6 ms·

Like... proper gun legislation?

by GordonS 4y ago

endisneigh 4y ago
How exactly would gun legislation stop an active shooter? I agree it could prevent it from happening to begin with.
- consumer451 4y ago
  Macro vs micro.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    No amount of legislation can stop an active shooter already in your school, shooting people up is already breaking several laws.
    - consumer451 4y ago
      Sadly at this point, the micro problem is the day’s school shooting. The macro problem is decades of 2nd amendment “purism.” No other country has this problem to the extent that the USA has. Also, no other country has such lax gun laws. At least no country of which I’m aware. In regard to this matter, I honestly don’t see what the political paths going forward could be for the USA.
    - giaour 4y ago
      This seems really pedantic, like saying that shark repellant won't help you when the shark already has you in its jaws. You've clearly reached a point where the shark repellant would have helped had it been used. It's much easier both practically and legislatively to prevent a mass shooting than it is to intervene in and halt one.
      - salawat 4y ago
        ...Which is a stealth way of trying to skirt around that whole Second Amendment sticking point.
        giaour 4y ago
        ... What sticking point? Red flag laws are the bipartisan solution du jour, and they are preventative rather than interventative measures.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Law is inherently pedantic
- logseman 4y ago
  There were a bunch of police who’d just done training on stopping an active shooter and simply refused to follow the training. What is the point of reactive measures if they are flat-out disregarded? In this example, this drone could be deployed but it could not attack the shooter, or it could attack the kids instead. Considering that everyone would reject any liability just like the Uvalde PD has done, it would not help at all.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    I don’t disagree. What are some alternatives?
    - Teever 4y ago
      Have you considered looking abroad to see how other nations do it?
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        I have - other countries don’t seem particularly better at stopping active shooters. What they’re better at is preventing them, but the tech in the article is about stopping them. Obviously making it harder to get guns will prevent them, but I’m talking and asking about stopping an engaged active shooter.
        logseman 4y ago
        The entire point that is being sidelined by that is an active shooter is 1) armed 2) surrounded by unarmed people 3) has the element of surprise to their side Even a single soldier that catches the enemy by surprise while they’re resting or asleep is going to make an absolute carnage. This is known in the military since warfare is a thing and has been used by many successful generals. It must not get to the point of an active shooter being on the loose, and somehow in other countries it manages to be a very strange occurrence, where the guns have been smuggled by a foreign enemy power, the gunners have been indoctrinated by whatever cult got their turn today, etc. You also managed to skirt the other part that has been mentioned. If they are ever deployed, these toys will eventually kill the wrong person, which could be a child. Given that all you are interested about is in stopping the active shooter, will you deem this death justified, and agree that there is no liability because “the code did it”?
- asah 4y ago
  it's just friction... by making it harder to attain guns, you reduce the NUMBER of active shooter situations... really, it's that simple.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Imagine you have (1) a system that fails people so utterly that they decide a mass shooting is a commiserate response, and (2) occurrences of this have grown at a worrying rate from almost zero over the past 30 years, to current levels. This is a symptom of severe underlying institutional failure. Shouldn’t we address why we’re failing our children so spectacularly, such that our institutions are literally turning them into mass murderers at a historically unprecedented rate? The gun is ancillary. The fact that it’s happening at all should be a klaxon wake-up call for institutions, mental health experts, educators, parents, and society. Instead, we’re screaming about magazine sizes and the types of guns used by children driven to mass murder. Like, uh, maybe ask yourselves why Jeremy is so disaffected? