School Shooting, More Red Flags

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5692
weapons of war

Tycer-

By the way Dave, it is legal to own tanks and the associated rounds that function in them. The same goes for all sorts of weapons of war that you might think aren’t legal to own.

Did you notice where I wrote that I didn't care where the line was drawn?  My point is that the line will be drawn somewhere.  The fact people can own tanks - its surprising, but it doesn't affect my point.  (I actually visited a guy's house - it was a really big house - in the Bay Area who had a whole collection of vintage armored fighting vehicles; I have no idea if he had ammunition for them, but they definitely were functional.)

Now if you told me that there were individual US citizens that owned submarines armed with functioning nuclear warheads atop missile delivery systems, and claimed this was covered under the 2nd amendment "right to bear arms", that I'd pay attention to, because that would prove pretty conclusively that prior restraint really didn't exist.

My point is, a line will be drawn, somewhere, and prior restraint will occur.  The "right to bear arms" isn't absolute.  It just can't be, not in the modern age.  Modern weapons are just too destructive.

 

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
I did see your point

I just thought you might find it interesting. I think the line of the 2nd Amendment has been established as being small arms in common use. So I think that’s your line of what’s covered there. 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5692
small arms

Tycer-

Ah ok.  Yes I definitely misinterpreted what you said.  :)  Although since I did see all those tanks, maybe I should have known better.

Did not realize the tank collector passed away - 8 years ago!!

https://karakullake.blogspot.com/2010/02/bay-area-california-littlefield-tank.html

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Jacques-Littlefield-tank-collector-dies-3176289.php

Small arms in common use.  Ok.

I know that, back in the day (the time at which the constitution was written), merchant sailing ships routinely armed themselves with cannon and swivel guns and all sorts of small arms to fend off the pirates, so at some level having a private battleship back then definitely wasn't out of the question.

It certainly was a different era.

Which, I suppose, is ultimately my point.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1714
Data dump: things aren't always as they are portrayed

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

1) In his address to the nation after the Planned Parenthood attack, Obama claimed:  “I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings: This just doesn’t happen in other countries.

Senator Harry Reid made a similar statement on June 23rd: “The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs.  Let’s do something. We can expand, for example, background checks. … We should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons.

We prefer not to make purely cross-sectional comparisons, but this claim is simply not true.  The data below looks at the period of time from the beginning of the Obama administration in January 2009 until the end of 2015.  Mass public shootings – defined as four or more people killed in a public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty.  The focus on excluding shootings that do not involve other crimes (e.g., gang fights or robberies) has been used from the original research by Lott and Landes to more recently the FBI.  We cover the period from the beginning of the Obama administration to the current date, from 2009 to the Charleston massacre (this matches the starting period for another recent study we did on US shootings and we chose that because that was the starting point that Bloomberg’s group had picked).  The cases were complied doing a news search.  The starting year was picked simply because it was the beginning of the Obama administration and it matched the time frame of a recent Bloomberg report (a report that we evaluated here).  A comparison across the entire world is available here

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at Tuesday, April 5, 1.05 AM

The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack.

There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher.

Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater.  If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.

There is also the issue of what President Obama meant by “mass violence.”  If you include bombings, many countries face many more bombings than the US does.  On March 22nd, 2016, Belgium had a bombing attacks at an airport and subway that killed 31 people and wounded 180.  That is worse than any mass public shooting in the US in terms of fatalities and woundings.  Or take just the bombing cases in Russia.  Russia had few mass public shootings, but it suffered from numerous bomb attacks, with 1.31 mass bombing murders per million people. [I guess if determined killers can't get guns they'll revert to much more deadly bombs.]...

msnrochny's picture
msnrochny
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2010
Posts: 65
Just Curious

Repectfully, there are 18 year olds serving in the military, and killing in our name.  Why would you find it “fascinatingly bizarre” that the same 18 year old could buy a gun?

