School Shooting, More Red Flags

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2882
Mandatory Insurance
Quote:

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.

Seem's like we've had this discussion before...wasn't it health insurance?

In "normal" times (whatever that means) perhaps this might make sense, but heading into an economic cliff? Premiums will spike with risk as conditions deteriorate. Net effect would probably be just another excuse for search/seizure.

Afridev's picture
Afridev
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2013
Posts: 147
Game theory and trust

Not sure if relevant here, but interesting interactive 'thing' on game theory and trust:

http://ncase.me/trust/

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 395
More data, more Evidence?
Grover wrote:

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

Really? "dig up some data"?

What more data do you need?

The evidence is plain to see.

We are witnessing events that include deranged individuals using legally obtained assault weapons to kill multiple innocent victims in a short space of time.

That's already way too much evidence for my liking.

My point is very simple. Such unstable individuals should not have access to machines whose primary design is to inflict harm on multiple casualties.

If you're unwilling to acknowledge this very simple point that I'm making then my efforts are wasted on influencing you. Others however will see what I am plainly stating is reasonable and logical.

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 395
Glad all okay
Adam Taggart wrote:

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...

Adam - Glad everyone was okay.

Sure you folks will be shook up for a wee while.

Appreciate this is clearly an emotive subject, but grateful for your & Chris'es thoughts and any suggestions on preventing such events and any further tragedies.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1707
Worst case scenarios

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/from-over-the-transom-21/

A reader sends:

I have little medical training as it is not my field, however I have probably seen more human anatomy than most doctors… not less than multiple thousands of bodies on the ground and parts of them hanging from bushes, on rocks and lodged in tree limbs. Images of 206 dead lining both sides of a makeshift airstrip in the middle of nowhere once… most killed in about 45 minutes by a tribe with weapons, against a tribe without.

I know there were that many because I walked the airstrip drinking a beer and smoking cigarettes counting them. So many bodies, some ripped to pieces by automatic weapons fire, that there was a separate pile for arms and legs not matched to the dead. The elderly… men, women, children… babies. Maddening.

Firearms and 2nd Amendment rights are a contentious and volatile issue in America… but unknown to most Americans it is a pressing issue in other countries. I have lived in and spent extended periods of time in many countries. Usually covertly in the back bush illegally in countries.

The firearm is an issue overseas, not because of the many weapons there and carnage from, but who does have them, and the general populace not having them. Denial of a basic human right… that of effective self-defense… usually against government.

“No one needs an ‘assault rifle’!” so the saying goes. “No one needs ‘large capacity ammunition magazines’!” is the mantra. “Evaluate owners, legislate, restrict… confiscate!” …is the rallying cry of ‘progressives.’ But, I have witnessed first-hand how the initial simple registration and required legal permissions gave birth to total confiscation and allowed another… in a never-ending line of corrupt, violent, brutal and repressive police states in the world… to come to fruition.

White and black living in terror daily of being arrested with impunity, jailed, starved, tortured to death and flat out killed. Children tortured and mutilated in front of their helpless parents by governments the outside world supports… in prisons built with foreign aid by countries that loathe most of the donors. If the souls of those people could speak.

When a veteran BBC cameraman, accustomed to the carnage of battle zones, vomits while filming the remains of a tortured political opponent found in a ditch, it gives you an idea of the degree of barbarism that exists there. It gives new meaning to the term “get medieval on them.”

The six-month-or-so-old baby roasted over a fire in the dark hours of the night by ‘freedom fighters’ from the same tribe they are ‘liberating.’ Done simply to terrorize and create blind obedience and have the world blame others. At first, we couldn’t understand what we were looking at… we thought it was a piece of meat until we saw the remnants of protruding bones of what remained of the appendages. No skull. We couldn’t tell the sex or whether the two-inch branch it was impaled on was forced through its anus or vagina.

This is the world I have lived in and most of those members of my Special Forces Chapter have experienced… this is the realism of the existence of the majority of people of the world.

“Can’t happen in America!?” “America has outgrown the need for firearms!?” “We have a democracy… why do you need guns, are you afraid of the police?” You would be hard pressed to find anyone in most other parts of the world that harbor those illusions. They have experienced ‘progressive.’ They have experienced ‘government.’

59 innocent souls gunned down in Las Vegas!? That happens weekly and monthly in most parts of the world and we only hear about it if the American military is involved or American citizens are threatened or killed. So much ceremony, reverence and observance of death here… but absent in most of the world. The bodies are pushed in a hole and covered… then life, or I should say, their miserable existence, continues. A good share in Africa are killed with pangas… semi-sharp machetes. Those doing the killing, usually the authorities, have plenty firearms and ammunition… but they prefer this method because it inflicts much more pain and fear…

What I know people become by their nature, how tyrants rule and what foolish, illusionary ideologies decree and eventually forcefully impose on citizens at the point of a gun, strengthens my resolve that ALL citizens must have the unfettered and unrestricted right, whether they want to possess or not… assault rifles, large capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons and whatever else is in the realm of firearms and protection. Gun laws and even confiscation will not stop it… not flooding Americans with SSRIs such as Prozac and such poisons may diminish it.

The totally subdued, abused and terrorized citizens, comprising most of the world’s people, quietly and desperately clamor for the right to defend themselves against this barbarism, violence and injustice… but they can’t ‘legally’ own firearms because they were disarmed “For the good of public safety…”

 

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 257
The Real Mass killing Machine
New_Life wrote:
Grateful if you could share your recommendations for how to prevent dangerous unstable individuals having access to mass killing machines?

