When our society was in the thick of deinstitutionalization, the rise of school shootings occured. 

Mass shooters are off their nut. Out of their minds. Bonkers. Nuts. They either fall through the cracks, are ignored by those closest to them, don't take the meds prescribed to them (if they are even taken seriously enough to be diagnosed and prescribed psychotropic drugs). There are also those who are known dangers to society yet no action is taken. Maybe one day we will see fit to remove those people from society that are dangerous. Right now we consider it "inhumane" to fence these people off and there's also that little issue of expense (a big reason why deinstitutionalism was begun). We call it overreach and draconic to remove dangerous non-criminals from society, regardless of the fact that dangerous people almost always become criminals and people end up dead. So we're at this impasse where we insist on remaining reactive instead of proactive. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

What are the real problems in your estimation?

I already made one or two posts including that information. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

When our society was in the thick of deinstitutionalization, the rise of school shootings occured. 

Mass shooters are off their nut. Out of their minds. Bonkers. Nuts. They either fall through the cracks, are ignored by those closest to them, don't take the meds prescribed to them (if they are even taken seriously enough to be diagnosed and prescribed psychotropic drugs). There are also those who are known dangers to society yet no action is taken. Maybe one day we will see fit to remove those people from society that are dangerous. Right now we consider it "inhumane" to fence these people off and there's also that little issue of expense (a big reason why deinstitutionalism was begun). We call it overreach and draconic to remove dangerous non-criminals from society, regardless of the fact that dangerous people almost always become criminals and people end up dead. So we're at this impasse where we insist on remaining reactive instead of proactive. 

I've thought about this too. I understand the expenses and perhaps some of the methods used back then were not the best, but it's like we swung the pendulum the whole other direction by shutting those places down.  Just think of the number of homeless people alone who would probably be safe in a place like this instead of living the way they do.  But then the question becomes where do you draw the line as to who gets involuntarily committed?  Some of these mass shooters are much more obvious compared to others.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Some of these mass shooters are much more obvious compared to others.  

And I would guess for every one of these shooters you MIGHT sweep up, you're throwing the book at 100 more, at least.  Sounding sort of like a real life minority report.

posted by like_that

My response pretty much echos the sentiments of the other posters who responded to this, so I won't repeat it other than the fact you're cherry picking a small percentage of death crimes to try and make a point.  I am still waiting to see what your answer is to my question.  What will be the next step if/when it fails? Are you going to deflect for another few pages?

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

posted by gut

And I would guess for every one of these shooters you MIGHT sweep up, you're throwing the book at 100 more, at least.  Sounding sort of like a real life minority report.

That’s my point. A lot of these guys look real obvious in hindsight. In reality, I think it’d be very difficult to try and judge what simeone’s capable of doing. There are a look of people who may be oddballs, but are harmless. How can you avoid not becoming a police state?  

posted by justincredible

Well, when "anywhere" is ultimately further restrictions I'm not going to get too upset about it.

Agree with this. If there are no further restrictions I call that a win. 

As for stopping school shootings, I don't think there is a silver bullet. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

That's exactly the slippery slope we're trying to prevent. Let's try this. It won't work, then we can try something else. Then something else. 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

This is an argument that will get you nowhere. This isn't what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect. And you're very explicitly trying to take away extremely popular options, so you're lying that people can still have "all ... they want."

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

You do realize that an AR-15s main use is for target/sport shooting (competitions) and home defense (mainly for when attacker is outside, inside is pistol or shotgun)?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

 

Eat shit and die ... I'm going to trust in Democrats and Liberal to insure my rights and security... hell no 

How that war on poverty, hunger, drugs, teen pregnancy, terrorism, crime, illiteracy ..... sorry if your track record is any indication of your wisdom, truth, integrity and foresight you have failed ... I'll stick the writing of our forefather in the Constitution they seemed to get it right the first time.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

That’s my point. A lot of these guys look real obvious in hindsight. In reality, I think it’d be very difficult to try and judge what simeone’s capable of doing. There are a look of people who may be oddballs, but are harmless. How can you avoid not becoming a police state?  

But maybe it will make some difference. In that case it would be worth it.

posted by Belly35

Eat shit and die ... I'm going to trust in Democrats and Liberal to insure my rights and security... hell no 

How that war on poverty, hunger, drugs, teen pregnancy, terrorism, crime, illiteracy ..... sorry if your track record is any indication of your wisdom, truth, integrity and foresight you have failed ... I'll stick the writing of our forefather in the Constitution they seemed to get it right the first time.

Class act.  We're supposed to be participating in a discussion on a small sports oriented message board.  Maybe we have different opinions, but so what.  That's what makes our country the place it is.  Sorry you seem to have lost perspective.  
 

I am not a democrat or republican.  I have voted both ways.  I haven't ever been a politician, so I don't have a track record like you reference.  

posted by justincredible

That's exactly the slippery slope we're trying to prevent. Let's try this. It won't work, then we can try something else. Then something else. 

