Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:I think people would just cash in their old crap and buy a new toy.

No one who is a danger to others is going to use it unless they are desperate for crack money.

We're well beyond reducing supply as a solution at this point.

This is false. A manufacturing and sales ban on semiautomatic rifles plus a generous buyback would reduce availability over time. By generous I mean greater than the purchase cost. There would still be 5m or so ARs out there, but over time the number would dwindle.

yeah you'd need a ban first.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Orpheus wrote:The fact that this didn't happen after Sandy Hook (and that there are STILL Sandy Hook truthers) should make us all ashamed. WTF is wrong with our country.

I don't disagree. But one key difference is that the kids at Sandy Hook weren't old enough to mobilize and speak out. What these kids are doing is awe inspiring.

Social media is a far more powerful influential tool now as well.

But I worry about the walkouts. They are essentially creating an unguarded, target-rich environment at the height of the current wave of awareness of this issue.

OT but Did you guys see the townhall clip with one of the survivors asking Rubio will he refuse all NRA money from now on?
He obviously totally waffled the answer despite repeated attempts to get him to answer, but it was abundantly clear he has Presidential aspirations.
‘They’re buying into my agenda’

It was shocking as an answer to that that question.

Survivor:

One thing I’ve been wondering all week is: how does this issue impact the midterms? Democrats have been outperforming by an average of *13 points* in specials since the presidential election. I would have expected that to dip for a larger election cycle. Now?

A majority of Americans say that politicians' views on gun control and gun ownership will have an influence on their votes in November's midterm elections, a Marist College poll reports.

More than eight in ten Americans, 85 percent, say a candidate's views on gun control will affect their vote, including 59 percent who said such positions would be a "major factor" on their vote.

When it comes to what Americans want to see done about mass shootings, more still support tougher gun laws. Seventy-one percent of Americans, including 53 percent of gun owners, say restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened, up from 64 percent in the same poll last October.

Just 23 percent of Americans say gun laws should remain the same while 5 percent say the laws should be less strict.

McParadigm wrote:One thing I’ve been wondering all week is: how does this issue impact the midterms? Democrats have been outperforming by an average of *13 points* in specials since the presidential election. I would have expected that to dip for a larger election cycle. Now?

A majority of Americans say that politicians' views on gun control and gun ownership will have an influence on their votes in November's midterm elections, a Marist College poll reports.

More than eight in ten Americans, 85 percent, say a candidate's views on gun control will affect their vote, including 59 percent who said such positions would be a "major factor" on their vote.

When it comes to what Americans want to see done about mass shootings, more still support tougher gun laws. Seventy-one percent of Americans, including 53 percent of gun owners, say restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened, up from 64 percent in the same poll last October.

Just 23 percent of Americans say gun laws should remain the same while 5 percent say the laws should be less strict.

I fear this tragedy will be forgotten by then. You'll have to hope for another one.

How about this? Allow people to still own an AR-15, but they have to use and store it only within licensed gun clubs. It makes it more difficult for a lone wolf to go shoot up a place without anyone knowing, but it also allows gun makers to keep up their profit margin, a key barrier in getting any gun control. Hell, if they're savvy the gun makers can run the gun clubs themselves and make more money.

I don't think anyone would be fully happy with this, but I'm just trying to think of things that could be politically feasible right now.

I've said for a long time that people can be allowed to buy whatever they want to "arm" themselves (buy a tank if you can afford it), but they should be required to see a mental-health professional weekly. Any missed appointment requires immediate flags and systematic responses by both law enforcement and mental-health professionals.

And Mexico will pay for it!!!

This is a really great read

Irish teacher in California: ‘I never thought it would involve taking a bullet’

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-sty ... 7?mode=amp

Trump calling the deputy a coward. For Fuck sake.

Maybe he had bone spurs?

Trump shouldn't be calling him out, but, why have an armed guard if he's gonna wait outside for four minutes? If anything, this shows that arming teachers probably wouldn't be effective. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean the other guy is going to stop shooting at you

Even if arming teachers ended school shootings, and no one really believes it would, how many kids would die when those guns were fired by accident on normal days?

B wrote:Even if arming teachers ended school shootings, and no one really believes it would, how many kids would die when those guns were fired by accident on normal days?

The premise is absolutely ridiculous anyway. Ok, I realize we don't pay you for all the hours you grade at home, or for the supplies in class or even buy enough freaking printer ink, but go ahead and qualify on this .40 caliber pistol, be proficient with it and know exactly how to act if and when something happens that you need to use it, but only use it in that time and keep it safe until that happens....because administrators and the board can't possibly be expected to adequately use metal detectors or adequately staff the school with the appropriate personnel to defend it so... yeah we're going to just give every staff member a 500 dollar hand gun and hope for the best.

So here's more responsibility for no more money (we're further cutting your retirement income to pay Glock for all the new guns)

It would be more cost effective to hire Blackwater to guard the school than it would be to "arm the teachers"

What's the selling point for becoming a teacher again?

Green Habit wrote:How about this? Allow people to still own an AR-15, but they have to use and store it only within licensed gun clubs. It makes it more difficult for a lone wolf to go shoot up a place without anyone knowing, but it also allows gun makers to keep up their profit margin, a key barrier in getting any gun control. Hell, if they're savvy the gun makers can run the gun clubs themselves and make more money.

I don't think anyone would be fully happy with this, but I'm just trying to think of things that could be politically feasible right now.

I think the response would be this (from David French, normally a rational conservative):https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/cor ... f-defense/

I can't seem to come up with a better idea than making gun owners buy insurance. The problem is that every gun produced introduces risk, the risk that an evil agent will use it for harm. Unfortunately, gun owners to do not bear that risk. The risk falls unevely on the innocent, often times non gun owners.

There needs to be a system where gun owners have some skin in the game.

Dscans wrote:

Green Habit wrote:How about this? Allow people to still own an AR-15, but they have to use and store it only within licensed gun clubs. It makes it more difficult for a lone wolf to go shoot up a place without anyone knowing, but it also allows gun makers to keep up their profit margin, a key barrier in getting any gun control. Hell, if they're savvy the gun makers can run the gun clubs themselves and make more money.

I don't think anyone would be fully happy with this, but I'm just trying to think of things that could be politically feasible right now.

I think the response would be this (from David French, normally a rational conservative):https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/cor ... f-defense/

I can't seem to come up with a better idea than making gun owners buy insurance. The problem is that every gun produced introduces risk, the risk that an evil agent will use it for harm. Unfortunately, gun owners to do not bear that risk. The risk falls unevely on the innocent, often times non gun owners.

There needs to be a system where gun owners have some skin in the game.

The fact that there were apparently four armed cops outside doesn't really negate anyone's talking points, but it does raise a new one: when the fuck did men become such docile, domesticated cowards? It's like people have forgotten that cowardice/bravery aren't amoral concepts.

I've heard a few people try to justify their inaction, but when the children you are assigned to protect are being murdered and you are armed and trained to fight, you fight. There isn't an excuse here.

This is all so fuckin dystopian is mind breaking