Stop Voting them into office?  De fund the Pentagon?  Arrest Netanyahu?  perhaps

If we want to keep killers out of schools we could start by not allowing the military to recruit there.

The problem is spiritual at it's core. Our entire culture is mentally ill. School shootings  are a symptom of the violence that permeates every facet of our declining empire of death and terror. 

From violent entertainments to mind and soul numbing food and pharmaceuticals  we are both poisoned and are poisoning the world around us. How do we expect a culture of life here if we are sowing the world with depleted uranium and Ok with it.  Our 'Brave new world' disconnects people from purpose, nature and community by design.  The solutions won't be found in regulatory fixes.

It is particularly ironic to see the same media who feed on and profit from this fear and violence manipulating the public on this issue as they have manipulated the public to support and justify our wars of aggression in the Mideast and elsewhere.  I guess killing kids is fine if they are in foreign countries with geopolitical and resource significance.

I have less than Zero  trust in  the government and it's propaganda handmaidens in the main stream media to  A. Tell the truth  and B. do anything constructive about the problems.

I don't know if there were false flag /black ops type government involvement in this shooting.  I do know that our government and others do engage regularly in those sorts of things for a variety of reasons. Including fomenting division via a strategy of tension, and to drive public opinion to accomplish and justify agendas.  I do know that their are sociopaths willing to kill innocents for political agendas.

There are some disturbing elements that suggest that perhaps there is more going on than just the mentally ill Cruz who circumstantially looks as much like a convenient patsy as he does an actual shooter.

Particularly the witness statement of Stacy Lippel the teacher interviewed on ABC  that saw the gunman 20 feet away  and described him as in full metal body armor and helmet and mask actively shooting his rifle down the hallway and then  into closed doors   watching that I felt she was not confused. It was an unambiguous and credible description.  If you haven't watched it you should judge for yourself. 

it seems unlikely she confused him with the police as Doug suggests:

Doug wrote:

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.

Unless of course, Swat was actively shooting down the hallway at fleeing kids and through closed doors and grazed her with  a bullet as she shut her door.

Given that description and  the timing of events,  that puts the entire official narrative in question. This coupled with the student witness that claims to have heard shooting while walking with Cruz and the ubiquitous "There was an 'active drill that day' false flag motif  makes me naturally suspicious.

It doesn't help the optics  to see the obviously coordinated and engineered media campaign instantly put into play as Dave F commented.    I note the media didn't do that for the Bernie Bro who shot up the Republican Caucus ball game practice.

Of course It is entirely possible that  Cruz is the sole perp.   As Sandpuppy pointed out there will be video and other hard data points that would clearly establish Cruz as the sole shooter if that is the case.   If that evidence does not get produced and  Cruz get's plead out with no trial I won't be surprised to see this go down the memory hole like Vegas.

No doubt there will be future outrages manufactured or real  for the media to distract and influence us with  as the real "Dangerously unstable individuals with access to mass killing machines" grind us ever closer to war with Iran, North Korea and Russia.

 

mememonkey

 

 

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2882
Better acting would be nice

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5681
lawful gun owners

Grover-

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.

I sense a response that's hard-wired into your brain.  Your response is clearly not directed at what I said.  Why do I say this?

Lawful gun owners commit these shootings.  The day before he shot up the Pulse nightclub, Omar Mateen was a lawful gun owner.  So was our latest shooter - I forget his name.  Neither of them got their weapons illegally.  That's my point.  These shootings are not conducted by criminals who stole the guns and/or bought them on the black market, they are conducted by lawful gun owners.

In my thought-experiment world, these lawful gun owners would have paid into an insurance fund that could be used to compensate victims.  In addition, if a lawful gun owner did fall into a risky group, the added financial burden might have made these "risky lawful gun owners" pay a heavier insurance penalty - potentially making these "risky lawful gun owners" less likely to own guns.

Yes, its unfair.  It sucks to be a teenager driving a car - all those "safe teen drivers" are unfairly penalized because as a group they are very accident prone.  Same thing would be true with a teenager lawful gun owner who owns an assault rifle.  They tend to shoot up schools a lot more often than retired civil engineers.

You're the one who brought statistics into the mix.  I'm proposing using your statistics to make gun ownership for groups of lawful gun owners who are statistically more likely to commit these sorts of acts more expensive.  And it doesn't have to be government insurance.  It can be private insurance - like auto insurance is today.

I know.  You don't want to pay a premium, because you are a lawful gun owner.  Just like our school shooter was.

I'm talking groups and statistics.  If you can get past your internal narrative, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about lawful gun owners paying a yearly insurance premium for the weapons they own.  If you aren't in a risky group, it probably adds up to very little.  It all depends on what the statistics end up saying.

Or we could keep on externalizing the costs of gun ownership to society at large, which is what we've been doing.  I'm suggesting we place the financial responsibility for the deaths on the people that own the guns.  After all - if they didn't own the gun, the deaths would not have happened.  Certainly not the school shooting deaths anyway.

[If you try to extend this to knives, and fists - I have a response waiting.  So maybe don't lead with that one - it is too easy to rebut.  I request that you save it for last, and try to use other logic so the discussion ends up being more interesting.]

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2882
AWB Text (House Version)

Just so that it is clearly understood where this is going from the disarmament camp perspective.

H.R.5087 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 (congress.gov)

So pass it.

Always found it interesting that many people just can't seem to grasp this.

