Hang 'em in the public square. There has to be great shame associated with this kind of behavior. We've deleted shame in our society.
Shooting
- Thread starter ProdigalHorn
- Start date
Hang 'em in the public square. There has to be great shame associated with this kind of behavior. We've deleted shame in our society.
And the press, all political affiliations, should call the shooter not by name, but by the name worthless coward. Potential copycats should know that they will not get fame from their future acts.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Of all sources, an NPR ARTICLE...
How many times per year does a gun go off in an American school?
We should know. But we don't.
This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, "nearly 240 schools ... reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting." The number is far higher than most other estimates.
But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government's Civil Rights Data Collection.
We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.
In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn't confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn't meet the government's parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn't respond to our inquiries.
...
Most of the school leaders NPR reached had little idea of how shootings got recorded for their schools.
For example, the CRDC reports 26 shootings within the Ventura Unified School District in Southern California.
"I think someone pushed the wrong button," said Jeff Davis, an assistant superintendent there. The outgoing superintendent, Joe Richards, "has been here for almost 30 years and he doesn't remember any shooting," Davis added. "We are in this weird vortex of what's on this screen and what reality is."
How many times per year does a gun go off in an American school?
We should know. But we don't.
This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, "nearly 240 schools ... reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting." The number is far higher than most other estimates.
But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government's Civil Rights Data Collection.
We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.
In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn't confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn't meet the government's parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn't respond to our inquiries.
...
Most of the school leaders NPR reached had little idea of how shootings got recorded for their schools.
For example, the CRDC reports 26 shootings within the Ventura Unified School District in Southern California.
"I think someone pushed the wrong button," said Jeff Davis, an assistant superintendent there. The outgoing superintendent, Joe Richards, "has been here for almost 30 years and he doesn't remember any shooting," Davis added. "We are in this weird vortex of what's on this screen and what reality is."
Crazy idea that will never happen, but I do believe some type of corpse humiliation would go a long way to preventing these copy cat shootings or even terrorist attacks. Can you imagine if you allowed barnyard animals such as pigs to rape then eat the corpse of a mass shooter or terrorist? Its extreme but I bet that would give these guys some pause. Sure, there are a lot of irrational wackos that would not care but I bet it would deter other partial wackos.
Just months ago, I was ripping Cameron Kasky for being an irresponsible ****-flinging monkey who said idiotic things. Well, I heard him get interviewed by Ben Shapiro a few days ago, and he has gone through a bit of a transformation - not so much in his beliefs but in his maturity and approach to issues and people who disagree with him. He even had the guts to admit that the radical and inflammatory rhetoric that he and his classmates deployed against gun control opponents were largely his idea and that they were terribly wrong. He also admits that the media were extremely biased in covering the issue and too often treated him as an expert when he really only had knowledge of what he saw.
He says his transformation started by talking to gun control opponents (especially in Texas) and realized that they really do care about school shootings as much as he did and that they were nice people who wanted to engage with him. He says that opened his mind on this issue and in general. This is why persuasion is important. Minds can be changed.
Even though I still think he's mostly wrong, I have to give the guy credit for admitting his wrongdoing and seeking common ground. That takes balls in this era, because it probably kills any chance he has at launching a political career as a Democrat. My prediction is that he'll be on the Right before he's 30.
He says his transformation started by talking to gun control opponents (especially in Texas) and realized that they really do care about school shootings as much as he did and that they were nice people who wanted to engage with him. He says that opened his mind on this issue and in general. This is why persuasion is important. Minds can be changed.
Even though I still think he's mostly wrong, I have to give the guy credit for admitting his wrongdoing and seeking common ground. That takes balls in this era, because it probably kills any chance he has at launching a political career as a Democrat. My prediction is that he'll be on the Right before he's 30.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Even if you reduce a debate down to just "left" and "right", there are still really 4 positions being argued over, not two:
A - What the right believes
B - What the left thinks the right believes
C - What the left believes
D - What the right thinks the left believes
And I think the huge disparity between A and B is the biggest single impediment to reasonable political discourse.