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1714
One student's father had given him a bullet proof vest to wear

https://archive.fo/8MfoN

This is statistically the safest city in Florida...

In the classroom where Mackenzie Hill had been hiding, police broke through the door. As the officers were guiding students out, they noticed something odd: One of the students had put on a bulletproof vest.
The student said he'd been given the vest by his father, a police officer.
Even in the safest city in Florida, he'd brought it to school with him, just in case.
reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 279
RE: Peterson's statement in response
New_Life wrote:

That video is clearly attempting to build a strawman argument in its conclusion by just giving the viewer two options of LiHoP or MiHoP?

that's not what "strawman argument" means.

and if you watched the video, dan clearly says "LiHoP or MiHoP, or NEITHER".

New_Life wrote:

Or how about PoSSI?? ie Plain Old Simple Stupid Incompetence?

It's not like law enforcement organisations have a flawless history in reacting to potential threats now do they?

Again this just shows why gun reform is needed and licences to have access to a firearm should be reviewed along with an assessment of the individuals behaviour and background.  People that display hate and offer threats to carry out violence against innocents should not have access to firearms.

so, you claim that law enforcement is stupid and incompetent, and therefore they should be in charge of deciding who has the right to own an instrument of self-defense, and who doesn't?

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2890
18 or 21?

If we're going to say 21 then make it consistent.

  • 21 to purchase a gun.
  • 21 to volunteer or be drafted (selective service), no more recruiters in high schools.
  • 21 to drive a vehicle.
  • 21 to vote.

Disclaimer: Changing the minimum age for purchases probably won't reduce the incidence of false flag attacks.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2038
The REAL gun control issue is the hellfire missile

Most of us, with both intelligence and a sense of identification broad enough to include humanity itself, understand that assassination of others without any due process is deeply immoral.

The global drone assassination program is one example.  People are killed without

  • charges,
  • evidence,
  • court proceedings,
  • trial
  • national or international law

In fact the targets do not even have to be named.

Decade Of The Drone: America’s Aerial Assassins (2010)

So who is being killed remotely from trailers in Nevada?

The dead may have been armed or unarmed, males or females, adults or children. What they have in common is that they were targeted based on “actionable intelligence” provided by someone on the ground, not necessarily a disinterested party.

Last October, as the killing had begun in earnest, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston warned:

My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

“The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons.” [5]

Assassinations without evidence, charges, trial or jury, we are assured, are against "terrorists."  But we also have come to understand that the labeling of a political enemy as a terrorist is a rhetorical mechanism to justify political violence by TPTB.

My belief is that drone assassinations are simply mob killings by TPTB in areas not covered by the western MSM.

Anyone who truly cares about children will want to focus on the most widespread murder machinery in history, the Drone-Hellfire program.

Adam Taggart's picture
Adam Taggart
Status: Peak Prosperity Co-founder (Offline)
Joined: May 26 2009
Posts: 3213
Shooting Threat Scare At My Daughter's High School Today

So, my daughter's high school was evacuated today after a written shooting threat was discovered on one of the school's bathroom stall walls. I just got back from picking her up (along with a mass of other nervous parents, as you can imagine)

My wife and I received the following announcement from the school an hour ago:

This morning, graffiti was found in the 2nd floor boys bathroom with a threat specific to today, February 27th.  Based on the information stated and out of an abundance of caution for our staff and students, and to thoroughly investigate the circumstances involved, we have chosen to close for the balance of the day at noon.

In coordination with our Superintendent, Sebastopol Police Department and other law enforcement agencies, we want to ensure our staff and students remain safe and therefore have decided to error on the side of caution though there is no immediate threat.

Students will be released from 4th period classes at 12:00 noon today.  If they take the bus, we have arranged for West County Transportation to pick up in the usual location at noon.

If you usually pick up your student but cannot arrive in the immediate, students will be asked to report to the Library which will be a safe and secure area as school staff and Sebastopol Police will be present.

Sebastopol Police will remain on campus until all students are accounted for.  Again, there is no immediate threat but it is our choice to error on the side of caution for all High School students.

