8 ms·

Okay. I agree that kids should not be preyed upon in schools. Now what?

avidphantasm 4y ago
Get rid of fucking assault rifles. Ban their sale. Mandatory buybacks. Jail time for violators. There are lots of other problems contributing to school shootings, e.g. alienated males due to retraction of empire, loss of manufacturing jobs due to financialization of the economy, erosion of mental health safety net due to privatization and disinvestment. All of these issues need to be addressed. But when the patient is bleeding out, you first STOP THE BLEEDING.
- rjbwork 4y ago
  That won't be happening. The second amendment is a thing. Demographics and opinion polls show that we won't be getting rid of it any time soon. Assault Rifles are in common use, thus will not be banned any time soon. The current regime seems poised to expand, rather than restrict, the types of arms which we have the right to bear. This is ultimately my point - we have a lot of other avenues to address the problem rather than this, IMO, fruitless attempt to deal with the guns.
  - avidphantasm 4y ago
    Contemporary (mis)interpretation of 2A is relatively recent. Nothing is impossible in this realm.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    Careless deference to the 2nd amendment (more generally, deference to "the constitution") is among the reddest flags you can throw.
    - rjbwork 4y ago
      Not really deference. Just a cold analysis of the state of things.
      - spacemanmatt 4y ago
        You can't just say "the 2nd amendment" and assume we all mean the same thing. Radical misinterpretation is way too common for that.
        raxxorraxor 4y ago
        What do you think it would mean?
        spacemanmatt 4y ago
        That's a good question, and an illustrative one. It means what supports my argument, considering I have only invoked the amendment by name rather than by any specific consequence or ruling. I hope this helps to illustrate the sham of simply calling out "the constitution" or "the 2nd amendment" as a reason.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    Of course it's hard to do, but that doesn't change the fact that getting rid of most guns is clearly and obviously the way to significantly reduce the amount of gun violence in the US. Contesting this is too silly to take seriously, like an alcoholic saying "I know I've been fired from my last three jobs for showing up drunk, but we have lots of other avenues to address this..." And just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. If one side can stack the Supreme Court with people who suddenly realize there's no constitutional right to privacy, the other side can find some judges to suddenly notice the "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment, and act accordingly.
  - crypot 4y ago
    I am pretty sure clear backpacks will solve the problem. I read about it on twitter.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > The second amendment is a thing. Gun-control opponents... generally choose to ignore the first clause altogether, hoping that no one notices that there was never an unabridged right to gun ownership.[1] The solution to the gun-control issue and, perhaps, to some of the lawlessness in our communities is for the states to invoke the Second Amendment and require gun owners to join a militia.[1) The 2nd Amendment says well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, it's the right of the people. Gun owners should be drafted into militia and whipped into shape. Whether regulation works or not is incidental because the 2nd requires it. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/08/22/the-right-to-bear-arms-what-the-framers-meant-contd/daa8305e-6cd2-4ebb-b2f5-333d20e0e5ac/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/08/22/t...
- kcplate 4y ago
  > Get rid of fucking assault rifles There hasn’t been an “assault rifle” used in a school shooting for decades. “Assault rifles” are highly regulated— it’s nearly impossible to own one. There have been a fair number of sporting semi-auto rifles used in mass shootings. Can we please stop describing these weapons as something they are not? The “AR” in AR-15 means “ArmaLite Rifle”. ArmaLite being the company that originally developed the weapon.
  - avidphantasm 4y ago
    Okay, ban all that stuff too. Why do people need more than pistols, shotguns, and basic rifles? I can’t own a nuclear weapon. So clearly there is a line.
    - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
      Do you know how many people are killed by rifles per year in the US? ... Around _400_[1]. That's ALL rifles. Hunting rifles, bolt action, "assault weapons", whatever, in a country with ~300M-1B guns and a population of 330M. While we should look at why these deaths happening, banning the tool used to commit such an incredibly low number of crimes is just silly. I'd compare it to trying to ban swimming pools because 390 people drown in them per year [2]. "No one NEEDS a swimming pool, ban them all!" People like you that want to go off and "ban everything" while being completely uninformed and refusing to do any kind of simple research are the worst kind of voters / citizens. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in... [2] https://www.edgarsnyder.com/statistics/swimming-pool-statistics.html https://www.edgarsnyder.com/statistics/swimming-pool-statist...
