Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

I think it's unwise to cripple the NRA unless you're going to replace it with some other organization that takes the stance of "if you're going to own a gun, be responsible about it".

[martinuzz]

I think it's unwise to cripple the NRA unless you're going to replace it with some other organization that takes the stance of "if you're going to own a gun, be responsible about it".

I assume you are joking

[wierd]

Acknowledging that turning the screws tighter to obtain "compliance" causes people to suffer mental issues from "zero tolerance" based policies goes against the theory that increased authoritarianism is a valid solution, and that is not something that authoritarians want to hear.

You see, children "acting out" (eg, refusing to conform to the imposed 'order', et al) is not considered symptomatic of an underlying failure of that system or the 'order' it seeks to impose; (Like it SHOULD be)-- but instead as "The dreaded thing" that must be stamped out viciously. Never mind that petty authoritarians are attracted like flies to shit to small (and therefor, seemingly meaningless) positions of authority, where they can rule their imaginary kingdoms. (See for instance, the local serial killer from my area, Dennis Raider, AKA-- "B.T.K."--- Guy attempted to be a police officer, but could not make the cut, due to his petty authoritarianism being so pronounced; instead gravitated to being a church official, and a dog catcher-- positions he used to torment other people to satisfy his authoritarian streak. His inability to climb to higher positions of power were partly the fuel for his homocides; He had a deeply seated need to feel superior to other people-- to be "In control", "In charge".) Do I think *ALL* school systems have these kinds of people running them? What-- are you stupid or something? No-- But enough of them are in that system that there are *REAL* problems in it, and groups like the teachers unions dont help matters any in this respect.

To solve the problems with school violence in the US, a very radical change to the WAY schools handle and approach violence must be taken.  Specifically, that zero tolerance shit needs to be deep six'd with prejudice, There need to be psych evals of school administrators and teachers at regular intervals, and above all-- god damn it, when a student withdraws from their peers, becomes insular and isolated--- FUCKING ACT ON IT, INSTEAD OF IGNORING IT.  Yes-- Even if that means suspending the popular girls, and the rich kids (should they be involved in causing the problem.)

Other things that can greatly improve the situation:

Allow parents a better set of options to send their child to a different district in cases of mental health breakdown from toxic peer environments. Just because it is logistically "difficult" to enable that, does not justify making kids into killers for the convenience of politicians. If a child needs to change venues, CHANGE THE DAMN VENUE, AND DONT COMPLAIN. (And yes, if that exposes your school as a place where children are routinely victimized, guess what bitches? ENJOY THE INVESTIGATION! There is a difference between "Low income" and "Likely to cause lasting mental harm to children".  One can be the former, and NOT be the latter. Enabling children to have a legitimate means of escaping an abusive environment, where currently they are forced to endure in some twisted fuck's private little hell for them due to quirks in the legal system, would go a LONG way toward alleviating this kind of extreme response, since it allows the problem to be sorted before it reaches critical levels like that. Lame excuses about how "parents would seek out counselors to declare their child mentally harmed by low income school systems en-mass" are histrionic bullshit, and I wont accept that line of argument without some actual data.)

Stop allowing the teacher unions to protect harmful teachers (via the psych eval process, to clinically evaluate teacher mental health, and should they be found unfit, provide appropriate mental health services for the teachers. Naturally this will require a completely neutral evaluation service. Ideally with a random rotation.), because "Compassion fatigue" is totally a thing, and teachers are NOT immune. This is not the same thing as demanding the dissolution of teacher's unions-- (they are a necessary evil)-- but they cannot be unchecked either, because that is how you have pedophile teachers that stay in the system for decades, due to the insane paperwork that must be done to fire a teacher.  This is ESPECIALLY true with the absurd classload burdens imposed on US teachers.

Which brings us to--

Smaller class sizes, more, smaller school buildings, more spread out. At the worst, this will mitigate the number of casualties because there will be fewer students to be shot by single crazed students. Impose actually sane limits on the size a school building can be, and tell cities to suck it up buttercup, and provide appropriate zoning or lose federal funding.

I have other remedial suggestions, but they are equally unpalatable politically.










 

[smjjames]

It's kind of strange - schools are already "gun free" zones.  And yet gun violence happens in schools.  You can't declare schools to be more "gun free" than they already are.  And it is practically impossible to ensure that no guns are within X distance of a school anyway. Metal detectors and the like are easily circumvented, etc.

So the idea that having a first-responder at as close proximity as possible to a risk area makes some kind of practical sense.  Personally I wouldn't try to train teachers to be security as well - I'd probably try to have something more like the model of air marshal.

But as I've said before, the better solution is to address the social malaise that fosters such violent behavior in the first place. I'm with @wierd here - by the time someone has decided to obtain a weapon it's already way too late (these are not 'crimes of passion' people - these are deliberate planned events).