ALL after school activities for today have been CANCELLED!  We will send an updated announcement tonight.

A flurry of texts from my daughter followed soon after saying the school was on lockdown and that the situation was 'tense' and 'scary', with police crawling all over the building.

After picking her up, she mentioned that the rumor among the kids is that the graffiti specifically mentioned a plan for shooting at the school.

Fortunately, all kids have been evacuated and this seems have been an empty threat (we hope). The school is lucky to be located a block from the police station, which assures constant vigilance/swift response times to such threats as these.

But this certainly puts the school shooting topic in much tighter focus for me...

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1714
MSM makes the shooters celebrities so copy cats abound

We can prevent 90% of this ugliness. 1) Don't show the shooter's face in video or photos; blur it out.  2) Never state the shooter's name; use initials only.  3) Never give any detailed description of the shooter's motive; give just a brief, generic summary in one sentence.  Until we get the MSM's voluntary cooperation on this, copy cat shooters will abound, as will posers/pranksters who send notes and write on bathroom stalls for kicks.  But so far they're too busy blaming the NRA and agitating for "gun control" to take a look in the mirror.

The good news, Adam, is that your daughter goes to a school in "a good neighborhood."  I know that without having ever been there by hearing of the full court press the school and police implemented in response to something written on a bathroom stall.  Violence and the threat of violence stimulates that kind of response only in a place that rarely has any.  OTOH, when a community is soaking in violence, it takes a lot more to get a reaction out of school personnel and police.  Such an incident would barely produce a yawn at South Philly High School where I work, though because of Parkland there might actually be a police report written just to say we did.  (SPHS is the most violent of the schools on the state's list of "Persistenly violent schools" all of which are in Philly.)  Two armed cops are already stationed there and during opening and dismissal six additional cops are staged at strategic places within a 2 block radius nearby to prevent shootings, stabbings and assaults.  I'll never forget the day we had rumors of a shooting that was to occur after school so we sent three additional cops to try to be ready so that made a total of 2 inside the school and 9 outside.  The shooting happened anyway 1 block away from our nearest officer.  In a good neighborhood when someone is shot on the street, 20+ calls are made to 911, a crowd gathers to watch, every cop on duty shows up, and TV news crews show up and start filming/interviewing. In one of our "bad" South Philly neigborhoods the other night, a man was shot and was laying on the street: just 3 calls were made to 911 (in a very dense residential location), no one came out to watch, and the media couldn't be bothered.  Dana Loesch, the NRA representative at the CNN "townhall" the other day, pointed out at the CPAC convention that the MSM loves school shootings because they love the ratings generated by showing white mothers crying over white kids getting shot.  She contrasted that with the near total lack of MSM interest in black mothers crying over black boys and men getting gunned down EVERY DAY in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, Philly and Oakland.

The bad news is that Columbine High School is in a nice neighborhood just like your daughter's school and that's where these mass shootings at schools got started.  I'm glad nothing happened at your daughter's school.

Here's one of MANY poser copy cats around the country since the Parkland atrocity:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5433421/Illegal-immigrant-arrested-threatening-school-shooting.html

The posers and copy cats are further emboldened when those who are caught (like the above "young lady") get a joke slap on the wrist by our "justice system."  No doubt she'll either be put into a diversion program in which she gets "counseling" (and no criminal record or deportation) or the sentencing judge will rule that a tough stretch of 12 months of probation will teach her a lesson and deter further copy cats. I can assure you that those in the criminal underclass and those prone to committing these atrocities are literally laughing their heads off at us for our pitiful weakness.

What are your thoughts and feelings as a dad about armed police in high schools and armed/trained school employees?

livsez's picture
livsez
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 1 2008
Posts: 71
Shooting Threat Scare At My Son's High School today too!

Coincidence!?  This happened in my town today.

