OT: Hurricanes Lounge XL. 99 Luftballons

[MisterDobz]

PS - as non-partisan as possible, I ask a question: didn’t the democrats have both houses of Congress and the President for 2 full years?

while the current rules on the filibuster are in effect, it is impossible to pass any moderately controversial legislation without 60 votes in the Senate.

additionally, a couple of democratic senators are from Republican states and it would be difficult, if not suicidal for them to vote for any gun controls.

 

[hockeynjune]

I'd also tax the everliving shit out of ammunition. You might not be able to eliminate the guns, but you sure as heck could squeeze the supply of bullets dry

Enough legal and logistical problems with that to make it very a low chance of succeeding.

 

[Lempo]

Plenty of other countries have mental illness problems. We're the only one that has these mass shootings. It's the guns.

Alas, no.

 

[Negan4Coach]

Over time with attrition and police work. If you can't take them to the range and shoot them without getting them confiscated, and maybe there's some sort of trade in credit for a legal rifle, you'll bring the numbers down over time.

Not feasible. Even if you could get a confiscation bill passed, even if SCOTUS didn't urinate all over it 6-3, you would have all red states completely nullify and refuse to enforce. You'd have to massively expand the ATF by tens of thousands- an army, really, to go into states to do it themselves and go house to house of...who exactly? Dunno- only firearms records the feds have are those from gunstores who went outta business. And even if they figured out the deliberately opaque gun records system- there is still the "blue on blue" scenario for them to consider, in addition to garden variety violent resistance of the Tim Mcveigh type.

This plan will massively increase gun deaths over the short term and potentially be the tipping point into a hot civil war.

You see, this just isn't a realistic and workable scenario, so its not worth debating the merits or legality of this.

The trans shooter was carrying not an AR-15 as the press erroneously reported- the one she/he was wielding was a Keltec Sub-2000 9mm carbine. I know because I own one. A carbine is a light rifle that fires pistol bullets. The thing is basically a Glock 9mm with a 16 inch barrel and stock. So, in other words, not a weapon of war.


The only meaningful "weapons of war" (I guess "assault rifles" wasn't doing it anymore?) ban would have to ban every single type of semiautomatic firearm in existence, effectively getting rid of 95% of all weapons. Revolvers and pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles only thing left. That would be going all in, all the way.

Would it make you feel any better to know the mass shooting conducted recently in Raleigh was with a pump action 12- gauge?
.

The red line on that chart I posted earlier was when the ban was repealed.

Correlation is not causation.

I can tell you unequivocally you could purchase an "assault rifle" during the AWB. I purchased a MAK-90 7.62mm rifle. It was a ban legal version of an AK-47. What was the nature of this sorcery? Well- in order to ban something- you must quantify it. Well, they said that this type of weapon had any of the following features: folding stock, bipod, flash suppressor, pistol grip and yes even a bayonet lug for all those pesky drive by bayonettings we get. So the manufacturer made an AK-47 without any of those things and sold it with a stubby little 5 round magazine. So it just looked dumb, and I promptly went to a military surplus store and bought the 30 round mag. Same weapon. The end.

The rise in the shootings increases at that time probably due to several factors- increased use of SSRIs, incredibly realistic violent video games, internet streaming techlike YouTube coming on line where people can see and obsess over the Columbine shooting and all the other copy cats. The rise of social media around that time where every freak and degenerate can make common cause with strangers on the internet instead of sitting home alone accepting their shame and living lives of quiet desperation with their maladies.

So I'm not going to argue in favor of possessing powerful semiautomatic rifles on here- but I will point out some realities about what banning them would entail.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

The rise in the shootings increases at that time probably due to several factors- increased use of SSRIs, incredibly realistic violent video games, internet streaming techlike YouTube coming on line where people can see and obsess over the Columbine shooting and all the other copy cats. The rise of social media around that time where every freak and degenerate can make common cause with strangers on the internet instead of sitting home alone accepting their shame and living lives of quiet desperation with their maladies.

Do these factors not exist in other countries?

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Not sure we celebrate as much as ignore them.

it's complicated. It's ignored, but it's also still very much stigmatized so many times bottled up. Or loved ones don't want to admit that one of their loved ones has a mental illness as if it reflects poorly on them, so it's kept secret. I don't think it's celebrated, but I'm probably misunderstanding what was meant by S1C2 in that statement so I won't say.

