The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[CleveRocks]

I am for people's constitutional right to bear arms, FTR.. but it's difficult to defend this situation..he obtained the gun legally despite a forest of red flags..

I understand you state and local argument. But is the weapons BC state or federal. Does the state know a weapon like an AR 15 is in possessed by a kid demonstrably going off the rails?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I am for people's constitutional right to bear arms, FTR.. but it's difficult to defend this situation..he obtained the gun legally despite a forest of red flags..

I understand you state and local argument. But is the weapons BC state or federal. Does the state know a weapon like an AR 15 is in possessed by a kid demonstrably going off the rails?

If the state doesn't know it -- and they're much closer to the local communities -- how are the feds supposed to know? Heck, nearly half the states don't even have a mechanism to ensure that those adjudicated nuts are reported to the federal database at all.

We absolutely need to put more emphasis on getting that part of the system right.

 

[AZ_]

I don't know how else to put this....

1) There are over 300 million guns in this country right now. Even if you could pass the legislation you wanted today, you would still have to take steps to deal with the reality that guns and ammo will be easily accessible to lawbreakers for a very long time. So whatever your legislative solution is, it needs to address that reality.

There is no solution to address that reality.

It's sunk cost of the inaction to this point, and will take years if not decades to rectify.

2) Nobody is arguing that crazy people should have access to guns. The problem is that at the state level, we do a really shitty job of getting nutty people into the federal database. That needs to be fixed.

I don't disagree. We also allow domestic abusers to continue to collect weapons as they so choose, for the most part.

2) For a school that size, you probably should have 3-5 security if there are multiple buildings. They wouldn't need rifles -- pistols would be enough. The purpose wouldn't be to "take down" a shooter. But as soon as they start returning fire, the threat to the students is pretty much over because the shooter no longer has free rein. Their job would be to isolate/contain/delay the shooter until cops arrive. Otherwise, the entire campus is completely vulnerable not only to lone nutbags, but to lone wolf terrorists.

This seems like a pretty serious burden on public school systems which can barely afford textbooks.

Are you proposing any sort of federal funding specifically for this? I'm not opposed to this, but this would seem more along the lines of a temporary solution while we work to eliminate the larger problem discussed in point 1.

3. The focus on "assault weapons" is...ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of gun homicides in this country are committed with handguns. In fact, under federal law, you only need to be 18 to purchase a long-rifle, but 21 to purchase a handgun. If you have someone who wants to kill large numbers people in a school, and they can't get an rifle, they'll just go in packing multiple, easily concealed handguns and be able to kill just about the same number of people because the shooting is almost always at extremely close ranges where the additional accuracy of a rifle isn't necessary.

You won't see me argue that handguns aren't ALSO a problem. But quite simply, there is no need for the civilian population to own military style weapons.

4.The FBI was warned specifically about this guy last September, where he posted on social media that he was going to be a professional school shooter.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasac...-threat-from?utm_term=.foalM6zpGV#.uqXzr04L38

I haven't yet seen details about what they actually did in response, so that should be interesting to see.

The FBI doesn't have the resources or man power to track down every teen on the internet who makes a joke and then actually turns out to be a school shooter.

If he made that type of statement on social media, what then? Without having the knowledge that he would go on to commit mass murder, what recourse do they have to charge him or take away his weapons?

 

[Huber.]

View: https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/964103654750826497


I think we need to start working on our priorities here.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Are people still worried about the Red Coats coming?

What's funny about that is that "the Red Coats are coming" was about those redcoats coming to confiscate weapons and ammunition belonging to the law-abiding colonists. That's literally how the war began.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

View: https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/964103654750826497


I think we need to start working on our priorities here.

What type of ignorant fucked up shit is this?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Are you proposing any sort of federal funding specifically for this? I'm not opposed to this, but this would seem more along the lines of a temporary solution while we work to eliminate the larger problem discussed in point 1.

No. I don't see how the feds collecting taxes and then shuffling it back down to the states creates more money. States and localities can vote on whether or not to pay for security for their kids.

The FBI doesn't have the resources or man power to track down every teen on the internet who makes a joke and then actually turns out to be a school shooter.

Except they apparently called up the guy who reported this the very next day, so they obviously looked into this at some level. That's why I said I'd like to find out what happened as a result.

If he made that type of statement on social media, what then? Without having the knowledge that he would go on to commit mass murder, what recourse do they have to charge him or take away his weapons?

Again, I was asking the question of what happened during the follow-up. Perhaps they found nothing that would have permitted additional action -- we just don't know.

 

[Scrote Squad]

What type of ignorant fucked up shit is this?

One of the dumbest posts I've seen.

And that's saying a lot, coming from Huber.

 

[AZ_]

No. I don't see how the feds collecting taxes and then shuffling it back down to the states creates more money. States and localities can vote on whether or not to pay for security for their kids.