 

Afridev's picture
Afridev
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2013
Posts: 147
Thoughts...
  • Layer 1: Total individual freedom - society bears the cost of misdeeds. Those who 'did it' get thrown in jail, too bad for the ones affected...
  • Layer 1a: Freedom, but at a financial price (Dave suggestion) - All who choose to get guns pay a small amount to compensate for the misfits. Those who 'did it' get thrown in jail, the ones affected directly receive some financial compensation, but most cost (mental, social) are not addressed. The underlying causes that push people down this path are not addressed though.
  • ...
  • Layer x: Connectedness, belonging, trust, your freedom ends where mine begins, possibility to own and use guns responsibly is part of a social package - Underlying causes that results in most incidents are addressed; there will still be incidents, but they will most likely be strongly reduced in number. Other details to be worked out.

The million-dollar question seems to be how we can go from layer 1 to layer x, is it linear?

This is challenging in the best of times, and now the 3E's kick in...

There seems to be a problematic loop where the ones who should facilitate layer x (authorities) are strongly distrusted (probably for good reasons) and total freedom is demanded to avoid any meddling. Dogmas and might-makes-right...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the piece that describes the experiences and view of the Special Forces guy. While I have never been in such 'hot' conditions as he describes, in the 10 years I have worked for Doctors Without Borders I have seen my share of 'problematic areas' on the globe, and this piece is applying a one-dimensional emotion-inducing view on usually very complex contexts (of which, to be honest, he has probably been part of in creating these).

I have great respect for the men and women who are put in harms way (and zero for the politicians that put them there), but this needs more depth of analysis than presented here. Your background does form your way of thinking, and if you only have a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail. The underlying issues that have caused the problems he describes need a much more extended toolbox then only a hammer. I don't say this because I'm a naive pacifist; sometimes 124 grains of metal is the best solution to the problem. But that's after all other tools have been tried and failed...

In none of the contexts where I have worked the blanket solution 'more guns to the people' would have been the solution (actually the opposite). The solution is mainly found in good governance and strong community, and that needs to be achieved through collaborative efforts of all.

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 878
Worthless "Feel Good" Solutions
davefairtex wrote:

Grover-

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.

I sense a response that's hard-wired into your brain.  Your response is clearly not directed at what I said.  Why do I say this?

Lawful gun owners commit these shootings.  The day before he shot up the Pulse nightclub, Omar Mateen was a lawful gun owner.  So was our latest shooter - I forget his name.  Neither of them got their weapons illegally.  That's my point.  These shootings are not conducted by criminals who stole the guns and/or bought them on the black market, they are conducted by lawful gun owners.

In my thought-experiment world, these lawful gun owners would have paid into an insurance fund that could be used to compensate victims.  In addition, if a lawful gun owner did fall into a risky group, the added financial burden might have made these "risky lawful gun owners" pay a heavier insurance penalty - potentially making these "risky lawful gun owners" less likely to own guns.

Yes, its unfair.  It sucks to be a teenager driving a car - all those "safe teen drivers" are unfairly penalized because as a group they are very accident prone.  Same thing would be true with a teenager lawful gun owner who owns an assault rifle.  They tend to shoot up schools a lot more often than retired civil engineers.

You're the one who brought statistics into the mix.  I'm proposing using your statistics to make gun ownership for groups of lawful gun owners who are statistically more likely to commit these sorts of acts more expensive.  And it doesn't have to be government insurance.  It can be private insurance - like auto insurance is today.

I know.  You don't want to pay a premium, because you are a lawful gun owner.  Just like our school shooter was.

I'm talking groups and statistics.  If you can get past your internal narrative, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about lawful gun owners paying a yearly insurance premium for the weapons they own.  If you aren't in a risky group, it probably adds up to very little.  It all depends on what the statistics end up saying.

Or we could keep on externalizing the costs of gun ownership to society at large, which is what we've been doing.  I'm suggesting we place the financial responsibility for the deaths on the people that own the guns.  After all - if they didn't own the gun, the deaths would not have happened.  Certainly not the school shooting deaths anyway.

[If you try to extend this to knives, and fists - I have a response waiting.  So maybe don't lead with that one - it is too easy to rebut.  I request that you save it for last, and try to use other logic so the discussion ends up being more interesting.]

Dave,

How sure are you that you have enough facts in any of these shootings to say definitively what happened? What was it that made any of the shooters snap? Why was the FBI the first on the scene here? What about eye witness accounts (that conflict with the "official story") from credible witnesses (see mememonkey's post)? Why isn't school video being released? Wouldn't that go a long way to show what actually happened? In this case, it was a public building funded by public money. Since the public paid for it, don't we have a right to see it? What is being hidden? Is it just that the pathetic school administrators are worried that they may get sued if they release the video?

As New_Life said, (paraphrasing) assault weapons were used and that's enough for him/her to want them banned. The main difference that I see between your position and New_Life's is insurance VS outright banning. Both are attempts to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Yours is a bit more subtle.

Why did the founding fathers include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights? Was it merely a coincidence that they chose this as number 2 right behind freedom of speech? I don't think so. Humans are really good at shutting the barn door after the horses have escaped. The founders saw the Draconian measures that the King of England was imposing on them. They knew that government can create laws that give an asymmetric advantage. In order to set up a more perfect union, they wanted to ensure that citizens would be legally able to defend themselves. Look at the verbiage of the second Amendment and see how strongly they worded it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Let's look at the logistics. I don't know how many of these assault weapons are in private hands (thousands, millions ???) The vast majority are owned responsibly. It is only an exceedingly small percentage of these weapons that are used in the commission of a crime. Last I heard, killing someone is a crime punishable by law. The law sure worked here to stop a deranged person from a killing spree. /sarc

I asked New_Life to give me examples of places where legal measures for restricting guns actually reduced gun violence. I cited Chicago as a prime example of the failure of this line of thinking. Is it something in the water or the political structure? Could it be that those who live outside the law know that the law abiding sheeple are unarmed? Wouldn't that embolden them somewhat?

