At least five dead in California elementary school shooting - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891919]No, it's where I check out because when I say "I don't think guns are necessary," I'm met with "guns... evil... bad..." I check out because I read one study that said how gun violence went down in Australia post-ban, and was met with another from you that said "no it didn't," and don't feel like doing more late-night research for a forum argument.[/QUOTE] The counter i always see to it is that the decline was consistent before and after the ban.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52891923]The counter i always see to it is that the decline was consistent before and after the ban.[/QUOTE] Then I shall do more research some other time and come back with a different opinion based on what I find.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891861][img]https://i.imgur.com/zpEnifD.png[/img] Keep in mind that Australia's homicide rate was already so low compared to its population that individual murders are enough to make a noticeable impact on the graph.[/QUOTE] Then it's probably doesn't have a large enough sample to notice a meaningful trend.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52890587]I added some more - writing your congressman really is pretty pointless (I gave up on it several years ago personally) but you can try to steer them toward certain measures that will help (which some people have had success with, depending on the individual). I know our representatives in Texas are bought and paid for so nothing the constituency says will really sway them either way. Really taking hands-on action like working in social programs is the best way to guarantee you'll make a difference. My point is really that I think it's a bit asinine to sit on internet forums and wail about how nobody's doing anything... when a lot of our society's problems can be mitigated by people putting effort in to give back to their communities.[/QUOTE] I really get a feeling like I could have no impact on the country whatsoever, [I]unless[/I] I became a politician. Every 4 years we're stuffed with rhetoric about going out and voting and how you have power as a citizen, but unless you live in a swing state I'm not quite sure you actually have any power or impact at all. The way I understand the system, correct me if I'm wrong, is that voters don't actually vote for the president so much as their state's elector who will then pretty much always vote in line with what the voters voted. Which [I]sounds[/I] like it should be the same thing as direct voting, but in reality it isn't. Suppose I live in a Republican state that will overwhelmingly go republican every single time. This means, as a democrat, I have no impact at all. If I do go out and vote, my vote will not matter as my vote won't decide the elector. It's not like my vote is being added to a national tally of democrats vs republicans and we all get counted at the end, beyond seeing who won the popular vote. Which was demonstrated last time, when Hillary [I]won[/I] the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes. This also means if I were a democrat in a democratic state, I would have nothing to worry about because my state will reliably go blue every single time with or without me. It's only in the swing states where my vote could actually count as it doesn't go the same way every time and I can have an impact on which electors we go with. This is without mentioning gerrymandering, a system that both parties benefit from and aren't in a rush to get rid of, and without mentioning the fact that I could easily feel represented by neither candidate (and hoo wee did most people not this last time around) but fuck you you only get two options besides some independents, which might as well have you burn your ballot for as much as it practically matters. So unless I'm majorly wrong about something, and I hope I am, I live in a system where my power as a citizen is mostly limited to picking one of two candidates that I dislike less, [I]if[/I] I happen to live in the right area. That's pretty fucking pathetic, because it means if I totally ignore politics and never vote, I have exactly as much impact as someone who obsessively follows politics and votes every election. And people wonder why voter apathy exists. I'm sure there are other avenues, but voting for president by no means should be the one we put all our focus on because the majority, the way I see it, don't matter to the result. And emailing your representative is simply too fucking easy to ignore, I've done it and saw no results whatsoever. Hilariously, the one people shit on the most, protesting, seems to have the most actual impact on things