Case in point about it being stigmatized.

where every freak and degenerate can make common cause with strangers on the internet instead of sitting home alone accepting their shame and living lives of quiet desperation with their maladies.

I think the issue with mental illness is that those of us who have never suffered from it, have a difficult time understanding it. And since it's not like a physical ailment, it's hard to accurately diagnose and to know how serious it might be with an individual. I admittedly don't understand it, and maybe never will, but I recognize that it's a big issue and needs addressing.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Guns exist in other countries, mentally ill people exist in other countries, violent video games, Liveleak, rebellious teenagers, whathaveyou. They all exist in other countries. But America is the only first world country that sees mass shootings to the scale that we do. The only first world country that has gun violence as the leading cause of death among children. The only first world country (to my knowledge) that regularly has school children participate in active shooter drills.

The difference between America and many other first world countries is how we handle those factors. We don’t regulate guns as well as others (I believe I saw a blurb today that the Nashville shooter purchased multiple guns from multiple gun stores in the past week), we don’t treat mental illness as well as others (if it’s treated at all), and the other factors are often amplified by the capitalist society we’ve developed. Games and movies need to go more over the top to sell, news channels need to be more sensationalist and always on 24/7 to get views, etc.

It’s not an easy fix, and not one that will likely be fixed at all, given what’s happened so far. We’ve had multiple mass shootings at elementary schools, and they’re not moving the needle a bit in terms of finding a solution. When we’ve reached THAT point as a society, pack it in. It’s over.

 

[Lempo]

I think the issue with mental illness is that those of us who have never suffered from it, have a difficult time understanding it.

@Negan4Coach does have a point on that one. I wouldn't chalk it down to any mental illness when some young guy is mostly just bitter at the world for not being an alpha chad and then he and his like end up ganging up on some online forum to venerate a named school shooter.

There are actual online culture elements to it that even get a mention in the mainstream normie news whenever some moron gets caught for suspected planning of a mass shooting. Don't know if that was imported from 4chan or wherever, but for example in Finland they jokingly use the Finnish word for "massage" to refer a prospective school shooting. You probably could get yourself in trouble and checked by the police for careless use of the word online.

Writing off those online festering pits where people goad each other and instead removing all culpatibility from a potential perp by unqualified talk of mental illness because one finds it more comfortable answer for oneself would be a mistake.

 

[MrazeksVengeance]

Besides, I wouldn’t say that some of the European states with a high gun ownership ratio have that good of healthcare in terms of mental illness.

incredibly realistic violent video games

Not this again.

Tendency for aggression in videogames comes from multiplayer not aggression.

People are bound to be more aggressive playing Mario Kart, than single player FPS or let’s say… Plague Tale Requiem where people burn to death or are eaten by rats.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

@Negan4Coach does have a point on that one. I wouldn't chalk it down to any mental illness when some young guy is mostly just bitter at the world for not being an alpha chad and then he and his like end up ganging up on some online forum to venerate a named school shooter.

Maybe, but that's a bit presumptuous of you to say so. How would you know? I would agree that not every case of someone doing that is a case of mental illness and that online common cause aspect certainly happens, but disagree making that a general statement.

Writing off those online festering pits where people goad each other and instead removing all culpatibility from a potential perp by unqualified talk of mental illness because one finds it more comfortable answer for oneself would be a mistake.

And assuming that no mental illness is in play is here would be just as much of a mistake. By no means am I ignoring that what you and Negan say also goes on, it certainly does, but acting like we are capable of know who of that group suffers from what is part of the problem.

Like I said, mental illness is very hard to understand. I'm not "writing off" all things as mental illness, but for you to say some young guy bitter at the world doesn't have some mental illness issues, is why it's so difficult to understand and diagnose. I mentioned this earlier by my college roommate, who was also a high school classmate took his own life 6 years ago. Never, ever, ever would have expected it. No signs. Nobody would have ever suspected any sort of mental illness. Same goes for my brother 2 years ago.

I've learned to not be so quick to dismiss it in cases where before I might have.

 

[Lempo]

Maybe, but that's a bit presumptuous of you to say so.

I didn't have my intended thought come out as properly I would have wished, and I certainly wouldn't want to claim that you personally faultily write it off etc etc.

I actually hate it when I realize I seem to be making the "marginalized young men on online forums" claptrap myself.

But. The thing is, many of the mass shootings seem to be an intentional act of terrorism. It is too easy and comfortable an answer to claim "mental illness", especially for the powers that be, if and when the perpetrator him-/herself writes a frigging manifesto to lay out the ideological starting points, what is wrong in the world as it is, and the logic which led to his/her conclusions.

