School shootings and US Gun Control

[greenknight]

Unfortunately, Burger forgets to mention that to maintain such a force, each member of the militia would have to maintain their own arms. Arms equal to what the federal government would maintain for the Army.

[Iniquitous]

Unfortunately, Burger forgets to mention that to maintain such a force, each member of the militia would have to maintain their own arms. Arms equal to what the federal government would maintain for the Army.

And you miss the part of those people owning arms had to be in the militia.  Random Joe Blow down the road couldnt just own one without serving in the militia.

So, want a gun? Join the Army. Or the National Guard.  Otherwise, tough shit.

[greenknight]

And you miss the part of those people owning arms had to be in the militia.  Random Joe Blow down the road couldnt just own one without serving in the militia.

So, want a gun? Join the Army. Or the National Guard.  Otherwise, tough shit.

If you an able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 55, you are in the militia of the United States. As you are if you are a woman who joins the National Guard. That was and is the standard, though the starting age skewed younger in the past. Playing games with who can own a gun, and thus who can satisfactorily muster for militia service, has been used to disenfranchise certain segments of the population.

[Oniya]

Anyway, your main obstacle to getting anything done on controlling or even accurately monitoring/recording gun purchases in our system?

The NRA. And when it comes to keeping loopholes and strangleholds on shifting policies on this issue? These motherfuckers lobby hard to keep the status quo.

Realistically speaking, we can talk policy ideas until the moon turns purple. But none of this will change if the NRA continues to have as much influence on policy as they have.   :-\

Quoted for ever-lovin' truth by this registered Dem.

[Iniquitous]

If you an able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 55, you are in the militia of the United States. As you are if you are a woman who joins the National Guard. That was and is the standard, though the starting age skewed younger in the past. Playing games with who can own a gun, and thus who can satisfactorily muster for militia service, has been used to disenfranchise certain segments of the population.

I'll pick at your age range because it is 17-45. However, that is NOT the kind of militia the Framers meant and you know it so I am going to call you out for being disingenuous.

Militia:
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Trying to claim ALL able-bodied males between 17-45 are in the militia is asinine because they are not trained. They are not regulated. They answer to no one.  Hence the Framers saying "WELL REGULATED".  Just because men sign up for the draft does not mean they are military (try and say you are to get a military discount and see what happens).  If the draft is implemented the ones chosen will be sent where? To basic training. Why? Because they are not trained.

I'm sorry. You are not going to get me to change my mind. Even the military keeps their guns and ammo stored safely - the soldiers do not take their guns home with them. The military is well regulated by the government. Joe Blow does not need an AR-15 with 6000 rounds of ammo just to make him feel macho and no twisting of words is going to make it right.

Again. Tag and title every gun purchase. Log and document every bit of ammo purchased. License gun owners. Make them purchase insurance on every gun they buy. Require gun safety classes, range testing, written testing. Renewals on the licenses. Medical declaration that you are mentally and physically fit to own a gun.  If we can regulate vehicles, we can regulate guns.

[greenknight]

It's exactly the kind of militia "the framers" meant and it is as regulated as the Congress chooses to do so, because they have the explicit power to do so via Article II. And preventing segments of the population from from mustering for militia service is a tactic that has been used to disenfranchise those segments. I was pointing out that Burger's statement was not the sound argument that it's being treated as. The militia was understood by "the framers" as the whole of the people (in other words, white, land-owning men, natch) and that a each member must supply his own arms, an initial supply of shot, and some days of rations. But that's disingenuous, I guess. I will not continue to engage in this discussion.

[Thufir Hawat]

I wouldn't say there's a huge number of would-be murderers in the US over other countries.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean "so many" as an absolute number, nor in proportion towards the number of population. I meant it as "so many more than in other countries with comparable populations".

Keep in mind that there are about what, 800 millions of people in the EU? If we had the same issue, we should have had, God forbids, twice the number of mass shootings at least.
But in reality we have less than the USA (no mass shootings worth mentioning this year, for example).

So the USA obviously has way more mass murders than other developed countries.
Of course those people aren't a huge number, nor a big share of the population. If they were, that wouldn't be a country, it would be a Mad Max-style battlefield.
And I don't pretend to have the answer to the question I asked. (I have a working hypothesis, but no proof for it, so I usually choose not to share it).

It's more that there's a deep-rooted culture of "guns solve problems", that overlaps with someone's problem being "I hate my school". So when that would-be murderer boils over, the path to "pile of dead children" is both well-mapped, and very easy to pursue.