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52891467]Wasn't directed toward you specifically, but this is my point - If you're against private ownership of firearms, you should be against private ownership of [I]any[/I] firearms. The nature of firearms is that they spout chunks of metal heavy enough and at high enough velocities to be fatal, which renders an otherwise unarmed individual fucked whether it's some stupid break-action, single-shot .22, or a belt-fed automatic in the hands of the person trying to kill them - Arbitrary restrictions on furniture and capacity and imo even select-fire capability or emulation thereof don't change that fact. If someone isn't okay with private ownership of a semi-auto AR I don't see why they'd be fine with private ownership of a break-action shotgun.[/QUOTE] That's what I meant.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891919]No, it's where I check out because when I say "I don't think guns are necessary," I'm met with "guns... evil... bad..." I check out because I read one study that said how gun violence went down in Australia post-ban, and was met with another from you that said "no it didn't," and don't feel like doing more late-night research for a forum argument.[/QUOTE] You are being wilfully ignorant and it's really fucking annoying. Nobody said that Australia didn't see a drop in gun crime, what they're saying is it didn't see a drop in violent crime. Gun crime is just one small subset of overall violent crime. If you reduce gun crime, but knife crime spikes afterwards, have you made the country safer? No. You still have the same overall violent crime rate. That is what happened in both England and Australia. It's what's happened pretty much everywhere, because violent crime is not caused by guns, there are underlying factors that cause it, and guns are just one of many means to an end.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891803] 2) The guns they took out of circulation are now being replaced in criminal hands by homemade MAC-10s, Luty subguns, and so on which are being manufactured for the sole purpose of meeting that illicit demand. These guns are arguably more effective than the legal ones they replaced. [/QUOTE] in what world are homemade mac 10's more effective than legal guns? [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891803] Also to say Australia doesn't have mass shootings, let alone mass killings, is fairly dishonest.[/QUOTE] Name one that's even a 1/10th as bad as America [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;52891923]The counter i always see to it is that the decline was consistent before and after the ban.[/QUOTE] Mass shootings are on the rise in America, what's to say limiting guns early hasn't helped continue the decline in homicides/robberies and mass killings

How when California has the most strict of gun laws? You mean to tell me they just DONT MATTER?

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52892628]Mass shootings are on the rise in America, what's to say limiting guns early hasn't helped continue the decline in homicides/robberies and mass killings[/QUOTE] If you want to make that argument, then be my guest. Show us a demonstrable and meaningful causative argument for how limitations on guns have resulted in a decline of homicides and/or robberies, based on real numbers. Please note that statistical correlation is not an argument on it's own. [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] If you don't have an argument to provide, then you're demonstrating, again, that your position is emotional and not factual.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52892857]If you want to make that argument, then be my guest. Show us a demonstrable and meaningful causative argument for how limitations on guns have resulted in a decline of homicides and/or robberies, based on real numbers. Please note that statistical correlation is not an argument on it's own. [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] If you don't have an argument to provide, then you're demonstrating, again, that your position is emotional and not factual.[/QUOTE] I was genuinely asking, mass shootings being on the rise in America is factual however.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52893034]I was genuinely asking, mass shootings being on the rise in America is factual however.[/QUOTE] No one is going to make your argument for you. If you want to argue that banning guns has a positive effect, then make the argument.

I cannot imagine how much could be achieved if everyone who wants a hard ban on firearms put all of that energy into ending poverty and drug addiction.

[QUOTE=Sharkcheater;52892646]How when California has the most strict of gun laws? You mean to tell me they just DONT MATTER?[/QUOTE] Compared to the rest of the first world, Texas and California gun laws are basically the same thing.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52893169]Compared to the rest of the world, Texas and California gun laws are basically the same thing.[/QUOTE] It is harder to get a gun in California than even Canada, let alone some European countries like Italy or Czechoslovakia or Switzerland. Which, by the way, do not have a gun crime problem. We've gone from ignoring statistics to outright making shit up. If you have to bullshit this hard to formulate an argument, maybe that says something about your argument.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52893169]Compared to the rest of the first world, Texas and California gun laws are basically the same thing.[/QUOTE] You ever wonder why the pro-gun people in these threads are so frustrated and annoyed? Its cause of people saying this kind of shit.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52893176]It is harder to get a gun in California than even Canada, let alone some European countries like Italy or Czechoslovakia or Switzerland. Which, by the way, do not have a gun crime problem. We've gone from ignoring statistics to outright making shit up. If you have to bullshit this hard to formulate an argument, maybe that says something about your argument.[/QUOTE] What statistics are being ignored?

