Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147215]Yeah, I know that's what you said, but I'm asking why[/QUOTE] Because they're ineffective. Banning certain features/types of guns does nothing to solve the root of the problem.

So florida house reps decided not to [url=https://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/after-school-shooting-florida-legislators-vote-down-assault-rifle-ban-bill]ban assault rifles[/url] but decided also to declare that [url=http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/20/florida-house-declares-pornography-as-a-health-risk/]porn is a health risk[/url] I jerked off once and killed 50 people once so I guess that's fair.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53147954]So florida house reps decided not to [URL="https://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/after-school-shooting-florida-legislators-vote-down-assault-rifle-ban-bill"]ban assault rifles[/URL] but decided also to declare that [URL="http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/20/florida-house-declares-pornography-as-a-health-risk/"]porn is a health risk[/URL] I jerked off once and killed 50 people once so I guess that's fair.[/QUOTE] Well let's be honest [U]it was a stupid bill.[/U] They tried to even ban the M1 Carbine by name. [I]The M1 Carbine[/I] They tried to ban every kind of AR/AK derivative, and continued with the tired old bs that a gun with a pistol grip and an adjustable stock is an "assault weapon". They tried to define a "large capacity magazine" (which would be banned) as anything over 7 rounds. Are you surprised at all that a proposal this idiotic didn't pass?

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147996]Well let's be honest [U]it was a stupid bill.[/U] They tried to even ban the M1 Carbine by name. [I]The M1 Carbine[/I] They tried to ban every kind of AR/AK derivative, and continued with the tired old bs that a gun with a pistol grip and an adjustable stock is an "assault weapon". They tried to define a "large capacity magazine" (which would be banned) as anything over 7 rounds. Are you surprised at all a proposal this idiotic didn't pass?[/QUOTE] No but trying to claim porn is a health risk after a huge mass shooting is a hell of a contrast.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53148027]No but trying to claim porn is a health risk after a huge mass shooting is a hell of a contrast.[/QUOTE] Oh totally, blaming porn was fucking stupid and I think we can all agree on that.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53148027]No but trying to claim porn is a health risk after a huge mass shooting is a hell of a contrast.[/QUOTE] I think we can agree that said declaration was asinine

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147215]Yeah, I know that's what you said, but I'm asking why[/QUOTE] And I'm asking you what would that accomplish. If some dude has 20 different rifles he's a collector, not a would-be mass shooter. He's not gonna strap all that shit to himself Rob Liefeld style and storm the place dual-wielding kalashnikovs.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147083]How does one nullify or get in the way of the other?[/QUOTE] The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is commonly cited as one of the biggest reasons Democrats lost control of Congress in the late-90s and stalled out Clinton's push for liberal reform. Then Republicans won and stayed in power for two full terms, as the AWB expired and was not renewed. That's the reality you're looking at if Democrats expend all their effort in getting a gun ban passed. Everything will look great for a few years, except likely with minimal actual effect due to the long-term nature of gun control efforts, and then a [i]furious[/i] resurgence of the right-wing will undo all the progress you've made. Social programs, ending the drug war? Much less likely to have that effect. Much more likely to immediately improve the situation.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53148677]The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is commonly cited as one of the biggest reasons Democrats lost control of Congress in the late-90s and stalled out Clinton's push for liberal reform. Then Republicans won and stayed in power for two full terms, as the AWB expired and was not renewed. That's the reality you're looking at if Democrats expend all their effort in getting a gun ban passed. Everything will look great for a few years, except likely with minimal actual effect due to the long-term nature of gun control efforts, and then a [i]furious[/i] resurgence of the right-wing will undo all the progress you've made. Social programs, ending the drug war? Much less likely to have that effect. Much more likely to immediately improve the situation.[/QUOTE] Although I'm not convinced expanding social programs won't have a huge backlash in this political climate.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53148697]Although I'm not convinced expanding social programs won't have a huge backlash in this political climate.[/QUOTE] Initial backlash, sure. Long term, unlikely. As long as we can prevent half-baked legislation like Obamacare became, there's a good chance the people who real the benefits will become less vocal against them. [sp]I understand Obamacare benefits were a great help and it did good things for people. But it was also flawed after being gutted out for Republican approval.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53147954]So florida house reps decided not to [url=https://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/after-school-shooting-florida-legislators-vote-down-assault-rifle-ban-bill]ban assault rifles[/url] but decided also to declare that [url=http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/20/florida-house-declares-pornography-as-a-health-risk/]porn is a health risk[/url] I jerked off once and killed 50 people once so I guess that's fair.[/QUOTE] God that article is straight up information warfare and it's disguising. CNN is doing a great job at making themselves the left-wing equivalent to Fox News.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53149014]God that article is straight up information warfare and it's disguising. CNN is doing a great job at making themselves the left-wing equivalent to Fox News.[/QUOTE] ... neither of those stories come from CNN? [editline]21st February 2018[/editline] Is CNN so bad that they're influencing stories they haven't written?

