So Very Sad....

[Reacher]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

Solid point. We didn't have internment camps in America during that same time period despite our access to guns or anything wild like that. 

That is apples to oranges... German concentration camps were death sentences.

Most Japanese had the opportunity to relocate instead of being interred (approx 25% did- some students went to colleges out East). Due to their culture, most thought it was patriotic to go along with the internment even though the conditions were not the best (they still got basic schooling and healthcare- compare that to the German camps) and the US Govt eventually apologized and compensated the survivors. Hopefully the government and its citizens learned from that episode in our history. 

I think the outcome would have been vasty different if a foreign power was rounding up the US citizens.

[Reacher]

Look what is happening in London. Guns are already illegal. We see the "substitution effect" in action here. Gangs turn to knives and gun free London passes NYC in murders. Logic next step is to ban knives. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ban-on-home-deliveries-of-knives-in-government-crackdown-after-surge-in-london-stabbings/ar-AAvDgUA

Baseball bats next?

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

Look what is happening in London. Guns are already illegal. We see the "substitution effect" in action here. Gangs turn to knives and gun free London passes NYC in murders. Logic next step is to ban knives. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ban-on-home-deliveries-of-knives-in-government-crackdown-after-surge-in-london-stabbings/ar-AAvDgUA

Baseball bats next?

New York banned assault weapons.

[Hoosierhoopster]

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

Look what is happening in London. Guns are already illegal. We see the "substitution effect" in action here. Gangs turn to knives and gun free London passes NYC in murders. Logic next step is to ban knives. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ban-on-home-deliveries-of-knives-in-government-crackdown-after-surge-in-london-stabbings/ar-AAvDgUA

Baseball bats next?

I  decided to back off participating in this thread, the discussion is not about looking for ways to address the obvious problem of school shootings and mass shootings, but rather has turned into this, a misdirection excuse thread. Knives? Bats? Come on Reacher. London does not have ongoing school shootings with dozens of kids killed every year, with mass shootings like we keep seeing, every year, like Vegas. Baseball bats? Are you aware of how well NYC corrected its crime problem over the past 15-20 years or so to significantly limit the crime it used to have? Regardless, I don't get it, I don't get why you think this kind of misdirection makes sense or why you believe it appropriate to belittle the discussion of what really is an obvious need for -- something -- to address the continuing problem of school shootings and mass shootings, whether it's age limits, limiting the types of semi-automatic weapons available for easy purchase, limiting the types of modifications (bump stock etc.) available without regulation for easy purchase, cracking down on gun shows, finding ways to increase enforcement of existing gun laws, etc. etc. Baseball bats? Come on man. You know I respect you -- I do -- but seriously, really?

And no offense intended to you or anyone else in this topic of high emotion and strong feelings, but this is why I decided not to further participate. It's just not going anywhere.

[KoB2011]

3 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

 

And no offense intended to you or anyone else in this topic of high emotion and strong feelings, but this is why I decided not to further participate. It's just not going anywhere.

That's not true. I learned people exist who blame the Japanese for internment camps. 

I also learned internment camps weren't that bad because they weren't death sentences (which strictly speaking isn't true; some died as a direct result but the likelihood of health problems is also much higher).

 

[rico]

I sit back and look at some of these comments and I shake my head.  I said it countless pages back, anti-gun people will look for any and all excuses to outlaw guns.  Guns are here to stay in this country.  Age requirements and the like will not do diddly.  I had access to firearms at a very young age.  Kids will get them from their parents.  If they can't get them from their parents, and they got money, they will buy them via the "black market".  If all else fails they will resort to breaking into someone's home to get them.  Quit blaming the guns.

[Hoosierhoopster]

3 hours ago, rico said:

I sit back and look at some of these comments and I shake my head.  I said it countless pages back, anti-gun people will look for any and all excuses to outlaw guns.  Guns are here to stay in this country.  Age requirements and the like will not do diddly.  I had access to firearms at a very young age.  Kids will get them from their parents.  If they can't get them from their parents, and they got money, they will buy them via the "black market".  If all else fails they will resort to breaking into someone's home to get them.  Quit blaming the guns.

Again, precisely why I am no longer participating in this thread. No offense, but that's myopic. Of course some will get their hands on guns illegally. So what? The extremely simple point is that laws and regulations are there to LIMIT crime, not ELIMINATE it. You can't buy alcohol until age 21. Golly, of course people get their hands on beer etc. under age. Doesn't mean you don't have the law, to limit minor consumption. That's as simple and obvious as can be. And of course it applies to the SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES and their MODIFICATIONS we're talking about. NO ONE IS TALKING BANNING GUNS. This is such a ridiculously empty and pointless argument. 

