deleted: That was stupid. Regret posting it.
1 Like
It is a lot easier to pull a trigger than slit a wrist. The idea of physically cutting yourself can sometimes be enough to scare you away from an attempt and give you another chance to get help.
6 Likes
Given that this sub-argument started as a statistics for accident type probability, for future comparison of likelihood and therefore the relative importance on the worry scale (and possibly the resource assignment importance) against other cases of death, I have to insist the shooters-who-are-also-the-victims have to be excluded from this one statistics.
1 Like
You are right, usually it is the gun in the wrong place at the wrong time not the person.
2 Likes
It looks like they may well be Muslim too, which will change a lot of peopleâs thinking from âthis is just the necessary cost of freedomâ to âterrorism that just goes to show how we canât trust Muslimsâ.
8 Likes
6 Likes
You see, while this is a generally good plan, that doesnât ban firearms outright, and would likely increase accountability and reduce gun violence, it makes owning a gun harder. And the guys with guns get really upset when you make owning guns harder.
I try not to upset guys with guns. They can shoot you, you know. Itâs much safer to let the guys with guns get their way. Much like letting the wookiee win.
/sarc
/only half sarc.
10 Likes
McVeigh wanted to take down an 8 story building. If what he wanted to do instead was kill a dozen people, a set of pipe bombs or pressure cooker bombs would have done just fine.
That said, I donât think bombs will ever be the tool of choice with most mass killings. I think these kinds of killers want to be actively involved in killing people and bombs are too passive or requires too much planning.
1 Like
Religious Lover, Workplace Fervour or Jilted Grudge,
1 Like
Private individuals at the time of the founding of the US owned far more dangerous weapons than probably anyone currently legally owns in the US including cannons, mortars, bombs, grenades and explosive shells.
The Continental Congress wasnât ignorant about how destructive weapons could be and considering private citizens fielded their own navies, the fact that their weapons were sub-par by todayâs standards doesnât mean they were any less deadly (excluding nukes of course).
As far as poor shooting muskets being state of the art guns, the revolving Belton flintlock was shown to the Continental Congress in 1777 that could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds. The Girandoni air rifle created a year after the Constitution was ratified fired 20 .46 caliber rounds in a magazine and was more than deadly enough to kill people.
2 Likes
Just reclassify these types as homo ballistis
1 Like
Youâre kind of making the same point I was trying to make. The gun debate consumes so much time and energy and goes nowhere. Forget about it, there are more effective ways to spend your time.
2 Likes
Same reason as schools and PP offices; soft targets.
There is nothing heroic about these people. Look at Breivik; fat, sweaty loser living in fantasy world. But sane enough to choose a soft target rather than trying to shoot up a military base.
[edit - the significance of the âfat,sweatyâ bit is that he wasnât particularly physically fit, another reason for choosing soft targets.]
1 Like
Homo Testiculus
1 Like
Yep, did I not write yesterday that when more than one person colludes to commit a crime like this, it gets deflected from being a gun issue into being terrorism? That is precisely what is happening today.
5 Likes