Let's look at outright banning assault weapons. The very most that will do is stop legal gun sales from occurring. Some of the current owners will voluntarily relinquish their weapons. Any that aren't relinquished will be held by outlaws (by definition.) It won't get rid of all of them by any means. You can't stuff the cat back in the bag. Has government banning of anything ever worked? Look at alcohol. Look at drugs. When it is banned, there is a flourishing underground economy to fill the needs. Why can't idiots see it doesn't work? (I just answered my own question.)

Let's assume that it does work completely and all assault rifles are removed from public hands. Would that stop the mass killings? Wouldn't the shooters just step down a bit and use hand guns or sawed off shotguns instead? At that point, would there be any reason not to ban those as well? Where does it stop?

Let's look at your proposal to require insurance. Would that stop these senseless killings from occurring? Hell NO! It would only compensate the victims of the crime. So, how would it work? It couldn't just be voluntary. It would have to be yet another government program filled with bureaucrats. This has the same problem as banning would have. How are you going to get complete compliance? Would you advocate for house to house searches? What measures wouldn't be too much in order to enforce this law?

Let's assume that it works completely and all assault weapon owners are included in a "secret" government database. What happens if that database gets hacked? How valuable would that information be to nefarious outlaws? I'm sure you can see where this line of thinking ends up.

Both of these proposals are just "feel good" solutions that only give a false sense of security. It also gives more power to an already too powerful government. Can you imagine any scenario where the government wouldn't want this information? Would they go so far as to allow these events to occur to further their own agenda? If false flags hadn't happened before, you could claim that I'm just being extremely paranoid. How do you know for sure when the easy-to-refute questions remain shrouded in secrecy?

Grover

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2882
MSM narrative is about control, nothing more

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
Grover wrote: Let's look at
Grover wrote:

Let's look at the logistics. I don't know how many of these assault weapons are in private hands (thousands, millions ???) The vast majority are owned responsibly. It is only an exceedingly small percentage of these weapons that are used in the commission of a crime.

Grover

I think the estimate is that between 10-15 million box-fed, semi-automatic rifles similar to the ArmaLite Rifle model 15 are currently privately owned by Americans. 

 

Yes, I think you can safely say the vast majority of owners aren’t using them for mass murder. 

Petey1's picture
Petey1
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 13 2012
Posts: 69
What’s changed?

Maybe we should focus more on what has changed so much to make people do these horrible things.

When I went to High school we would carry pocket knives and have rifles in our vehicles.  No one ever threatened to use them.  We were taught to respect the power they had and even taught to shoot them.  My Grandfather gave me a simple framed NRA page showing gun safety rules.  I was around twelve.  

AR 15s are getting all the attention but let’s remember the style is new but the firepower it posses has been around a long time.  Many WW2 guns have been in the closets of former soldiers and then family members for 72 years.  Many of these guns have the same firepower or even more.  

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5681
insurance

Guys, if the numbers really are as puny as you say, the cost to insure against such an event would be very modest.  And no, it isn't a "tax" with "lots of bureaucrats" any more than your auto liability insurance program is a tax.  The law would require insurance, and it will be a felony (misdemeanor?) to own an uninsured weapon.  Lawful gun owners will dutifully pay their insurance.  Same is true with cars.  Lawful car owners pay their liability insurance.  Did it require a huge bureaucracy to deal with vehicle car insurance?  I don't recall people getting all worked up about it.  Maybe they did, and I didn't notice.  I send my payment to State Farm every year. 

And if you say the vast majority of assault rifles aren't being used to shoot up schools, I'm fine with that too.  [Hint; the vast majority of them aren't being used to shoot up schools.  I know this already.]

You really are missing the point.  This is a proposal that will make people feel better, but will allow you to retain your assault rifle.

Its called a compromise.  A lot of people "want something to be done."   This seems pretty innocuous to me.  No change in ownership rights, no infringement on any amendment, just insurance in case your gun is used to kill people - and/or you decide to stop being a lawful gun owner and turn into a maniac.

Which happens from time to time.

Insurance will not prevent shootings, no more than liability insurance for teenage drivers prevents teenage car accidents.  That falls into the "duh" category.  Insurance just makes sure the victims get compensated.  Which seems only fair to me.  Right now, they don't, they're just dead.  And - just perhaps - that's partly why people are really pissed.

Consider this.  If a school shooter knew that each victim's family would get $1M handed to them when all was said and done...would that affect his calculus?  Right now, the victims are just dead, and he's the "winner" in that exchange.  It seems unfair - mainly because it is unfair.  Same is true with uninsured motorists running into people and causing damage without any ability (or intention) to take financial responsibility in case they cause someone else harm.

And we know how much people don't like it when things are unfair.

Cops don't bust down doors of teenagers that don't have car insurance.  Same thing here.  State Farm would just send you a renewal notice, with a slightly more irritating "you're violating the law" notice when you forget to reply, and a 10% penalty for late renewal.  Perhaps each policy is good for 5 years.  Sell your gun, no more need to pay.