All I'm saying is there is no magic pill here.  I doubt there is a single fix to the problem.  Since no one can see the future, it seems that we will have to try things until something is found that works.  That's the only way progress will happen.  Waiting for a solution that is a guarantee means it will never come. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

Historical data already shows it didn't work. These types of weapons were banned for 10 years and gun violence went up. We have already proven it didn't work. So you want to try something we already have shown did not work, then when that doesn't work "try something else".

And you wonder why 2nd Amendment defenders are worried about a "slippery slope"?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

Again, as we have told you probably 8 times in the last 24 hours, it was already done and it didn't work.  This is why I would like to know what "we would have to figure something out" consists of.  My guess is you're thinking about banning additional types of weapons, no?  Why can't you just admit the end game for gun control advocates is a 100% ban?  At the very least, it is painfully obviously that is the direction you are headed.

posted by justincredible

That's exactly the slippery slope we're trying to prevent. Let's try this. It won't work, then we can try something else. Then something else. 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

This is an argument that will get you nowhere. This isn't what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect. And you're very explicitly trying to take away extremely popular options, so you're lying that people can still have "all ... they want."

Boogie is really going thru the stages of denial here.  Does anyone here honestly believe that Boogie truly doesn't hope for an eventual outcome of a 100% ban?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I am not a democrat or republican.  

You're STILL trying to pretend you are impartial?  Nobody  buys this shit either.  

posted by jmog

 

Historical data already shows it didn't work. These types of weapons were banned for 10 years and gun violence went up. We have already proven it didn't work. So you want to try something we already have shown did not work, then when that doesn't work "try something else".

And you wonder why 2nd Amendment defenders are worried about a "slippery slope"?

Either boogie is a moron or he is being dishonest by playing the ignorance card.  FWIW, I don't think boogie is dumb, so I am leaning toward being dishonest.  

posted by like_that

FWIW, I don't think boogie is dumb, so I am leaning toward being dishonest.  

Haha, thanks for at least thinking me not dumb.  If I sound dishonest, it is not intentional.  I get that the 10 ban didn't reduce gun violence as a whole.  What if instead of looking at gun violence as a whole, we look at mass shootings as a subset.  Why isn't it a possibility that not having these weapons in circulation would have no effect on the severity of these events if or when then happen?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

All I'm saying is there is no magic pill here.  I doubt there is a single fix to the problem.  Since no one can see the future, it seems that we will have to try things until something is found that works.  That's the only way progress will happen.  Waiting for a solution that is a guarantee means it will never come. 

And again, what we're saying is it's already been tried, it didn't work, it's not going to do anything this time, and, as you've readily admitted, when (not if) it doesn't work again it will be time for further restrictions. I can appreciate that you're at least coming right out and saying you want to take our guns, but don't be surprised when people call you on it, and in Belly's case, in an aggressive manner.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Haha, thanks for at least thinking me not dumb.  If I sound dishonest, it is not intentional.  I get that the 10 ban didn't reduce gun violence as a whole.  What if instead of looking at gun violence as a whole, we look at mass shootings as a subset.  Why isn't it a possibility that not having these weapons in circulation would have no effect on the severity of these events if or when then happen?

This has been answered numerous times and I believe you have asked it numerous times.  You're going to get the same response every time.  

1. Because the shooter could have done equally or more damage with a pistol.  and

2. You are cherry picking  a small sample of gun crimes to ban guns punishing millions of law abiding citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights.

I feel like you can't accept this answer.  It's the same logic you are applying to "why don't we try something that already has proven to failed."

I still stand by legalizing drugs and we will see a major dip in all gun crime.  Not to mention it would help mental health issues considering everyone would have easy access to marijuana.

posted by like_that

Again, as we have told you probably 8 times in the last 24 hours, it was already done and it didn't work.  This is why I would like to know what "we would have to figure something out" consists of.  My guess is you're thinking about banning additional types of weapons, no?  Why can't you just admit the end game for gun control advocates is a 100% ban?  At the very least, it is painfully obviously that is the direction you are headed.

posted by justincredible

That's exactly the slippery slope we're trying to prevent. Let's try this. It won't work, then we can try something else. Then something else. 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

This is an argument that will get you nowhere. This isn't what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect. And you're very explicitly trying to take away extremely popular options, so you're lying that people can still have "all ... they want."

 

Boogie is really going thru the stages of denial here.  Does anyone here honestly believe that Boogie truly doesn't hope for an eventual outcome of a 100% ban?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I am not a democrat or republican.  

You're STILL trying to pretend you are impartial?  Nobody  buys this shit either.  

 

To be transparent, I am not a gun owner.  I have family members that own shotguns for hunting and skeet shooting.  I live and work in Alabama where there are gun owners everywhere.  I think if I tried any crap at work, I'd get shot six ways to Sunday.  I have no problem with any of that.  My reason for not owning a gun is not due to some moral/ethical philosophy.  It's simply that I don't care about having one.  I don't begrudge others who want one though.  Like every single person on here, a school shooting is just about the most horrific scenario imaginable.  As these events happen in somewhat regular intervals, our society needs to do whatever it can to prevent them from continuing.  These shootings are not statistically prevalent.  But they undermine the security of our greatest resource.  Guns aren't the cause of it, but they are a tool that enables those who carry out these crimes.  The root cause of the crimes are probably all of the societal things that have been discussed on this board.  Addressing those is worthy.  But in the meantime, if there are steps that can be taken that lessen the chances or severity of these events, then I am a supporter of trying.