      - JasserInicide 4y ago
        The problem with the pool argument is that a pool isn't designed to kill. Guns are. Hunting, self-defense...doesn't matter. Not saying I agree with this line of thinking, but that is a common retort.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  You jail a father, kid gets mocked in school because the father is in jail and he kills some mates with a knife. I don't believe any of the points you make are drivers of violence at all. You perhaps failed to analyze the typical issues. I do agree that a society might want to ban guns. Policing is much safer and there are a lot of other advantages. Fewer deaths too of course. But I heavily doubt the presence of guns is reason for an increase in violence among younger people. On the contrary, I think some people are well underway to create self-fulfilling prophecies. Security at schools is part of that. There is a recent increase in crime but certainly to none of the factors you mentioned. I live happily in a country without access to assault rifles. But we probably disagree on what constitutes drivers of violence.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  > Get rid of fucking assault rifles. Ban their sale. Mandatory buybacks. Jail time for violators. I understand your perspective, and I believe I understand how you arrived at it. I even largely share your concern - but I don’t think you fully realize just how repugnant it is to many people. Have you considered how many lives your proposal would cost, or how likely it would be to succeed in any measurable way? This is not a rhetorical question. I would definitely consider myself part of “American gun culture.” I would resist disarmament with lethal force if necessary. That statement may be somewhat shocking in this context it wouldn’t so much as raise an eyebrow amongst gun owners. … and this is about banning one kind of weapon. One kind. An ill-defined class of firearms that are used in a tiny fraction of crimes. How many deaths would be worthwhile to make that happen? > But when the patient is bleeding out, you first STOP THE BLEEDING. Attempting to disarm the US may or may not “stop the bleeding” - but I’m extremely confident that it would create many times more patients.
- hobo_in_library 4y ago
  It always surprises me to see people proposing a blanket ban on these kinds of guns despite the fact that all school shooters were young men under 25 years old. You could just limit sales of these guns to folks over 25 and make everyone much safer. In fact, every single school shooter was white...

Get rid of fucking assault rifles. Ban their sale. Mandatory buybacks. Jail time for violators. There are lots of other problems contributing to school shootings, e.g. alienated males due to retraction of empire, loss of manufacturing jobs due to financialization of the economy, erosion of mental health safety net due to privatization and disinvestment. All of these issues need to be addressed. But when the patient is bleeding out, you first STOP THE BLEEDING.

rjbwork 4y ago
That won't be happening. The second amendment is a thing. Demographics and opinion polls show that we won't be getting rid of it any time soon. Assault Rifles are in common use, thus will not be banned any time soon. The current regime seems poised to expand, rather than restrict, the types of arms which we have the right to bear. This is ultimately my point - we have a lot of other avenues to address the problem rather than this, IMO, fruitless attempt to deal with the guns.
- avidphantasm 4y ago
  Contemporary (mis)interpretation of 2A is relatively recent. Nothing is impossible in this realm.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  Careless deference to the 2nd amendment (more generally, deference to "the constitution") is among the reddest flags you can throw.
  - rjbwork 4y ago
    Not really deference. Just a cold analysis of the state of things.
    - spacemanmatt 4y ago
      You can't just say "the 2nd amendment" and assume we all mean the same thing. Radical misinterpretation is way too common for that.
      - raxxorraxor 4y ago
        What do you think it would mean?
        spacemanmatt 4y ago
        That's a good question, and an illustrative one. It means what supports my argument, considering I have only invoked the amendment by name rather than by any specific consequence or ruling. I hope this helps to illustrate the sham of simply calling out "the constitution" or "the 2nd amendment" as a reason.
- ineptech 4y ago
  Of course it's hard to do, but that doesn't change the fact that getting rid of most guns is clearly and obviously the way to significantly reduce the amount of gun violence in the US. Contesting this is too silly to take seriously, like an alcoholic saying "I know I've been fired from my last three jobs for showing up drunk, but we have lots of other avenues to address this..." And just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. If one side can stack the Supreme Court with people who suddenly realize there's no constitutional right to privacy, the other side can find some judges to suddenly notice the "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment, and act accordingly.
