By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas (19 Students, 2 Teachers Dead)

JWeinCom said:
sc94597 said:

Immediate questions: to continue the dialogue. Who are the new laws going to be enforced by? Specifically, how do you address rural and exurban sheriffs and police departments who practice "nullification" and states/counties that set up "second amendment sanctuaries"? Will there need to be funding allocated to the ATF to hire new, very large nation-wide police force that does raids in rural areas when state law-enforcement refuses to assist in enforcement? Are people who already own to-be-illegal guns allowed to be grandfathered in their ownership or will they have to forfeit them to comply with the law? If they are grandfathered in their ownership does that solve the problem given how many guns are already out there, often in white-supremacist hands? If they must forfeit them, how is this to be enforced? Will we expand prison populations to house those who disobey, despite having the largest prison population per capita in the world already? Or will fines and confiscations be the only enforcement mechanism and we hope that after decades of being fined the number of illegal firearms will naturally fall off at a rapid enough rate that they are hard to obtain within some of our lifetimes? If we just accept that this will be disproportionately enforced, how do we combat the inequalities in convictions, prison populations, economic well-being, etc among different ethnic groups due to the uneven enforcement of these laws? Will black, indigenous, and other people of color get reparations because the law only de-facto applies in our communities and not the second amendment sanctuaries where white people live? Will stop and frisk be explicitly outlawed so that those of us who don't own guns but look a certain way aren't racially profiled on the premise that we might have an illegal gun but really it is because of our race? Will regular police patrols be limited to shotguns or will they be exempted as they tend to be in current legislation? If they are exempted, why? 

What kind of dialogues are you used to having where you spew out 20 questions at once for the other person to respond to? This seems more like an attempt to shut down the dialogue by simply overwhelming the other party.

Given that the other party started with one-sentence flippant responses that weren't relevant to the text quoted, who exactly is attempting "to shut down the dialogue?" Anyway, the questions aren't rhetorical. They are legitimate. Some of them are sub-questions meant to expand on a more general question. But ultimately the general question is, "how do we equitably enforce new gun laws in the United States, given that the institutions of law-enforcement are highly racially-biased and given that past and current gun laws are disproportionately harmful to BIPOC persons?" 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:


Why are automatic weapons not even banned in the US?

Automatic weapons were effectively banned in the U.S with the Firearm Owners Protection Act. In order to get one you need to go through a 6 month FBI background check and pay for a $200 tax stamp. All automatic weapons made after 1986 are illegal for civilian purchase, and everything else that had been grandfathered from before then is very expensive ($20,000 - $30,000.) Bump stocks, which convert semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons were banned via ATF regulation and the courts have held the ban so far. But the ban is hard to enforce because bump stocks can be made very easily and cheaply. 

The difficulty with banning semi-automatic weapons is that they are the most common weapon-category produced by manufacturers and the Supreme Court in D.C vs. Heller decided that any weapon in common-use is protected by the Second Amendment. Plus there are about 300 million semi-automatic guns in the U.S, and rounding them all up would cause considerable problems given the unconsented policing-landscape of the U.S and the strong ability for organized crime to develop around their restriction (like with drugs and alcohol prohibition.) If semi-automatic weapons were banned when there were few of them, like what was done with automatic weapons, it would be pretty easy to enforce, but since there are so many, the problems with enforcement arise. You might observe a situation where white people who live in rural areas where police don't want to enforce gun laws are affected very little, while BIPOC people who live in jurisdictions where police are more committed (mostly urban areas) in enforcing them feeling the brunt of these new laws. This of course leads to many other inequalities, and there is a widespread movement currently to move away from mass-incarceration, not create new crimes where there weren't formerly any that will almost certainly disproportionately harm non-white communities and persons. 

What are some ideas for enforcing bans of semi-automatic weapons that would get rid of about 300 million guns, in a way that doesn't disproportionately harm marginalized people, soon enough before the next political cycle leads to the repealing of such a law? 

You start by enforcing the laws at point of sale, manufacturing and imports.

Plus a voluntary surrender of weapons program, cash for weapons handed in.

A year later make it fully illegal to own semi automatic weapons without a special license. Hefty fines when found with an illegal weapon. If used in a crime, higher punishment.

Enforcing doesn't mean go house to house to search for weapons. But make it very clear through advertisements that you have x days left to surrender these weapons, after which hefty fines and higher sentencing come into effect when found with such a weapon.


Racist issues among the police are a different problem that needs to be addressed as well. You can't use one wrong as an excuse not to fix another wrong.



sc94597 said:
Chrkeller said:

Is it ironic that I'm legitimately color blind?