 

Staples Student in Custody After Violence Threat

A male student’s overheard threat to shoot a teacher and then go on a school shooting rampage led to a lock down and early dismissal today at Staples High School, Police Chief Foti Koskinas said.

The student, a juvenile whose father has AR-15 rifles and other guns locked in a home safe, is in custody and undergoing psychiatric evaluation at Norwalk Hospital, Koskinas said.

Police were seen carrying out a search on Kirock Place off of Center Street as part of the investigation.

“To the best of our knowledge, all of the firearms have been accounted for,” said Koskinas, who added the boy’s parents have been cooperative and that the firearms were responsibly secured.

He added that no weapons were found at Staples. However, there was concern about possible weapons at another residence, plus the possibility of “ghost guns.”

Ghost guns are unfinished firearms that can be purchased online and arrive in the mail. Since they are unfinished, they can skirt federal firearms laws, making them nearly impossible to track, Koskinas said.

“I can’t say enough about the student who spoke up,” Koskinas said about the Staples student who reported the threat at 9 a.m. to school and police officials.

 

http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v3/comments/staples_student_in_custody_after_violence_threat/

 

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2038
Family living in Ferguson MO tells their tale

What Civil Unrest is Really Like:  We Survived the Ferguson Riots.

A very well written tale of life in suburban Ferguson leading up to the Riots of 2014.

We considered moving to Ferguson in the fall of 2001.  We were expecting twins and decided to buy a house in an affordable suburb of St. Louis.  We had friends who lived in the area, and they liked it.  What greater reference to the quality of the community than someone who already lives there, right?  We found a great starter house on the corner of two of Ferguson’s four main streets.

The house we chose to purchase had a small backyard, a decent sized front yard, and room for the two children we were expecting at the time to play. 

How it all started

We pulled into our driveway on the afternoon of August 10, 2014, having just gotten back from a trip out of town.  After tucking the kids into bed, I got some things in order and started working on a project at my desk when a friend of mine messaged me asking if I was all right.  Okay, that was a rather odd question out of the blue.  I told her I was fine and asked her why she was asking.  She told me that there were riots going on in Ferguson.

...

I knew my friend, and I trusted her.  But you know that feeling…the one that says, “It can’t be as bad as she’s making it out to be.”   Yeah, it’s real, and it’s called normalcy bias.  According to Wikipedia(which I’ve been told never to quote):

“Normalcy bias is a belief people hold when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned.” (source)

I didn’t know it at the time, but that was exactly what was going on in my head – it can’t be THAT bad because nothing like this had ever happened to me before.   BUT since I knew she wouldn’t lie to me, I opened a new tab on my browser and started looking up “Riots in Ferguson.”

... As we watched and listened online we saw and heard screaming and yelling, threatening gestures, profanities being hurled. I saw one side moved forward and the other side moved back....  

That night things got out of control.  Businesses were burned stores were looted, most of them were still about a mile away from us.  We watched and we were saddened, but there was no reason to believe that but the events were going to get closer to us.  We were safe, right?

When do we leave?

This cycle of fairly calm days and vicious nights continued the next few days.  By Wednesday, we had seen that this wasn’t going to go away quickly.  The protests seemed to be growing each evening – at least a little.  So Thursday, I packed several suitcases and put them in the back of the van – where they stayed.  ...

The question started growing in our minds.  When do we leave?  We knew our family needed to be protected, but how close to our house is too close?  I’ve read articles where people talk about ‘buggin out’ like there is that one right moment to bug out.  Anything before that is just worryAnything after that is foolishness.

There is no cut and dried “perfect time to leave” while you are living in a dangerous situation.  The struggle is a real.  You don’t want to leave too soon and foolishly waste resources or overtake friend’s houses unnecessarily.

 

They found jobs in another state and relocated.  They left town quickly the night before the jury verdict was announced in the Michael Brown shooting.  The commercial areas around their home were burned and looted.

Quite a story.  And their summary:

 

What we learned

So if I could leave you with a few takeaways, they would be these:

  • Don’t think it could NEVER happen to you.  We lived in a small town surrounded by wonderful people.  I would never have dreamed .....

