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

[Bradskii]

gun laws do not reduce gun violence because criminals do not obey the law...

In the last two massacres, the murderer wasn't a criminal before commiting the act so that wouldn't have prevented it. In fact, good luck on finding a criminal who should have been locked up that commited a mass shooting. Let me know if you find one.

Your solution isn't a solution to mass shootings like Buffalo or Uvalde. It's a bumper-sticker comment that serves no purpose in this discussion.

 

[disciple Clint]

In the last two massacres, the murderer wasn't a criminal before commiting the act so that wouldn't have prevented it. In fact, good luck on finding a criminal who should have been locked up that commited a mass shooting. Let me know if you find one.

Your solution isn't a solution to mass shootings like Buffalo or Uvalde. It's a bumper-sticker comment that serves no purpose in this discussion.

So should we have no concern about all the people who are killed by repeat offenders? Should we ignore the cure that would save thousands of lives because it would not save less than a hundred lives? What kind of logic is that?

 

[Bradskii]

So should we have no concern about all the people who are killed by repeat offenders? Should we ignore the cure that would save thousands of lives because it would not save less than a hundred lives? What kind of logic is that?

I've no problem with locking up repeat offenders. But is has nothing to do with mass shootings.

Yet again...you are free to find an example of a mass shooting where the perpetrator was a repeat offender and should have been in jail. Otherwise, you are making a nonsensical proposal to fix this specific problem.

And let's be honest, if that is your only solution that it's plainly obvious that you have nothing to offer that would solve it.

 

[disciple Clint]

I've no problem with locking up repeat offenders. But is has nothing to do with mass shootings.

Yet again...you are free to find an example of a mass shooting where the perpetrator was a repeat offender and should have been in jail. Otherwise, you are making a nonsensical proposal to fix this specific problem.

And let's be honest, if that is your only solution that it's plainly obvious that you have nothing to offer that would solve it.

OK I am going to repeat for at least the third time, there is not absolute cure for mass killings, there are things that could help such as hardening schools, being more attentive to abnormal behavior in those around us and talking with those people to see if they need help or poise a discernible threat, improving access to mental health, having armed security in high risk areas, monitoring social media for key word groups, but again there is no way to know who is going to go off the deep end. Satisfied or do I need to repeat this again three more times? We can only concentrate our efforts and resources where they will at least produce some positive results and that would be in not allowing people who shoot people back on the street over and over again. How simple can I make this?

 

[Bradskii]

...there are things that could help such as hardening schools, being more attentive to abnormal behavior in those around us and talking with those people to see if they need help or poise a discernible threat, improving access to mental health...

So that would obviously require restrictions as regards gun ownership for those who do exhibit abnormal behaviour. To those with mental health issues. So there needs to be put into place a means to check this BEFORE they are given permission to own a weapon.

 

[disciple Clint]

So that would obviously require restrictions as regards gun ownership for those who do exhibit abnormal behaviour. To those with mental health issues. So there needs to be put into place a means to check this BEFORE they are given permission to own a weapon.

An excellent idea, and it is such a good idea that it has been happening for years now.

 

[Bradskii]

An excellent idea, and it is such a good idea that it has been happening for years now.

Oh yeah. No guns for someone who has been institutionalised. Will that cover people to whom we should be more attentive as regards abnormal behavior? Will that include talking with those people to see if they need help or poise a discernible threat?

No. It won't. So your best shot on this is to propose something that you say is in place but which won't even cover those you list shouldn't have access to weapons.

 

[wing2000]

I think they've realized the pragmatic position that an AR-15 in the hands of a person who's been licensed, vetted by their doctor, and able to pass a written and practical test is safer than banning that platform, and letting almost anyone have a handgun (like what we do).

Our congress, composed of ONE party that refuses to do anything, can't even close background check gaps, much less require the standards of the Czech Republic.

 

[cow451]

Well you have missed the point. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws of any city and yet it has done nothing to reduce gun deaths. the logical conclusion: gun laws do not reduce gun violence because criminals do not obey the law, that is about as simple as things can get and yet people keep trying to repeat a solution that has more than proven to have failed. When will people wake up and stop with the call for gun laws that do nothing to reduce deaths.

Which gun laws would reduce deaths? Remember that gun laws are laws that have to do with guns.