One thing I don't understand about the "banning semi-autos will reduce casualties" argument is why limiting casualties is the main thing they're concerned about. If they can't get an AR-15, so what? If they bring a shotgun and a satchel full of shells to school, isn't that just as bad? If they decide to use a knife instead and kill a couple people before being gunned down, is that better? If they forgo the school attack altogether and instead become a serial killer, is that something we should be less concerned about? If they download the Anarchist's Cookbook and pour mustard gas into the school's air conditioning, is that still better than them using a rifle? Primarily caring about reduced casualties is video game logic, imo-- If the shooter's K/D ratio is small, we won! It's ridiculous thinking that dehumanizes the shooter and ignores the social realities that caused them to snap like that.

I've always been a proponent of pushing for gun laws locally and at the state level rather than nationally. I know some of the Stoneman Douglas kids trying to push their message are talking to Florida lawmakers so I really hope that's where change can be made, even if it means putting a new level of pressure on them and helping bring out new voters in 2018. Support for background checks is nationally really high though and pressure is on Republicans to take action on public safety, so I'm not saying all gun law dialogue on the national level is necessarily bad, just prefer it to be more local.

[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;53149145] Primarily caring about reduced casualties is video game logic, imo-- If the shooter's K/D ratio is small, we won! It's ridiculous thinking that dehumanizes the shooter and ignores the social realities that caused them to snap like that.[/QUOTE] I'm going to have to stop you right there dude. The fact of the matter is that in our current social climate, we are a [I]very[/I] far time away from actually fixing the underlying mental health issues. As a matter of fact, I'm almost entirely certain that there isn't a single country that doesn't have the occasional instance of a public menace killing people. Yes, ideally, they wouldn't happen at all. But they do. And that "KDR" is children being shot, having their lives ended right before college. It matters.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;53149167]I've always been a proponent of pushing for gun laws locally and at the state level rather than nationally. I know some of the Stoneman Douglas kids trying to push their message are talking to Florida lawmakers so I really hope that's where change can be made, even if it means putting a new level of pressure on them and helping bring out new voters in 2018. Support for background checks is nationally really high though and pressure is on Republicans to take action on public safety, so I'm not saying all gun law dialogue on the national level is necessarily bad, just prefer it to be more local.[/QUOTE] We already have background checks.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53149192]We already have background checks.[/QUOTE] Background check harder, dammit! Keep the process going until an issue is found and then deny the licence based on said issue. There's so much corrupt bureaucracy in The States anyway. Time to make it useful. Edit: It's like this argument never gets anywhere because everyone is dismissive of every valid argument that can be made on the basis of "we've already heard that!/Talked about that!" no matter if it's viable or not. "how about you bring an original thought to the argument!?" Yeah. How about people not enter the discussion with their arms crossed, wearing defensive frowns.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;53149290]Background check harder, dammit! Keep the process going until an issue is found and then deny the licence based on said issue. There's so much corrupt bureaucracy in The States anyway. Time to make it useful. Edit: It's like this argument never gets anywhere because everyone is dismissive of every valid argument that can be made on the basis of "we've already heard that!/Talked about that!" no matter if it's viable or not. "how about you bring an original thought to the argument!?" Yeah. How about people not enter the discussion with their arms crossed, wearing defensive frowns.[/QUOTE] Tightening background checks won't do squat until the laws already on the books are enforced as they ought to be. Before introducing anything new, why not force the FBI to respond to every attempted NICS check? That would provably have stopped [I]several[/I] recent mass shooting incidents, all without putting additional burden on law-abiding citizens. Combine this with improved interdepartmental communication, and that would cause a dent not just in these incidents, but across the board when it comes to gun crime. If the background check system still has cracks large enough to allow perps like this through, [I]then[/I] tighten it. But saying we need stricter checks glosses over the fact that the checks already in place aren't enforced to their full extent.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53149075]... neither of those stories come from CNN? [editline]21st February 2018[/editline] Is CNN so bad that they're influencing stories they haven't written?[/QUOTE] My bad, I had a CNN article on that open in another tab and mistakenly believed I opened it from his post. I apologise for my foolishness, I look crazy railing against CNN when I was the first one to bring it up :v: [url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/health/florida-legislature-porn-dangerous-but-not-weapons/index.html]This is the article in question[/url]. The use of the term "Assault Rifle", used interchangeably with "Assault Weapon", and the header image of a soldier with an M4 Carbine are sheer propaganda value. Assault rifles weren't used in the crime, they even picture an Assault Rifle in the header, so it wasn't a mistake to use that word. They conflate it with Assault Weapon, which is a boogieman term made up by politicians and categorized mostly on cosmetic features. Finally the article implies that not banning all semi-automatic weapons is a failure of government; not even California has banned all semi-automatic weapons. I could go on, but those are the bits that bug me the most.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;53149364]Tightening background checks won't do squat until the laws already on the books are enforced as they ought to be. Before introducing anything new, why not force the FBI to respond to every attempted NICS check? That would provably have stopped [I]several[/I] recent mass shooting incidents, all without putting additional burden on law-abiding citizens. Combine this with improved interdepartmental communication, and that would cause a dent not just in these incidents, but across the board when it comes to gun crime. If the background check system still has cracks large enough to allow perps like this through, [I]then[/I] tighten it. But saying we need stricter checks glosses over the fact that the checks already in place aren't enforced to their full extent.[/QUOTE] I've already touched on that too. Hardly anyone gets charged with straw purchases or sales to prohibited persons, and when a prohibited person is able to get a gun from a dealer it's because NICS failed. Part of that is due to poor communication with state, local, and other government law enforcement (such as that Air Force guy who shot up a church), and part of that is because the ATF is too busy catching cigarette scalpers and pumping guns south of the border (see here: [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal[/url])