I'm not against any of you personally.  You're entitled to beliefs different then mine.  That's fair.  Maybe all of my ideas aren't workable or reasonable.  I'm just trying to throw ideas around for a debate.  

As for a complete ban on guns, all I can say is I don't believe in that.  If you don't believe that, there's not much I can do about it.

I've been on this board for a while now.  I'm not a purposeful troll or name-calling ass.  I enjoy mixing it up and hearing what others have to say.  If we all agreed with one another, the world would be headed for trouble.  

posted by like_that

This has been answered numerous times and I believe you have asked it numerous times.  You're going to get the same response every time.  

1. Because the shooter could have done equally or more damage with a pistol.  and

2. You are cherry picking  a small sample of gun crimes to ban guns punishing millions of law abiding citizens who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

Fixed that for you. The rights are given by our creator, the Constitution is there to protect them. Semantics, I know, but I think it's an important distinction as I feel most people believe rights are granted by the document, meaning that the government has the right to take them away.

I feel like you can't accept this answer.  It's the same logic you are applying to "why don't we try something that already has proven to failed."

 

I still stand by legalizing drugs and we will see a major dip in all gun crime.  Not to mention it would help mental health issues considering everyone would have easy access to marijuana.

This is a big one, and I wish more conservatives would get on board with this. I think it might make a compelling argument when discussing it with a reluctant conservative. Perhaps progressives would back off a bit on guns when gun related crime drops drastically after legalizing drugs. 

posted by justincredible

Fixed that for you. The rights are given by our creator, the Constitution is there to protect them. Semantics, I know, but I think it's an important distinction as I feel most people believe rights are granted by the document, meaning that the government has the right to take them away.

I feel like you can't accept this answer.  It's the same logic you are applying to "why don't we try something that already has proven to failed."

 

I still stand by legalizing drugs and we will see a major dip in all gun crime.  Not to mention it would help mental health issues considering everyone would have easy access to marijuana.

This is a big one, and I wish more conservatives would get on board with this. I think it might make a compelling argument when discussing it with a reluctant conservative. Perhaps progressives would back off a bit on guns when gun related crime drops drastically after legalizing drugs. 

I had a feeling somebody was going to correct me when i typed that lol.

As for the drugs, I hate to sound like sleeper, but we are just going to need to wait for the baby boomer conservatives to stop having legislative power. They are so damn petty when it comes to marijuana, let alone drugs that I don't even waste my time debating them on it.  They aren't going to budge on it, so i'm aware we just need to be patient.

Edit: I get more frustrated when people around my age aren't open to legalizing drugs, especially if they are against legalizing marijuana.  It's crazy to me that there are still people my age or younger that believe marijuana should remain illegal.

posted by justincredible

This is a big one, and I wish more conservatives would get on board with this. I think it might make a compelling argument when discussing it with a reluctant conservative. Perhaps progressives would back off a bit on guns when gun related crime drops drastically after legalizing drugs. 

I am ok with legalizing weed for sure. As for the bolded part, they don't give a shit about gun crime in inner cities. They only care about gun crime when it is a super rare mass shooting for if a cop kills someone (guilty or not). 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Haha, thanks for at least thinking me not dumb.  If I sound dishonest, it is not intentional.  I get that the 10 ban didn't reduce gun violence as a whole.  What if instead of looking at gun violence as a whole, we look at mass shootings as a subset.  Why isn't it a possibility that not having these weapons in circulation would have no effect on the severity of these events if or when then happen?

Gun violence not only didn't go down, it actually went up.

To your now "move the goal post" idea of mass shootings. I have already showed you that most mass shootings are done by hand guns, not AR-15 type weapons. The only mass shooting that happened by hand guns that was widely publicized was Virginia Tech, typically only the AR-15 ones get widely talked about because of the hot button issue.

11 of the last 19 mass shootings were done by semi-automatic hand guns. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

What if instead of looking at gun violence as a whole, we look at mass shootings as a subset. 

Because the parts you would ignore could have greater negatives than any positives gained by such a narrow focus.

One sub-topic that often gets ignored or at least minimized in gun discussions such as these are the successful defenses of lives and/or significant injury using firearms. The estimates of how many of these happen vary wildly at both ends of the spectrum. The FBI's estimate IIRC is about 250 per day. A lower credible estimate from sources I can't recall put the number at 150 per day, or approximately 55,000 per year (several times more than the number of homicides by gun). I have nothing to cite, but logic would imply that if the defensive use of guns in general are 5-6 times greater than homicides by gun, the ratio would be in the same ballpark for specific weapons (IOW, far more defensive uses of AR-15s than criminal uses). It seems clear that a ban that hurts good guys more than bad guys is a bad idea, and back to your question, is why it's bad policy to try to break down the big picture into smaller parts.