(February 16, 2018 at 3:29 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 1:50 pm)wallym Wrote: Ideally, he wouldn't legally be able to get his hand on a pistol.  But I'm not sure what sort of profiling would be necessary, and even possible constitutionally speaking.

---

Do you care that it was a semi-automatic rifle, and not a handgun?  That's where I think gun control advocates come off a bit wonky.  Because nobody believes that him killing 8 people with a handgun would be any more acceptable than killing 14 with an AR-15.   It's a bit of mitigation, but it doesn't really solve the problem in any way.

The point that a semi-automatic rifle is deadlier than a hand gun, that is a fact.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunda...-myth.html

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year...
---

I'm fine with banning some guns, or even all guns.  I don't really care.  It's just the AR-15 stuff is an odd way to tackle the problem, because it's a small portion of the problem, and doesn't solve the problem in any way.  I think a comprehensive plan rather than a half-ass band-aid might make more headway.

(February 16, 2018 at 4:12 pm)wallym Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 3:29 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: The point that a semi-automatic rifle is deadlier than a hand gun, that is a fact.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunda...-myth.html

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year...
---

I'm fine with banning some guns, or even all guns.  I don't really care.  It's just the AR-15 stuff is an odd way to tackle the problem, because it's a small portion of the problem, and doesn't solve the problem in any way.  I think a comprehensive plan rather than a half-ass band-aid might make more headway.

I agree with you but still you asked what is the difference , I answered.

(February 16, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 3:57 pm)wallym Wrote: It's a fair idea.  The practicality of investigating every threat made on the internet is where I think things go awry.  But when the next guy doesn't threaten to kill kids on the internet, we'll need a new plan for him.  

And what seems inevitable, is that the rules are going to end up disproportionately disarming poor people and minorities.  Maybe that's okay theoretically, but I'd be surprised if it goes over well in any other way.

Having plans for different situations is fine by me.

I'm not sure that's true. Affluent white kids are pretty trigger happy. I can't even think of a single minority school shooter.

If you start listing reasons to take away the right to own a gun though...criminal activity.  violence in school.  drop out of school.  drug use.  etc...  It's going to be very hard to set up a system so strict it nails affluent white kids without hitting the poor/minorities.

Drug laws are a good example of the struggle there.  Affluent white folks aren't filling up the jails even though they use just as much as anyone else.  Probably more.

(February 16, 2018 at 3:27 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: Strawmanning you how? You strawmanned me by saying that I proposed stricter laws as the ultimate solution wich I didn't, I just proposed to work with the laws because it is the fastest thing you can change but I didn't say to not work on the other variables, you just assumed that.

No, it wasn't an assumption. You actually wrote "quick solution" ... and only mentioned stricter laws.

Sorry I can't read your mind, and sorry for taking your words at face-value.

---

(February 16, 2018 at 3:29 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: The point that a semi-automatic rifle is deadlier than a hand gun, that is a fact.

At seventy-five feet, there's little if any difference.

(February 16, 2018 at 3:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 12:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote: woo hooo... 2 per week?... One per week, one per month, one per year... How many is too many?
If there's a rate at which this sort of thing happens, it's not ok, by my book.

Nowhere did I say any rate was okay. My point is that introducing exaggerated claims, or conflating accidents and suicides in with shooting, does nothing to advance the conversation.

That depends on which conversation you want to have, no?

Any of those 3 categories have a high incidence exactly due to the wide availability of guns.
Accidents with firearms rarely happen in Europe. Suicides, too... and, of course, shootings.

(February 16, 2018 at 4:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 3:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Nowhere did I say any rate was okay. My point is that introducing exaggerated claims, or conflating accidents and suicides in with shooting, does nothing to advance the conversation.

That depends on which conversation you want to have, no?

Well, we're in a thread about school shootings, rather than accidents or suicides.

(February 16, 2018 at 4:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Any of those 3 categories have a high incidence exactly due to the wide availability of guns.
Accidents with firearms rarely happen in Europe. Suicides, too... and, of course, shootings.

Well, yeah. You may or may not have read my previous post about what I'd do to address these sorts of shootings by limiting some access to guns.

(February 16, 2018 at 4:32 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

pocaracas Wrote:Any of those 3 categories have a high incidence exactly due to the wide availability of guns.
Accidents with firearms rarely happen in Europe. Suicides, too... and, of course, shootings.

Well, yeah. You may or may not have read my previous post about what I'd do to address these sorts of shootings by limiting some access to guns.

That's good. I wish more of your fellow americans would think that way.
And no, I don't think I read it... might have been merged with some other reply from you and this thing didn't tell me about it.

(February 16, 2018 at 4:49 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 4:32 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, yeah. You may or may not have read my previous post about what I'd do to address these sorts of shootings by limiting some access to guns.

That's good. I wish more of your fellow americans would think that way.
And no, I don't think I read it... might have been merged with some other reply from you and this thing didn't tell me about it.

It's all good. To recap it, I think dumb guns should be phased out in favor of smart guns which only fire for the legal owner who must pass background checks for both criminality and mental soundness. It's not a "cure", but I think it addresses several different issues which each go into America's inordinate firearms death rate.

(February 16, 2018 at 4:19 pm)wallym Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Shell B Wrote: Having plans for different situations is fine by me.

I'm not sure that's true. Affluent white kids are pretty trigger happy. I can't even think of a single minority school shooter.

If you start listing reasons to take away the right to own a gun though...criminal activity.  violence in school.  drop out of school.  drug use.  etc...  It's going to be very hard to set up a system so strict it nails affluent white kids without hitting the poor/minorities.

Drug laws are a good example of the struggle there.  Affluent white folks aren't filling up the jails even though they use just as much as anyone else.  Probably more.

I wouldn't suggest dropping out of school or drug use as a reason to take away a person's right to own a gun. I don't care what color the people are who get nicked, as long as they get nicked for the right reasons, which I already mentioned.

(February 16, 2018 at 5:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 16, 2018 at 4:49 pm)pocaracas Wrote: That's good. I wish more of your fellow americans would think that way.
And no, I don't think I read it... might have been merged with some other reply from you and this thing didn't tell me about it.

It's all good. To recap it, I think dumb guns should be phased out in favor of smart guns which only fire for the legal owner who must pass background checks for both criminality and mental soundness. It's not a "cure", but I think it addresses several different issues which each go into America's inordinate firearms death rate.

I would add a periodical checkup to maintain the right to own guns.
If you fail those, your weapons are either confiscated or exchanged for their market value.
If you don't show up for the check up, your weapons will be confiscated.

Of course, all this would require funding that's currently not existent.