Guns are still America’s religion

These flag memes are valid and applicable here, they chose to take a flag meant for ALL Americans and make it their own right wing calling.

 
AG_PhamD said:
The first tragedy is that the clearly disturbed perpetrator was able to buy a gun …
Click to expand...

That much is patently absurd in the context of American Freedom. There were basically no significant red flag indicators that our system could have captured. He was not obviously deranged or disturbed in any meaningful, detectable way. You simply cannot have widely available semiautomatic weapons without having incidents of this type. Pick one. Or pick the other. There is no middle ground.
 
Last edited:
Yoused said:
That much is patently absurd in the context of American Freedom. There were basically no significant red flag indicators that our system could have captured. He was not obviously deranged or disturbed in any meaningful, detectable way. You simply cannot have widely available semiautomatic weapons without having incidents of this type. Pick one. Or pick the other. There is no middle ground.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Nobody should be able to purchase this type of firearm, and strict controls need to be in place for all other types.
 
Here are the cops taking down parents who are just trying to get to their children as they continued to get shot in that school. Every one of these worthless motherfuckers needs to be charged and sent to prison. :mad::mad:

 
Yoused said:
That much is patently absurd in the context of American Freedom. There were basically no significant red flag indicators that our system could have captured. He was not obviously deranged or disturbed in any meaningful, detectable way. You simply cannot have widely available semiautomatic weapons without having incidents of this type. Pick one. Or pick the other. There is no middle ground.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You are correct that there’s not automated way of doing this in this individual case- i.e. background checks. But rifles were treated like pistol permits in most places, there would be a required interview with police as well as the requirement to provide references- in MA that number is 4. I know in CT they will interview non-references, such as neighbors, family members, co-workers.

You’d also need to go through a certified instruction course (12hrs?). I don’t know what liability instructors have if any, but they should be required to be a judge of not only firearms competency, but also character (and be required to disclose any concerns to police who should also be required to interview the instructors as references).

Reportedly everyone knew this guy was disturbed. People were aware of his proclivity for self-harm, which any reasonable person would immediately conclude means he is unfit for gun ownership. He reportedly would bring boxing gloves to the park and attempt to instigate fights with people. His coworkers were afraid of him. The police apparently responded to his home a number of times for domestic disputes. His mom allegedly wanted to kick him out of the house- why?

Perhaps if people in his social sphere were asked about his character and stability as a requirement to gun ownership, things would have turned out differently. Certainly this would not prevent all incidents, ie the Buffalo shooter was reportedly seen as “a nice kid”, but it would be applicable in most other cases- Columbine, Parkland, Sandyhook, etc.

The majority of mass school shootings are committed by people under the age of 21. The majority of guns are purchased legally. A lot of psych disorders do not become apparent until the late teens/early 20’s. Criminal behavior doesn’t aways become evident until that time as well and juvenile records are often expunged or not considered in the background checks. It only seems logical that the minimum age to own or buy a gun should at least be 21.

And I would personally push for 24 based on the data of whose committing crimes.

This absolute, all or nothing, defeatist attitude on both sides is ridiculous and only stagnates change.
 
Last edited:
Yoused said:
That much is patently absurd in the context of American Freedom. There were basically no significant red flag indicators that our system could have captured. He was not obviously deranged or disturbed in any meaningful, detectable way. You simply cannot have widely available semiautomatic weapons without haring incidents of this type. Pick one. Or pick the other. There is no middle ground.
Click to expand...
We won’t even get a national requirement for background checks. The NRA isn’t even embarrassed enough to cancel their convention in Texas in the light of this shooting. Why? Because they know they have over 40 senators bought and paid for. Until that changes, innocent kids will keep getting gunned down.

I believe in my heart all the senators that refuse to act because they want to stay in power will spend eternity in hell. God only forgives the repentant.
 
Yoused said:
That much is patently absurd in the context of American Freedom. There were basically no significant red flag indicators that our system could have captured.
Click to expand...

It seems there may have been, but the NIS database did not have access to it because it occurred when he was a minor.

Does this need to change? Should minors continue to be protected once they turn 18? I say no. Maybe seal the records WHILE they are a minor, but then unseal them at age 18.
 
Herdfan said:
It seems there may have been, but the NIS database did not have access to it because it occurred when he was a minor.

Does this need to change? Should minors continue to be protected once they turn 18? I say no. Maybe seal the records WHILE they are a minor, but then unseal them at age 18.
Click to expand...

How about sealed for employment purposes, sealed for adult prosecution purposes- unless it’s relevant (ie crime occuring shortly into adulthood or it demonstrates a lifelong pattern of criminal behavior) and perhaps depending on the circumstances of the crime. And something similar for guns.

There tends to be two major scenarios that should be delineated. Minors who commit crimes and grow up to live a life full of criminality. And then minors who make stupid, immature decisions and grow up to be responsible, law abiding citizens.

