Beto O’Rourke interrupts briefing, echoing US debate on guns

[ThatRobGuy]

Beto O'Rourke interrupts briefing, echoing US debate on guns

UVALDE, Texas (AP) — Surrounded by fellow Republicans on a high school stage, Gov. Greg Abbott was wrapping up his opening remarks about the killing of school children and teachers in Uvalde, Texas, when Beto O’Rourke strode forward from his seat in the audience.

“Gov. Abbott, I have something to say,” the Democrat challenging Abbott for governor this fall said Wednesday, pointing a finger at his rival. “The time to stop the next shooting is right now, and you are doing nothing.”

A mix of boos and cheers rose up from the crowd as the former congressman and 2020 presidential candidate briefly spoke, then was escorted from the room. Sen. Ted Cruz, standing behind Abbott, shook his head and said “sit down!” while one woman in the crowd chanted, “Let him speak.”

We've seen other impassioned responses to this story (a notable one by Steve Kerr), and while I can understand their passion...passion without realistic & pragmatic plans and expectations don't really amount to much...much like "doing something just to say we did something" isn't terribly impactful either.

A common one request is that the GOP get on board with universal background checks...and that one I agree with as a point of common sense. (and nearly 90% of Americans, including over 70% of gun owners agree)

And as a strategic and practical move, the GOP should agree to that one and get it done (A - because it's sensible, and B - it'll show that it's not the panacea that some people think it is and finally end the national debate on it)

I have no delusions that having universal background checks would miraculously stop these types of shootings, they most certainly wouldn't.

The reality is, there are still 300 million guns out there in circulation, and implementing universal background checks tomorrow doesn't mean they all become magically non-operational until the owner brings them in to do the proper paperwork which makes them magically operational again.

Another popular idea floated is a gun registry...while I wouldn't personally have any objections to registering my firearms (as I don't plan on doing anything nefarious with them), I can understand why some people would have reservations about it. And with regards to these mass shootings, it's not like we've needed a registry to know who did it. We haven't really had an "unsolved mass shooting" that I can think of. Typically, within hours, we know the person's name, age, and what they put on facebook the night before and what former coworkers said about them.


So what actually needs to be done here?

I have some ideas from a long term perspective...but it seems like a lot of people are "short term focused", and there's no regulation/restriction that's going to give us a fast turn-around time and "European-type" gun homicide numbers anytime during my lifetime.

It'd be like hoping for a miraculous drop in DUI numbers after you've already given everyone a free car and a 10-year supply of free margaritas.

Thoughts?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Thoughts?

We already got plenty of laws on the books in regards to guns, background checks etc. We don't need anymore, more laws won't make a difference in crime since many existing laws are often not implemented or are poorly done. More law and regulations however will negatively impacting the lives of law abiding citizens that will actually abide by them, but make little difference to criminals who see them at best as a temporary obstacle.


I also can say that conservatives are not willing to let their rights be nickel and dimed away... not when things are much different when the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to progressives and their favorite pet issues like abortion, supporting groups like Antifa and BLM, or even supporting reducing or eliminating the police, creating occupied zones, not prosecuting liberal groups that riot, loot, gang bang but often give passes to such folks if they are done by racial/ethnic minorities. It's funny how policies like stop and frisk are not implemented even when they actually can make a difference in certain cities in putting a serious dent in crime including homicide.

 

[cow451]

Nothing is going to be done because not very many GOP legislators have spines. Get used to it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nothing is going to be done because not very many GOP legislators have spines. Get used to it.

But, to put things in context, even if people gave the gun control contingent everything they wanted tomorrow, we wouldn't see much difference in outcome (at least not for a very long time).

We could implement universal background checks, a registry, banning all of the scary guns people saw in a Seagal movie tomorrow, the trajectory wouldn't really shift in any noticeable way for decades.

As it stands right now, there are 300 million guns in private hands in the US. What that means is, if someone has $500 and wants a gun, they'll be able to get one (regardless of mental state, or what they plan to do with it)

It's not an ideal situation, but it's our reality. Given that, I'm not prepared to get rid of mine. Perhaps that's short-sighted of me, but if a nutjob can find someone to sell them a gun on the streets, I'm not going to leave myself at a disadvantage.

My position somewhat resembles that of Ice T

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Robert is a clown.

 

[FireDragon76]

Beto O'Rourke interrupts briefing, echoing US debate on guns

UVALDE, Texas (AP) — Surrounded by fellow Republicans on a high school stage, Gov. Greg Abbott was wrapping up his opening remarks about the killing of school children and teachers in Uvalde, Texas, when Beto O’Rourke strode forward from his seat in the audience.