  • Being ready for the unexpected is a MUST! I have a friend who asked me why in the world she should keep items together (like a BOB or Grab-and-GO bag) in case they had to evacuate.  You never know when you literally have five minutes to be out of the house before unrest of one sort or another reaches you.

  • Learn to use social media to your advantage.  We would stalk Twitter and more specifically #Ferguson on Twitter.  What we saw either could keep us in our house or evacuate us at a moment’s notice. 

  • Having items that you keep in your car all the time is VERY helpful in case you ever need to leave quickly. We keep various tools, foods, drinks, first aid kits and more in our family vehicle.  

  • Watch for the effects that stressful situations may be having on your children. Learn to notice the differences and do what you can to mitigate what they are going through.  

“This [normalcy bias] may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare themselves for disasters.”  (source)

 

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
So Cruz was unknown but

So Cruz was unknown but known.   Sounds like a tool.  How else would he be caught so quickly.  

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1714
More on inadequate use of force by police

Police aren't immune to the stresses obvious in our society and world.  Self-doubt, resistance to taking proactive police actions, fear of media attack or departmental punishment, confusion as to the rapidly changing definitions of right/wrong and legal/illegal are all causing disruptions among police and eroding the quality of police service to the public. 

Cleveland Police went to a home where a man was having a mental health crisis and decided they had to take him against his will for a mental health evaluation. A struggle ensued. One officer refused to help his partners (two of whom sustained injuries) get the male into custody.  He calmly walked away and told arriving medics that he didn't want to get involved because he didn't want to be the target of an internal investigation or have to write up all the paperwork necessary after any use of force. He became the target of an internal investigation anyway, but for failure to perform his duties. The whole incident was caught on the officer's own body-worn camera.  Shameful.

http://fox8.com/2018/02/27/i-team-exclusive-video-cop-wont-help-other-officers-with-suspect/

Hopefully you'll never need police help in a violent incident, but if you do hopefully you'll get one who's willing to risk his/her own neck for yours.  Unfortunately, that's becoming less and less likely every day. 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5692
armed people on site

Seems to me that, given police response time, and the number of people that die in 5 minutes, the only answer that isn't just about "cleaning up the site afterwards" and/or "hoping for the best" involves having an armed response on site.

And we might want to consider not giving all those psych drugs to kids too - with their half-formed brains and all.  But since Big Pharma is TV's biggest advertiser, I suspect we won't hear much about prescription drugs being a potential aggravating factor in these kids-gone-crazy.

It reminds me of the whole autism thing.  1 in 36 kids is now autistic, but we treat this as a big "gosh, I guess we're just screwed" event, rather than some massive catastrophe - that has an actual cause - hosing America's youth.  When I was growing up it was 1:10,000.  What changed between then and now?  Does anyone even care?

I mean, if AQ was responsible, we'd have 24/7 drone attacks until everyone up to three degrees of separation (including wedding parties, and the subsequent funerals) was visited by a hellfire missile.

But since it - likely - has something to do with either pesticides, or drugs, or both, that involves some big corporation making tons of money,  all we hear are crickets.

I want a special prosecutor, NSA analysts digging through every digital correspondence using that handy-dandy warrantless wiretap database, lots of parallel construction, and then a whole bunch of miscreants going to jail for 5 years for "lying to the FBI" - until we roll up the whole lot of them.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
full military garb?

I haven't seen any other references to this.  According to a NYT article, after he finished his shooting spree he discarded his gun and a vest.  There was also a suggestion that he wore a gas mask when he reportedly threw a smoke grenade, but that doesn't seem to be confirmed.  In any case, if that happened he probably discarded the mask after he was done with the smoke bomb.  There is nothing to indicate the vest was bullet proof, it was perhaps just a vest with pockets for the extra mags he was carrying.  He was able then to run from the school with students without apparent suspicion.  I have seen no suggestion of helmet or other armor.