[rico]

1 hour ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Again, precisely why I am no longer participating in this thread. No offense, but that's myopic. Of course some will get their hands on guns illegally. So what? The extremely simple point is that laws and regulations are there to LIMIT crime, not ELIMINATE it. You can't buy alcohol until age 21. Golly, of course people get their hands on beer etc. under age. Doesn't mean you don't have the law, to limit minor consumption. That's as simple and obvious as can be. And of course it applies to the SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES and their MODIFICATIONS we're talking about. NO ONE IS TALKING BANNING GUNS. This is such a ridiculously empty and pointless argument. 

Myopic?  Let's take guns away, now that is myopic.

[mrflynn03]

@Hoosierhoopster

I agree with your reasons for not participating and is mostly why I havent been posting any more.  But, and not in this thread, there are people talking of and trying to act on banning guns. 

Example

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/28695-deerfield-illinois-passes-assault-weapons-ban-effective-june-13

This also includes handguns and basically anything but bolt action or single shot.

There is also a town in Colorado attempting the same thing.  

It likely wont stand, and I am not a lawyer, but if a ban like this were to be challenged in a federal court somewhere would that set a precedent for other cities? Could it lead to attempts by states?  Bans like this are unlikely but people are trying.

I do agree though these debates go off the rails and end up missing the point which is how to limit/end these shooting events . 

[rico]

2 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

 

 

I do agree though these debates go off the rails and end up missing the point which is how to limit/end these shooting events . 

The problem is people wanting to ban guns.  The fact is we got a society of troubled teenagers.  Take the guns away....they are still troubled.

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, rico said:

The problem is people wanting to ban guns.  The fact is we got a society of troubled teenagers.  Take the guns away....they are still troubled.

You've never demonstrated that tighter gun laws, not a gun ban, wont have an impact but let's ignore that for sake of discussion. What do you believe is the cause of the troubled teenagers?

[Reacher]

20 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I  decided to back off participating in this thread, the discussion is not about looking for ways to address the obvious problem of school shootings and mass shootings, but rather has turned into this, a misdirection excuse thread. Knives? Bats? Come on Reacher. London does not have ongoing school shootings with dozens of kids killed every year, with mass shootings like we keep seeing, every year, like Vegas. Baseball bats? Are you aware of how well NYC corrected its crime problem over the past 15-20 years or so to significantly limit the crime it used to have? Regardless, I don't get it, I don't get why you think this kind of misdirection makes sense or why you believe it appropriate to belittle the discussion of what really is an obvious need for -- something -- to address the continuing problem of school shootings and mass shootings, whether it's age limits, limiting the types of semi-automatic weapons available for easy purchase, limiting the types of modifications (bump stock etc.) available without regulation for easy purchase, cracking down on gun shows, finding ways to increase enforcement of existing gun laws, etc. etc. Baseball bats? Come on man. You know I respect you -- I do -- but seriously, really?

And no offense intended to you or anyone else in this topic of high emotion and strong feelings, but this is why I decided not to further participate. It's just not going anywhere.

I have already said I am in support of a number of additional gun restrictions. Offered a number of solutions to gun school shootings (More accurate databases, mental health, school administrator and FBI reforrms, access to guns in schools, etc). I think, and understand, my definition of "common sense" regulation may differ from yours however. 

Myself, and others, have pointed out how laws do not stop criminals. Murder is already illegal. Someone intent on Murder will not give up that intent but rather substitute a different, easier method. Knives, vehicles, bombs, etc. London proves that point. I'm very well versed on the substitution effect in economics. Not very different for crime.

Increased regulations have a negative effect on the law abiding by increasing costs, time and efforts to comply- not including the increased possibility of becoming a victim.. I'm not saying that some positive consequences do not occur from regulations, or that none are necessary,  just that we need to see, and examine, both sides.

Facebook is another example that can be brought up here. Subject to very little regulation. Should there be more? Congress is debating that now. Should they be free to suppress speech? I favor as little regulation as possible but see tech companies as having hardly any. 

I don't see bringing up how knives being used for murder or the lack of regulations on FB are "misdirecting" but rather relevant to the conversation we are having on schhol shootings as it relates to whether more laws / regulations/ restrictions are the answer. Once you start with the regulations, where do you stop? Thanks MrFlynn for bringing up Deerfield, IL. An hour away from me. The intent is to ban guns so please don't say no one wants to ban guns. I know you don't, but there is a large, active movement out there to do so. 

If I may bring in another analogy without "misdirecting" the thread, how high of an income tax is too high? What difference does 1% make? We have seen 0% up to 90% in our history. The income tax was enacted as a "temporary" tax, it set the stage for future increases. Bringing this full circle and the reason I brought it up and not saying it is good or bad, but just that we have to be careful because once a door opens, it is hard to close. 

 

[Reacher]

8 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

You've never demonstrated that tighter gun laws, not a gun ban, wont have an impact but let's ignore that for sake of discussion. What do you believe is the cause of the troubled teenagers?

Does the fact that large cities with tight gun laws have higher crime / murder than those with looser gun laws count? 