“Gov. Abbott, I have something to say,” the Democrat challenging Abbott for governor this fall said Wednesday, pointing a finger at his rival. “The time to stop the next shooting is right now, and you are doing nothing.”

A mix of boos and cheers rose up from the crowd as the former congressman and 2020 presidential candidate briefly spoke, then was escorted from the room. Sen. Ted Cruz, standing behind Abbott, shook his head and said “sit down!” while one woman in the crowd chanted, “Let him speak.”

We've seen other impassioned responses to this story (a notable one by Steve Kerr), and while I can understand their passion...passion without realistic & pragmatic plans and expectations don't really amount to much...much like "doing something just to say we did something" isn't terribly impactful either.

A common one request is that the GOP get on board with universal background checks...and that one I agree with as a point of common sense. (and nearly 90% of Americans, including over 70% of gun owners agree)

And as a strategic and practical move, the GOP should agree to that one and get it done (A - because it's sensible, and B - it'll show that it's not the panacea that some people think it is and finally end the national debate on it)

I have no delusions that having universal background checks would miraculously stop these types of shootings, they most certainly wouldn't.

The reality is, there are still 300 million guns out there in circulation, and implementing universal background checks tomorrow doesn't mean they all become magically non-operational until the owner brings them in to do the proper paperwork which makes them magically operational again.

Another popular idea floated is a gun registry...while I wouldn't personally have any objections to registering my firearms (as I don't plan on doing anything nefarious with them), I can understand why some people would have reservations about it. And with regards to these mass shootings, it's not like we've needed a registry to know who did it. We haven't really had an "unsolved mass shooting" that I can think of. Typically, within hours, we know the person's name, age, and what they put on facebook the night before and what former coworkers said about them.


So what actually needs to be done here?

I have some ideas from a long term perspective...but it seems like a lot of people are "short term focused", and there's no regulation/restriction that's going to give us a fast turn-around time and "European-type" gun homicide numbers anytime during my lifetime.

It'd be like hoping for a miraculous drop in DUI numbers after you've already given everyone a free car and a 10-year supply of free margaritas.

Thoughts?

I hope he's sincere and not merely trying to get attention for his flagging presidential chances, because using a tragedy for your own benefit is not exactly a good thing. And it's hard to see what the point is, otherwise. Most already know the political climate in Texas is toxic and no substantive discussion on guns can happen in such a climate.

 

[wing2000]

A common one request is that the GOP get on board with universal background checks...and that one I agree with as a point of common sense. (and nearly 90% of Americans, including over 70% of gun owners agree)

And as a strategic and practical move, the GOP should agree to that one and get it done (A - because it's sensible, and B - it'll show that it's not the panacea that some people think it is and finally end the national debate on it)

So why isn't the GOP doing just that?

 

[disciple Clint]

Nothing is going to be done because not very many GOP legislators have spines. Get used to it.

Perhaps not but they DO have the brains to recognize that gun laws are not going to solve the problem, why is it not obvious to everyone else, do they ignore what is going on in Chicago? What does it take for people to understand that criminals do not obey the law, if someone wants to shoot up a public area they can buy any gun they want right on our streets for about 25% of what it would cost them retail and with no checks of any kind. Now if you want to do something constructive about the problem elect people who will enforce the law and get the criminals off the streets before they kill anyone else. Stop pointing at the Republicans and the NRA and take responsibility for the liberals who allow and encourage crime to prosper.

 

[Bradskii]

What does it take for people to understand that criminals do not obey the law...

The last guy wasn't a criminal. Just someone with obvious mental issues. How about we ban gun sales to people who have such issues?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Thoughts?

Interesting the shooting was much worse that I thought or assumed. Not that it matters as far as gun control goes, making laws and regulations based on knee jerk reactions tend to always be bad for public policy especially since what actually happened takes time to uncover.

But I'm watching another Youtuber with news commentary, very Libertarian minded. It seems like Beto really stuck his foot in his mouth angering a lot of the parents their with his grand standing and ranting. The last thing you should do is anger the families of victims, and their friends etc. It seems like Beto might have permeantly injured his political career with his shenangians, which is something I would not cry over.


By the Way who thinks this is good for a politician? Trump got in trouble for just having very candid reactions to things at press conferences. Why is it that progressives think they can just violate peoples rights without due process if they feel moral anger at something, like automatically taking AR 15s or whatever? This really is a "Pot calling the kettle black" situation when it comes to people actually being would be dictators and such.