Maybe? I'm not persuaded that this answer (which is, sorry, too simplistic) is the whole of it, but there might be an element of it. I also don't think anyone has the whole answer, yet.

I did read an article ages ago about how a lot of modern gun culture can be traced back to Samuel Colt's original advertising campaign, where he heavily identified guns with taming the frontier (killing those pesky bears and Natives), and masculinity.

While it's possible to kill a bear with a very heavy revolver (I heard a bullet 10mm and up weighing at least 300 gr is the minumum standard), the odds are for a lightly wounded bear and a heavily mauled human body.

I would say the answer to "why are there so many people in the USA who want to kill others?" is because the US does not have as much of the community environment (anymore) that other countries seem to have.  It's easier to murder the other people in your school/hospital/church/movie theater/grocery store/bowling alley/etc when you do not know them or their families.

The US is not a homogenous society. Rather, we are a heterogeneous society & more and more we are pushed to distrust, be afraid of, and hate anything and everything that is not like us. (Us meaning whatever to each person that hears the message)

Add in easily accessible weapons to a constantly simmering stew of hate & vitriol coming from every direction and you get death.

And yet another shooting, this time in Iowa outside of a church.

That is the core of my personal hypothesis, too. I'm kinda glad I'm not the only one thinking along those lines...though that's not good news.



Also, I got curious and checked. It seems that the Congress says that greenknight is right in his reading:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-1/ALDE_00000408/

If you have questions, ask the (surviving, obviously) members of the 2008 Supreme Court 8-).

[Iniquitous]

When the US was first formed there was not a standing army. Therefore, those who fought were men who volunteered.  When it came time to write the constitution, there was still no standing army which meant that the federal government needed the men of the new country to be willing to serve in the army if and when the time came - including providing their own weapon and ammo, their own clothing, their own bedding, and their own food.

What has changed since that time?

1. We have a standing army now.  The federal government provides pay, outfits, and arms to those who enlist.
2. We have the national guard now.  The federal government provides pay, outfits, and arms to those who serve in the national guard.

The National Guard removes the need for a milita. Matter of fact, our National Guard is exactly what the Framers were thinking of when they used the word militia. Men who have their lives outside of fighting wars that will come together in times of need and emergency in defense of the land.  Sure sounds like the National Guard to me. 

And here's the kicker. The National Guard still requires you train AND they store your weapons and ammo in the armory!!  Again those two words that gun nuts like to overlook. Well regulated.

So, yes.  The NRA twisted words around to commit the biggest fraud. If the Framers were able to see the way things are today they'd call the National Guard the militia and not give every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to weapons.

And the Constitution is a living document as evidenced by the fact it has been amended multiple times.  It needs to be amended again to fix the gun issue.

[Lustful Bride]

Relevant to the topic at hand. The GOP likes keeping things as it is and just using these tragedies to further their own politics.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scare-some-gun-nuts-while-you-can-leaked-gop-memos-instruct-lawmakers-how-to-blow-off-uvalde-massacre/ar-AAY5m9w?bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6b3785cc46b744a7bfe39be73bb82ed8

[TheGlyphstone]

Unfortunately, it is a sound strategy to 'run out the clock', and one that has worked for them every time in the past.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-gun-control-will-likely-rise-after-uvalde-but-history-suggests-it-will-fade/

[Notorious]

Yeah, but unfortunately that's something that both sides do that keeps politics running in circles.

"Republicans are happy to let dozens of school shootings happen every year and they don't give a damn as long as they get to keep their guns. I guess the lives of school children don't mean shit to them. They're so awful."

Then the coin flips...

"Democrats are happy to kill tens of thousands of babies every year regardless of First Term or Third and they don't give a damn as long as they get to keep their abortions. I guess the lives of unborn children don't mean shit to them. They're so awful."


It's been this way for decades and nothing really ever changes at least since like the late 90s. Just a bunch of political blowhards sucking up to voters making hollow promises that they never keep. It's always the same. Because things are the way they want them to be. As long as everyone in America is hating "the other side" or "the other American tribe" then we never actually get around to holding the right people responsible for shit that happens. The 90% crooked, lying, hypocritical politicians that we let them choose for us to vote on. It makes absolutely no sense and it's part of the reason so many other counties hate us. Because we're so self absorbed, self righteous and we pretend to care about the rest of the world but clearly don't. No offense to the British or the Canadians, but it seems to be the same there. Someone we don't like and we don't really trust gets our votes of trust more because the other guy was just worse. It's kind of a sick joke. But I'm clearly very critical of our political system and our high grade political class. Hey, at least it's entertaining to watch though, right?

[Oniya]

This is a problem called learned helplessness. 