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(song) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(song) > After coming into class late that morning, [Jeremy] Delle was told to get an admittance slip from the school office. He left the classroom, and returned with a .357 Magnum revolver. Delle walked to the front of the classroom, announced "Miss, I got what I really went for", put the barrel of the firearm in his mouth, and pulled the trigger before his teacher or classmates could react. Admittance slips. In-school suspension. Truancy laws. Zero-tolerance. Schools have become inescapable hell-holes for children that don’t fit the cookie-cutter institutional mold, but we’d apparently rather argue about the magazine size those children use once a vanishingly small percentage of them finally just lose their shit.
    - asah 4y ago
      While all true statements, your reasoning does not refute the mathematically true statement that "making it harder to attain guns reduces the frequency of gun discharge" We choose to have more guns than people in this country and we choose to make them easy to attain and possess. If we add friction to some/all of these processes, then there will be fewer guns. On a forum where people discuss applications, count clicks, clickthroughs and "dark patterns," this should be mathematically obvious.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  .
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Easy. You put a tax on guns or require registration. Make it a felony to not pay the tax. Then you get to trace the chain of custody of the shooters guns and start arresting the people supplying arms to psychotics.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Huh? A tax wouldn’t have stopped the most recent Texas school shooting. A felony for not paying taxes seems needlessly punitive btw
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      Sure it would. The compliance costs and reduced volumes would significantly increase the cost of the AR-15. Johnny Crackhead doesn’t have $5k to buy his toy. Back in the 90s when the assault weapons ban was in place, private sales prices for legal AR-15s were easily 3-5x more in 1995 dollars. You regulate the legal sales to keep guns away from unqualified individuals. There such a glut of firearms on the market, a black market will spring up, so when those customers kill people, you go up the food chain and throw the black market arms dealers in prison where they belong. Regulation works. There are people with NFA licenses who own Gatling guns, Tommy guns, BARs, etc. These are true firearms enthusiasts who don’t hurt anyone. Use a similar framework and get the crazy people away from firearms.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Poll tax on second amendment. No dice. Furthermore, the solution to everything you don't like is not taxes. I can make gunpowder with bird crap and drywall. I can make guns with a couple aluminum ingots and machine tools. Felon's can't have guns already, and the quickest way to felon status is looking at someone cross-eyed with a firearm, and furthermore, if you're going off the handle and using it, I'm pretty sure your next visit to the ballot box is the last thing you're worried about.
    - logseman 4y ago
      Your McGyver weapon, if it were to work and not get jammed, is not going to be able to fire more than a bullets per second like a bump stocked AR 15 can.
chroem- 4y ago
Statistically speaking, in the United States you are more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to die in a school shooting. The vast majority of gun violence is drug and gang related, however since 2020 progressive jurisdictions have lessened drug/gang firearms penalties and enforcement, because of their perceived disproportional impact on BIPOC communities.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jimbob45 4y ago
Then you’ve brought back bombs which are harder to legislate and twice as destructive. Find a way to ban those (good luck) and now you’ve on track to contend with odorless poisonous gas. Remember, too, that 3D-printed weapons are now freely accessible to anyone. Thats not to say that some common-sense gun laws wouldn’t be a net benefit to society but they would ultimately do nothing to stop massacres from occurring.