Seems like the wrong direction to take, as school security seems to be less of an issue than a teenage with copious red flags is able to buy a large, military style rifle.

The burden of public school funding is great enough without the need to protect themselves from mass killings, while the federal government does nothing but collect NRA money to avoid discussing a public health crisis.

Which, by the way, the CDC can't study because it's against the law to study the effects of gun violence.

Except they apparently called up the guy who reported this the very next day, so they obviously looked into this at some level. That's why I said I'd like to find out what happened as a result.

Again, I was asking the question of what happened during the follow-up. Perhaps they found nothing that would have permitted additional action -- we just don't know.

I'd like to know too just for the sake of knowing, but there is almost nothing they can do without a crime being committed or the discovery of intent being found, no?

 

[Chris]

I think some are proposing a gun ban.... or at least, debating the merits of a gun ban.

Okay, that's never happening, nor should it, so let's move on to realistic alternatives.

Boobie says "assault style weapons," I'm okay with that. This constitutes what? Any semiautomatic rifle?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Seems like the wrong direction to take, as school security seems to be less of an issue than a teenage with copious red flags is able to buy a large, military style rifle.

I think in the majority of these cases, the kid doing the shooting didn't actually buy the weapons himself. This appears to be an exception.

The burden of public school funding is great enough without the need to protect themselves from mass killings, while the federal government does nothing but collect NRA money to avoid discussing a public health crisis.

The money all comes from taxpayers. I don't see any reason why the feds are the most appropriate entity to pay for what amounts to a local issue whose requirements vary significantly. That being said, the source of the funding isn't a huge issue for me, so I'd be willing to have the feds pay for at least one armed guard.

Which, by the way, the CDC can't study because it's against the law to study the effects of gun violence.

No, it is not against the law to study the effects of gun violence. DOJ and other agencies do it all the time. It is against the law for the CDC to study it, because it isn't a freaking disease.

I'd like to know too just for the sake of knowing, but there is almost nothing they can do without a crime being committed or the discovery of intent being found, no?

Not necessarily. It depends what they can find out through interviews, investigations, etc.. For example, states should have a court-process through which someone can be put in the database if there is sufficient evidence that they present a danger, with opportunity for a hearing, etc... If states don't have that, then there is nothing stopping them from doing that, and reporting that stuff to the feds.

I really think this is where the biggest problem is occurng. There is simply too little emphasis on the state/local level to identifying these people, and putting forth the effort to prevent them from buying guns.

 

[Chris]

He didn't have a military grade assault rifle. This is where the ignorance of guns comes in. A military grade assault rifle has some form of automatic fire - the ability to spray multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger. An AR-15 that you buy in a store does not do that. If you want to buy a weapon with automatic capability, you have to undergo a more extensive background check and spend a whole lot of money for a different license.

He had a semi-automatic weapon that functions the same as any semi-automatic pistol. You have to pull the trigger separately each time to fire a bullet.

Was going to post this.

The only argument I can see is that the rifle will have increased range which, I'm not sure how that equates to a significantly deadlier weapon in a school shooting scenario with such close quarters.

 

[Chris]

You won't see me argue that handguns aren't ALSO a problem. But quite simply, there is no need for the civilian population to own military style weapons.

So what kinds of rifles are okay. No semiautomatic rifles? Are all semiautomatic rifles considered "military style" or is it just the AR-15 because it looks scary and threatening and like a fully automatic military rifle (but isn't one) ?

Not being facetious just asking, are we only allowing say bolt action rifles?

 

[AZ_]

So what kinds of rifles are okay. No semiautomatic rifles? Are all semiautomatic rifles considered "military style" or is it just the AR-15 because it looks scary and threatening and like a fully automatic military rifle (but isn't one) ?

Not being facetious just asking, are we only allowing say bolt action rifles?

Probably a better question for Stannis or anyone with a military background and a better understanding of the weapons.

I'd much prefer not to have semi-auto anything out there for the public to have.

 

[-Akronite-]

We need to ban military style weapons outright, as they have been repeatedly used in these mass shootings. That's why there's a focus on them, because they are used in the most high-profile killings.

We also need to heavily regulate the ownership of handguns. I agree we should have a gun registry, better/more background checks, and licenses that need to be earned/renewed. There needs to be work done to reduce the number of guns available in the US, legal and illegal. We are well past the point of insanity with this shit. A lot of times the conversation becomes about assault weapons and how that's not a real term and gun people try to make the argument about how non-gun people are ignorant because they can't identify a gun. But I don't give a shit. Fuck guns. Fuck them all. Ban them all... That won't happen unfortunately, but I hate them. We should start with assault/military style/whatever the fuck you want to call them weapons and work toward common sense regulations on all guns. It'll be tougher than Japan or Australia because we have a 2nd amendment and way more guns than they did. But I believe it's possible.

Some good points are being made though, murder doesn't matter until we stop abortions... ???