Once people start presuming that a situation can't be changed, they stop trying to change it - which, of course, results in the situation not changing.  Several people here have pointed out achievable goals that would start the process - not finish it, mind you, but make a dent in it - of changing the environment of fear and violence that exists.  More mental health interventions.  More social safety nets.  Things that don't even touch the NRA's purview.

Continually claiming that 'nothing can be done' is not helping solve the problem.  It is exacerbating it.

[TheGlyphstone]

I've met a few conservatives who, while otherwise very pro-gun, would accept minor controls like stronger background checks - but they're utterly convinced that every single liberal/Democrat is a fanatical gun-grabber who will accept nothing short of total disarmament, so they won't reach out for a compromise. It flows the other way to a lesser extent as well; not every Republican is a militia nut with seventeen assault rifles.

When you interpret everything as a binary choice between two extremes and ignore all the options in between, and use that as an excuse to do nothing, that's also making the situation worse through deliberate inaction.

[TheGlyphstone]

And on that note, 538 posted this article yesterday, with some interesting breakdowns on positions.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gun-control-polling-2022/

[Notorious]

I agree with the plague of firearms in the us it’s not going to be an instant answer but the first thing it’s going to take is enough people with the balls to tell the republicans to listen to the ppl - rather than listen to a few paid senators.

Start small.   Increase the age, restrict to those who commit to training in a militia ( and actually fulfil the obligation part of the second amendment ) rather than I’m 18 I want a gun so I can say my dick is big.   That small change will start reducing the number of children killed without impinging on the written word of the 2nd amendment.    In rural areas it could be more relaxed.

And just based on previous comments.    For pest control you don’t need rapid fire.    I consider a high capacity as more that 4-5 shots.   Not the “small mag” companions we see here on tv.

Okay, but it's the whole "Let's make these dumb Republicans shut up and act right" type comments that make all of this gun debate pointless. Because the moment that Liberals decide to get more heavy on the gun debate and start trying to force some things to happen is the moment that the civil war will begin. Conservatives are used to slowly but surely moving left over the last 3-4 decades, and for a lot of reasons they NEEDED to and it was a GOOD thing. First and Second Waves feminism were hugely beneficial to getting equal rights between the sexes, and through the efforts of MLK and the important moments of civil disobedience like Rosa Parks were helpful in getting us to recognize that not everyone WAS being treated equally, especially in regards to race. So things changed there too, and that wasn't just a benefit to minorities and women but to everyone. How far left is TOO far left, though? That's my concern, because I feel like yes, there IS such a thing as going TOO far left. At some point you just force everyone to live a Liberal life and comply completely with the Liberal way of things, and that's over the top.

For example, Third Wave Feminism to me seems only to have abortion to fight for these days, and really it seems mostly like it's just third term that everyone's talking about in recent years. Otherwise TWF just beats men over the head for "Mansplaining" and "Manspreading", which let's be reasonable... is pretty ridiculous. I know a few "know-it-all" type women, but I would never tell them to stop "Womansplaining". Stuff like this is pretty popularly among Liberal people, though, and if we're not careful it'll pick up so aggressively that being masculine in any way will be some sort of cardinal sin. Being chivalrous, being competitive, being tough and testing your limits, being protective and territorial and sometimes fighting when you're defending yourself or your property and family is sort of engrained in young men from the south in America, and I may not be the biggest fan of the red neck crowd and I might not carry the Southern accent that so many around me do, but I respect what many of them are all about. Masculinity isn't a bad thing, nor is femininity. It's just two parts of all of us in some varying combination. If we completely destroy one half of human society through attacking Masculinity then it will lead us into disaster, and I think the same thing about politics. If we completely destroy what it means to be Conservative and we dissolve the Republicans then one side wins and we fall perpetually to the left no matter where that may lead. In fact if we were to fall far enough to the left then I can almost guarantee you at some point a large group of liberals would eventually hit the breaks and would slingshot in the opposite direction as some kind of new Republican party. I just don't know how long that would take. I think that's unacceptable and I think that finding the balance between the two is WHY we're here having this conversation to begin with.

...because finding the balance is what really matters, and yet most Democrats and most Republicans just think the other side of the political isle is the devil incarnate. It's also the reason that I won't claim either side. Because apart from a select handful of politicians appear to really care and represent their supporters well. All the other career politicians are just blowhard performance artists from where I'm sitting. Lying, grandstanding idiots. Partly why I think a multi-party system would be better than two. Pubs and Dems are too powerful, though, and they'll never let there be more than two. They'll just smother any other party that ever starts to pick up influence.