The problem is trust; whenever the Left gains a concession it then becomes a new vantage point from which to launch the next attack. If there was a consensus that made sense (background checks; database; restrictions based upon mental health issues etc) with the realization that no law can solve the "will to kill" problem then we can at least minimize the problem as best we can.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
If so, I suppose it's still trust. Who speaks for the Left? For the right, it's easy: the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The extremists aren't the one's regulating things. It's the Left; so how far do you let it go? I don't know that I know what the "true" Left wants and when I say the true Left I go back to what I asked; who speaks for them?
Ironically, two of the most aggressive Liberals I've encountered online (on a chat room I frequented for years; I was able to get to know their online personna quite well) were in favor of the right to bear arms. One was gay and he felt safer with his guns. The other was a real profane loudmouth and he too felt the Left needed to protect themselves from the KKK/Skin-heads.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
This is a cop-out answer. There is a universal consensus that the constitutional right to bear arms is not absolute, i.e. is subject to reasonable restrictions. There is a wide variety of opinions on both the right and the left regarding the proper extent of those restrictions. No one person, group, or document speaks for "the right" on this issue, just like no one person, group, or document speaks for "the left."
What I meant is that there is a right to bear arms. Someone on the right can wave that flag very clearly. The idea of regulating arms is a moving target. Pun intended. There is no way to know other than by consensus of the governed where the true position on the Left may go. But the position of "Constitutional Carry" means you cannot ban firearms. That's all I meant. And I'm not arguing whether we should be allowed to own nuclear weapons or flame throwers.
Here's my story:
1) I don't own a gun; never have; never will
2) I have many long-time close friends who are armed to the teeth and are big-time hunters
3) They had gun racks with their deer rifles in them in the high school parking lot back in the 70's
4) Nobody was ever shot
5) I don't believe the presence of guns under the Constitution is the reason there are more mass shootings
6) I believe it is a mental illness problem assuming we want to include gang violence as a sign of mental illness too
7) I'm not opposed to regulations such as waiting periods, strong background checks or banning bump stocks.
1) I don't own a gun; never have; never will
2) I have many long-time close friends who are armed to the teeth and are big-time hunters
3) They had gun racks with their deer rifles in them in the high school parking lot back in the 70's
4) Nobody was ever shot
5) I don't believe the presence of guns under the Constitution is the reason there are more mass shootings
6) I believe it is a mental illness problem assuming we want to include gang violence as a sign of mental illness too
7) I'm not opposed to regulations such as waiting periods, strong background checks or banning bump stocks.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
An individual's right or the right of a "well regulated militia"? The current interpretation didn't become a thing until the early 70's when some extremists took control of the NRA.
Perspective. The slippery slope argument. It's why in most states we are making it easier and easier to get a gun. Who's pushing those regulations?
It wasn't a policy argument raised by the NRA until the '70s, but it was a "thing" before then.
Actually, had two Con Law classes (one with a right wing prof and one with a left wing prof) at UT Law deep dive the Second Amendment and both class discussions came to the same place:
The second amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear whatever a standard infantry soldier would carry so that orderly militias could be formed for defense against internal or external threats (see the American Revolution, Texas Revolution and Civil War). However, with the invention of the machine gun and hand grenades, by the 1930s NO ONE from either side wanted people walking around with machine guns and hand grenades. So, since no one actually wants to amend the second amendment, case law since has consisted of court amending it through new interpretation. Finally, Scalia made up the current compromise “self-defense” interpretation that, while incorrect and existing prior to the NRA, was popularized by the NRA.
I do agree with you @Seattle Husker that the self-defense interpretation is as made up and phony as the right to abortion or gay marriage and is clearly not the correct interpretation. As I said though, no one but extreme gun nuts wants the correct definition applied to today’s weapons. I’ll note neither interpretation means the government has no ability whatsover to regulate guns.
Last edited:
I think you misunderstand. The founding fathers did not add a “right of self defense” in the Constitution. There is a right to bear arms that has been misinterpreted by the NRA and Scalia to mean a “right of self defense” to fix the machine gun/infantry problem I have described above. If the second amendment was interpreted correctly, you would be able to purchase a fully automatic assault rifle, hand grenades and anything else our soldiers standardly use. The “right of self defense” interpretation is actually a restriction on what guns you can buy. It is simply not as much as a restriction as the liberals on the court want. They interpret the second amendment as “since we are going to ignore the real interpretation anyway, why not just allow all regulation of guns” which is more wrong than Scalia.