Speaking of the air-marshal type stuff, there's apparently a program in Texas that works on the same idea as air-marshals. I have no idea of it's actual effectiveness and it's Texas.

THe anti-NRA campaign #boycottNRA is starting to pay off.
More and more US companies are telling NRA to fuck off, by cancelling the spcial offers NRA members could get with their NRA membership card.
Enterprise, Hertz, Avis and TrueCar will no longer give discount on their car rental to NRA members.
The First National Bank of Omaha made it known that they will  end their 'Official Credit Card of the NRA', with which NRA members could get 5% yearly refund on their petrol and sportsgear purchases.
Symantec also scrapped it's discount offers for NRA members. Members could get discounts up to 110 dollars on Norton Antivirus and other products.

Insurance company Metlife also scrapped it's discounts for NRA members, and more importantly, Chubb put an end to the 'NRA Carry Guard', which was an insurance which pays legal costs for people that shot someone. The other insurance company that offers the Carry Guard, Lockton, did not stop providing it yet.

Now Delta Airlines has dropped their NRA discount.

[Frumple]

NRA's been needing to be screwed over for a while now, really. Maybe the ball keeps rolling and we end up with an organization that actually gives a damn about responsible gun use, as opposed to seeing how far they can deep throat the firearm industry. Probably wouldn't be the NRA itself, but that'd probably be for the better at this point.

But as I've said before, the better solution is to address the social malaise that fosters such violent behavior in the first place. I'm with @wierd here - by the time someone has decided to obtain a weapon it's already way too late (these are not 'crimes of passion' people - these are deliberate planned events).

except even as gimped as firearm studies are we already know slowing purchases and whatnot has a depressing effect on firearm violence. If someone that's decided to obtain a weapon has to wait another X days before getting, that's another X days that something might happen to change their mind or physically prevent them from doing it, and so on, and so forth. Then there's the flat, should be freakishly stupidly obvious, fact that having fewer firearms in circulation reduces incidents of harm related to firearm usage.

... though in cases like this, you might also have decent luck if you pulled the GOP's arm out the FBI and ATF's asses when it comes to firearm tracking. Imagine for a second how brain-dead obvious it is these days to set up a system that automatically crosschecks and flags for extra followup various warning signs and tips sent in with firearm ownership, purchase, or attempted purchase, and then realize the bloody "firearm advocates" in this country have persistently bodyblocked the possibility of making one.

Never mind the same bastards screeching about an interpretation of the 2nd that's had teeth for less time than I've been alive also constantly try to fuck over any and every effort to address that vague "social malaise" mentioned. Also most actual efforts to address those tend to either encourage or not discourage y'know, having fewer extremely deadly weapons in society. 'Cause seriously, the paranoia and mindset inculcated by firearm use as anything except play and maybe hunting is pretty toxic to a healthy community, go figure.

Basically, better or not gun control is still pretty good for getting this crap to slow the hell down, and we can damn well run it concurrently with efforts outside trying to screw over the bastards that are doing their damnedest to see more americans killed and that goddamn onion article published again.

[wierd]

As somebody who has lived in more rural (eg, "economically and politically disregarded") areas, where preferred means of safety are not realistically possible (Really, when it takes over an HOUR for a cop to show up after you call 911, you are pretty fucked if they are your only option-- and it is this way because calls to 911 are so scarce in your area because of low population density, coupled with insufficient county funds for more local services to be provided-- So basically you are penalized for where you live, worse than if you lived in the inner city when it comes to quality civil services being rendered) I see the need for owning and operating a firearm for personal protection and for protection of property (not necessarily from humans either.)

Do I see a need for fucking Uzis though?  Fuck no.

A single shot rifle, and a reasonable handgun are appropriate in such localities. Being proficient with their use is simply practical sense, and that means being sure you know how to use them properly and safely, so gun training as a mandatory for ownership gets no chaff from me.

However-- people who live in or very near a city?  What possible reason do you have to own a gun?  None?  Right-- did not think so.

[alway]

... though in cases like this, you might also have decent luck if you pulled the GOP's arm out the FBI and ATF's asses when it comes to firearm tracking. Imagine for a second how brain-dead obvious it is these days to set up a system that automatically crosschecks and flags for extra followup various warning signs and tips sent in with firearm ownership, purchase, or attempted purchase, and then realize the bloody "firearm advocates" in this country have persistently bodyblocked the possibility of making one.

More detail on this: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-ridiculous-non-searchable-databases-explained/
It's not just that their records are inefficient, it's that they are inefficient and unsearchable *by law* because conservatives keep it that way. Gun records are hard copies, which are then photographed and saved as images, with no text processing ability for any of it.

[wierd]

Sounds like a job for high end OCR in a datacenter as an end-run. 

Like the kind used by google books.

Sure, their records are all rasterized PDFs of hard copies, but guess what-- Still possibly searchable by modern computers, given the right resources.