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/17/minute-minute-how-par...

Quote:

But his duffel bag held an AR-15-style rifle, not baseball bats or soccer balls. The backpack was loaded down with a vest with additional magazines for the weapon, a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle used by the U.S. military.

(after the shootings)


Quote:

Cruz then made a decision on how to escape the scene. He went back to the stairwell on the building's east side and climbed to the third floor. There, he abandoned the rifle and the vest with the magazines and ran down the stairs and out of building and joined students fleeing the scene.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-shooting.html

Quote:

Mr. Cruz also shot people inside five classrooms on the first and second floors of the freshman building. He eventually discarded the rifle, a vest and ammunition in a stairwell, blended in with fleeing students and got away, the authorities said.

Do you have any other references for the contention that he was armored up?  It strikes me that the teacher may have been confused in the melee or actually saw a police officer, who were dressed as she described.

 

 

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2038
The video will tell what happened

The CCTV footage will tell the complete story.  Lets see it.

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 856
I heard that they will be

I heard that they will be showing it the same day as the Mandalay Bay CCTV footage. wink

LynnFogwell's picture
LynnFogwell
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2013
Posts: 6
Limits on Weapons

I almost never comment, but I thought I could contribute something here.

I do not think this is not an issue of balancing authoritarian control vs. freedom. It is an issue of who decides. 

I have read some thought examples here of people owning nuclear submarines or high explosives. The government owns these things and people seem to be ok with it. The government is ultimately a group of people. In fact, we say (in the U.S) that we have a government "of the people, by the people and for the people". This would imply that any weapon that the government owns, the people should also be able to own.  

So, what is it about the government owning nuclear submarines that makes it ok? If a group of citizens demonstrated those same safeguards, then would you not be ok with that too? I take the threat of these kinds of weapons seriously. It is true that a strong threat of force is indeed force. Somone owning explosives in the apartment above you would seem to be a sufficient threat to constitute aggressive force. This is because the consequences would be so devastating if something went wrong. Notice that remains true whether or not it is a private person or an agent of the government.

With freedom comes responsibility and the ownership of very destructive weapons come with a boatload of responsibility. There are, in fact, weapons that I am not comfortable with anyone having - including the government.

Getting back to the issue of deciding, I am not sure government liscensing is adequate. Driver's liscenses seem to be a joke to me. Anybody can get one and they are more about being an ID than demonstrating any level of driving profeciency. I also think the government would have a conflicting interest in restricting liscenses.

Here is a license example I could get behind: While visiting New Zealand, I spoke to a resident there who told me you had to get signatures from your neighbors to be permitted to own a gun. He said your neighbors had to sign that they were comfortable with you owning a weapon. I don't know the specifics of the NZ law, but I really liked that idea. Your neighbors are the most effected and (like a jury) are in the best position to judge if you are responsible enough to own a weapon. This is a great use of community and demonstrates its importance!

I would have no idea how to license explosives, but it would revolve around providing plenty of liability insurance, demonstrating responsible storage and training, accounting for security, and - of course those signatures from your neighbors! :-)

Thanks to everyone for their posts, I enjoy reading posts from thoughtful people!

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 879
Perspective

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5692
insurance

Grover-

It would be interesting, based on your stats, to see what the expected "shooting death liability" for a given weapon class would be.  Maybe its just pennies.  What do you think?

It would also provide at least some amount of relief for families who were hit by events like this.  Insurance company would have to pay up, just like in an auto accident.

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 879
More Perspective
davefairtex wrote:

It would be interesting, based on your stats, to see what the expected "shooting death liability" for a given weapon class would be.  Maybe its just pennies.  What do you think?

Dave,

That's an interesting question. Engineers use insurance costs (for death and various injuries) and predicted accident severity rates to justify additional safety features for the traveling public. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to outfit a road with less traffic with the same safety features as one with more traffic. It costs more than it is potentially worth.