If you’re arrested at 16 for a significant crime and try to get a gun at 19- maybe not the best idea. Now take that same person at age 35 with zero criminal history in the intervening years, they are a productive member of society, and everything else checks out, then it’s probably a safe to assume they are not a high risk.

I’m sure the data could be acquired and analyzed to create evidence-based guidelines on whose juvenile record predicts a high risk gun ownership scenario and whose dose not.
 
AG_PhamD said:
How about sealed for employment purposes, sealed for adult prosecution purposes- unless it’s relevant (ie crime occuring shortly into adulthood or it demonstrates a lifelong pattern of criminal behavior) and perhaps depending on the circumstances of the crime. And something similar for guns.

There tends to be two major scenarios that should be delineated. Minors who commit crimes and grow up to live a life full of criminality. And then minors who make stupid, immature decisions and grow up to be responsible, law abiding citizens.

If you’re arrested at 16 for a significant crime and try to get a gun at 19- maybe not the best idea. Now take that same person at age 35 with zero criminal history in the intervening years, they are a productive member of society, and everything else checks out, then it’s probably a safe to assume they are not a high risk.

I’m sure the data could be acquired and analyzed to create evidence-based guidelines on whose juvenile record predicts a high risk gun ownership scenario and whose dose not.
Click to expand...
So let’s have an advanced system of spying on American citizens and break the long standing protections for juvenile offenders? Instead of banning semi-automatic weapons? Because gun rights trump human rights.

Real solutions are simple. They sadly won’t be passed by NRA-funded politicians. Pretending we can predict future crimes “minority report” style is absurd.

The problem is too many guns, especially semi-automatics. Regulate them well instead of violating citizen privacy.
 
AG_PhamD said:
I’m sure the data could be acquired and analyzed to create evidence-based guidelines on whose juvenile record predicts a high risk gun ownership scenario and whose dose not.
Click to expand...

What happens after these incidents is "guns are a big problem", which ends up being counterproductive because, in part, there is almost nothing we can do to get that aspect under control. All it takes is just enough opposition to reeling in that part of the problem to prevent any kind of meaningful progress.

But, ultimately, the guns themselves are merely a major effect of much larger cultural defects that will not be fixed by addressing the gun problem. We look at what happened but barely scratch the surface of the why of it, the much broader underlying factors that give rise to these incidents. Because, once we start to go under the superficial crust, the effective remedies become much more difficult to get to and shake our faith in the stability ofour society. And no one wants to look at things that make them uncomfortable.
 
Yoused said:
the guns themselves are merely a major effect of much larger cultural defects that will not be fixed by addressing the gun problem
Click to expand...
It's not just cultural defects. It's political defects. The much heralded (at least by politicans and 2A supporters) US Constitution is built around protection of slave states. It's difficult to change. Some historians believe the 2A was put in to allow slaveholders to put down slave rebellions. Changes are extremely difficult. The problem with Congress goes way beyond the current makeup and the purchase of politicians by corporations, it's the structure from the Constitution. There is no solution without drastic change.
 
SuperMatt said:
So let’s have an advanced system of spying on American citizens and break the long standing protections for juvenile offenders? Instead of banning semi-automatic weapons? Because gun rights trump human rights.

Real solutions are simple. They sadly won’t be passed by NRA-funded politicians. Pretending we can predict future crimes “minority report” style is absurd.

The problem is too many guns, especially semi-automatics. Regulate them well instead of violating citizen privacy.
Click to expand...

This is one of those situations where you’re talking last me rather than at me… This isn’t the position I would have expected from you. I’m not surprised at totally twisting what I said into a pretzel, but I am surprised you would be against more restriction.

The government is spying on who? Themselves? They’re the ones already holding the records. Protecting citizens from what? Buying guns they shouldn’t have?

[Again, to be clear, my suggestion is only applies to guns, not employment or necessarily future prosecutions (BTW juvenile records can be unsealed for reasons including future prosecutions and jobs that require an FBI background check ie police officers, military, etc and of course the Patriot Act- there’s some legit spying for you)]

My primary suggestion essentially already exists in some states come to find out. In California people who commit certain juvenile offenses are barred from gun ownership until the age of 30. Apparently some states have laws barring offenders who committed crimes that would be considered a felony as an adult. Are these states spying- particularly when such restrictions are being applied proactively, when the person is convicted.

Regardless, such background check systems don’t have to divulge details of the records, only whether the applicant is eligible or not.

Also worth noting not all states automatically seal juvenile records at age 18 or will not seal all of them.

And no, I did not propose a “minority report system”. My point about using data to create “guidelines” means using statistics to determine what crimes or patterns of crimes lead to high risk and what amount of time or age is best to allow consideration for gun ownership to minimize risk that the gun would be used in a crime. Such guidelines would be used to inform policy. Not to create some algorithm that creates a individualized decision for each applicant. I didn’t realize using risk assessment to optimize and justify laws was such a radical and controversial idea.