[Starver]

Fucking Democrats, politicizing mass murder as well as committing it, the bastards.

It's a common Twitter recurring meme (brandished by a given half of the online combatants in such post-massacre analyses) that a list of shooters are said to have been Democrats.

Now, your system seems to have the odd quality of allowing/encouraging people who are registering to vote to simultaneously claim an alliegance (rather cementing the "my party, right or wrong" mentality, even though one could register Dem and then vote Rep, or vice-versa, or ditto any other flavours - nothing to stop you) and it may be these lists that have been farmed.

These lists allow access to the Primary voting system for parties, I think (here in the UK it's paid-up/otherwise-qualified membership, completely separate from the electoral roll, which has different issues), which is all well and good. But, honestly, how many people have not been ambivalent about which of various broadly-similar-to-each-other-and-to-you figures win a Primary for your 'own' party, but might like the opportunity to foul up or otherwise swing the result for another party.

Not that I understand the practical process enough, but that's my impression. Amd someone mad enough to rampage with a gun might well have thought to enact more passive disruptions long before that. (Which is not to say that you need to entirely reverse the results, and maybe that MAGA hat was, instead of the registration, the real bluff, but...  My head hurts!)

[smjjames]

Fucking Democrats, politicizing mass murder as well as committing it, the bastards.

It's a common Twitter recurring meme (brandished by a given half of the online combatants in such post-massacre analyses) that a list of shooters are said to have been Democrats.

And bought into by at least one politician.

[EnigmaticHat]

Fucking Democrats, politicizing mass murder as well as committing it, the bastards.

It's a common Twitter recurring meme (brandished by a given half of the online combatants in such post-massacre analyses) that a list of shooters are said to have been Democrats.

Now, your system seems to have the odd quality of allowing/encouraging people who are registering to vote to simultaneously claim an alliegance (rather cementing the "my party, right or wrong" mentality, even though one could register Dem and then vote Rep, or vice-versa, or ditto any other flavours - nothing to stop you) and it may be these lists that have been farmed.

These lists allow access to the Primary voting system for parties, I think (here in the UK it's paid-up/otherwise-qualified membership, completely separate from the electoral roll, which has different issues), which is all well and good. But, honestly, how many people have not been ambivalent about which of various broadly-similar-to-each-other-and-to-you figures win a Primary for your 'own' party, but might like the opportunity to foul up or otherwise swing the result for another party.

Not that I understand the practical process enough, but that's my impression. Amd someone mad enough to rampage with a gun might well have thought to enact more passive disruptions long before that. (Which is not to say that you need to entirely reverse the results, and maybe that MAGA hat was, instead of the registration, the real bluff, but...  My head hurts!)

In the UK if you don't like the candidates your party is putting forth you can make your own party and if you can get enough votes in one district to get a candidate you can put whoever you want in parliament.  My rudimentary knowledge of UK politics suggests that doesn't happen often, but the possibility is there and it keeps the parties honest.  We don't have that possibility in the US.  The primaries are our only say in who gets to run in the general elections.  Thus party membership is a huge deal here.  Without the primaries the leadership of both parties could conspire to put forth two identical candidates for the same election and we wouldn't be a democracy any more.  (which much as I hate the two party system, at least the two options we're given are different)

And to be perfectly honest, if I had the option I would have voted Bernie and then turned around and voted Kasich, and that's not really OK since the Republican candidate is supposed to represent Republicans not a Democrat like me.  So for that reason as well party registration is a necessary system.

Unfortunately the primaries themselves are a complete mess on multiple levels and are barely regulated.  The US is kind of a naive democracy; the founding fathers didn't want political parties to exist and didn't legislate for them.  Unfortunately what the founding fathers wanted is more of an oligarchy so the superdelegate system the democrats have pretty much represents what the founding fathers wanted.  Price we pay for being one of the first modern democracies I guess, everyone else gets to learn from our example.

[Egan_BW]

I believe also that it depends on state whither or not you need to register with the party in order to vote in the primary, so depending on location your party registration can be totally cosmetic.

[misko27]

Since you mention training, that would probably involve teachers learning to behave like police do with firearms, also.  Where they have to consider anyone who tries to come within arms reach of them a potential threat, because their weapon could be taken off them.  Now teachers can't even offer warmth to their students.  If a student is emotional for some reason and wants a hug, they could be unstable and making a play for the weapon on your hip.  No, Timmy don't come fucking near me or I'll shoot.  Stay 15 ft away and tell me about it.  No high-fiving a line of students as they walk past into the classroom.  One could easily turn around as soon as they walk past and reach for your belt while you're distracted by the next high-five.  Kids don't even have to try to sneak guns into school.  They're already there.  All they need is a clever move.

Clearly the answer is to arm students as well.