Uhhhhhhhhhhhn... I think the legal purchase age for handguns and pretty much anything else that you want to purchase that isn't going to be used for hunting is 21 in Texas, which is easily one of the most Conservative states. That's about as good as it gets I think, and that's the way it is with a lot of other states in the South. If it's a hunting rifle or a shotgun(duck hunting/turkey hunting and I guess deer hunting with slugs too maybe), then you can get it at 18. Otherwise it's 21+, and yes this even includes handguns, though I'm sure there are a couple of exceptions here and there in their laws because they obviously vary from state to state and I'm giving a more blanketed insight.

The real concern for Liberals should be that gun laws in many Liberal states are starting to flip. Over the last few years people have begun voting NO PERMIT carry laws in. In the past most states required a permit to concealed carry, but more and more those laws are dissolving around the country and permits are no longer being required to have a concealed weapon. And that, I think, is because tensions are high and more Republicans AND Democrats are voting out the permits because these permit laws can be used against you in varying ways and people are getting nervous with the sate of the nation and the world.



In rural areas they don't have shootings like these very often, at least in Southern rural areas. I went to a school where if someone had the balls to come in shooting at anything that moved the alarm would sound and dozens of young hunters would be jumping out windows and sneaking out of back doors to storm the parking lot and get their rifles and shotguns. And I know what you're thinking. That sounds like chaos, but I can guarantee you that piece of garbage Uvalde shooter wouldn't have been able to kill nearly as many kids and they would have ripped his ass apart. That's just what people are like down here. Seems ridiculous, but people in the South are so tenacious and there's no police force that's going to keep 50-60 teenaged boys and even some girls who hunt too out of a school where their little brothers and sisters are being slaughtered by a psychopath. So yeah, I get the concern of Liberals where it comes to guns, but... It also feels more safe here where I know my neighbors, friends and family are well armed and so am I. It's having someone to rely on who isn't a cop and won't take a half hour to reach the scene. It's having something more lethal than my old baseball bat in my hands when someone decides to throw a brick through my back, sliding glass door. And it's knowing that if anyone chooses to try and take my life I've got a good chance of survival because I have a way to defend myself.

I can't rely on a government I don't really trust and I won't rely on some cop whose name I don't even know. Being able to defend yourself is important, and it's always going to be different from a country Like Australia who doesn't have an enormous unground crime and territorial gang problem in big cities in America. That's a factor no one ever considers when comparing the two. Australia is what, a 12th the size of America by population numbers? The circumstances of inner city/big city violence, rising crime statistics and the difference in population are the factors make comparing the two completely invalid. It's just never going to be the argument you can win with.


10 round mags are still considered low capacity, but I respect your own personal opinions on that. Also most American can't purchase rapid-fire weapons at all. Just bolt action rifles, revolvers and semi-automatic. Although I suppose you could consider revolvers semi-automatic with the way that they function, but that's besides the point.

[Notorious]

And you miss the part of those people owning arms had to be in the militia.  Random Joe Blow down the road couldnt just own one without serving in the militia.

So, want a gun? Join the Army. Or the National Guard.  Otherwise, tough shit.

There isn't much military in the states who aren't either on leave, training or stationed at a coastal naval base or air base. There are hundreds of miles that lay between these locations, and no offense to the NGs, but there aren't many Americans who are made to feel safe and secure by them at all. That's one of the big reasons guns are being clutched and held onto for dear life by conservatives.

Americans as a whole are disenchanted lately with the police force, both sides of the isle, and some trust military even less. So when you say, "you want a gun, sign up, get trained and protect.", well that would work for many conservatives. If that was made the rule then you'd have millions joining variaous branches of military. What are the 35+ aged types supposed to do when they all get rejection letters, though?

"Uh oh. Looks like you didn't qualify and you were not accepted for service. Sorry! But take a hike."

^that would absolutely not fly for obvious reasons, and it would 1000% happen eventually. So in the end it would just be another method of controlling who gets firearms to an aggressive degree.

[TheGlyphstone]

As far as feminism, while it is wildly off topic for the thread, there's still a lot to fight for other than abortion rights. I'm not sure where the lines get drawn between 'waves', but these days genuine feminists - I think they're considered Fourth Wave - are still very concerned with stuff like the massive pay gap between men and women doing otherwise identical jobs, and the undercurrents of frat-boy level harassment that seems to be all too common. For example, look at the massive conservative backlash to #MeToo, which is/was solely based on encouraging rape survivors to speak out in defiance of the idea that 'no one will believe you'.

