Mass shootings

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/04/australian-foreign-minister-offers-share-tough-gun-law-experience-u-s/730659001/

So Lucie I know you're a fan of immigration laws by Australia, how about their gun control laws? Honestly (and this question is open to anyone), with no mass shootings in 21 years why would we not want to emulate such laws?

[Bengalzona]

(02-23-2018, 03:45 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/04/australian-foreign-minister-offers-share-tough-gun-law-experience-u-s/730659001/

So Lucie I know you're a fan of immigration laws by Australia, how about their gun control laws?  Honestly (and this question is open to anyone), with no mass shootings in 21 years why would we not want to emulate such laws?

I have a friend in Australia who has a private armory of hundreds of firearms. But none are automatic or semi-automatic. He has no problem with their gun laws at all.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2018, 01:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This thread has honestly been enlightening.  In the far left enclave that is CA it appears the conversation skews heavily left, it's hard to perceive how different that can be in other states.  I can assure you, it's just as ridiculous in the other direction here.

It is definitely interesting, because this conversation has been enlightening for me, as well, with regards to California. Our discussion of the criminal codes alone displayed a difference in mentalities between California and Florida (and Virginia, for that matter). When you talk about the rhetoric with regards to firearms in California, I am taken aback. I mean, if some of the things that have happened out there, or were even said out there, were said here by people with any sort of authority they would be gone from office immediately. The number of liberals in Virginia that would agree with the type of things being done in California is less than 10% of the liberal population. Easily.

Even the non-gun owners here understand the value of firearms. Granted, this is coming from someone who lives in an area that has the George Washington National Forest on one side and the Shenandoah National Park on the other, has the highest bear kill rate in the state, and has archery hunting for deer within city limits because of the over-population. So take my opinion with that context.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2018, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Regardless of where I was "shot at" I'd prefer to have the means to reply in kind. Seems there is some inherent risk in schools. 

As I said: I cannot speak for educators, but I'd prefer to be able to fight fire with fire and maybe save a life or 2. But who knows perhaps you and others know better and they don't need a weapon for defense, just being a target should suffice. 

I read and wept about the brave educators that gave their lives to protect students. I wonder what they would say if asked would they want a weapon to eliminate the threat. 

No, not "regardless".  If you were in a war zone and got shot at that is different than being in algebra class. Your experience, if while deployed, isn't the same at all.

I am sure a few would be happier to have a gun with them.  But I'll be honest, I haven't had one friend who is a teacher say they want to be the one carrying a gun.  that covers a few states and various grade levels and experience levels. Male or female.

I've talked to students who listed off the teachers they wouldn't trust with a gun for various reasons.

So while arming the "best" teachers as the POTUS has suggested (or didn't suggest depending on which tweet you read) might be "an" idea it is being resisted by the people he wants to arm.

[Benton]

(02-23-2018, 01:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This thread has honestly been enlightening.  In the far left enclave that is CA it appears the conversation skews heavily left, it's hard to perceive how different that can be in other states.  I can assure you, it's just as ridiculous in the other direction here.

(02-23-2018, 10:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is definitely interesting, because this conversation has been enlightening for me, as well, with regards to California. Our discussion of the criminal codes alone displayed a difference in mentalities between California and Florida (and Virginia, for that matter). When you talk about the rhetoric with regards to firearms in California, I am taken aback. I mean, if some of the things that have happened out there, or were even said out there, were said here by people with any sort of authority they would be gone from office immediately. The number of liberals in Virginia that would agree with the type of things being done in California is less than 10% of the liberal population. Easily.

Even the non-gun owners here understand the value of firearms. Granted, this is coming from someone who lives in an area that has the George Washington National Forest on one side and the Shenandoah National Park on the other, has the highest bear kill rate in the state, and has archery hunting for deer within city limits because of the over-population. So take my opinion with that context.

Agreed. I understand the concern, but it’s a little hard to picture that being applied here where a week or so after a school shooting — easily the worst case of violence in Kentucky since our last school shooting — our governor and gop senate came out and said flatly that any gun control measure would not be discussed in state legislature.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2018, 11:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it was an LEO who didn't do their job.  Don't use talking points where none are needed.  This dude failed to perform his job and rightfully lost it.  

So the officer wasn't a good guy?  

All seriousness aside, there was someone there, with a gun, who did nothing.  Yet the first suggestion given is/was to arm teachers.  

Just yesterday the head of the NRA finished his speech with the talking point that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

He just forgot to add a good guy with a gun who does his job.