Would you agree that Chicago, Cook county and the State of IL have tighter laws than Houston and the State of Texas?

Seems that way to me. Houston had 269 murders in 2017 while Chicago, with just a slightly larger population, had 650. 

I understand correlation does not equal causation but don't be so quick to assume that tighter gun laws does not equate with less crime as there is a large body of evidence pointing out otherwise and I've linked to some in this thread already. 

[KoB2011]

5 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Does the fact that large cities with tight gun laws have higher crime / murder than those with looser gun laws count? 

Would you agree that Chicago, Cook county and the State of IL have tighter laws than Houston and the State of Texas?

Seems that way to me. Houston had 269 murders in 2017 while Chicago, with just a slightly larger population, had 650. 

I understand correlation does not equal causation but don't be so quick to assume that tighter gun laws does not equate with less crime as there is a large body of evidence pointing out otherwise and I've linked to some in this thread already. 

That's one data point. NYC is another data point that you used earlier and they're a great example for gun laws working. So is most of the rest of the world. Even your example of Switzerland was a great example of how tighter gun laws that allow for ownership can work. The vast majority of the data points show that gun laws work; and no, this is not about confiscating guns. 

I'll ask again though, let's just assume gun laws won't work and it's just a culture problem, troubled youth, etc. What do you all think is the cause for that? 

[mrflynn03]

Rage.  Feeling shunned or left out by society.  I think this is a primary factor.

Columbine, virginia tech, lubys massacre in texas, san ysidro McDonald's massacre.  In these examples the shooters spoke out against society as the reason for what they did.

 

 

[rico]

4 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

You've never demonstrated that tighter gun laws, not a gun ban, wont have an impact but let's ignore that for sake of discussion. What do you believe is the cause of the troubled teenagers?

Home and school.

[KoB2011]

5 hours ago, rico said:

Home and school.

Those are locations. What is happening that is causing this? What are they being taught or value are they missing? I run there's an interesting conversation to be had here. 

[rico]

10 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Those are locations. What is happening that is causing this? What are they being taught or value are they missing? I run there's an interesting conversation to be had here. 

I am saying, JMO, that home life and school life play big parts in this.  Do the shooters come from broken homes?  Are the shooters abused at home?  All I can do is speculate on that.  How are the shooters treated at school?  Both by fellow class mates and the faculty.  It gets to be mind boggling when you consider all the variables that may play a part.

[KoB2011]

19 minutes ago, rico said:

I am saying, JMO, that home life and school life play big parts in this.  Do the shooters come from broken homes?  Are the shooters abused at home?  All I can do is speculate on that.  How are the shooters treated at school?  Both by fellow class mates and the faculty.  It gets to be mind boggling when you consider all the variables that may play a part.

I agree, tons of variables to account for. There is one constant in all these though which would seemingly be the easiest thing to isolate. 

[rico]

53 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I agree, tons of variables to account for. There is one constant in all these though which would seemingly be the easiest thing to isolate. 

Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

[Reacher]

Here is another angle on this that you might be interested in-  http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/april/09/progressives-should-defend-gun-rights/

"History, including American history, shows that the right to keep and bear arms can be especially valuable to racial and other minorities. Therefore, progressives who are sincerely concerned about protecting minorities from oppressive government should join libertarians and constitutional conservatives in defending the Second Amendment."

 

[KoB2011]

3 hours ago, rico said:

Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

Occam's Razor. 

[KoB2011]

4 hours ago, Reacher said:

Here is another angle on this that you might be interested in-  http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/april/09/progressives-should-defend-gun-rights/

"History, including American history, shows that the right to keep and bear arms can be especially valuable to racial and other minorities. Therefore, progressives who are sincerely concerned about protecting minorities from oppressive government should join libertarians and constitutional conservatives in defending the Second Amendment."

 

I respect Ron Pail, but that article is literally just one biased mans opinion with nothing cited. 

[mrflynn03]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-winkler-gun-fight-author-on-gun-controls-racism

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347324-the-racist-origin-of-gun-control-laws

[Reacher]

34 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-winkler-gun-fight-author-on-gun-controls-racism

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347324-the-racist-origin-of-gun-control-laws

Thanks for bringing this to the board. I hope everybody reads these links. I enjoyed the history lesson. My IU history minor never touched on these areas. Truly fascinating.

This one paragraph relates to the argument I have been trying to make-

"Ida B. Wells, the leading journalist opposing lynching, agreed. In the nationally-circulated pamphlet Southern Horrors, Wells documented cases in Kentucky and Florida, “where the men armed themselves” and fended off lynch mobs. “The lesson this teaches,” Wells wrote, “is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” "

I don't see it as a stretch to say a firearm should be in every school to protect our children until police can arrive.

Even today, you can see elements of this at play where certain classes (income, racial, political) of people are trying to use gun laws to exercise power.