America - The Official Thread

[R3V]

@Danoff @Joey D I see where you are coming from, but I also think you underestimate the long term of effects of children growing up in such fear.

Regardless, the talk whenever this kind of thing happen should be about preventing shooters from existing. You can talk to your local school about what makes you feel comfortable taking your kids there, but the national discussion should be about identifying why they happen and prevent it.

On that thought, have there been any black school shooters in America? I have a hypothesis. Black kids know they're oppressed and are taught that the American dream is mostly ********. Their low expectations versus the high expectations/hopes of other kids (including immigrants) in terms of wealth, status or sex could explain why they don't shoot their classmates.

 

[Danoff]

Regardless, the talk whenever this kind of thing happen should be about preventing shooters from existing.

It's a big problem, it's a poorly understood problem, it's a long-term problem. We should also be talking about what we're doing today.

You can talk to your local school about what makes you feel comfortable taking your kids there, but the national discussion should be about identifying why they happen and prevent it.

The national discussion should also be about what we're doing today.

On that thought, have there been any black school shooters in America?

Yes. In large part, the psychopathic mass-murderer is the domain of the white male. Especially young ones. There are some black shooters.

I have a hypothesis. Black kids know they're oppressed and are taught that the American dream is mostly ********. Their low expectations versus the high expectations/hopes of other kids (including immigrants) in terms of wealth, status or sex could explain why they don't shoot their classmates.

Black people are about 12% of the population. Gut feel doesn't suggest that they make up 1 in 10 mass school shooters, but I don't have data on that.

 

[Pupik]

I don't see how security at the school takes a back seat to anything.

It's already a nuisance to access the school. During covid, for a while, I wasn't even allowed in the school. I think we're past that.

It's a school, not a public park.

I think with school shootings we're past that.

Every incident is an opportunity to learn. Even when security is successful.

Let me remind you I'm not against the added security; my kids go to public schools and my wife teaches, as well. Remember that I attended a school which much later suffered a horrific tragedy. Obviously, security beefed up there after that. But the populace would rather use the resources elsewhere, and that's why it's stuck that way. So (disappointedly) I give the same example I've given to The Red-Hatted Border Wall Fanatics...who's gonna pay for it and how to implement it?

But nearly everyone else is apathetic and the public keeps wishing and hoping the evil people just go somewhere else. It does nothing to stop the major root cause of the issue. We get "whataboutisms" and deflecting responses (knife fights, it happened once in Norway, blah blah). No, ban assault rifles and automatic weapons. Start somewhere.

Human reactions cannot hope to compete with their operations, unless you either own the same sort of weapon or have been combat-trained for years. No wonder police officers have to be pulled in for ridiculous amounts of fear. We had an assault weapon ban and statistically it reduced mass casualties. Based on statistics we let it sunset and felt things would get back to normal. Instead we have more crazies with easier access to these types of weapons and/or fearfully-enraged individuals who are constructing and simultaneously oiling the slippery slope. If one has to be an adult to use these things responsibly, then it's time to use our moral backbones to put away the childish things.

 

[Danoff]

Let me remind you I'm not against the added security; my kids go to public schools and my wife teaches, as well. Remember that I attended a school which much later suffered a horrific tragedy. Obviously, security beefed up there after that. But the populace would rather use the resources elsewhere, and that's why it's stuck that way. So (disappointedly) I give same example I've given to The Red-Hatted Border Wall Fanatics...who's gonna pay for it?

I understand.

No push to remove a class of weapons for which human reactions cannot hope to compete with, unless you either own the same sort of weapon or have been combat-trained for years. No wonder police officers have to be pulled in for ridiculous amounts of fear. We had an assault weapon ban and statistically it reduced mass casualties. Based on statistics we let it sunset and felt things would get back to normal. Instead we have more crazies with easier access to these types of weapons and/or fearfully-enraged individuals who are constructing and simultaneously oiling the slippery slope.

I'm typically not in favor of banning almost anything for sale to the public. I usually like to point out that Arnold Schwarzenegger owns a tank. I think Tom Cruise owns a fighter plane from WWII or something. Grenade launchers, automatic weapons, whatever it is, if it can be even possibly owned in public I think it makes sense for there to be some kind of path to ownership. Even if that path is onerous, requires intense screening, requires repeated updated screening, and requires training and testing. I don't like that everyone knee-jerks to "ban" when there are other measures that would effectively solve the issue.