 

[cow451]

An excellent idea, and it is such a good idea that it has been happening for years now.

How come mental illness isn’t causing mass killings on the level of the US in other first world countries. You know, like Canada, the UK, Australia? Is it something in the water?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well you have missed the point. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws of any city and yet it has done nothing to reduce gun deaths. the logical conclusion: gun laws do not reduce gun violence because criminals do not obey the law, that is about as simple as things can get and yet people keep trying to repeat a solution that has more than proven to have failed. When will people wake up and stop with the call for gun laws that do nothing to reduce deaths.

I didn't miss any points, I countered them with other points.

The main ones being:
1) Gun sale restrictions offer little short-term effect post-proliferation (it's something you'd have to wait a few decades to see the fruits of)
2) Gun sale restrictions in State A are going to be largely without teeth if a person can drive 25 mins away to State B and buy one

The fact that these 2 things are true doesn't qualify as blanket "proof that gun laws don't work", it just means that certain other circumstances have to be in place in order for them to work.

I acknowledged that in my previous post.

The "criminals don't obey laws" argument is an appeal to futility.
Case in point, criminals don't obey the law in New Zealand or Sweden either, yet their murder rate is a fraction of ours...you don't think that'd be higher if they had more universal access to guns in those nations?

You could use that same rationale to suggest that we shouldn't have speed limits or drunk driving laws.

Furthermore, you could use that same rationale to say we shouldn't have drug laws.

However, the topic of guns, cars, drinking, and drugs largely fall into the same use/risk trade-off dynamic.

We know all of those things carry certain risks if used in certain ways, we also know that those things can all be used in a responsible way ("responsible" meaning, in a way that won't cause any significant risk of externalities). For instance, obviously a person drinking 4 beers and getting behind the wheel is bad news... however, a person drinking 4 beers on their patio on a Friday night, watching some TV, and then going to bed is unlikely to create any harm to anyone else.

That nuance is acknowledged by most people for the other three, but on guns, people seem to miss the nuance and take a more absolutist position.

There's not going to be a "quick fix". As in, no, you're not going to get a 6-month return on investment on any new gun laws as 6 months of stronger policy isn't going to undo decades and decades of lax policy.

But that doesn't mean it's time to throw our hands up and say "there's nothing we can do".

There are a number of policies that could be implemented on a "moving forward basis", we wouldn't see drastic changes in the numbers by 2024...but you'd likely see some movement in the right direction a few decades from now.

 

[disciple Clint]

Oh yeah. No guns for someone who has been institutionalised. Will that cover people to whom we should be more attentive as regards abnormal behavior? Will that include talking with those people to see if they need help or poise a discernible threat?

No. It won't. So your best shot on this is to propose something that you say is in place but which won't even cover those you list shouldn't have access to weapons.

Bottom line is that in this country, people have rights which include the right to due process and while some people might like to take it upon themselves to decide who should and who should not have a gun based on just their opinion because they think they should have the power to make that decision, thankfully that is not something that can be done in this country.

 

[Bradskii]

Bottom line is that in this country, people have rights which include the right to due process and while some people might like to take it upon themselves to decide who should and who should not have a gun based on just their opinion because they think they should have the power to make that decision, thankfully that is not something that can be done in this country.

They won't be making the decision. If you want a licence and someone contacts me as your employer and I give a negative account of your suitability, then it's not me that decides if you get one. That would be one factor in many that would be taken into account by people authorised to make that decision.

If you are a 17 year old and I'm one of your teachers and I describe violent episodes, threats made to pupils, self harm, ostracisation (one of the major clues in mass shootings) then the same thing would happen.

Obviously somebody has to make a decision otherwise anyone could buy any gun at any time under any conditions.

 

[disciple Clint]

Which gun laws would reduce deaths? Remember that gun laws are laws that have to do with guns.

We do not need additional laws we need to enforce the laws we have, this is not complicated remove the people who shoot people and innocent people will not get shot.

 

[disciple Clint]

How come mental illness isn’t causing mass killings on the level of the US in other first world countries. You know, like Canada, the UK, Australia? Is it something in the water?

No it is something in the culture and something lacking in the criminal justice system specifically removing criminals for the streets. It is the people who think that criminals should be treated as victims.

 

[disciple Clint]

I didn't miss any points, I countered them with other points.