The responses to my suggestion really supports Scott Adams and his theory of how people start to hallucinate whenever one of their critical things get triggered.  If you guys would have said, "gosh Dave, that really seems annoying to have to pay an insurance fee every 5 years", that would be a proportional response and it would make sense, because in truth, I'd be annoyed too.  But the stuff I got back was just straight out hallucination-byproduct.  From otherwise intelligent people, I might add.

We should do something to comp the victims of gun violence, but something that doesn't result in the guns going away - that heavily penalizes those groups who tend to use guns more enthusiastically.  That's my feeling.  And of course if you get caught "brandishing", well, insurance goes up.  If you get convicted of beating your wife, insurance goes up.  The more violent crime you do, the more expensive legal gun ownership will become.  (And "uninsured" gun ownership will turn into an extra charge when arrested).

This all parallels what insurance companies do with people who fall into groups that tend to have more car accidents (i.e. speeding, drunk driving, etc).

If you want to blame someone for this idea, blame Adam.  I got the idea from the discussion about the umbrella insurance policy...as you can see I too am incapable of taking responsibility...  :)

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 395
Grover's Misleading misquote & assumptions
Grover wrote:

As New_Life said, (paraphrasing) assault weapons were used and that's enough for him/her to want them banned. The main difference that I see between your position and New_Life's is insurance VS outright banning. Both are attempts to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Yours is a bit more subtle.

Grover - shame to see, but not totally surprised you've made this incorrect assumption. As I have stated previously this is an emotive subject and that can cloud our objectivity and rational thinking.

Stronger enforcement & tighter gun control to prevent deranged individuals having access to mass killing machines, does not mean blanket banning of a single weapon for all of the population.

My point is slightly more nuanced than such a binary option. I suggest you reread my posts.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1707
The “engineered response” (from an insider)

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374125.php

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1707
thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1707
Some shootings don’t get a gun control response

Can it be that some shootings have the approval of the gun grabbers? No, that’s badthink and hate speech.

 

 

Edwardelinski's picture
Edwardelinski
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2012
Posts: 338
Terry McAuliffe did on the day of the massacre

As did many others in the days after.See Kurtis Lee LA Times June 14th,2017

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 878
Redneck Lottery

Dave,

I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. I tried to imagine a system that fit with what I thought you wrote. When you said, "just like auto insurance," I assumed that it would be paid just like auto insurance to insure a car. I now see that you really meant that it was just like auto insurance with the same structure. OK, so let's explore this.

First off, I have 2 vehicles. Both of them are fully licensed and insured. My insurance even contains an endorsement for uninsured/underinsured motorists. Am I really that stupid to carry this endorsement or pragmatic enough to know that some people drive uninsured vehicles? After all, it is against the law for people to operate a vehicle on the road without insurance. Some of them are so poor (due to a variety of reasons) that they would rather risk driving uninsured than not drive. If they get in an accident, they are safe from our legal system because their most valuable possession is the cell phone they have to check constantly - even when driving. It costs more to sue them than you could possibly get out of them. There are still criminal liabilities, but they either spend some time in jail (at no real personal cost since they can't hold a job) or just get a slap on the wrist.

You and I both know these people exist in our world. There are actuarial tables that correlate credit score with all types of anti-social behavior. The lower the credit score, the more likely a person is to get into fights, beat the current girlfriend and any of her offspring, consume illegal drugs, steal, brandish a firearm, etc. etc.

So, let's say that I have an assault weapon (I do NOT!!!) at home and I fully conform with the insurance you are proposing. Then, one of these miscreants breaks into my house and steals my weapon along with other sale worthy items. I dutifully fill out a police report that I've been burglarized and give a list of items stolen, including the assault weapon and the bolted-to-the-floor gun safe it was locked in. Just like with a car that has been stolen, I'm no longer legally liable for its subsequent use.

So, now we have one more assault weapon on the streets. After getting swapped for drugs, sex, money, or anything else, it ends up in a the hands of a person who wants to end it all and take as many people with him/her (likely a him.) It doesn't matter where he chooses to do this - a bank, a mall, a school, etc. There are going to be victims. For the first time in his life, he was completely successful and ends up killing/maiming many people and ends up dead himself. He has no assets, so there is nothing for the victims' families to receive as compensation for their tragic loss. That adds insult to injury when they thought they just won the "redneck lottery."

Just like car insurance with uninsured motorist endorsements, there will be insurance for uninsured assault rifle killings (UARK). The insurance industry knows how lucrative this market is because fear sells and they know how infrequently this sort of thing actually happens. I'm sure you can imagine the TV commercials they would put out with sad music and two separate families at grave sites crying over their loved ones who were victims. Little Johnny's family didn't have UARK insurance, but little Suzy's family did. Afterwards, little Johnny's family drives in a broken down car to a decrepit house while little Suzy's family drives in a new car to a nice home in a great neighborhood with a big boat off to the side. All of this because of little Suzy's parents' wise decision to invest in UARK. The commercial ends with happier music playing in the background with a beautiful sunset.

Because of all the advertising, some people will look at it as more of a victimless crime and may be inspired to do this as well. After all, media people know how to tug at the heart strings of the habitual viewers.

So, do you still think it is a good idea? What am I missing this time?

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 878
Benefit of the Doubt

New_Life,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just so I don't have to guess, why don't you tell me exactly what you are proposing. More importantly, try to articulate how this proposal is to be accomplished in the real world. This may take more than your customary handful of sentences per post to accomplish. Please don't assume that I'm smart enough to accurately ascertain your implied nuances. Spell it out. I certainly hope your plan amounts to more than "we just need to do something."