Everywhere else in the world, the difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' is that 'liberals' are progressive, while 'conservatives' are status-quo preferential. It's only in America that 'liberals' covers both the progressives and the status-quo faction, while 'conservatives' applies to the hyper-regressive faction trying to reverse progress.

[Notorious]

First, Second and Third Wave feminism is a very detailed topic with a lot of information on it and more and more these days people seem to be rejecting third wave feminism from what I can see. It just doesn't seem very popular apart from the abortion situations(from what I've observed). The disappointing thing to me is that we, as Americans, are so selfish and nearsighted that we're still on the subject of LOCAL inequalities despite the fact that the entire world around us is full of actual, genuine battles against sexism, racism, xenophobia and so on, on a very alarming level. I don't really know how much more equal things can get in this country, to be honest, even though I'll also say that I'm sure there are some small things "here and there" that might still need some adjusting. That being said, though, I don't really think that there's any way someone can argue that we haven't done a pretty dang good job so far. America is one of the most progressive countries in the entire world, and that should be pretty obvious, but somehow when the equality question comes up people have a tendency to backpedal or divert from that topic... that seems crappy to me. The excuse that "well it's not our country" doesn't really fly. If you want global warming and stuff like that to be a global initiative then feminism should be to, 1000%. To me, though, it just looks like people don't really give a crap unless it's happening within their own country's boarders. They'll just emulate politicians and pretend to be the "forerunners of justice", and yet when it comes to some archaic country where women are treated as property they press mute and quickly transition to another topic. And to be clear, this is not unique to Liberals. Both sides do this shit too and it's pretty mind numbing to watch.

So I don't really think people who either don't care or just realize how bad some other countries are around the world should be so passionate about something that they already have and that just needs maybe some small adjustments and quality/standard changes. Feminism should now be about other countries around the world who need help in growing to become more fair for everyone within their borders as well, regardless of gender, race or religious creed. I just don't think anyone really cares as much as they say and I don't believe that third wave Feminism gives a crap about that either. But yeah, sorry. That was me trying to draw a parallel which I guess I failed to do in any adequate way, so yeah. My bad.

"For example, look at the massive conservative backlash to #MeToo, which is/was solely based on encouraging rape survivors to speak out in defiance of the idea that 'no one will believe you'." - Okay, but you'd be a liar not to admit that the MeToo movement is getting a bad rap because of assholes like Amber Heard. Yes, they're both crazy and I'm guessing they both had their unacceptable moments, but she abused JDepp very badly and went after his career even though he had tried to settle up and separate himself from her. There are also a few bad college stories like the girl who got her friend's boyfriend drunk and had her way and then claimed to the school that she'd been raped by him, he gets expelled indefinitely, then it comes out that she manipulated everyone and her OTHER friend sold her out for her lies and revealed the truth... and he still is forever a villain by her lie and isn't getting back into that school. That, to me, seems like why conservatives, both male and female, are done with the movement. That being said, though, I know there's a lot of darkness going on in Hollywood. You'd be a fool to deny that too, actually, and I surely hope that people who get abused by "the system" or the "shadows" of Hollywood will continue coming forward to expose the Weinstein types.

I don't think it's fair to say "well conservatives bad because they don't like #MeToo", though, because obviously it is much more complicated than that.

Also I think that most conservatives, at least the ones around me, are under the impression that the Left has gone too far. So you say conservatives are regressing, but they'd say that liberals have just gotten their way for far too long and now the country is on the bring of falling apart for it. Both of those opinions I think are wrong, and both of those opinions will be why this ends in a civil war. Because the fact of the matter is that liberals HAVE gotten their way for a very long time, and that's been a GOOD THING for a very long time, but like I said in my previous post.... Where is the line? How far left is TOO far left? Because I think you'd also be lying to yourself to believe that there is no TOO far left. There absolutely is, and I don't think there's any argument for that.

[Iniquitous]

Can the rant on feminism be branched off please? It has nothing to do with school shootings/gun rights.

[Oniya]

Notorious - if you would like to discuss feminism (whatever wave), please start a new topic.  It will not be further addressed in this thread.

[Notorious]

Sure. It was just being used to illustrate a point earlier anyway.

[Iniquitous]

[Vekseid]

Iniquitous, could you provide text? We do have several blind members.

[Iniquitous]

Iniquitous, could you provide text? We do have several blind members.

Sure! Sorry, I didn't stop to consider that and I apologize.

"A well-regulated militia attacked an elementary school killing 19 students and 2 adults. If you want to argue that it WASN'T a well-regulated militia that attacked the school, then you already understand the difference between what the Constitution says and what you want it to say."

[Vekseid]

Thank you. : )