I mean, if you (passive) don't want to stigmatize mental illness, maybe don't spin political extremism inspired shootings into a symptom of mental illness, and maybe don't try to deter future extremists by the implied threat that "we'll just make you look like a mental case".

 

[hockeynjune]

Coach’s reply about the AWB work around is 100% accurate. Didn’t slow anyone down that knew anything about guns. I think video games and marketing by the MFGs /NRA etc. was a big factor in the spike. They made it cool to own one.

 

[Lempo]

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I didn't have my intended thought come out as properly I would have wished, and I certainly wouldn't want to claim that you personally faultily write it off etc etc.

I actually hate it when I realize I seem to be making the "marginalized young men on online forums" claptrap myself.

Fair enough.

But. The thing is, many of the mass shootings seem to be an intentional act of terrorism. It is too easy and comfortable an answer to claim "mental illness", especially for the powers that be, if and when the perpetrator him-/herself writes a frigging manifesto to lay out the ideological starting points, what is wrong in the world as it is, and the logic which led to his/her conclusions.

There certainly is some of that, but trying to dissect how much mental illness plays a role is the hard part. For me, it seems that a sane person isn't going to go do a mass shooting of strangers and commit suicide in the process (because they know they likely aren't coming out of it alive) so it plays a role. Admittedly, I don't fully understand mental illness so how much is due to that? I don't know. A "freak and degenerate" who isn't an alpha male could certainly also suffer from depression, which maybe was brought on by his situation in life. Clearly there are bad people that aren't truly mentally ill that commit murder and crime, so I agree with you that every case shouldn't be just blamed on mental illness as that can gloss over other issues.

I mean, if you (passive) don't want to stigmatize mental illness, maybe don't spin political extremism inspired shootings into a symptom of mental illness,

I can't speak for Finland, but in the US, if there was never a mass shooting, it would be stigmatized so I think the political spin doesn't play as big of a role in it. Kids still pick on other kids with mental health. Men especially, are still viewed as showing weakness if they admit to it. Many internalize it because they are embarrassed by it. etc.. etc....

People with cancer get viewed upon sympathetically. People with mental illness often get treated like they are some kind of freak.

and maybe don't try to deter future extremists by the implied threat that "we'll just make you look like a mental case".

That's fair. As we've seen in this thread and across the from political talking heads, I think we'll alway see the side for guns claim "mental illness, internet, video games, etc are the issue" and the side against gut claim "access to guns and the NRA are the issue".

 

[raynman]

Once I get my dragon it’s over for these fools

 

[Negan4Coach]

I'd also tax the everliving shit out of ammunition. You might not be able to eliminate the guns, but you sure as heck could squeeze the supply of bullets dry

This to me would be the only real feasible way to go about anything. Guys like me would just bring re-loading to a whole next level but you don't have to worry about us. Hell- I would just nationalize Lake City Arsenal (who makes nearly all the 5.56mm ammo the AR-15 uses) and every other ammo plant in the US and say those bullets go only to LE and the military. Period. That would take some balls though.

You would, however create a whole new black market for the cartels to run ammo as well as drugs over the border to sell and all the unseen 2nd and 3rd order effects that comes along with that.

Do these factors not exist in other countries?

I know folks like to think we live in a "global community" but we really don't with some exceptions (like online games). Some of the same factors are present, yes, but in different mixes and intensities. For instance- I think they probably raise kids differently in Sweden and Belgium than here. But no joke Belgium gun stores have all the same stuff we have- in fact FN Herstal is the finest manufacturer of small arms in the world IMO (They make the SCAR-17 for you FPS fans), yet these people don't blast each other, or I suspect even own a lot of guns. The British who like guns however- keep them in Brugge and drive under the Chunnel to go to the range.

Besides, I wouldn’t say that some of the European states with a high gun ownership ratio have that good of healthcare in terms of mental illness.


Not this again.

Tendency for aggression in videogames comes from multiplayer not aggression.

People are bound to be more aggressive playing Mario Kart, than single player FPS or let’s say… Plague Tale Requiem where people burn to death or are eaten by rats.

I know you don't like this argument, but to me it's true. My friends and I all played FPS for years, and then we go to Afghanistan and get in gunfights, and I watch the video later, and everybody is acting like it is NBD. Laughing, hi fiving, mugging for the camera. Hell even I was smiling. It didn't feel real to me.