- crypot 4y ago
  I am pretty sure clear backpacks will solve the problem. I read about it on twitter.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > The second amendment is a thing. Gun-control opponents... generally choose to ignore the first clause altogether, hoping that no one notices that there was never an unabridged right to gun ownership.[1] The solution to the gun-control issue and, perhaps, to some of the lawlessness in our communities is for the states to invoke the Second Amendment and require gun owners to join a militia.[1) The 2nd Amendment says well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, it's the right of the people. Gun owners should be drafted into militia and whipped into shape. Whether regulation works or not is incidental because the 2nd requires it. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/08/22/the-right-to-bear-arms-what-the-framers-meant-contd/daa8305e-6cd2-4ebb-b2f5-333d20e0e5ac/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/08/22/t...
kcplate 4y ago
> Get rid of fucking assault rifles There hasn’t been an “assault rifle” used in a school shooting for decades. “Assault rifles” are highly regulated— it’s nearly impossible to own one. There have been a fair number of sporting semi-auto rifles used in mass shootings. Can we please stop describing these weapons as something they are not? The “AR” in AR-15 means “ArmaLite Rifle”. ArmaLite being the company that originally developed the weapon.
- avidphantasm 4y ago
  Okay, ban all that stuff too. Why do people need more than pistols, shotguns, and basic rifles? I can’t own a nuclear weapon. So clearly there is a line.
  - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
    Do you know how many people are killed by rifles per year in the US? ... Around _400_[1]. That's ALL rifles. Hunting rifles, bolt action, "assault weapons", whatever, in a country with ~300M-1B guns and a population of 330M. While we should look at why these deaths happening, banning the tool used to commit such an incredibly low number of crimes is just silly. I'd compare it to trying to ban swimming pools because 390 people drown in them per year [2]. "No one NEEDS a swimming pool, ban them all!" People like you that want to go off and "ban everything" while being completely uninformed and refusing to do any kind of simple research are the worst kind of voters / citizens. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in... [2] https://www.edgarsnyder.com/statistics/swimming-pool-statistics.html https://www.edgarsnyder.com/statistics/swimming-pool-statist...
    - JasserInicide 4y ago
      The problem with the pool argument is that a pool isn't designed to kill. Guns are. Hunting, self-defense...doesn't matter. Not saying I agree with this line of thinking, but that is a common retort.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
You jail a father, kid gets mocked in school because the father is in jail and he kills some mates with a knife. I don't believe any of the points you make are drivers of violence at all. You perhaps failed to analyze the typical issues. I do agree that a society might want to ban guns. Policing is much safer and there are a lot of other advantages. Fewer deaths too of course. But I heavily doubt the presence of guns is reason for an increase in violence among younger people. On the contrary, I think some people are well underway to create self-fulfilling prophecies. Security at schools is part of that. There is a recent increase in crime but certainly to none of the factors you mentioned. I live happily in a country without access to assault rifles. But we probably disagree on what constitutes drivers of violence.
Ancapistani 4y ago
> Get rid of fucking assault rifles. Ban their sale. Mandatory buybacks. Jail time for violators. I understand your perspective, and I believe I understand how you arrived at it. I even largely share your concern - but I don’t think you fully realize just how repugnant it is to many people. Have you considered how many lives your proposal would cost, or how likely it would be to succeed in any measurable way? This is not a rhetorical question. I would definitely consider myself part of “American gun culture.” I would resist disarmament with lethal force if necessary. That statement may be somewhat shocking in this context it wouldn’t so much as raise an eyebrow amongst gun owners. … and this is about banning one kind of weapon. One kind. An ill-defined class of firearms that are used in a tiny fraction of crimes. How many deaths would be worthwhile to make that happen? > But when the patient is bleeding out, you first STOP THE BLEEDING. Attempting to disarm the US may or may not “stop the bleeding” - but I’m extremely confident that it would create many times more patients.
hobo_in_library 4y ago
It always surprises me to see people proposing a blanket ban on these kinds of guns despite the fact that all school shooters were young men under 25 years old. You could just limit sales of these guns to folks over 25 and make everyone much safer. In fact, every single school shooter was white...