All guns which fire bullets or explosives should require licensing of some sort. And the the degree of diligence and effort that goes into that licensing should reflect the potential for harm. So an AR-15 should require much heavier licensing to purchase. I see no reason why an 18 year old must have access to an AR-15. But even if we did have an available license to an 18 year old for an AR-15, it could, and should, have deeper requirements than a 22 bolt action rifle.

 

[Joey D]

@Danoff @Joey D I see where you are coming from, but I also think you underestimate the long term of effects of children growing up in such fear.

Kids are already growing up in fear, especially over the past four or so years with the pandemic, the attempted coup on the US Government, cop abusing their power, etc. If you tell a kid X is there to keep you safe, they're mostly fine with it. My son's daycare has a locked gate and cameras everywhere, we had to pass a background check before he could go there too. Does he feel unsafe because I have to be buzzed in every day? Not at all.

Still, even if a kid becomes fearful of security measures, you can at least talk to and help a kid process what's going on. You can't do that with a dead kid.

On that thought, have there been any black school shooters in America?

The DC Sniper Lee Boyd Malvo shot a 13-year-old at a middle school in 2002.

But here's a list that goes back to 1979:

https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/shooters_not_white_males_1.19.pdf

 

[Scaff]

All guns which fire bullets or explosives should require licensing of some sort. And the the degree of diligence and effort that goes into that licensing should reflect the potential for harm. So an AR-15 should require much heavier licensing to purchase. I see no reason why an 18 year old must have access to an AR-15. But even if we did have an available license to an 18 year old for an AR-15, it could, and should, have deeper requirements than a 22 bolt action rifle.

I would also add to that the need to be carrying it in public needs to be treated the same way.

 

[Joey D]

I would also add to that the need to be carrying it in public needs to be treated the same way.

In some states it is. If the state doesn't have Constitutional Carry, you typically need to have a license to carry a gun. However, it's comically easy to get and it involves 8 hours of classroom instruction and like an hour on the range. A vast majority of it is a lawyer telling you all the reasons you shouldn't carry a gun and there's very little about the safe operation.

Responsible gun owners who carry spend time at the range though and take advanced classes so they know what they're doing. I started to take some of those advanced classes then COVID happened and I didn't feel comfortable continuing. I believe constant training is the key to safely carrying a gun though since, in order to be effective and not kill an innocent person, it needs to be almost second nature. I recognize that I'm likely better than a significant percentage of gun owners when it comes to carrying, but I also recognize that I have a long way to go before I'd consider myself a person that should carry all the time.

I guess the way I look at it is that a firearm is a tool and when used incorrectly will end up hurting/killing you, someone else, or both parties. I wouldn't use a chainsaw without figuring out what the hell I was doing or being comfortable with it so why would I operate a firearm in the same way? Even with long rifles that I hunt with, I still do several range sessions before even going out into the woods so I get used to the rifle in a safe environment. I also always give myself a refresher on hunter's safety. While I typically don't learn anything I don't already know, I do feel it's worth the 30 minutes to read through it just to reinforce it in my mind.

I do agree with @Danoff that guns should be licensed and I think all of that should be put into a national database. All legal guns have a serial number and it would be really simple to just have that linked to someone's social security number or something like that. While it wouldn't cut down on illegal guns, it would certainly help keep things safer. I also think anyone who carries should have a permit that needs to be renewed with both a written and shooting proficiency test done every 3-5 years. Bascially, treat it like a driver's license, except actually have it meaningful.

I know some people believe this would be at odds with the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment just says that you have a right to own a gun. It says nothing about the right to carry that weapon or that all guns are allowed. If the Supreme Court was worth a damn, I would assume they'd understand this, but it's probably wishful thinking.

 

[R3V]

No, ban assault rifles and automatic weapons.

What's the difference? What language would you use to ban certain weapons but not others? I'm not being an ass. This is a legit question. There's been a cat and mouse game between the ATF and gun manufacturers. There's always loop holes that allow through the same guns.