With traffic models, it is assumed that people are rational players. Accidents happen for any of numerous causes - mechanical failure, sleepiness, impaired driving, etc. There are also cases of suicide and vehicular homicide. (Imagine a truck plowing down a street crowded with pedestrians.) Should the car's manufacturer be held responsible for the operator's actions? As a rational person, I suspect you wouldn't blame the manufacturer in this case. Why is it different with guns?

I don't want to make light of the shooting tragedies that happen. I wish we would get the whole truth instead of just MSM sensationalism. I agree with Tom that the shooter's infamy should be removed from reporting - blur the face, keep the shooter's name out of it, report in general terms only. People who do these things aren't rational. How many of them want to go out in a blaze of glory? Remove the potential for infamy and it won't be as attractive. Of course, the news motto is "if it bleeds, it leads." We consume what they're selling. The gorier the details, the more we want.

I haven't kept up with the story, so forgive me for not getting all the particular details correct. Was the kid on psychotropic drugs? If so, shouldn't the drug companies shoulder some of the liability? Why do they always get a free pass? It is extremely hard to fix a problem if it can't be identified first. I wonder if drug companies would advertise on a TV station that posed this line of thinking? Hmmmm. Qui bono.

Here's another perspective to consider. Let's say that the average American has spent 1 hour on this story. Since there are about 325,000,000 Americans, and assuming a life span of 85 years (~750,000 hours,) about 430 equivalent lives have been totally consumed by the story itself (325,000,000 / 750,000.) Of course, that's how an engineer looks at it.

Grover

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 396
Depends on their background and motivations
msnrochny wrote:

Repectfully, there are 18 year olds serving in the military, and killing in our name.  Why would you find it “fascinatingly bizarre” that the same 18 year old could buy a gun?

I did have a few caveats in my comments, I suggest you read them again and take them into context, here's a couple of relevant statements below.

 

 "Why does the system allow an 18 year old (with questionable history) to have such a deadly assault weapon? "

"For what its worth, I believe the US needs gun reforms to ensure qualified, sane, rational, mentally stable individuals to continue to have access to appropriate firearms to defend their family and home or for their work or sporting interests.  I also believe this should be licenced & reviewed/renewed on a regular basis."

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 396
who decides?
reflector wrote:

so, you claim that law enforcement is stupid and incompetent, and therefore they should be in charge of deciding who has the right to own an instrument of self-defense, and who doesn't?

"so, you claim that law enforcement is stupid and incompetent"

I stated facts, ie that there have been incidents with oversights and incompetence in the past, yes absolutely.  I did not state that all law enforcement are all stupid and incompetent.  Not the same thing.  

 
There's also a big difference in failing to respond to red flags about potentially dangerous individuals and having a reasonable process of reviewing who should able allowed access to mass killing machines.  Yes both systems will have failures in execution of the processes, but I'd argue trying to improve both is a far better approach than the current state of affairs.
 
Grateful if you could share your recommendations for how to prevent dangerous unstable individuals having access to mass killing machines?
New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 396
Design is key
Grover wrote:

and which one of those items is deliberately designed for killing multiple people in a short space of time?

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2890
.

.

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5692
the blame

Grover-

Should the car's manufacturer be held responsible for the operator's actions? As a rational person, I suspect you wouldn't blame the manufacturer in this case. Why is it different with guns?

Noooo I'm not suggesting blaming the manufacturer.  I'm suggesting we blame the buyer.  Just like with a car - if you buy a car, lend it to your friend, they get into an accident, you - the owner - must pay.

In order to buy a car, you need to have a driver's license, and you also need to be able to get insurance for it.  The younger you are, the more expensive the insurance is.

I don't want to restrict guns, I just want to make them be more expensive for buyers who are higher risk, and let the market sort it out.  Instead of externalizing the cost to society, we apportion that cost directly to the owner.

And for each year you own it, you get to pay the premium.  The "my gun might be used for doing something really bad" premium.  If you are retired and live in a safe rural area, you are probably a low risk, and will have a low premium.  If you're 18, and you live in a high risk area, you'll have a high premium.