No it's not ironic at all. It is par for the course and entirely expected. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/

"Instead, it encourages those who endorse this perspective to ignore the ongoing processes that maintain racial stratification in schools, neighborhoods, health care, and other social institutions. Can color consciousness draw attention to these issues? The research demonstrates that it can lead to more understanding of our racially stratified society and can give rise to a willingness to work for change. So from that perspective, it doesn’t seem worth abandoning just yet."

I meant color blind in the sex linked lack of cones.  Genetically passed on by my maternal grandfather.  As in I see all 4 colors of the rainbow.  I wasn't talking socially. 

But I get it.  I think we should do something to prevent kids from being killed, therefore I'm racist because reasons.  Or something.  Heck I don't know.    



sc94597 said:
JWeinCom said:

What kind of dialogues are you used to having where you spew out 20 questions at once for the other person to respond to? This seems more like an attempt to shut down the dialogue by simply overwhelming the other party.

Given that the other party started with one-sentence flippant responses that weren't relevant to the text quoted, who exactly is attempting "to shut down the dialogue?" Anyway, the questions aren't rhetorical. They are legitimate. Some of them are sub-questions meant to expand on a more general question. But ultimately the general question is, "how do we equitably enforce new gun laws in the United States, given that the institutions of law-enforcement are highly racially-biased and given that past and current gun laws are disproportionately harmful to BIPOC persons?" 

I did not say the questions were not legitimate, but there were about 20 of them fired off rapidly. I do not think you reasonably expected a thoughtful, measured, and researched response to all of them. Regardless of what anyone else was doing, this was clearly not an attempt at a dialogue. 

It's like going on a date and asking, "Hi how are you, how many brothers and sisters do you have, do you want to have kids someday, how many, if we had a boy would you want to circumcise, do you want to raise them in any particular religion, what if they didn't accept that religion, and what if they wanted to raise their children in a different one, would you intervene, and what if the children's gender identity is different from what is assigned at birth, and would you support a trans child, ..." Each question may be legitimate on its own, but if you spew them out like that, pretty sure that the other person would bail real quick.



SvennoJ said:

You start by enforcing the laws at point of sale, manufacturing and imports.

Plus a voluntary surrender of weapons program, cash for weapons handed in.

A year later make it fully illegal to own semi automatic weapons without a special license. Hefty fines when found with an illegal weapon. If used in a crime, higher punishment.

Enforcing doesn't mean go house to house to search for weapons. But make it very clear through advertisements that you have x days left to surrender these weapons, after which hefty fines and higher sentencing come into effect when found with such a weapon.


Racist issues among the police are a different problem that needs to be addressed as well. You can't use one wrong as an excuse not to fix another wrong.

Thank you for engaging with the questions I asked. 

While the bolded works to prevent the future sales of semi-automatic weapons from licensed dealers, how does one reduce weapons already owned from circulating? There are enough guns in the U.S for almost everyone to have two, and plenty of people who have hoarded them. 

You mention that there can be hefty fines when somebody is found with a weapon without a license. But many people with these particular weapons live in Second Amendment sanctuaries.The likelihood that they would even be reported and/or there is evidence that they own the weapon (since there are no registries) is slim if they live in these counties/states. Buy-back programs would have to be very generous, especially when the price of the weapon suddenly increases if there is no new production. New York for example had a buy-back program with very low compliance. 

The discussion surrounding race isn't to make an excuse, but to bring it to the forefront that enacting even more strong gun-law criminalization will lead to more inequalities between races. It is only a separate issue if the race issue is addressed before or concurrently to the enactment of the laws. Addressing the race issue addresses many of these mass-shootings at the source anyway. Advocates of gun control as the solution, should be even stronger advocates against white-supremacy because eliminating white-supremacy is the only mechanism in which gun laws can be equitably applied. 

Having said all of that, I do support a licensing system. The sort of licensing system that is found in the Czech Republic would probably be quite an easy sell. Alternatively, one of the best ideas for a licensing system I've heard is to have multiple different classes of fire-arms based on if they are rim-fire or center-fire, concealable vs. non-concealable, etc, and to couple the license with a nationwide carry permit to act as an incentive for gun owners to become licensed so that they can carry seamlessly across states. It isn't clear to me that this really solves the problem of there being hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation though, although it does solve other problems -- like educating gun owners on safe-storage, accident prevention, theft prevention, etc. 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:

I am a POC. My family are BIPOC. I still have concerns about gun laws because of how they are used to harm people who look like me and my family, even if we are non-gun owners, such as the examples I provided. I was genuinely asking about how enforcement of a ban would work without disproportionately harming people who look like me and my family, and you respond with a very yt perspective about hunting deer with no intentions of addressing these questions.