The DC Sniper Lee Boyd Malvo shot a 13-year-old at a middle school in 2002.

But here's a list that goes back to 1979:
https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/shooters_not_white_males_1.19.pdf

Thanks for the link. The DC sniper is the one who drove around with his brother in the trunk? That one counts more like a serial killer, and not a vengeful kid who's taking it out indiscriminately on his school mates. I remember watching an episode of the FBI files on Discovery a long time ago about this.

I went through your list and excluded adults and non-blacks.

12 October 1995 Toby Sincino, 16 Blackville, SC: Blackville-Hilda High School African American

Targeted 1 teacher. Not an indiscriminate shooter.

6 December 1988 Nicholas Elliott, 16 Virginia Beach, VA: Atlantic Shores Christian
School African American

Checks out.

10 December, 1985 Floyd Warmsley III, 13 Portland, CT: Portland Junior High School African American

Seems to be targeted at the principle and shot someone else as he ran away.

So practically, only one black kid. Just one. I found an interview done with him. It's pretty sad.

I think all of that should be put into a national database.

Why? What crime with guns would this prevent?

I also think anyone who carries should have a permit that needs to be renewed with both a written and shooting proficiency test done every 3-5 years. Bascially, treat it like a driver's license, except actually have it meaningful.

I'm glad you're coming around

 

[Joey D]

That one counts more like a serial killer, and not a vengeful kid who's taking it out indiscriminately on his school mates.

It's still considered a school shooting. The definition of a school shooting, at least in the US, is if someone is a victim of gun violence on school grounds. They might not even be a student at the school and it might even be during a time period when classes aren't in session. This is part of the reason why America had so many school shootings. It's similar to all gun violence statistics that factor in suicides. While the US does have a violence problem, something like 60% of all gun-related deaths are suicides so it makes everything look way more dangerous that it actually is.

Why? What crime with guns would this prevent?

It doesn't prevent crime per se, but rather makes it easier to identify criminals when a firearm is collected as evidence. It would also make it easier to identify who might be armed and dangerous since if law enforcement is looking for someone, they'd have an idea of what kinds of weapons they might own. A flagging process would also be in place so that if a person who shouldn't be able to buy a gun attempts to do so, the dealer would be able to identify them easier. All in all a database isn't a bad thing.

I'm glad you're coming around

Coming around to what exactly? I've always been pro-responsible gun ownership with adequate training for those who wish to carry. I'm still pretty open to most people owning a firearm if they wish to do so, we just need a few more measures in place to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

 

[Blitz24]

I'd say make acquiring a gun a privilege just like acquiring a driver's license, but I immediately realized that in the United States they seem to be giving away driver's licenses so that one won't work.

 

[Pupik]

What's the difference? What language would you use to ban certain weapons but not others? I'm not being an ass. This is a legit question. There's been a cat and mouse game between the ATF and gun manufacturers. There's always loop holes that allow through the same guns.

Quoting myself...

Human reactions cannot hope to compete with their operations, unless you either own the same sort of weapon or have been combat-trained for years.

...I'm not a gun expert but some sort limit on how fast a round goes from magazine and out the end of the barrel (the part that you aim at something you wish to destroy).

Why is everyone so afraid to be arbitrary about things like this? Creating a miasma about the situation doesn't help.

 

[R3V]

I'd say make acquiring a gun a privilege just like acquiring a driver's license, but I immediately realized that in the United States they seem to be giving away driver's licenses so that one won't work.

It's still a good filter or else you'd have literally blind people driving around. Imagine no license required at all. I heard that's how it is in places like India and Egypt. Yeah, licensed idiots > no license.

...I'm not a gun expert but some sort limit on how fast a round goes from magazine and out the end of the barrel (the part that you aim at something you wish to destroy).

You see, I'm no "gun expert" either but I know enough that there's no surgical way of banning certain guns and not others. They keep trying in California. This is the result:

It's a lot like Formula 1 teams coming up with loopholes in the regulations to allow devices that gives them an advantage like the DAS recently. It's just silly. Better to put the restrictions on who can buy guns, rather the guns themselves.

