Just Another High School Shooting

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,217
283
near Seattle, Wa
It's ever more unnerving to wonder :(


No shit...
Just to recap, this just got floated before our SC, with Gorsuch involved. The issue is rights to outdoor guns, much-discussed on our threads. The signature case is Peruta, who is denied both CC and OC in CA. The SC exchanged notes internally about this for 11 weeks this summer, then declined to discuss the problem.

Why? Because their unequivocal history shows that English law was 1000% against concealed weapons, period, no waffling, a felony, case closed, If the SAF continues to press this, the golden age of open carry may be at hand.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
33,800
2,540
Melbourne
Just to recap, this just got floated before our SC, with Gorsuch involved. The issue is rights to outdoor guns, much-discussed on our threads. The signature case is Peruta, who is denied both CC and OC in CA. The SC exchanged notes internally about this for 11 weeks this summer, then declined to discuss the problem.

Why? Because their unequivocal history shows that English law was 1000% against concealed weapons,period, case closed. If the SAF continues to press this, the golden age of open carry may be at hand.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.

 

frenchie

Super Anarchist
10,203
894
Brooklyn, NY
Fuck off

"But the weapon that did the most lethal damage at Columbine HS was an Intratec TEC-DC9 9mm submachine pistol, with 52-, 32- & 28-round magazines. Originally a fully-automatic handgun designed for the Apartheid South African government to compete with the Israeli Uzi,"  https://riversong.wordpress.com/the-guns-of-columbine/
Okay now that's... just... weird.

How did you happen come across Robert Riversong's blog?

 

SloopJonB

Super Anarchist
65,809
10,910
Great Wet North
You know, there are very few "ideals" in this world that don't boil down to monetary self interest.

Religious intolerance and terrorism are based on it... 

I'm betting that if Tom actually did a little self reflection on where his intransigence comes from it would boil down to..even with tiny registration fee for admin purposes, like $20 PA..the total cost would be more than he feels comfortable with.

How any honest law abiding person ( and I'm assuming Tom is such) can argue that registering your fire arms is some deep infringment of your 2A rights. 
You fail to factor in fanaticism.

Gunnies are right in there with religious nuts in the purity of their fanaticism.

Gun ARE their religion in very many cases.

 
G

Guest

Guest
I disagree with your premise - this, and the other similar tragedies happened because someone decided to act out in a violent manner.   I will give you that having the gun made it easier for the kid to carry out his violence - the gun didn't make him decide to be violent, the gun didn't cause him to feel whatever disenfranchisement and discontent that drove him to the decision to be violent.  Fuck everyone who wants to apologize for or ignore the people who create the situations that provoke others like this kid to violence, focusing instead on the evil object used to carry out the violence instead of the violent act itself. That attitude is what is responsible for the increasing # of incidents we're seeing - and it will be an exponential exacerbation unless we all individually and collectively intervene to address those behaviors.  

That would actually require many of you to get off your collective asses and do something more than clamor for "another law" - and I suspect that many of you don't want to be bothered enough to intervene and actually do something.  That is the sad thing - my kids know that I've told everyone every where they go to tell me if they aren't behaving properly.  My kids have been taught and understand accountability, how to deal with being told "NO", and how to deal with disappointments.  There are too many who've been taught instead that every unpleasant thing that they experience is someone else's fault, that someone had to intentionally slight them, and that that intentional slight warrants retribution, or have been ignored and not helped to learn how to handle disappointments, and those disappointments grow into resentment and disenfranchisement until they feel like they have no choice but to act out.   

There's no simple "take the guns away and everything will be OK" fix for this.  If there were? I'd cut mine in half on the bandsaw and take 'em to the smelter tomorrow. 
DING!  Mods, please close this thread now as there is nothing else to say at this point.

But before they do, I would like to point out the inconvenient fact that troubled High Schoolers and even middle schoolers had far easier access to guns to bring to school back in the 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s if they wanted to.  Many had them right out in the parking lot at school in their truck, they didn't even have to bring them from home.  Yet I don't recall a dearth of school shootings back then.  

Hmmmm, I wonder what's changed since then?  Have the toolz changed to become more deadly?  Actually no, the tool technology has hardly progressed much in 40-50 years.  SO I wonder what is different now in a HS'ers life that a kid in the 60's or 70's didn't have?  Could it be:

  • exposure to far more violence in their daily lives
  • Fracturing of the family, community and even greater society
  • Social media where every slight is amplified 1000 fold
  • On-line bullying
  • + all the parenting and societal issues that AGITC mentions above
But yeah, let's blame an inanimate tool that has no ability to cause harm without someone actually picking it up in anger rather than tackling the real issues.  As I said, those inanimate toolz were around aplenty back before the 80's, 90's and 2000's when this started to become a problem.  

I swear to the baby jesus that if alien anthropologists or sociologists came down and looked at this issue from the outside - they would go "WTF!".  Or whatever space aliens would exclaim instead.  And their conclusion would be that mass shootings, school shootings and all the rest have gone up inversely proportional to ease of access to gunz.  They would most likely then rule out gunz as a causal factor and instead focus on societal issues and drivers that are actually causing the violence.  And then they would use their space alien death ray to obliterate people like joke-al and sloopy for being so fucking retarded.  And yes, they would then giggle at the irony of that act.

 

Battlecheese

Super Anarchist
4,653
117
I swear to the baby jesus that if alien anthropologists or sociologists came down and looked at this issue from the outside - they would go "WTF!".  Or whatever space aliens would exclaim instead.  And their conclusion would be that mass shootings, school shootings and all the rest have gone up inversely proportional to ease of access to gunz.  They would most likely then rule out gunz as a causal factor and instead focus on societal issues and drivers that are actually causing the violence.  And then they would use their space alien death ray to obliterate people like joke-al and sloopy for being so fucking retarded.  And yes, they would then giggle at the irony of that act.
You should stick to bombing people. Numbers are just not your thing.

 

Battlecheese

Super Anarchist
4,653
117
Actually..after a lot of thought, I've come down on the side of open carry v concealed. :D
But, every civilisation forever has had strict laws about Brandishing - ie walking around obviously with a weapon.

Leading to this bizzarre situation where the NRA finds it easier to jam through legislation permitting people to walk around with concealed weapons.

As jbsf says - aliens archeologists will sift through this bit of history and be amazed.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
402
Lake Macquarie
DING!  Mods, please close this thread now as there is nothing else to say at this point.
Followed by four paragraphs and a list of bullet points saying something else at this point. YCMTSU :rolleyes:  

Could it be:

  • exposure to far more violence in their daily lives
    Nope. We got that too. Without the death toll or mass shooting frequency.
  • Fracturing of the family, community and even greater society
    Nope. We got that too. Without the death toll or mass shooting frequency.
  • Social media where every slight is amplified 1000 fold
    Nope. We got that too. Without the death toll or mass shooting frequency.
  • On-line bullying
    Nope. We got that too. Without the death toll or mass shooting frequency.
  • + all the parenting and societal issues that AGITC mentions above
    Nope. We got that too. Without the death toll or mass shooting frequency.
But yeah, let's blame an inanimate tool that happens to be far more prevalent in your country with it's high homicide rate and mass shootings than in countries without said inanimate tool. Which is why the USA doesn't have any problems with the proliferation of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons... cos having access to a weapon obviously has no relevance whatsoever to the chance people will use them to attack innocent civilians.
Fixed that up for you, Princess. You're welcome.

Now I await Guy's 

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,255
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
Registration does not equal confiscation.  I just don't see that happening.
So you think that Billy's family would break the law and not give up his scary Mini-14 if he died today? Why?

The law says that his registered gun is OK only for him. He can get rid of it while he's alive but has shown no indication he will. He registered it to avoid that outcome. After he dies, the closed registry says his gun must be surrendered to the state.

People who own guns listed in closed registries die every day and their guns are confiscated. If you don't see it, it's only because you are not looking.

Any comments on the federal judge's order stopping this summer's planned confiscation program in California?

Uncooperative Federal Judge

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,255
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
Simple question..are those items banned?? as in..no one is allowed to possess one? No way I'm getting into the cog pins of this debate.

And maybe if we stopped using inflamatory terms such as gun nutz and grabbers it might help?
Simple answer: read the article that's linked to the picture of the two guns posted above.

One of those .22's is an "assault weapon" in New Jersey. That's not exactly banned. IF you can convince a NJ judge that it's in the public interest for you to own a dangerous assault weapon, you can get special permission to own one. In other words, it's banned.

 
G

Guest

Guest
One of those .22's is an "assault weapon" in New Jersey. That's not exactly banned. IF you can convince a NJ judge that it's in the public interest for you to own a dangerous assault weapon, you can get special permission to own one. In other words, it's banned.
I hear it$ really ea$y to get $pecial permi$$ion to own a gun in New Jer$ey.  You ju$t have to be the right $ort of per$on and can $how why you de$erve it.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,255
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
No takers? So many gun experts, so few who can identify a squirrel assault weapon.
:lol: You really can't grasp that it's simply no-one gives a shit about your obsession with gun minutiae can you?
Just because you don't doesn't mean no one does. Those of us who wish to own guns care when they are banned. I understand that those who wish to ban guns or don't wish to own them don't care.

I'd bet quite a few of your countrymen care. Someone here said that the Ruger 10-22 is among the most popular assault weapons sold in Canada. That tells me that quite a few Canadians would be pissed if your country banned them, as legislators in my state have proposed.

Luckily, we have the NRA to prevent them from doing it.

Do you think your country should ban assault .22's to set an example for Florida to follow?

 
G

Guest

Guest
What I find interesting is that when there is a case of Constitutional infringements that they care about, their panties are waded up so tight they can't breathe.  Like this for example:



Its important to follow the Constitution..... sometimes.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,255
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
I hear it$ really ea$y to get $pecial permi$$ion to own a gun in New Jer$ey.  You ju$t have to be the right $ort of per$on and can $how why you de$erve it.
Yes, it's well known that rich people are more responsible, safer, just generally more fit to exercise rights than poor people. Fuck poor people. If they were smart enough to own guns, they wouldn't be poor.

 

Battlecheese

Super Anarchist
4,653
117
Brandishing and walking around with a weapon are very different things.
In fact, you are wrong. Not that this is a surprise.

I was discussing the historical situation, where having a visible weapon was most definitely brandishing.

Even in contemporary america you can get in trouble for displaying a weapon.

http://firearmtrainingstore.com/about-us/blog/what-is-brandishing/

In 2011 a Chesterfield County mom decided to open carry her handgun while walking one of her daughters to the bus stop because she was concerned about her daughter being bullied. At this point, I don’t think I have to tell you anything else for you to know that she had the intent of inducing fear, but I will anyway. Three students ages 12 and 13 who were at the bus stop that morning testified that when one of them pointed out to the others that she had a gun, the woman began a profanity-laden tirade about her right to carry and the fact that she was not afraid to fight or use her gun. The children say the woman put her hand on the gun, but the woman denied as much. However, as the judge stated, she didn’t have to touch the gun for a brandishing conviction; the threatening behavior combined with the presence of the gun reasonably induced fear which resulted in the finding of guilt.

 
Top