Thanks for your consideration,

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 878
Good Change of Direction
Petey1 wrote:

What’s changed?

Maybe we should focus more on what has changed so much to make people do these horrible things.

When I went to High school we would carry pocket knives and have rifles in our vehicles.  No one ever threatened to use them.  We were taught to respect the power they had and even taught to shoot them.  My Grandfather gave me a simple framed NRA page showing gun safety rules.  I was around twelve.  

AR 15s are getting all the attention but let’s remember the style is new but the firepower it posses has been around a long time.  Many WW2 guns have been in the closets of former soldiers and then family members for 72 years.  Many of these guns have the same firepower or even more.  

Petey1,

I gave you a thumbs-up for this post. I agree that something has changed. I don't know what it is exactly. Is it just this generation? I'm sure that all the violent video games can't be a positive influence. It is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between a real human being and a computer generated likeness. Then, there is the stress from being in debt. And, the stress of being unliked (or bullied) on farcebook.

I read in an article recently that 26 of the 27 shooters were from homes without a father. I don't have time to look that article up right now nor check the accuracy of that statement. Not all kids without a father do this, but if correct, that adds an interesting twist to the narrative.

Just a thought, but wouldn't it be better to minimize the conditions that drove these shooters to snap?

Grover

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5681
UARK

Great now you got my vision, I feel we can actually talk about it.

All the stuff you said about uninsured motorists (and anti-social behavior) is true.   (Here's a thought: if society itself wasn't such a horrid harvesting mechanism - via consumer debt, sickcare, globalization, modern-day debtors prisons, the gulag for drugs, but bankster theft = company gets fined, perhaps people might be less anti-social?  Maybe we're the stupid ones, and the anti-social people are just better tuned in to the unfairness of it all?  Maybe they are just the monkeys shaking the cage because they just get cucumbers while the others get the grapes.  But I digress.)

As I said earlier, my entire goal is to comp the victims, who right now just die leaving their families really upset.  The shooter ends up the victor.  And that pisses people off, so much so that they are demanding that "something be done."

This is my suggestion of something being done.  And yes - what you describe is no problem for me.  Insurance companies can already sell such a policy targeted at victims as some sort of life insurance policy.

But I remind you - I'm proposing shooter/gun liability insurance, not victim insurance.

And this also gives an avenue for law enforcement if they get a tip on a kid who has guns and is talking about shooting.  No insurance + a threat = police have probable cause to search & confiscate.  (And if you make a threat - and the police make a report of it, guess what?  Your insurance premiums probably go up.  Actions have consequences.)

What's more, we could effectively privatize the background check.  If the insurance company won't insure a prospective buyer, then they can't buy a gun.

Insurance companies will have run the stats on all sorts of risk factors - far better than some government agency.  Can we trust them to do a better job than the public sector, in their own self interest?  What do you think?

Again, this is just me thinking out loud.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 878
Shift Gears
davefairtex wrote:

But I remind you - I'm proposing shooter/gun liability insurance, not victim insurance.

Dave,

I understand that you are proposing shooter/gun liability insurance. I'm trying to say that it won't work in all cases and may spawn a new form of "gotta have" self protection insurance like uninsured motorist insurance. Since what you are proposing is just like auto insurance, I think that is fair game. Frankly, I'd like to see all auto insurance being no-fault. There should still be criminal liability for someone intentionally causing an accident, but accidents happen sometimes. You take care of your car and I'll take care of mine. Of course, that means that lawyers won't have as much business. Therefore, I know it will never happen.

Don't get me wrong. Shootings like this are never an accident. They are malicious preplanned events. They are carried out by an exceedingly small number of deranged individuals. Make it so the victims get compensated and it trivializes the event somewhat. I can even imagine that some shooters would feel justified because the victims' families would receive compensation. I really think this is a bad idea!

I'm going to relay accounts of an event that actually happened to me. About a decade ago, I was working on a particularly complex problem. After beating my head against the wall trying to solve the problem, I decided to walk to my favorite coffee shop to get a cup of coffee. I was waiting in a longer than usual line and two guys got in line behind me. One said that he need to move out of town and had to get rid of some of his stuff to pay for it. He said that he had a boat, a guitar, some fishing equipment, an espresso machine, ... By then, I was at the counter and ordered my coffee. I got my coffee and went to get some cream for it. By then, those 2 had sat at one of the tables. The espresso machine piqued my interest so I went over to the table and asked about it. It was a cheap steam driven model and I wasn't interested. Then, the guy mentioned that he had an AR-15 that had never been fired.

Since I was into prepping, I thought the AR-15 would be a good option for protecting my family and belongings in a SHTF situation. So, we talked about it. I asked him why he didn't go to a gun dealer to sell it. He said those bastards only offered him half of what it was worth. I asked him how much he wanted for it. He said, $700 cash. I told him I was interested and we agreed to meet at his place the next evening so I could see it.

On my way home from work, I drove by his place. It was in a rundown neighborhood and his place made the neighborhood look worse. The boat he mentioned was a little aluminum boat leaned up against the broken garage door. It was probably chained to something in the garage so it wouldn't get stolen.

On the way home, I started fantasizing about fighting off a gang of armed desperados with my AR-15. If people were shooting at me, I could easily fire back with intent to kill. Then, I started thinking about all the people who would be hungry and desperate because they listened to the MSM and didn't think the good times would ever end. Could I shoot someone just because they were hungry and trespassing? No. I would feel like shit if I did. I'd rather die than live with the guilt. The images kept running through my head and I decided not to get it. I didn't follow through on our meeting and didn't go to the coffee shop for over a month because I didn't want to see either of those guys.