You know that church shooter that was not supposed to own a gun but did anyway because of an Air Force error? Well [url=https://apnews.com/0eaca5a9bc86433fb8706207ec81862a/Police-knew-'madman'-had-illegal-guns-before-killing-rampage]not only was this guy barred from owning guns[/url], but the police knew all about him and his guns, and did nothing. I'd recommend reading the whole article for more context, but here's much of the important stuff. [quote=Associated Press]At a tense news conference, police conceded that neighbors had repeatedly complained about Kevin Neal firing hundreds of rounds from his house among other erratic and violent behavior. Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said [B]authorities responded to neighbors' calls several times, but the 44-year-old Neal wouldn't open the door, so they left.[/B] ... Neal was also known to have violent squabbles with his neighbors and his wife. Police found the bullet-riddled body of Neal's wife stuffed under the floorboards of their home. They believe her slaying was the start of the rampage. "We are confident that he murdered her," Johnson said. Neal then shot two of his neighbors in an apparent act of revenge before he went looking for random victims at different locations that included the community's elementary school. All those killed were adults but authorities have said that children were among the wounded. At the time of the attack, Neal was out of custody on bail after being charged in January with stabbing one of the neighbors he later killed in the rampage. After the January assault, [B]a judge barred Neal from having guns[/B], according to court records. The records also show that Neal was charged with illegally firing a weapon and possessing an illegal assault rifle on Jan. 31. ... Records show Neal certified that he surrendered his weapons in February, but Johnston said Wednesday they had recovered two homemade assault rifles and two handguns registered to someone else. ... "There's hardly any police presence out here," [witness Dillon Elliott] said. "In all the time we've been out here there has been almost, I would say almost zero police presence. Every so often you'll see them if it's super bad." He said his father, who was on the homeowners' association board, was threatened in the late '80s and early '90s during a dispute with a neighbor and deputies never responded.[/quote] Gun control wouldn't have stopped it, it's California, he had been charged with firearms offenses already, he had these guns illegally (two stolen or straw purchase, and two home made), he openly used them to threaten people, he was on bail for stabbing his neighbor, [U]and the police turned a blind eye to the whole thing[/U]. This is a complete failure of law enforcement to protect the community, all anger should be directed at the authorities for failing to act, not just in this incident, but others in the past. They knew he was unstable, they knew he was not allowed to own weapons, but they did not act. [editline]16th November 2017[/editline] Seriously what the fuck man. They have an armed and unstable man with a recent history of violence and firearms offenses, who uses his firearms to threaten his neighbors, refusing to come to the door. Instead of calling for SWAT or even just attempting to resolve the situation, they leave. They just fucking leave, stand-offs are too much effort, might as well just go home. Absolutely insane.

Two homemade rifles, no kidding? If only someone saw that coming Massive, unforgivable failure from local law enforcement. There's absolutely no reason this guy shouldn't have been in jail before he had the opportunity to act. Based on testimony from locals it sounds like marshals need to move in and restructure that department.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52895629] At the time of the attack, Neal was out of custody on bail after being charged in January with stabbing one of the neighbors he later killed in the rampage.[/quote] giving people the ability to pay their way out of jail was a mistake

[QUOTE=_Axel;52893837]What statistics are being ignored?[/QUOTE] According to the well thought out arguments made by you and many other similar minded people in this thread? ALL OF THE STATISTICS.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52897387]According to the well thought out arguments made by you and many other similar minded people in this thread? ALL OF THE STATISTICS.[/QUOTE] You mean the whole two that were shown on page 2, one of which about a country with a low enough murder rate that the remaining variations are pretty much noise?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52897435]You mean the whole two that were shown on page 2, one of which about a country with a low enough murder rate that the remaining variations are pretty much noise?[/QUOTE] No I mean the ones mentioned in the past 8 1/2 gun debate threads which consistently show that the amount of firearms ownership has no meaningful effect on the amount of violent crimes/murders. Also the statistics taken by the freaking FBI which consistently show that assault weapons bans don't do shit, because they generally aren't used for the vast majority of crimes involving a firearm. Also the amount of criminals lately who acquire weapons despite it already being illegal because the people tasked with keeping track of that shit can't do their fucking job right.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52891909]That effort would be, and [I]SHOULD[/I] be better spent on the root causes of crime and violence to begin with, social inequality, poverty, mental illness, etc. [/QUOTE] The frustration that you feel is mirrored and originates from the fact that the very people who generally oppose my gun legislation also oppose methods of reducing social inequality, poverty, and mental illness. Of all the politically active gun owners or gun rights advocates, how many favor programs like Obamacare? How many would favor universal healthcare? Subsidies for working class families to afford specialists that wouldn't be covered by a traditional singlepayer system? I'd imagine quite a few, but still a solid minority.