The main ones being:
1) Gun sale restrictions offer little short-term effect post-proliferation (it's something you'd have to wait a few decades to see the fruits of)
2) Gun sale restrictions in State A are going to be largely without teeth if a person can drive 25 mins away to State B and buy one

The fact that these 2 things are true doesn't qualify as blanket "proof that gun laws don't work", it just means that certain other circumstances have to be in place in order for them to work.

I acknowledged that in my previous post.

The "criminals don't obey laws" argument is an appeal to futility.
Case in point, criminals don't obey the law in New Zealand or Sweden either, yet their murder rate is a fraction of ours...you don't think that'd be higher if they had more universal access to guns in those nations?

You could use that same rationale to suggest that we shouldn't have speed limits or drunk driving laws.

Furthermore, you could use that same rationale to say we shouldn't have drug laws.

However, the topic of guns, cars, drinking, and drugs largely fall into the same use/risk trade-off dynamic.

We know all of those things carry certain risks if used in certain ways, we also know that those things can all be used in a responsible way ("responsible" meaning, in a way that won't cause any significant risk of externalities). For instance, obviously a person drinking 4 beers and getting behind the wheel is bad news... however, a person drinking 4 beers on their patio on a Friday night, watching some TV, and then going to bed is unlikely to create any harm to anyone else.

That nuance is acknowledged by most people for the other three, but on guns, people seem to miss the nuance and take a more absolutist position.

There's not going to be a "quick fix". As in, no, you're not going to get a 6-month return on investment on any new gun laws as 6 months of stronger policy isn't going to undo decades and decades of lax policy.

But that doesn't mean it's time to throw our hands up and say "there's nothing we can do".

There are a number of policies that could be implemented on a "moving forward basis", we wouldn't see drastic changes in the numbers by 2024...but you'd likely see some movement in the right direction a few decades from now.

Clearly the last ban on assault weapons accomplished nothing and was left to expire in a quiet death so that it could be resurrected for political purposes at a later date. There is no evidence that a ban on guns accomplishes anything in our nation, we cannot look to other nations with other cultures, we live in a violent nation. The only thing that is certain to be effective is to get the people who shoot people off the streets. If that was being done we would not have the problems we see in Chicago and other large cities that have strict gun laws but still have shootings every day of the week. This is not a complicated problem, eliminate the shooters and people do not get shot an innocent kids do not get killed anymore. We are focused on mass shooting that result in a very very small percentage of the people who are being shot and killed. If we want to save lives we will recognize political hype for what it is and do what we all know will solve the problem by enforcing the laws we now have and cleaning up the streets.

 

[disciple Clint]

They won't be making the decision. If you want a licence and someone contacts me as your employer and I give a negative account of your suitability, then it's not me that decides if you get one. That would be one factor in many that would be taken into account by people authorised to make that decision.

If you are a 17 year old and I'm one of your teachers and I describe violent episodes, threats made to pupils, self harm, ostracisation (one of the major clues in mass shootings) then the same thing would happen.

Obviously somebody has to make a decision otherwise anyone could buy any gun at any time under any conditions.

So decision by committee? A teacher who has concerns should and almost always will communicate to concerns to someone who can help the youth get the help they need, when the assessment is made that the student is a danger to himself or others law enforcement will come into the picture along with professional mental heath officials who are capable of getting court orders to protect him and others. This is an area where communications could improve and efforts need to be made to address that.

 

[cow451]

No it is something in the culture and something lacking in the criminal justice system specifically removing criminals for the streets. It is the people who think that criminals should be treated as victims.

I never advocated not enforcing laws.

Although it does seem that countries where they aren’t offing one another in mass somehow do it with different approaches to firearm regulation.

 

[Bradskii]

So decision by committee?

Decision by whomever is best able to make the decision. I would suggest a combination of medical and police personnel who have experience of what they are examining. Feel free to make a positive suggestion that will actually help the situation being discussed.

All we've had so far is a complaint that you're not locking up repeat offenders.

 

[Pommer]

Clearly the last ban on assault weapons accomplished nothing and was left to expire in a quiet death so that it could be resurrected for political purposes at a later date.

Odd, I seem to recall that there was a rather raucous brouhaha over the expiration of the 1994 ban, (which I’ll look up whenever I have more time).