That's the issue. There is this "Binary" line in the sand.

The gun control legislation itself shouldn't discriminate, here people of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds don't really suffer any more or less with or without guns... But one thing is for sure. They are certainly less likely to be shot dead.

One of my roles as a first responder is extrication's where we assist the ambulance service... And after all these years I can count how many "incidents" involved guns. - None.

Growing up as a kid in the 80's, guns were everywhere, even my own father had a double barrel shotgun in his garage that I often played with. (No ammo of course.)
Fast forward to the late 90's... And every child after that is highly unlikely to ever see a gun in real life... And it doesn't matter what cultural/ethnic/minority you are, it's just safer for everyone.

cyberninja45 said:

The country its your right to bear arms. So a license to a right would never fly nationally. 

So having armed personel in schools is the next best thing to me. To me gunfree zones in a country like this makes no sense. May as well call them sitting duck zones.

You don't loose the right. It's just made more difficult.

Having armed personnel just means the higher chance of a cross-shootout with casualties caught in the middle... And no child should grow up fearing if they are going to be murdered in what should be a safe, constructive, learning environment.

kirby007 said:

This wouldnt have happend if those kids would have been allowed to carry their gun with them to school.

I feel for these kids/families

Your sarcasm is next level.

You can't even trust kids to keep their hands out of a cookie jar.

cyberninja45 said:

Why arms guards in schools a bad thing?

It's a school, not a prison?

sc94597 said:

There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. 

Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. 

It would be easier to: 

  1. Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty. 
  2. Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.) 
  3. Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all. 
  4. Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model. 
  5. Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes." 
  6. Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists. 
  7. #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists. 

Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. 

Start with Gun Control first and then work your way back. It's the source of the issue, you attack issues from the source.

Cobretti2 said:

The sad thing is when you say this to some American's  how it has worked in Australia they  spit out the old knifes kill people, cars run over people, things you see in Aus every now and then, or they see the farmer story that lost everything shoot his family for example.

What they don't get is that certain guns make it easier to kill someone and at a faster rate. Most people that do these massacres need the gun as a knife they be to gutless to do it, and if they did well you can get a group of people jump that person and disarm them and far less people would die.

In reality if they looked at Aus, since Port Arthur, we haven't had a massacre of that nature (i.e. a stranger shooting strangers). The worst we gotten is some guy with a hand gun from memory in probably 2008 now who shot like 3-4 people?

Correct. We did actually have a "stabbing" issue, so we actually introduced restrictions of buying knives, so if you are under 18, you cannot walk into a shop and purchase a knife and then stab someone.
We also introduced a weapon-concealment ban, so you couldn't carry pocket knifes unless it was for a professional reason.

And that had an effect on knife related incidents.

Cars are a high-risk activity and of course "Car Control" is a thing, you need to be trained, you need to be insured, do the wrong thing and you get punished and more... Which is what it should be for guns too.


You introduce tools to reduce them. And if it saves a life, then it was worth it.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

JWeinCom said:
sc94597 said:

Given that the other party started with one-sentence flippant responses that weren't relevant to the text quoted, who exactly is attempting "to shut down the dialogue?" Anyway, the questions aren't rhetorical. They are legitimate. Some of them are sub-questions meant to expand on a more general question. But ultimately the general question is, "how do we equitably enforce new gun laws in the United States, given that the institutions of law-enforcement are highly racially-biased and given that past and current gun laws are disproportionately harmful to BIPOC persons?" 

I did not say the questions were not legitimate, but there were about 20 of them fired off rapidly. I do not think you reasonably expected a thoughtful, measured, and researched response to all of them. Regardless of what anyone else was doing, this was clearly not an attempt at a dialogue. 

It's like going on a date and asking, "Hi how are you, how many brothers and sisters do you have, do you want to have kids someday, how many, if we had a boy would you want to circumcise, do you want to raise them in any particular religion, what if they didn't accept that religion, and what if they wanted to raise their children in a different one, would you intervene, and what if the children's gender identity is different from what is assigned at birth, and would you support a trans child, ..." Each question may be legitimate on its own, but if you spew them out like that, pretty sure that the other person would bail real quick.

So let's consider that the context isn't a real-time conversation or a date. 

1. I brought up the point to Svennoj that legal-issues aside enforcement is a real problem logistically, and there are also concerns because enforcement of new criminal laws almost always leads to more racial inequality in the U.S and we are currently in a period where we desperately need wide-scale decriminalization. 

2. Chrkeller uncharitably quoted my response with a quib about hunting deer with semi-automatic weapons, as if the concerns I brought up were as trivially inconsiderate as an NRA talking point.  