-Apparently this has fallen out of vogue-

I think to effectively argue for more gun control you should boil down your argument to either A) tackling mass shootings, B) tackling gun violence, C) tackling gun deaths, or D) all of the above. You need to explain what measures would stop a person from getting a firearm and getting into an elementary school (or a church, or a hotel overlooking a country music festival), and how you would enact those measures. This is my perspective as someone who generally opposes additional gun regulation on top of what we have already (note, not gun regulation [I]in general[/I]). You can present everything from universal background checks to a total firearm ban and mandatory confiscation and I won't dismiss it out of hand. [editline]16th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;52897660][url]https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527[/url][/QUOTE] While this sentiment exists and it's quite ridiculous, the Onion is applying it as a strawman argument to the entire nation when, ironically, those most invested in owning firearms have come up with a variety of solutions. I can't find it now but catbarf made an [I]excellent [/I]post a couple weeks ago.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52897707] While this sentiment exists and it's quite ridiculous, the Onion is applying it as a strawman argument to the entire nation when, ironically, those most invested in owning firearms have come up with a variety of solutions. I can't find it now but catbarf made an [I]excellent [/I]post a couple weeks ago.[/QUOTE] They aren't applying it to the entire country, they're pointing out (to those people you mentioned in your post) the reality of the situation. They re-post that exact same article with the pictures and names swapped out every time there is a mass shooting.

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52896271]giving people the ability to pay their way out of jail was a mistake[/QUOTE] Is that how bail works in the US? Surely if the guy was charged with something as serious as a fatal stabbing he should be remanded.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;52897752]Is that how bail works in the US? Surely if the guy was charged with something as serious as a fatal stabbing he should be remanded.[/QUOTE] If you post bail, then you're let out of jail until your trail. Usually bail is so incredibly high that it is no longer possible for you to skip the country any more after you've paid it if you're considered a flight risk. Also, you get the money back after your trial (regardless of the verdict).

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52897707]I think to effectively argue for more gun control you should boil down your argument to either A) tackling mass shootings, B) tackling gun violence, C) tackling gun deaths, or D) all of the above. You need to explain what measures would stop a person from getting a firearm and getting into an elementary school (or a church, or a hotel overlooking a country music festival), and how you would enact those measures. This is my perspective as someone who generally opposes additional gun regulation on top of what we have already (note, not gun regulation [I]in general[/I]). You can present everything from universal background checks to a total firearm ban and mandatory confiscation and I won't dismiss it out of hand. [editline]16th November 2017[/editline] While this sentiment exists and it's quite ridiculous, the Onion is applying it as a strawman argument to the entire nation when, ironically, those most invested in owning firearms have come up with a variety of solutions. I can't find it now but catbarf made an [I]excellent [/I]post a couple weeks ago.[/QUOTE] This one? Actually useful gun control. [QUOTE=catbarf;52861719]Every single gun debate thread is chock-full of gun owners providing suggestions to mitigate gun violence. Here's a few off the top of my head from previous threads: -Allocate the DoJ funds specifically for prosecution of straw purchase, the #1 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue. -Allocate the ATF funds specifically for prosecution of unscrupulous FFL holders, the #2 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue. -Raise liability on stolen firearms, or introduce safe storage laws. -Further restrict handguns, the overwhelmingly most common weapons used in crime. -Open the NICS to non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales. -Fix the broken interaction between state and federal databases (due to HIPAA) which often causes mental issues to not be reported to the federal background check system. -Address suicide in some meaningful capacity. Address gang violence in some meaningful capacity. These are the social issues that are the most common root causes of gun violence. Like, I'm sorry that these aren't simple 'ban all guns!' or 'ban assault weapons!' soundbites, but that's because these suggestions are born from an understanding of the issue and the statistically-relevant factors. And we've also helpfully pointed out numerous laws on the books that do nothing to make people safer, but a repeal of which could be used as a bargaining chip to pass any of the above, should you encounter resistance. Do you understand how frustrating it is for us to explain why simplistic solutions won't work, provide some alternatives that address the root causes and common methods of gun violence, suggest means of compromise that could get such measures through Congress, and then be told we're not trying to help? What more do you want from us?[/QUOTE] I don't particularly agree with mandating everyone to have a gun safe because not everyone has the space or funding to get one. However something like a chamber lock which you can lock the action open with I think would be good especially for preventing accidents.

Homemade dakkah? Can already hear the legislators screaming and howling about how gunsmiths are evil. Fuckn' politicians cannot keep their traps shut and god only knows that they'll use this an excuse too go after people using dremeltools to make guns. Actually, you know what... I should go grab my dremel kit and make a full functioning semi-auto rifle. I mean theirs a guy on Youtube who already proved you can make an AR15 with pop cans.