I'm telling you this so you can envision cases other than law abiding citizens owning these weapons. I doubt that he would purchase insurance - even if it were required. Whoever bought the rifle would have it outside of law enforcement's eye. Nobody would ever know it existed until it was used. If the buyer purchased insurance, it would alert law enforcement about this weapon. There goes the anonymity.

People like that never think they're going to get caught. They play the lottery expecting to win but don't wear seat belts or regularly change the oil in the car. He didn't know anything about me yet he was willing to sell me this weapon because he was desperate for money. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time in the whole country where this has happened.

My point is that people who would buy the insurance aren't the ones you need to worry about. It is just a toothless, feel-good "solution." I have the same issues with regulating these weapons. How do you stop this transaction from occurring? The regulations only hamper the responsible owners.

I'd rather shift the attention of this thread to figuring out why some people snap and how to stop it from happening. H/T to Petey1 for introducing this idea. There is a lot of hurt in the world. Why is it that most people can cope, and for others, it is just too much? Hope this makes sense to you.

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 878
Psychiatric Drugs

I just saw this article https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-27-over-a-million-children-under-the-age-of-six-are-currently-on-psychiatric-drugs-in-america.html. The article cites a Scientific American article that states that 1 in 6 Americans are currently on psychiatric drugs. It goes on to list the numbers of children in various age groups that are currently on these drugs. You have to ask yourself what has changed that so many folks simply can't cope?

Safer alternatives to giving kids mind-altering meds

When adults choose to take psychiatric medication, it may be ill-advised in many cases, but it is still their choice to make. Children, on the other hand, lack the cognition to fully understand the lifelong impact of such a choice, and this essentially amounts to forced medication. We already know that many doctors have a financial incentive to get young people to start taking these drugs, but why are their parents so willing to get on board? Many of them are also taking psychiatric medications, of course. In fact, it has practically become a way of life in our nation and many people think of these meds as harmless.

The side effects of these drugs are nothing to scoff at, however, with antianxiety, antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs linked to heart attacks, psychosis, suicidal ideation, diabetes, stroke, mania and sudden death. As if that weren’t bad enough, there’s also the fact that many of the high-profile public shootings in recent years were perpetrated by young people on such drugs, so not only do kids have the risk of dying when they take these meds, but they could also take out a whole classroom or movie theater with them.

Psychiatric medications affect a child’s brain chemistry and could impact their development in irreversible ways, so it’s important for doctors and parents alike to reserve them as an absolute last resort. Some degree of anxiety is normal in children as they start to understand the way the world works. Life is full of ups and downs, and children who learn coping strategies when they’re young will have a valuable skill that can serve them well throughout their lifetime. There are lots of good coping mechanisms that can help children with depression, anxiety, and those who have been labeled with ADHD, including yoga, art therapy, breathing exercises, and physical exercise, to name just a few.

It hasn't always been this way. Who profits from all this medicating and who pays the real price? Perhaps people who take these drugs should be required to have insurance.

Grover

 

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1707
Coward County Sheriff Captain ordered deputies to stay out

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/05/broward-sheriffs-captain-who-gave-initial-order-to-stage-not-enter-stoneman-douglas-is-idd.html

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office has identified to Fox News the captain who, according to sources, directed responding deputies and units to “stage” or form a “perimeter” outside Stoneman Douglas High School, instead of rushing immediately into the building, as the mass shooting unfolded there.

Multiple law enforcement and official sources said the commands in the initial moments after Nikolas Cruz allegedly opened fire would go against all training which instructs first responders to “go, go, go” until the shooter is neutralized. As law enforcement arrived, the shooter’s identity and exact location were still unknown.

Multiple sources told Fox News that Captain Jan Jordan was the commanding officer on scene. In an email responding to Fox News’ request for information, a BSO spokesperson wrote, “Capt. Jordan’s radio call sign is 17S1.”

“You cannot disregard what Sierra Unit says. They are the commanding unit,” a law enforcement source told Fox News. “When she says she needs a perimeter, every other deputy responding to the scene takes perimeter.”

Several law enforcement sources said BSO’s explanation that Jordan asked for a perimeter did not make sense because anything Jordan was saying on the radio would have been considered a command -- not a question.

“You don’t ask for a perimeter over air. She is the captain. She is the leader. Who would she be asking?” one law enforcement source said.

Dispatch logs obtained by Fox News appeared to show that at 2:32 p.m., roughly 11 minutes after Cruz opened fire, the first command to form a perimeter was issued, “17S1... NEED PERIMETER.”

A copy of Broward County’s active-shooter policy even appeared to indicate that responding deputies and officers may enter the building without permission and should seek to neutralize the shooter until objectives are met — for example, if the shooter is contained. The policy did not appear to indicate a priority for staging or a perimeter.

 
Captain Jordan may be a diversity hire for political purposes.  She is definitely NOT a warrior.
 
Me and my officers have already discussed what we're going to do if we get this kind of order over the radio from a commander higher than my rank who is not on location yet.  (It has already happened here two times.)  We are going in to stop the shooter, as we have been trained.  Our training specifically states that the highest ranking supervisor on the location of an active shooter is the incident commander until a higher ranking supervisor physically arrives on location and has been briefed by the original incident commander.  No matter their rank, commanders who are not on location yet cannot order officers and their supervisor on location to do or not do anything. 
 
 
 
davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5681
meds & insurance

It hasn't always been this way. Who profits from all this medicating and who pays the real price? Perhaps people who take these drugs should be required to have insurance.