3. After a few back and forth quibs, Chrkeller brought up policy proposals that they thought were "common-sense" or "logical" without addressing the concerns about enforcement I previously brought up. 

4. At this point, given that I already brought up a few problems with enforcement, the whole point of my contribution in this particular discussion was enforcement, and there was no good faith effort or understanding that this is the problem I have, do I just ask a few of these questions waiting for more quibs or to emphasize that enforcement isn't some trivial matter but something quite complicated with various different implications to people of different backgrounds and relations with law-enforcement do I form a barrage of questions? Of course, given the history of there being no good faith within the discussion I am going to choose the latter. It wasn't to overwhelm, but to instigate in a way that emphasizes that there are dozens of questions that need to be answered when constructing legislation that will strongly affect people's lives. Partly I was interested in Chrkeller's responses, as I am with anybody who supports criminalization of certain forms of otherwise non-violent activity, but I didn't have high hopes and given that I never did receive answers to even the general question implied in the barrage -- how can we enforce any strong gun control laws equitably?, and for which I asked elsewhere I wasn't wrong in my assumption. 



Pemalite said:
sc94597 said:

I am a POC. My family are BIPOC. I still have concerns about gun laws because of how they are used to harm people who look like me and my family, even if we are non-gun owners, such as the examples I provided. I was genuinely asking about how enforcement of a ban would work without disproportionately harming people who look like me and my family, and you respond with a very yt perspective about hunting deer with no intentions of addressing these questions.

1. That's the issue. There is this "Binary" line in the sand.

The gun control legislation itself shouldn't discriminate, here people of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds don't really suffer any more or less with or without guns... But one thing is for sure. They are certainly less likely to be shot dead.

One of my roles as a first responder is extrication's where we assist the ambulance service... And after all these years I can count how many "incidents" involved guns. - None.

Growing up as a kid in the 80's, guns were everywhere, even my own father had a double barrel shotgun in his garage that I often played with. (No ammo of course.)
Fast forward to the late 90's... And every child after that is highly unlikely to ever see a gun in real life... And it doesn't matter what cultural/ethnic/minority you are, it's just safer for everyone.

sc94597 said:

There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. 

Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. 

It would be easier to: 

  1. Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty. 
  2. Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.) 
  3. Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all. 
  4. Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model. 
  5. Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes." 
  6. Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists. 
  7. #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists. 

Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. 

2. Start with Gun Control first and then work your way back. It's the source of the issue, you attack issues from the source.



1. Right, laws shouldn't affect people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds differently, but we aren't talking about some ideal implementation of the law or even the intent of the law, which might on paper seem perfectly egalitarian. We are talking about the actual implementation of the law -- how the law is actually enforced in the actual real-world institutions that exist. The American political and legal institutions are unique enough that they have been able to preserve white-supremacist effects even if on the surface they are liberal (read: racially-egalitarian or color-blind) in content.

While not being shot is indeed a primary concern everyone has in the U.S, there are other concerns that people in marginalized spaces (and even those who aren't) have for their well-being. The likelihood of being shot in a mass shooting (or otherwise), even in the U.S, is still quite a bit lower than the likelihood of seeing yourself or a relative discriminated against by law-enforcement on the pretense that you have a weapon, or being a victim of a non-lethal but organized crime, or being impoverished because the community you grow up in is seen as "crime-ridden" or many other less-than-lethal but still undesirable positions to be in. It is a lot like being more concerned about being in a car accident than a plane crash. A plane crash is almost certainly worse than being in a car accident, but you are far more likely to be in a car accident so your more primary concern is to make sure you are safely driving or riding in a car. 

2. I actually see it as the inverse. Poverty, misogyny, racism, and various other social maladies are the motivations for almost every shooting, but also the sources of other problems. Solving these problems solves not only shootings but also other strong problems in American society. If you don't have severe poverty, people don't turn to organized crime to survive. If you don't have widespread misogyny, especially in the form Incels express it, radical misogynists don't exist to kill people out of their self-loathing and anger. If you don't have widespread white-supremacy, white supremacists don't exist to kill people out of their fear and anger. These are the sources of the issue. Without them, people wouldn't be motivated to engage in the violence in the first place. 



Stop selling higher powered, high mag capacity semi automated guns.

Raise the age to purchase guns to 21 years old.

Ban second hand sales of guns.  



Common sense. Start there.  But I'll wager a guess, the response for the other side is going to be "no because reasons."  



It's time serious action is taken, we need more than "ThOuGhTs AnD pRaYeRs" because we all know thoughts and prayers don't do shit.