Sound of gang-related violence increasing 10000% in the distance.

Seriously, Conservative America. We need to talk. Because this? This isn't healthy. This is the attitude of a drug addict, of an alcoholic.

"I have a hangover, so I just need to a stiff drink to get rid of it".

"We have a problem with guns at schools, so we need more guns at schools".

It's the literal definition of a downward spiral, and you need to get help. Because it's just going to hurt you, and a lot more people with it.

As people said, this is the sort of thing that would be something satirical left-wingers joke is the right's next move, and what the right would furiously deny and claim that the left is unwilling to engage with anything but strawman; that is, if not for Trump. Trump turns absurd, pointless hypotheticals into "serious" discussion.

Now, *clears throat*, as a currently-certified NYC Board of Elections Official, I'd like to answer a few points here

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Now, your system seems to have the odd quality of allowing/encouraging people who are registering to vote to simultaneously claim an alliegance (rather cementing the "my party, right or wrong" mentality, even though one could register Dem and then vote Rep, or vice-versa, or ditto any other flavours - nothing to stop you) and it may be these lists that have been farmed.

This varies by state. Actually, every part of the primary process varies by state; even for national elections. It's a huge mess, but it means that any general statements about US primaries must be worded very carefully.

These lists allow access to the Primary voting system for parties, I think, which is all well and good. But, honestly, how many people have not been ambivalent about which of various broadly-similar-to-each-other-and-to-you figures win a Primary for your 'own' party, but might like the opportunity to foul up or otherwise swing the result for another party.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean, "What stops someone from voting in the other primary?" because the answer is you can't vote in two primaries anyway, and in states with closed or semi-closed primaries being registered with a party means you cannot vote in the primary of a different party.

In the UK if you don't like the candidates your party is putting forth you can make your own party and if you can get enough votes in one district to get a candidate you can put whoever you want in parliament. We don't have that possibility in the US.

Speak for yourself. The current Senator from Alaska (Lisa Murkowski, a Republican) lost her primary race to some redmeat moron, but successfully won a write-in campaign after being abandoned by her party. So, you know, it does happen.

And to be perfectly honest, if I had the option I would have voted Bernie and then turned around and voted Kasich, and that's not really OK since the Republican candidate is supposed to represent Republicans not a Democrat like me.  So for that reason as well party registration is a necessary system.

In all states, regardless of whether they are open or not, voting in two different primaries is illegal. At most, in open-primary states, anyone can vote in any one primary, but only that primary for that particular election.

Unfortunately the primaries themselves are a complete mess on multiple levels and are barely regulated.

That's not fair at all. It's regulated, just entirely differently by different states. Your Mileage May Vary^TM.

I believe also that it depends on state whether or not you need to register with the party in order to vote in the primary, so depending on location your party registration can be totally cosmetic.

Yes. Open Primaries allow you to vote in any one parties primary, closed primaries force you to vote in your own parties primary and no other (and if you're an independent you cannot vote in any primary at all), and in semi-open primaries registering for a particular party means you can only vote in the primary of that party, but independents may vote in any one party's primary.

Don't ask me what happens if electoral fusion laws are involved. Electoral Fusion laws are actually rather interesting, and I remember a high profile case when one forced our governor to change his stance on an issue to win the support of a third party; but their relation to the primary process is beyond my understanding.

[RedKing]

... though in cases like this, you might also have decent luck if you pulled the GOP's arm out the FBI and ATF's asses when it comes to firearm tracking. Imagine for a second how brain-dead obvious it is these days to set up a system that automatically crosschecks and flags for extra followup various warning signs and tips sent in with firearm ownership, purchase, or attempted purchase, and then realize the bloody "firearm advocates" in this country have persistently bodyblocked the possibility of making one.

More detail on this: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-ridiculous-non-searchable-databases-explained/
It's not just that their records are inefficient, it's that they are inefficient and unsearchable *by law* because conservatives keep it that way. Gun records are hard copies, which are then photographed and saved as images, with no text processing ability for any of it.

You have no idea....that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[redwallzyl]

... though in cases like this, you might also have decent luck if you pulled the GOP's arm out the FBI and ATF's asses when it comes to firearm tracking. Imagine for a second how brain-dead obvious it is these days to set up a system that automatically crosschecks and flags for extra followup various warning signs and tips sent in with firearm ownership, purchase, or attempted purchase, and then realize the bloody "firearm advocates" in this country have persistently bodyblocked the possibility of making one.

More detail on this: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-ridiculous-non-searchable-databases-explained/
It's not just that their records are inefficient, it's that they are inefficient and unsearchable *by law* because conservatives keep it that way. Gun records are hard copies, which are then photographed and saved as images, with no text processing ability for any of it.

You have no idea....that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I read an article on the actual gun registry place where they store and look up the data. Its like a building containing a bunch of old women and millions of pieces of paper.