Oh and it doesn't take much training to be good at shooting pump/bolt/straight pull action pretty quickly and accurately. What time do you think is slow enough betweeen shots? 1 second? 2 seconds? Against a moving target there's hardly a difference between them and a semi auto, even for an amateur like me. The time spent to rechamber a round is the time it takes to reaquire a target anyway.

 

[Famine]

I guess they call the cops "five-o" because that's how many minutes they take before deciding to go into a school to stop a mass murderer.

 

[UKMikey]

Here is another result:

 

[R3V]

I hope the police story catches on. They erased their radio communication during the time they pondered if they should go in or not. This alone is obstruction of justice.

 

[UKMikey]

I guess @R3V is a fan of states having higher gun deaths per capita since he alone keeps pooping my posts without comment or counterargument.

It seems reasonable to me that if states with weaker gun laws have three times the gun deaths per capita of those with stronger laws as per my earlier link, then the former should be looking at what the latter seems to be doing to bring those figures down rather than throwing up one's hands and saying "illegal guns are everywhere".

 

[Dotini]

Hawaii is the 50th state.

 

[Pupik]

It's still a good filter or else you'd have literally blind people driving around. Imagine no license required at all. I heard that's how it is in places like India and Egypt. Yeah, licensed idiots > no license.

As more states have dropped permits and licensing requirements, it's a race to the nether regions.

The problem with verifying the mental heath of individuals among the great masses is there's no really strict gauge at all.

Theoretically, taking away the inanimate objects turns out to be a lot easier. Except when people think of their guns as lovable members of their family.

 

[Famine]

Hawaii is the 50th state.

 

[Blitz24]

Blur-linking the third part of this due to profanity but Abbott might want to hire better representatives if they think a victim's relative would want no changes to gun laws and THEN threatened to press charges for being angry at the representative.

Spoiler: Profanity

Putting the edit down here but this individual is likely engaging in a smear campaign against Abbott. Good call @TexRex.

 

[TexRex]

Blur-linking the third part of this due to profanity but Abbott might want to hire better representatives if they think a victim's relative would want no changes to gun laws and THEN threatened to press charges for being angry at the representative.

Spoiler: Profanity

Yeah, no, even in a timeline as ****ed up as this one, that sounds like total ********.

 

[Blitz24]

Yeah, no, even in a timeline as ed up as this one, that sounds like total ****.

I mean, you have this gem from Abbott earlier, so...


I agree to take any of the unsubstantiated reports with a grain of salt. Then again, we are now going with doors are the problems, not guns. What's next? Tomatoes will be the problem?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Banning guns in America is 100% not an option. It is legitimately impossible to do so in an effective manner that doesn't create massive short- or long-term repercussions.

Ban anything that is semi or full auto. There is no place for those types of guns anywhere other than the front lines of war. Pistols for protection, rifles for hunting. Nobody needs any more then that.

 

[Populuxe]

Yeah, no, even in a timeline as ed up as this one, that sounds like total ****.

Yes, it does sound like ********. But I have no reason to doubt his story. And let's face it, this does not sound out of character for Abbot and his sycophants. Not even in the slightest.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's still a good filter or else you'd have literally blind people driving around. Imagine no license required at all. I heard that's how it is in places like India and Egypt. Yeah, licensed idiots > no license.


You see, I'm no "gun expert" either but I know enough that there's no surgical way of banning certain guns and not others. They keep trying in California. This is the result:
View attachment 1154403

It's a lot like Formula 1 teams coming up with loopholes in the regulations to allow devices that gives them an advantage like the DAS recently. It's just silly. Better to put the restrictions on who can buy guns, rather the guns themselves.

Oh and it doesn't take much training to be good at shooting pump/bolt/straight pull action pretty quickly and accurately. What time do you think is slow enough betweeen shots? 1 second? 2 seconds? Against a moving target there's hardly a difference between them and a semi auto, even for an amateur like me. The time spent to rechamber a round is the time it takes to reaquire a target anyway.

If my goal was killing a lot of school children, I would want the first one. The second one looks more cumbersome to reload, especially if it truly is a fixed magazine, and clunky to operate with that ******** stock. I have, what I would say is considerable firearms experience. I've owned multiple AK and AR pattern rifles and other novelty stuff like FN P90s, Steyers, etc. The ergonomics of an AR15 are excellent in standard configuration, which is what makes them very effective at killing kids. As for loopholes...well...they can be discovered and remedied...the gun industry sure is quick to find them. Shouldn't be that hard to update the regulations as new ones are worked out.

You think a bolt action rifle is as effective at bulk-killing 9 year olds as an AR15? Honest question, hope you'll answer it. I say no freaking way. You'd have to spend considerable time practicing your technique, and even then, the magazines are typically tiny, reloading takes a long time, the rifle itself is large and unwieldy (exactly what you don't want when you are killing kids) and bolt-actions are prone to jams.

 

[R3V]

Pistols for protection, rifles for hunting. Nobody needs any more then that.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

If my goal was killing a lot of school children, I would want the first one. The second one looks more cumbersome to reload, especially if it truly is a fixed magazine, and clunky to operate with that ******** stock. I have, what I would say is considerable firearms experience. I've owned multiple AK and AR pattern rifles and other novelty stuff like FN P90s, Steyers, etc. The ergonomics of an AR15 are excellent in standard configuration, which is what makes them very effective at killing kids. As for loopholes...well...they can be discovered and remedied...the gun industry sure is quick to find them. Shouldn't be that hard to update the regulations as new ones are worked out.

You think a bolt action rifle is as effective at bulk-killing 9 year olds as an AR15? Honest question, hope you'll answer it. I say no freaking way. You'd have to spend considerable time practicing your technique, and even then, the magazines are typically tiny, reloading takes a long time, the rifle itself is large and unwieldy (exactly what you don't want when you are killing kids) and bolt-actions are prone to jams.

It could be equally effective, yes. At least in my hands. Heavy AR's like an M16A2 are too big and heavy. Adding a drum mag makes it worse, and those are notriously unreliable. A regular Ruger American chambered in 223/5.56 could do as much damage. It's lighter and takes AR mags. They don't jam. Mag dumping and praying isn't effective as you think with people running around.

If you really want to complain about effectiveness, your PS90 would've been much worse than any AR. Half the weight, much shorter, much lighter recoil and a reliable 50 round magazine. The round is a necked down 5.56.

What do you propose? A blanket ban on semi-autos? Centerfire? Unless you do either of those, there will always be rifles and pistols that'll do a lot of damage quickly. You'll be left with nothing but Ruger IV and 10/22's.

 

[Joey D]

Ban anything that is semi or full auto. There is no place for those types of guns anywhere other than the front lines of war. Pistols for protection, rifles for hunting. Nobody needs any more then that.

Automatics are already illegal and if you ban semi-automatics you've effectively banned all pistols and most rifles and shotguns. Even my hunting rifle is semi automatic. So in essence you're proposing to have single shot bolt action rifles, muskets, and some of those weird single shot pistols no one uses.

 

[McLaren]

I mean, you have this gem from Abbott earlier, so...


I agree to take any of the unsubstantiated reports with a grain of salt. Then again, we are now going with doors are the problems, not guns. What's next? Tomatoes will be the problem?

He was running away from that interview like a snow storm was coming. Think he told the journalist a classic go-to retort, "You have an agenda bias. You're buying into propaganda" or something like that.

Yes, it does sound like ********. But I have no reason to doubt his story. And let's face it, this does not sound out of character for Abbot and his sycophants. Not even in the slightest.

It does, kind of. The whole, "People get hurt & disappear" line is trying to sell it too much.

Abbott to his credit, is too smart to get caught having something like that linked back to him, & doesn't have those kind of cajones to be that bold to begin with.


That guy in Florida, though....

 

[Populuxe]

It does, kind of. The whole, "People get hurt & disappear" line is trying to sell it too much.

Abbott to his credit, is too smart to get caught having something like that linked back to him, & doesn't have those kind of cajones to be that bold to begin with.


That guy in Florida, though....

Maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe not. But until I have a substantive reason to doubt him, I'm taking him at his word.

 

[TexRex]

...those weird single shot pistols no one uses.

You, sir, have besmirched my honor! I shall see you at twenty paces from the barrel of my Wogdon!