I own guns myself and am not anti-second amendment. However, I will freely admit that “the right to self defense” does not exist under the Constitution. It is as bogus as abortion “rights” or gay marriage “rights”.
Last edited:
The right to life must include that you have the right to protect it.
I agree that it's made up in the sense that it doesn't come from the Second Amendment, but I don't agree that it's as phony. Whether a person is charged with a crime or sued, self-defense has pretty much always been a defense. Assuming that you buy into the BS that is substantive due process (which Prof. Graglia likely does not), it wouldn't be hard to argue that the failure to honor such a right would breach a fundamental right. It's a infinity bigger stretch to find a right to abortion or gay marriage.
Thanks for validating I transcend the universe.
the limitation should be in what one is able to acquire to be prepared in the event another revolutionary act becomes necessary.
The Founders and Revolutionaries had the weaponry of the Crown. Why should it be any different 250 years later?
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Couldn't you make that argument that since the constitution affirms the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the right to self-defense is clearly implied? From that, it's not hard to argue that self-defense can't be self-defense if I'm limited to means that are insufficient to defending my life, liberty, and property. (If I live in an area with lots of armed bad guys, telling me I'm free to defend myself by keeping a bat by my front door seems pretty ridiculous.)
There's hunting/sportsman (trap and skeet). There's home protection. There's protection against an insurrection, a foreign power or from our own government. In general, a central depot for us (the militia) to access our weapons is strategically stupid. We need to be able to fight on a moment's notice.
I can understand why a despotic federal government would not like this. It's easier to arrest unarmed people than to be forced to kill American citizens. The militia can't defeat our military but our military would have to be willing to murder it's own brother and sister if necessary upon the orders of the despot.
I can understand why a despotic federal government would not like this. It's easier to arrest unarmed people than to be forced to kill American citizens. The militia can't defeat our military but our military would have to be willing to murder it's own brother and sister if necessary upon the orders of the despot.
Last edited:
It would require the definition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; I'd say life just about covers the right to self defense.
Yes to all ... but the bottom line of the 2A is to restrict the Govt, not the citizen.
Cries for “reasonable restrictions” of which background checks and equipment restrictions are a part ... reveal the underlying desire for a king.
Don’t mean to offend but restrictions by the govt = less freedom for citizens AND less requirement to be self governing which is “prima facie (sp)” for the Great Experiment to succeed.
Cries for “reasonable restrictions” of which background checks and equipment restrictions are a part ... reveal the underlying desire for a king.
Don’t mean to offend but restrictions by the govt = less freedom for citizens AND less requirement to be self governing which is “prima facie (sp)” for the Great Experiment to succeed.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
As we've seen with many of the recent spate of mass shootings, your right to self-defense is depriving others right to live. That's the crux of the matter.
Thinking you need to protect yourself from the government with a AR-15 is ludicrous. This isn't 1786..
Thinking you need to protect yourself from the government with a AR-15 is ludicrous. This isn't 1786..
I don't feel that automatic weapons should be available to the citizens. As I said before, I do not own a gun, but it's my understanding that a pistol with an easily replaced clip can be fired rapidly enough in a mass shooting to cause enormous damage. Not as much as a machine gun but multiple fatalities. Plus it can be hidden easier in a backpack.
Here is some cold blooded analysis:
1) There are 350 million people in the US. From a census website approximately 272 million of those are over 18 years of age. So let's assume that to be the age one can own a gun. In this analysis the other 80 million humans (children) must be protected by the 272 million.
2) How many people had their life deprived last year by those who have the right to self-defense? Excluding suicides I believe the number in 2016 was approximately 16,000 people.
3) So how many of the 272 million WERE NOT killed because of the existing right to self-defense? How many insurrections have been deterred? How much governmental despotism has been controlled by the 272 million owning guns (except for me)?
4) Knowing that a zero tolerance for gun homicides of any kind is statistically impossible (or so I believe), how can we rationally and emotionally sell to the American people the conclusion of A) We can't ban all guns B) Even if we ban all guns except hunting/sporting/home defense (pistol? shot-gun?) that there will still be gun homicides and possibly mass homicides?
5) We need to do something about mental health.
Last edited:
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