If you are caught with an uninsured gun - that's a felony; gun gets impounded, and cops have probable cause to search your home for other guns, etc.

Its really more of a thought experiment than anything else.  Concept is, costs of these events are currently borne by society.  That seems unfair to me.

Presumably, a gun that is more capable gets a higher premium.  Your vintage Brown Bess is probably really cheap to insure, while your collection of automatic weapons are substantially more expensive.

We'd have to get a professional to come up with the numbers, but it doesn't seem as though it would be very difficult.  They do this sort of thing all the time.  The numbers would be the numbers.  Just because the rifle looks evil doesn't mean it has a high premium.  Or - maybe it does.  It depends strictly on what the numbers say.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 879
Reality Trumps Theory

New_Life,

Why don't you dig up some data to support your point? Find a place that was really violent before gun control measures were instituted and then magically became less violent after laws that restricted gun ownership were enacted. I really don't think you'll find any such place, but I'm open to being surprised. On the other hand, look at Chicago with its onerous gun control laws and the senseless slaughter that happens on a daily basis. With all their gun laws, you'd think it was the safest city in America.

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 879
Toothless "Feel Good" Solution
davefairtex wrote:

Noooo I'm not suggesting blaming the manufacturer.  I'm suggesting we blame the buyer.  Just like with a car - if you buy a car, lend it to your friend, they get into an accident, you - the owner - must pay.

In order to buy a car, you need to have a driver's license, and you also need to be able to get insurance for it.  The younger you are, the more expensive the insurance is.

Dave,

The legal system is really screwy at times. I can see that I'm partially culpable for lending my vehicle to an obviously drunk person who gets into an accident. I shouldn't do that simply because of the potential loss of value in my vehicle. Where does my responsibility end and my friend's responsibility take over?

You'd have a point about needing a driver's license and insurance to buy a car if it actually worked that way. Once a private party sells a vehicle and sends in the appropriate government forms, control (and culpability) is lost. What about stolen vehicles? You've probably seen stories about people driving illegally. What good are the laws if people don't follow them? Why would we need "uninsured motorist" insurance if everyone followed the law?

It's the same with gun laws. Gun laws only hamper people who respect those laws. The more onerous the laws, the less protected the individuals are. Outlaws (who don't respect any laws) know that the sheep can't or won't defend themselves and are ripe for fleecing.

davefairtex wrote:

I don't want to restrict guns, I just want to make them be more expensive for buyers who are higher risk, and let the market sort it out.  Instead of externalizing the cost to society, we apportion that cost directly to the owner.

And for each year you own it, you get to pay the premium.  The "my gun might be used for doing something really bad" premium.  If you are retired and live in a safe rural area, you are probably a low risk, and will have a low premium.  If you're 18, and you live in a high risk area, you'll have a high premium.

If you are caught with an uninsured gun - that's a felony; gun gets impounded, and cops have probable cause to search your home for other guns, etc.

Its really more of a thought experiment than anything else.  Concept is, costs of these events are currently borne by society.  That seems unfair to me.

Presumably, a gun that is more capable gets a higher premium.  Your vintage Brown Bess is probably really cheap to insure, while your collection of automatic weapons are substantially more expensive.

We'd have to get a professional to come up with the numbers, but it doesn't seem as though it would be very difficult.  They do this sort of thing all the time.  The numbers would be the numbers.  Just because the rifle looks evil doesn't mean it has a high premium.  Or - maybe it does.  It depends strictly on what the numbers say.

Your solution is cosmetic at best. It puts an undue onus on lawful gun owners. Why should lawful owners have to pay a tax (if it is required by law, it's a tax) to an intrusive government reactionary system that can't do anything to curb unlawful use of guns? Remember that outlaws don't respect laws. Meanwhile, government gets more bloated, more expensive, and more intrusive. It is counterproductive.

Grover

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments