School Shooting

[dannubis]

He really isn't... really.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought we were for getting rid of certain rights for the sake of the children. I'm simply pointing out where the jackboot of government could better placed in order to actually solve the issue that has people so concerned at the moment.

There is another option (ie, do little of both), while also exploring how our culture of violence glorification can be reversed.

[Hauldren Collider]

All of the proposals I've heard involve curtailing our liberties in one way or another. "We have to stop the violent media!" or "We have to stop gun ownership!" But the worst is definitely "we have to lock up people who have never committed crimes!"

[regexcellent]

I hope any gun control measures that do come up, if they do, won't be retarded assault weapons ban type bull**** and instead focus on stuff like gun safes, trigger locks, and background checks in transfers between individuals. Those are simple things that ought to satisfy the gun control crowd that might be vaguely meaningful.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All of the proposals I've heard involve curtailing our liberties in one way or another. "We have to stop the violent media!" or "We have to stop gun ownership!" But the worst is definitely "we have to lock up people who have never committed crimes!"

Is liberty the end we are looking for or a means to another end? People decried the Constitution because they felt that people were giving up too much liberty to the federal government and the Articles of Confederation were perfectly fine. So what is the end goal here?

Furthermore isn't about just about locking up people (as DD put it "relaxing involuntary confinement"), but getting people the mental health they need.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hope any gun control measures that do come up, if they do, won't be retarded assault weapons ban type bull**** and instead focus on stuff like gun safes, trigger locks, and background checks in transfers between individuals. Those are simple things that ought to satisfy the gun control crowd that might be vaguely meaningful.

Also licensing and registration.

[Supr49er]

Didn't Australia ban assault rifles after the Port Arthur shooting spree? What did they do and how did they accomplish it?

[regexcellent]

Registration would never pass. It's also not likely to matter. Licensing is kind of stupid, but I would be sorta alright with it if it's as simple as "pass this written test on laws and safety" as opposed to demonstrating marksmanship skill. We already handle background checks fine during purchasing so doing it during licensing would be redundant.

Also, Canada's long gun registration turned out to be a huge **** show so it just doesn't seem like a good idea to repeat here. They wound up repealing it.

[regexcellent]

Didn't Australia ban assault rifles after the Port Arthur shooting spree? What did they do and how did they accomplish it?

Pretty sure assault rifles were banned well before then. Just so everyone is clear, an assault rifle is select-fire. Those aren't legal in the United States unless they were made pre-1986. Assault rifles have been registered in a national database since 1933 or so.

I believe Australia banned semi-automatic rifles after that. That would not be doable in America. Most rifles people own are semi-automatic. Guns like the AR-15 which are not only semi-automatic but possess "military-like features" (more on that in a bit) are also ridiculously popular. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.

"Assault weapon" or "military-like" features on a rifle typically include the following from a legal standpoint:
* Pistol grip on the stock
* Forward pistol grip on the handgrip
* Flash hider
* Telescoping or folding stock
* Bayonet lug

These things were chosen because they are features which typically differentiate civilian rifles based on military guns and guns that were originally built for a civilian market. The idea was that by banning these features those guns would just disappear. That didn't happen; they were just modified to not have those features. The simple fact of the matter is, however, that these kinds of features are actually the only difference between military-style rifles, which you are hearing called "assault rifles," and ordinary "civilian" guns. These features don't actually represent a difference in lethality at all.

Now, rifles are pretty rarely used in crime. In these kinds of massacres we're sometimes seeing them used. If your goal is to prevent these massacres from happening (and that's a pretty silly goal, let's be honest, because they're not a huge contingent of our overall crime rate), then it is conceivable that you might reasonably believe that banning some kinds of rifles will help. Of course, it's politically impossible to do that. But banning "assault weapon features" and such isn't going to do jack ****.

[Kidlicious]

There are way too many mentally ill to be locking up. That's a slippery slope.

[Sava]

Furthermore isn't about just about locking up people (as DD put it "relaxing involuntary confinement"), but getting people the mental health they need.

Involuntary confinement isn't relaxing. It's one of the most degrading experiences imaginable. And the doctors/wardens don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The one saving grace is that when push comes to shove, they have to prove in court that you are a danger to yourself. Giving doctors more discretion in this matter is a very bad idea. It's bad policy. It's bad for the health of the person. It's bad for families of people with mental illness. It's bad for Amurica. Inpatient programs don't help people. They are drunk tanks for crazies.

Modern psychiatry isn't science. It's a pseudo-scientific art form... or a game. Pin the neurotransmitter on the brain.

Imran

[regexcellent]

I find it hilarious that Sava in particular is coming out against involuntary confinement and in particular that his language suggests that he himself has been confined involuntarily.

[Sava]

I find it hilarious that Sava in particular is coming out against involuntary confinement and in particular that his language suggests that he himself has been confined involuntarily.

Why?

And yes, I have been involuntarily confined. Or rather, I've been told I can "voluntarily" be admitted and avoid confinement until a court date is scheduled.

It takes less time to convince those morons that I'm not violent than proving it in court.

The doctors give medicine that may cause suicidal thoughts. Talk to your doctor. I did. And then I got locked up. The moral of the story is you cannot trust your doctor/therapist.

I'll take THE RAPIST for 600, Alex.

[Felch]

Is liberty the end we are looking for or a means to another end? People decried the Constitution because they felt that people were giving up too much liberty to the federal government and the Articles of Confederation were perfectly fine. So what is the end goal here?

Furthermore isn't about just about locking up people (as DD put it "relaxing involuntary confinement"), but getting people the mental health they need.

What is your other end goal?

[Sava]

world domination