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53149604]I've already touched on that too. Hardly anyone gets charged with straw purchases or sales to prohibited persons, and when a prohibited person is able to get a gun from a dealer it's because NICS failed. Part of that is due to poor communication with state, local, and other government law enforcement (such as that Air Force guy who shot up a church), and part of that is because the ATF is too busy catching cigarette scalpers and pumping guns south of the border (see here: [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal[/url])[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/us/atf-tobacco-cigarettes.html]And running their own cigarette smuggling operation to fund a black budget[/url]. My favourite part is where the tobacco company owning the warehouse catches wind that something isn't right, and has lawyers seize the warehouse and all of the cigarettes inside. The beautiful irony of a tobacco company legally raiding the ATF is just right out of a novel, I love it.

I feel like I exclusively hear only bad things about the ATF but I don't know how much of that is partisan bias and how much of that is actual agency dysfunction and it's really hard to find non-biased information on how much good they do for every scandal.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53149639]I feel like I exclusively hear only bad things about the ATF but I don't know how much of that is partisan bias and how much of that is actual agency dysfunction and it's really hard to find non-biased information on how much good they do for every scandal.[/QUOTE] The ATF is corrupt (see aforementioned criminal activities) and has that priorities way out of order. They have a history of bullying legal gun owners over technicalities or otherwise chasing small fish when those resources would be better put into stopping straw purchasers and illegal arms traffickers. They're also most famous for the Waco Siege, which they were blamed for losing control of the situation. I'm less harsh on them after reading up on the circumstances of the incident, but a fuck-up is still a fuck-up.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53149639]I feel like I exclusively hear only bad things about the ATF but I don't know how much of that is partisan bias and how much of that is actual agency dysfunction and it's really hard to find non-biased information on how much good they do for every scandal.[/QUOTE] There comes a point where the good they do is outweighed by the good they [I]don't[/I] do. Like Mr. Someguy said already, they put considerable time and effort into either creating problems for themselves to solve, or being too heavy-handed and losing face or trust. Regardless of the good they may be doing, they have enough problems to warrant a thorough examination at the very least.

Don't go after and ban assault rifles, go after the reasons why people would use them to harm others in the first place so you don't ruin things for law-abiding gun owners who like having things like that for target shooting.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;53152296]Don't go after and ban assault rifles, go after the reasons why people would use them to harm others in the first place so you don't ruin things for law-abiding gun owners who like having things like that for target shooting.[/QUOTE] The problem is that this current deadlock is good politics for both sides of the discussion. Democrats get to pursue completely pointless legislation that accomplishes nothing while getting their base angry at the republicans. Republicans get to fight eternally against the freedom hating democrats, rallying their own base. It's political theater that everyone in power benefits from.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;53152296]Don't go after and ban assault rifles, go after the reasons why people would use them to harm others in the first place so you don't ruin things for law-abiding gun owners who like having things like that for target shooting.[/QUOTE] I would argue that it is impossible to account for every possible reason someone might have to want to use guns on innocent people. Even this Florida shooter is reported being completely happy and normal just days before he committed the crime. How can we give mental assistance to a person who hides it?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53149639]I feel like I exclusively hear only bad things about the ATF but I don't know how much of that is partisan bias and how much of that is actual agency dysfunction and it's really hard to find non-biased information on how much good they do for every scandal.[/QUOTE] They do more bad than good, IMO. Legit law enforcement could be given to the FBI for guns and explosives, and the FDA for alcohol and tobacco. The ATF is an agency that does the job of other agencies that already exist, but worse. They also violate 4th amendment rights.