 

[cow451]

Perhaps not but they DO have the brains to recognize that gun laws are not going to solve the problem, why is it not obvious to everyone else, do they ignore what is going on in Chicago? What does it take for people to understand that criminals do not obey the law, if someone wants to shoot up a public area they can buy any gun they want right on our streets for about 25% of what it would cost them retail and with no checks of any kind. Now if you want to do something constructive about the problem elect people who will enforce the law and get the criminals off the streets before they kill anyone else. Stop pointing at the Republicans and the NRA and take responsibility for the liberals who allow and encourage crime to prosper.

Doing nothing is the strategy of the radical right. And it is working to near perfection.

 

[Paulos23]

Honestly, we need a change in our gun culture, and laws can only influance that so far. There are many gun owners that are responsible with their guns and we should not punish them. But for the few that do this mass shootings, we need to get them in a more safty and responsible culture than what currently exists.

We need to reconise that guns are the easist way to kill people in this country, and that they are too easy to get. We need culturely enforce gun safety and responsiblity as well as questioning if people really need a gun.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So why isn't the GOP doing just that?

I think because the talking points about being "against universal background checks" gives them some easy points with the base.

Much like immediately calling for universal background checks does the same for the other side of the fence.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Honestly, we need a change in our gun culture, and laws can only influance that so far. There are many gun owners that are responsible with their guns and we should not punish them. But for the few that do this mass shootings, we need to get them in a more safty and responsible culture than what currently exists.

We need to reconise that guns are the easist way to kill people in this country, and that they are too easy to get. We need culturely enforce gun safety and responsiblity as well as questioning if people really need a gun.

I think one of the biggest things (that could have some real benefit) would be expanding the "mentally defective" criteria in the already-existing background checks. Which it's my understanding, this shooter passed in order to make the purchase (much like other mass shooters have)

Right now, the mental health requirement to pass it is only that you've never been
A) involuntarily committed
or
B) deemed mentally defective by a judge


On the spectrum of "perfectly sane, and perfectly safe enough to own a gun" and "suffering from such an extreme level of mental illness, that you have to be committed against your will", there are huge swaths of middle ground.

The majority of people with severe depression or bipolar don't fit either of those criteria, and could technically pass a background check.

So even making the background check "universal" (which it already is in many states, and even in the states where it's not, the gun dealers at shows are still running them to cover their own hide) would have little impact with such a lax standard.


Even just taking baby steps in expanding it...something like "if you've ever been clinically diagnosed with, or have been prescribed medication for, the following conditions in the past 5/10 years" would probably go a long way...or at least be reason enough to flag the application for further review.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I hope he's sincere and not merely trying to get attention for his flagging presidential chances, because using a tragedy for your own benefit is not exactly a good thing. And it's hard to see what the point is, otherwise. Most already know the political climate in Texas is toxic and no substantive discussion on guns can happen in such a climate.

Who knows...he does strike me as sort of an "attention-getter", but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was possibly sincere.

The issue is that both sides use these types of events to score political points or as an opportunity to trot out their narrative, so it's tough to tell.

 

[FireDragon76]

Who knows...he does strike me as sort of an "attention-getter", but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was possibly sincere.

The issue is that both sides use these types of events to score political points or as an opportunity to trot out their narrative, so it's tough to tell.

O'Roake has always seemed like an attention-seeker. His race for governor didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. His presidential campaign seemed to presume that Democrats were so desperate they would just get behind anybody with a pulse.

 

[disciple Clint]

The last guy wasn't a criminal. Just someone with obvious mental issues. How about we ban gun sales to people who have such issues?

How about we already do.
Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

 

[disciple Clint]

Doing nothing is the strategy of the radical right. And it is working to near perfection.

Fortunately consistently not doing the wrong thing is a strategy of the entire right. The left should try it a few times.

 

[Bradskii]

How about we already do.
Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

That is an extraordinarily loose regulation. Mental defective? I assume that means someone with a mental disability. And if you haven't been instituted means you're perfectly ok to own a gun? Good grief...that's it? That's appalling.

 

[disciple Clint]

That is an extraordinarily loose regulation. Mental defective? I assume that means someone with a mental disability. And if you haven't been instituted means you're perfectly ok to own a gun? Good grief...that's it? That's appalling.

And now you see what the problem is with what you thought was such a good idea when you suggested it in your post.