Grover, I thought you didn't want to talk about insurance anymore.  Or - perhaps you only want to talk about it when you feel that itch to ridicule?

Still, I'll hit the ball back.

I totally agree that psych meds could well be the cause.  I read a similar article some time back - and indeed, I said something similar early on in this discussion.  I want to know if any of these shooter kids were on meds, or had previously been on medication prior to their act.  It takes quite a while - apparently - to wash the effects out of your system.

https://archive.org/details/TheRoleOfSsriAnti-depressantsInTheColumbineShooting

I also read that drug companies are one of the top advertisers for TV.  Any chance the news organizations would say something that indicts their top advertiser?  Its a good misdirect to go after the guns, which nobody in TV likes anyway.  Let no crisis go to waste.

As for insurance - if you are prescribed psych meds, that should factor in to your insurability, assuming the stats bear out what I suspect, which is that for some subset of the population, monkeying around with youth brain chemistry essentially leads to disaster.

So yeah.  It should totally factor in.

 

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 878
More Involved
davefairtex wrote:

Grover, I thought you didn't want to talk about insurance anymore.  Or - perhaps you only want to talk about it when you feel that itch to ridicule?

Dave,

Touché. I admit that was a gratuitous barb I hurled in your direction. I really don't want to talk about insurance. I won't talk about it unless you bring it up again.

Although I don't feel that these meds are the only cause, I agree with the lawyer in the video you linked that they are a significant contributing factor. I've watched national TV news and noted the number of advertisements for various drugs. I've also watched very late night TV and noted the number of commercials by lawyers fishing for clients who had taken stellar drugs of the last decade. You know the ones that start with "if you or a loved one took _____ and have suffered any or all of these symptoms (long list), contact our law offices. You may be entitled to a significant monetary award."

The costs to bring any drug through the process to market are huge. Not all the candidates make it through the process. There are huge pressures for the drug companies to get it out as soon as possible so they can get revenue to pay everyone and compensate the stockholders and also to search for the next miracle drug. They don't have time to test interactions with combinations of all the other drugs. We're the beta testers for them. Instead, they set up a legal defense fund and use it to bully anyone who dares to disparage their product. As the lawyer in the video noted, that tactic worked in the Columbine shooter lawsuit.

davefairtex wrote:

I also read that drug companies are one of the top advertisers for TV.  Any chance the news organizations would say something that indicts their top advertiser?  Its a good misdirect to go after the guns, which nobody in TV likes anyway.  Let no crisis go to waste.

It isn't just the network TV people in the back pocket. There are also innumerable congress critters who are "supported" by drug company money. Are any of them going to bite the hand that feeds them? A: Not for long. Anyone who does that will be out of a job and replaced by someone who understands the rules of the game.

As you noted, "it's a good misdirect to go after the guns." The knee jerk thought is that this wouldn't have happened without these guns. The gun was only a tool. If the assault weapon wasn't available, another tool would have been found.

I don't know the particulars of any of these shooter cases. (Because of the fear of lawsuits, this information is held in secrecy as much as possible.) Some of the shooters may indeed be evil. The rest of them must have been feeling extreme mental anguish to contemplate and carry out such dastardly deeds. How many more ticking time bombs are out there?

Why are so many kids on psyche drugs? Is it just a consequence of modern life? Are doctors too pressured to see patients to do more than prescribe drugs to mask symptoms? The violent shoot 'em up video games can't be a positive influence. Mean anonymous comments on farcebook pages (or just not being "liked") appears to be huge to the kids I know. Were the parents actually engaged in child rearing or just chasing money so they could get ahead of the Joneses? Who knows?

I'm thinking those who were shot weren't the only victims. It's a tragedy for all involved.

Grover

Afridev's picture
Afridev
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2013
Posts: 147
Cause or association?

Some links that may add some additional background https://www.quora.com/Has-there-been-any-research-into-the-correlation-b... (haven't opened most of these links myself).

There is a list floating around on the internet that makes a link case-by-case between psyche drugs and violence/ suicide. I don't have the link here. The list of cases is long, but I'm not sure how reliable/ unbiased it is, and I don't remember if they commented on the cases where there was no association.

There seems to be a correlation between psyche drugs and mass shootings.

It's unclear if it is a direct cause though (i.e. the drugs are (one of the contributing) cause(s) that lead to the shootings) or if there are just links between psychological issues and prescription of drugs (highly likely) and psychological issues and being prone to extreme violent behaviour (also seems highly likely), while the drug intake and being prone to extreme violence is not associated.

I would expect that a research would find some causation both with drug prescription and shootings, and being prone to violent behaviour and shootings. I'd also expect that easy availability of potent firearms would be part of the causes of high-casualty shootings. Violent behaviour is linked to societal issues. In a society where the most potent weapon an unhinged person can get is a knife or a chair, the 'damage' will be more limited in numbers (not necessarily in effect on specific individuals) and the perp more easily subdued by bystanders, than if the person can easily access an assault rifle which can take out many persons in a short time, and keep others at bay.

While the problem is growing, on average this remains an outlier problem in society. The measures should focus on insuring that these outliers are not 'produced', and on making it hard for the outliers to inflict max damage. I think the discussion shouldn't be around gun control or medication but around what makes so many people in modern society 'unhinged'. From that discussion we can then start making links to the direct causing factors of mass shootings. I know that my point isn't popular (worldviews are precious little things) but I feel that it's the only way to reduce the issue (and get a whole wad of other benefits for society)...

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