When it comes to purchasing a gun why is it that all juvenile records should be more protected than mental health records (which are only disclosed to the NICS system in extremely limited cases).

So you want to make buying guns “as difficult as possible” but don’t think relevant juvenile records (at the least violence, threats, gun possession, gang involvement) should be relevant in the background process? So presumably a kid with a concerning record, turns 18 2-3 years later, record is wiped, and now he can buy a gun. That makes no sense to me.
 
Spike said:
It's not just cultural defects. It's political defects. The much heralded (at least by politicans and 2A supporters) US Constitution is built around protection of slave states. It's difficult to change. Some historians believe the 2A was put in to allow slaveholders to put down slave rebellions. Changes are extremely difficult. The problem with Congress goes way beyond the current makeup and the purchase of politicians by corporations, it's the structure from the Constitution. There is no solution without drastic change.
Click to expand...

Nope. It was to allow citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government. Remember, most of these colonists fled an oppressive King in England and were leery of government. Remember Paul Revere? He was riding to alert the citizens that the Redcoats were coming and the reason they were coming was to take the citizen's guns.
 
I think Americans on the whole as a nation are just generally more aggressive than other countries. Your country goes to war a lot and this is promoted for votes with people buying into the aggression of winning and being told how great they are. Your school system is built on competition and being the best and popular. Kids are under pressure worldwide in terms of exams but the US seems to have the added pressure within its system where kids compete to be the best at sports and popular. Prescription drugs are advertised on TV, something I found shocking, and kids are prescribed anti-depressants like no other country in the developed world.

Reading the comments sections on just about any news article and the most extreme views seem to be American and usually violent. Racism is rife throughout the United States and people who are different, gay, trans, atheists are condemned to a very high level. Religion dictates laws and there is a drive to take away rights that have stood for 50+ years in recent months.

Then you have guns. I don’t believe America has a worse problem with mental healthcare than other countries because every country complains of lacking funds and systems to deal with this. Don’t believe your politicians when they point to other countries and suggest ‘well they’ve got a knife problem so if we didn’t have guns it would be knives instead’. America has a higher knife crime rate than any of these developed countries too! There’s a big cultural issue to tackle and as an outsider, I have no clue what you are doing to do.
 
Herdfan said:
Nope. It was to allow citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government. Remember, most of these colonists fled an oppressive King in England and were leery of government. Remember Paul Revere? He was riding to alert the citizens that the Redcoats were coming and the reason they were coming was to take the citizen's guns.
Click to expand...

Britain used to have the constant threat of Royalists and parliamentarians coming to oppress its population but none of this has happened for centuries. We have evolved as a nation and have a strong democracy. Don’t fall for the ridiculous redneck agenda that you need firearms to fight the US army someday as it sounds rather far fetched. Land of the free but constantly worried about loss of power will just keep you imprisoned and paranoid beyond reach.
 

Lets Hope they are sued into oblivion.​

Maker of rifle used by Texas school gunman posted ad featuring kid days before slaughter​

nypost.com

Maker of rifle used by Texas school gunman posted ad featuring kid days before slaughter

In the attached photo, a boy wearing a T-shirt that reads #Rascal is seen sitting cross-legged looking down at the scoped firearm with a full magazine lying in front of him. An adult’s finger is po…
nypost.com nypost.com
1653745824060.png
 
Herdfan said:
Nope. It was to allow citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government. Remember, most of these colonists fled an oppressive King in England and were leery of government. Remember Paul Revere? He was riding to alert the citizens that the Redcoats were coming and the reason they were coming was to take the citizen's guns.
Click to expand...
That’s not the stated purpose of the amendment… written into the amendment itself. The stated purpose is for the “security of the state,” not for armed rebellion. If you look beyond just the text and at a bit of history, the idea of the 2nd amendment was to give states the ability to defend themselves, as they questioned the ability of the federal government to protect them well enough by itself.

It was never meant as a way for a group of citizens to rise up against the American government. Such a belief is dangerous and contrary to history. In my opinion, that mentality, pushed by gun lovers for decades, directly led to a mob of people thinking it was their right and duty to storm the Capitol, which was, in their eyes, representative of a ”tyrannical government” because they voted for the minority candidate in the most recent election.

Republicans calling Biden a tyrant + NRA messaging that the 2nd amendment is meant for them to overturn a tyrannical government? Sounds like a recipe for armed rebellion. This nonsense, not based in history, needs to stop.

And don’t forget, until 2008, court precedent made the 2nd amendment officially a collective right, not an individual one. And that 2008 decision was the narrowest possible (5-4) SCOTUS vote.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top