Assault Weapons Ban Heading to Senate Floor

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Quicktoy, Aug 9, 2019.

  1. pickled egg

    pickled egg Art is subjective

    Congratulations. You’ve given me a brain tumor reading something that stupid.
    GixxerBlade likes this.
  2. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    I remember years ago (I’m from Springfield) this old man came into town for a doctor’s visit. He was from a really rural area and hadn’t been to the “big city” in forever. Since the city is dangerous, he packed his trusty six shooter on his hip and strolled into the hospital. They freaked the fuck out!
  3. Montoya

    Montoya Well-Known Member

    I didn't interpret anything about what he said above, as relating to arguing for a ban.

    If you look at the research on the subject, rapid engagement with the suspects is the strongest factor in risk mitigation for these situations. Even something that sounds on the surface as ridiculous as the ALICE training and throwing books at the suspect, tend work far more effectively than one would anticipate.
  4. 2blueYam

    2blueYam Track Day Addict

    Nice non sequitur. I never said anything about banning guns so why the talk of banning motorcycles?

    A better analogy: If someone has a well marked history of crashing due to drunk driving I have no problem with the government taking away their right to operate a car or motorcycle. Same with someone that has severe mental health issues that would cause them to be a danger to others if they operated a motor vehicle.
  5. pickled egg

    pickled egg Art is subjective

    But yet you’re saying if someone has a well marked history of shooting people we should take guns away from people who don’t shoot people...
    Fencer and XFBO like this.
  6. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    It’s incremental. To put it simply, as soon as it’s commonplace to immediately yank guns from “crazy” people, it’ll be determined that just owning a gun will mean you must be crazy, so they’ll be knocking at your door next.
  7. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    We’re you aware that felons cannot own guns? Nor can people with a history of mental health issues. There is no law that can be written or enforced that can prevent these tragedies short of a complete ban. And even then, they’d still find a way to harm others via truck, bomb, machete, etc.
  8. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    Exactly. I think effective rapid response would create a positive feedback cycle in preventing these in the first place. They get stopped rapidly, so fewer people get notoriety. Less notoriety leads to less social contagion. Then they become easier to prevent because they’re not as prevalent.

    Preventing things isn’t about physically stopping people. You can’t stop someone breaking into your house and taking shit. You can alter their risk reward calculus and make them go elsewhere, or decrease the time available for malfeasance and reduce your losses.

    I think it’s the same here. A high probability of being stopped will probably cause these people to just suicide themselves or shoot more deliberate targets.

    I don’t think something like the idea of arming teachers was outlandish as a high level concept. Arming untrained and every teacher is clearly stupid. However, why couldn’t some teachers at a school be trained as part of a supplemental response team? They have emergency response teams at zoos to deal with dangerous animals. They train specific staff and preposition weapons lockers throughout the facility. I don’t see why this would be unreasonable for a school. Any teachers not part of the team should be trained on how to respond with books, rocks, staplers whatever if they’re cornered. We shouldn’t train people to just sit there and die.
  9. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    They don’t give a shit. Look into what anti-depressants do to the brain.
  10. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    Maybe. The problem is that mass shootings are a cultural meme now. Semi auto and automatic weapons have been around for a long ass time. This shit was pretty much non-existent before cable news. When it was cable news it was still a huge story. Then when social media came out it really took off. Anti-depressants might be making these people crazy, but mass media is the instigator for sure.
    ducnut likes this.
  11. 600 dbl are

    600 dbl are Shake Zoola the mic rula

    DUI's have their license suspended. Doesn't stop them from driving. It would have to be the government coming to their property and taking any motorized vehicle they have to make an equal argument.
  12. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    And FPS games, and demonizing masculinity, and bullying, and not teaching kids how to deal with failure, and, and, and.....
    ducnut likes this.
  13. Montoya

    Montoya Well-Known Member

    Look at how it was implemented in Florida. It's financial and career suicide to consider arming yourself as a teacher, even if allowed in certain circumstances.
  14. ton

    ton Arf!

    pretty sure the tumor is more directly related to auto-fecal transplant.
  15. ducnut

    ducnut Well-Known Member

    H.H. Holmes didn’t use assault rifles. :D
  16. motorkas

    motorkas Well-Known Member

    Or. . .there are some people who CAN drink and drive without killing people and binning their shit. .however, it got to the point where they came to the conclusion – you know what, too many people are fucking this up so nobody’s allowed to drink and drive (and just like now, there were a lot of people who bitched about it because “they could have a couple of beers, shots and it did nothing to them and telling them they can’t drink and drive is infringing upon their “rights” because they haven’t killed anybody yet.”

    People still do it. People still die from it. But it became more regulated, and the results speak for itself (even with the amount of drivers and cars increasing in the time span that drunk driving fatalities decreased).

    It didn’t stop car makers from giving us almost 300hp Camerys. . .hyper sedans than hit 0-60 in 3 seconds (or minivans that are faster than Ferrari’s from the same period that those regulations started in earnest). . . didn’t decrease the amount of alcohol that’s available to us (unless you’re piss drunk at the bar asking for more and they know you arrived by driving yourself there and intend to leave the same way). . .didn’t even stop establishments from serving alcohol to people if they knew they drove there. . .but objectively, it fucking worked taking that shit away from people even though they hadn’t caused harm.

    You have epilepsy, they take your license away – regardless of how many people you haven’t killed.

    If there ever was an appropriate time to use it. . .:beer:

  17. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    The difference being that damned pesky 2nd Amendment......................
  18. Montoya

    Montoya Well-Known Member

    ....where it mentions, a well regulated militia?
  19. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    Well regulated did not mean the same thing back then that it means now.

    The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

    1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

    1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulatedclock and a true sun dial."

    1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

    1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

    1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

    The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
  20. Quicktoy

    Quicktoy ...Tired...

    Absolutely. They don’t do shit for us gun manufacturers. Ask me the last time someone from the NRA has contacted me to see how they can help us manufacturers and dealers. None. Zip. Nada. I’m not even a member because they helped outlaw machine guns in 86. That’s why I got the license to build my own.

Share This Page