Like... proper gun legislation?

endisneigh 4y ago

How exactly would gun legislation stop an active shooter? I agree it could prevent it from happening to begin with.

consumer451 4y ago
Macro vs micro.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  No amount of legislation can stop an active shooter already in your school, shooting people up is already breaking several laws.
  - consumer451 4y ago
    Sadly at this point, the micro problem is the day’s school shooting. The macro problem is decades of 2nd amendment “purism.” No other country has this problem to the extent that the USA has. Also, no other country has such lax gun laws. At least no country of which I’m aware. In regard to this matter, I honestly don’t see what the political paths going forward could be for the USA.
  - giaour 4y ago
    This seems really pedantic, like saying that shark repellant won't help you when the shark already has you in its jaws. You've clearly reached a point where the shark repellant would have helped had it been used. It's much easier both practically and legislatively to prevent a mass shooting than it is to intervene in and halt one.
    - salawat 4y ago
      ...Which is a stealth way of trying to skirt around that whole Second Amendment sticking point.
      - giaour 4y ago
        ... What sticking point? Red flag laws are the bipartisan solution du jour, and they are preventative rather than interventative measures.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Law is inherently pedantic
logseman 4y ago
There were a bunch of police who’d just done training on stopping an active shooter and simply refused to follow the training. What is the point of reactive measures if they are flat-out disregarded? In this example, this drone could be deployed but it could not attack the shooter, or it could attack the kids instead. Considering that everyone would reject any liability just like the Uvalde PD has done, it would not help at all.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  I don’t disagree. What are some alternatives?
  - Teever 4y ago
    Have you considered looking abroad to see how other nations do it?
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      I have - other countries don’t seem particularly better at stopping active shooters. What they’re better at is preventing them, but the tech in the article is about stopping them. Obviously making it harder to get guns will prevent them, but I’m talking and asking about stopping an engaged active shooter.
      - logseman 4y ago
        The entire point that is being sidelined by that is an active shooter is 1) armed 2) surrounded by unarmed people 3) has the element of surprise to their side Even a single soldier that catches the enemy by surprise while they’re resting or asleep is going to make an absolute carnage. This is known in the military since warfare is a thing and has been used by many successful generals. It must not get to the point of an active shooter being on the loose, and somehow in other countries it manages to be a very strange occurrence, where the guns have been smuggled by a foreign enemy power, the gunners have been indoctrinated by whatever cult got their turn today, etc. You also managed to skirt the other part that has been mentioned. If they are ever deployed, these toys will eventually kill the wrong person, which could be a child. Given that all you are interested about is in stopping the active shooter, will you deem this death justified, and agree that there is no liability because “the code did it”?
asah 4y ago
it's just friction... by making it harder to attain guns, you reduce the NUMBER of active shooter situations... really, it's that simple.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Imagine you have (1) a system that fails people so utterly that they decide a mass shooting is a commiserate response, and (2) occurrences of this have grown at a worrying rate from almost zero over the past 30 years, to current levels. This is a symptom of severe underlying institutional failure. Shouldn’t we address why we’re failing our children so spectacularly, such that our institutions are literally turning them into mass murderers at a historically unprecedented rate? The gun is ancillary. The fact that it’s happening at all should be a klaxon wake-up call for institutions, mental health experts, educators, parents, and society. Instead, we’re screaming about magazine sizes and the types of guns used by children driven to mass murder. Like, uh, maybe ask yourselves why Jeremy is so disaffected? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(song) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(song) > After coming into class late that morning, [Jeremy] Delle was told to get an admittance slip from the school office. He left the classroom, and returned with a .357 Magnum revolver. Delle walked to the front of the classroom, announced "Miss, I got what I really went for", put the barrel of the firearm in his mouth, and pulled the trigger before his teacher or classmates could react. Admittance slips. In-school suspension. Truancy laws. Zero-tolerance. Schools have become inescapable hell-holes for children that don’t fit the cookie-cutter institutional mold, but we’d apparently rather argue about the magazine size those children use once a vanishingly small percentage of them finally just lose their shit.
  - asah 4y ago
    While all true statements, your reasoning does not refute the mathematically true statement that "making it harder to attain guns reduces the frequency of gun discharge" We choose to have more guns than people in this country and we choose to make them easy to attain and possess. If we add friction to some/all of these processes, then there will be fewer guns. On a forum where people discuss applications, count clicks, clickthroughs and "dark patterns," this should be mathematically obvious.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
.
Spooky23 4y ago
Easy. You put a tax on guns or require registration. Make it a felony to not pay the tax. Then you get to trace the chain of custody of the shooters guns and start arresting the people supplying arms to psychotics.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Huh? A tax wouldn’t have stopped the most recent Texas school shooting. A felony for not paying taxes seems needlessly punitive btw
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Sure it would. The compliance costs and reduced volumes would significantly increase the cost of the AR-15. Johnny Crackhead doesn’t have $5k to buy his toy. Back in the 90s when the assault weapons ban was in place, private sales prices for legal AR-15s were easily 3-5x more in 1995 dollars. You regulate the legal sales to keep guns away from unqualified individuals. There such a glut of firearms on the market, a black market will spring up, so when those customers kill people, you go up the food chain and throw the black market arms dealers in prison where they belong. Regulation works. There are people with NFA licenses who own Gatling guns, Tommy guns, BARs, etc. These are true firearms enthusiasts who don’t hurt anyone. Use a similar framework and get the crazy people away from firearms.
- salawat 4y ago
  Poll tax on second amendment. No dice. Furthermore, the solution to everything you don't like is not taxes. I can make gunpowder with bird crap and drywall. I can make guns with a couple aluminum ingots and machine tools. Felon's can't have guns already, and the quickest way to felon status is looking at someone cross-eyed with a firearm, and furthermore, if you're going off the handle and using it, I'm pretty sure your next visit to the ballot box is the last thing you're worried about.
  - logseman 4y ago
    Your McGyver weapon, if it were to work and not get jammed, is not going to be able to fire more than a bullets per second like a bump stocked AR 15 can.

chroem- 4y ago

Statistically speaking, in the United States you are more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to die in a school shooting. The vast majority of gun violence is drug and gang related, however since 2020 progressive jurisdictions have lessened drug/gang firearms penalties and enforcement, because of their perceived disproportional impact on BIPOC communities.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jimbob45 4y ago

Then you’ve brought back bombs which are harder to legislate and twice as destructive. Find a way to ban those (good luck) and now you’ve on track to contend with odorless poisonous gas. Remember, too, that 3D-printed weapons are now freely accessible to anyone. Thats not to say that some common-sense gun laws wouldn’t be a net benefit to society but they would ultimately do nothing to stop massacres from occurring.