Coach’s reply about the AWB work around is 100% accurate. Didn’t slow anyone down that knew anything about guns. I think video games and marketing by the MFGs /NRA etc. was a big factor in the spike. They made it cool to own one.

I do think that it is not just the existence of guns here- the saturation of guns is a big part of the problem. When every other mild mannered lawyer has an AR-15 under the bed, than the odds that his incel kid is going to freak out and then grab it and go use it to commit carnage is obviously a lot greater than in a country where every other bed doesn't have an AR-15 under it. (The AR-15 should be in a safe, BTW).

Guns should not be cool. My mild mannered attorney friend shouldn't want an AR-15. He should feel queasy about the decision to own or carry a firearm, not excited.

We need a culture change- and that is a long process. It starts with no longer seeing ourselves as the arbiters of world justice and justifying the organized violence that entails.

Fair enough.

There certainly is some of that, but trying to dissect how much mental illness plays a role is the hard part. For me, it seems that a sane person isn't going to go do a mass shooting of strangers and commit suicide in the process (because they know they likely aren't coming out of it alive) so it plays a role. Admittedly, I don't fully understand mental illness so how much is due to that? I don't know. A "freak and degenerate" who isn't an alpha male could certainly also suffer from depression, which maybe was brought on by his situation in life. Clearly there are bad people that aren't truly mentally ill that commit murder and crime, so I agree with you that every case shouldn't be just blamed on mental illness as that can gloss over other issues.

I can't speak for Finland, but in the US, if there was never a mass shooting, it would be stigmatized so I think the political spin doesn't play as big of a role in it. Kids still pick on other kids with mental health. Men especially, are still viewed as showing weakness if they admit to it. Many internalize it because they are embarrassed by it. etc.. etc....

People with cancer get viewed upon sympathetically. People with mental illness often get treated like they are some kind of freak.


That's fair. As we've seen in this thread and across the from political talking heads, I think we'll alway see the side for guns claim "mental illness, internet, video games, etc are the issue" and the side against gut claim "access to guns and the NRA are the issue".

So as far as the incel thing- I think it is a good example of the intersection of tech and depravity. When I was a kid- there were plenty of guys who couldn't get laid in high school. Sure- you didn't like it- you just accepted your fate- and looked forward to better days when maybe you'd develop some game. You didn't have a name for your group- you were just a loser and that was that.

Flash forward 30 years- and now you can make common cause with all the other millions in the same boat. You can feel strength in numbers. You start to find scapegoats for your problem. You promulgate weird theories about facial bone structure and pheromones. You come up with a name for your group. You begin to identify with it and then you have no way out. Eventually, if you feel like you have nothing left to lose- you strike.

 

[Svechhammer]

This to me would be the only real feasible way to go about anything. Guys like me would just bring re-loading to a whole next level but you don't have to worry about us. Hell- I would just nationalize Lake City Arsenal (who makes nearly all the 5.56mm ammo the AR-15 uses) and every other ammo plant in the US and say those bullets go only to LE and the military. Period. That would take some balls though.

You would, however create a whole new black market for the cartels to run ammo as well as drugs over the border to sell and all the unseen 2nd and 3rd order effects that comes along with that.

Even then, its not like the cartel would be selling black market bullets for pennies. If the US government taxes the shit out of them, they might try to undercut the price by a little, but they're still going to see the opportunity to make money hand over fist, and will inflate prices to undercut by the smallest of margins. The end result would still be the same, less bullets for recreational use, which, in time, should cut down on the number of mass shootings out there.

 

[Svechhammer]

 

[MinJaBen]

PS - as non-partisan as possible, I ask a question: didn’t the democrats have both houses of Congress and the President for 2 full years?

Filibuster. Same reason the ACA still exists.

 

[Deon Thompson]

As a couple people prior brought up, the 94 assault weapons ban was terrible policy, easily circumvented by anyone who knew anything, and, more importantly, did not have an effect on the homicide rate. The homicide rate (and the gun homicide rate, which generally tracks) was in precipitous decline from about 1990, hit a plateau in 1999, and pretty much stayed low until a major spike which coincided with COVID. The FBI does not keep statistics for "assault weapons," but, in pretty much all those years, the portion of homicides committed with long guns, which includes every kind of rifle, plus shotguns, and presumably muskets, was less than the margin of error. Even if you somehow magically evaporated every non-pistol gun in the country, the effect would be statistically insignificant.

Now I don't know what causes spree killings, other than that academic research shows that they happen in clusters. One well-publicized one inspires another. But, I'm pretty sure (as always, I ain't an expert), that in an intellectually honest debate about reducing violence, an AWB should not be the starting point. Taxing bullets would be interesting, but there's a lot of ripple effects there that would need to be gamed out. Although I'd be fine with nationalizing 5.56, it's a silly bullet anyway. I'm pretty sure all these Ram-driving badasses with their tricked out ARs stomping around Jordan gameland once Nov. hits would all be complaining about unrecovered deer if they had the sense to know which way the wind blows.

I do broadly agree with Negan's point about the saturation of guns though, and I'd be fine with jumping through a few more hoops to acquire one. Especially if it was part of an actual compromise for a change, in trade for something like CCW reciprocity and an end to the SBR ban.

 

[MinJaBen]

Now I don't know what causes spree killings, other than that academic research shows that they happen in clusters.

Part of the reason we don’t know very much about this is that the toxicity of the debate led to bans on federally funded research on the subject. We can’t ban any guns, but we do ban research on guns.

 

[Svechhammer]

Part of the reason we don’t know very much about this is that the toxicity of the debate led to bans on federally funded research on the subject. We can’t ban any guns, but we do ban research on guns.

And we will push for more help and awareness on mental illness in lieu of doing anything about guns.... But we'll also adamantly refuse to fund any federal programs that help pay for mental health treatment, because that's socialism.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I do think that it is not just the existence of guns here- the saturation of guns is a big part of the problem. When every other mild mannered lawyer has an AR-15 under the bed, than the odds that his incel kid is going to freak out and then grab it and go use it to commit carnage is obviously a lot greater than in a country where every other bed doesn't have an AR-15 under it. (The AR-15 should be in a safe, BTW).

Guns should not be cool. My mild mannered attorney friend shouldn't want an AR-15. He should feel queasy about the decision to own or carry a firearm, not excited.

We need a culture change- and that is a long process. It starts with no longer seeing ourselves as the arbiters of world justice and justifying the organized violence that entails.

Excellent points. In addition to saturation, I've often felt firearms have become glamorized (or maybe fetishized) among many. Look how many politicians, celebrities and others pose with fire-arms all the the time. Rappers (and athletes at times) with pistols in pictures/videos they post.

Social media also plays a role in that.

 

[Deon Thompson]

Excellent points. In addition to saturation, I've often felt firearms have become glamorized (or maybe fetishized) among many. Look how many politicians, celebrities and others pose with fire-arms all the the time. Rappers (and athletes at times) with pistols in pictures/videos they post.

Social media also plays a role in that.

Yep. And, (though I have no research backing this up), I can't help but think that most of those people have never actually killed anything with one. It inspires a whole nother level of care to be acquainted with the damage you cause on a non-theoretical level.

 

[Borsig]

Try and pass all the gun control you want. Compliance in conservative states will be thin, resistance will be high, confrontation will be more likely.

This isn't 1994, and people are much more informed, and the culture of gun ownership, especially the AR being the most popular rifle in America, is much more widespread.

Squall all you want, but you won't pass bans again until you have 60 votes in the senate, control of the house and the white house. States are the only way you'll get it, and that line just got thinner with heller and strict scrutiny, from NYSRPA.


All these proposals are great. Do it. Do it. Lets just stop talking and do it, see where it goes shall we? You have NO idea what people are capable of when you start the taking though. I'm in that circle. And I wouldn't want to be on the end doing the taking. Oof. Man that'll get ugly quick. Whatever you think you know, you don't. This has been game theoried a lot, and some of the responses are downright medieval. It's probably best to just leave people who aren't bothering you alone. If those people were the problem, boy would you know it.

There's a reason the Local Sherriffs testified AGAINST those laws in 2019 here in VA. there are about 140 localities in va. I think 124 local sheriffs were against the confiscational ban. It was over 120, I want to say 124 signed the letter. The testimony before the senate public safety committee, I remember best was the Culpeper county sheriff, Jenkins. "These are people we live near. We go to the same church, the same grocery store. I know them. We are a community. We know where they live. They know where we all live. If I go to their homes and start taking their firearms at gunpoint, on your behalf, they will figure that out quick. And then they won't be there. The'll be at my deputy's homes. And mine. And when they're done there, they will be at yours. And we won't be there to help you. "