And that is someone who I assume was trained on how to handle such a situation.  And I'll assume he had more training than a teacher will get.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2018, 10:35 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. I understand the concern, but it’s a little hard to picture that being applied here where a week or so after a school shooting — easily the worst case of violence in Kentucky since our last school shooting — our governor and gop senate came out and said flatly that any gun control measure would not be discussed in state legislature.

This is related to those differences between California and the states most of the rest of us are from. The director at a non-profit which I am on the board for took a cross country road trip last year. Both she and her fiancee are rather liberal, but our brand of liberal, so also gun owners. Her fiancee actually owns his father's old service pistol (I say old, it's a SIG P229), which his father sold to him after he bought it upon retirement from the Virginia State Police. He has a concealed firearms permit and did his research on reciprocity, making sure to follow all laws.

While they were in California, they got pulled over for something by CHP. If I recall correctly that were speeding, but it was because there was a separate speed limit for pulling a trailer or something. I don't remember entirely, but I remember it not being something that we have laws about around these parts. Anyway, he had the firearm and ammunition separate, all locked away, out of reach, etc., but, because he wanted to be honest he told the officer that he had a firearm in the vehicle, explained the details, etc.

What happened next was what really displayed the difference between California and Virginia. They wanted to verify ownership. Well, there is no way to do that. The original sale was to the VSP. After that, there is nothing on record. They kept asking for proof of ownership, how he got it, etc. He kept explaining that in Virginia there is no tracking on that. When his father purchased it, there was no record. When his father sold it to him, there was no record. There is not going to be any record of this, ever. That's how Virginia operates. The CHP officers just did not believe this. They were incredulous that this was the case, even after talking on the phone to someone at VSP. They finally decided they were confiscating the weapon and that VSP had to put in the request to get it back, and at that point this guy could work it out with VSP. It's been over a year since then, they are still fighting through this.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Maybe we should just allow all students to carry in school. This way, if one of them gets out of hand, we can count on all of the others to step up and make sure that they don't become victims. If one of the nuts show up, the sane ones could save the day.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2018, 11:00 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is related to those differences between California and the states most of the rest of us are from. The director at a non-profit which I am on the board for took a cross country road trip last year. Both she and her fiancee are rather liberal, but our brand of liberal, so also gun owners. Her fiancee actually owns his father's old service pistol (I say old, it's a SIG P229), which his father sold to him after he bought it upon retirement from the Virginia State Police. He has a concealed firearms permit and did his research on reciprocity, making sure to follow all laws.

While they were in California, they got pulled over for something by CHP. If I recall correctly that were speeding, but it was because there was a separate speed limit for pulling a trailer or something. I don't remember entirely, but I remember it not being something that we have laws about around these parts. Anyway, he had the firearm and ammunition separate, all locked away, out of reach, etc., but, because he wanted to be honest he told the officer that he had a firearm in the vehicle, explained the details, etc.

What happened next was what really displayed the difference between California and Virginia. They wanted to verify ownership. Well, there is no way to do that. The original sale was to the VSP. After that, there is nothing on record. They kept asking for proof of ownership, how he got it, etc. He kept explaining that in Virginia there is no tracking on that. When his father purchased it, there was no record. When his father sold it to him, there was no record. There is not going to be any record of this, ever. That's how Virginia operates. The CHP officers just did not believe this. They were incredulous that this was the case, even after talking on the phone to someone at VSP. They finally decided they were confiscating the weapon and that VSP had to put in the request to get it back, and at that point this guy could work it out with VSP. It's been over a year since then, they are still fighting through this.

Given what we have discussed here would you say VA needs to be able to track that kind of sale in the future?

Personally I think CA overreacted given that your friends were from out of state and he received information from their home state.  But if there had to be a record of the transaction it would have solved that problem, no?

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2018, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: Given what we have discussed here would you say VA needs to be able to track that kind of sale in the future?

Personally I think CA overreacted given that your friends were from out of state and he received information from their home state.  But if there had to be a record of the transaction it would have solved that problem, no?

I have my own thoughts on a system that would allow law enforcement to track down owners and make people accountable for the firearms they purchase. However, it would not have provided CHP with the answers they wanted right then. It may have shortened the amount of time it would take to have gotten the pistol back, though maybe not even then because I don't think based on what they were looking for it would've been sufficient.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

Echoing some sentiments already stated here....this thread definitely HAS been enlightening.  Not only from an educational standpoint, but also noteworthy is that I find that most of us are really rather close in our beliefs about gun control....if you honestly stand back and look at it, removing partisan rhetoric (which is the MAIN problem in my opinion, but I digress....)  What I'm about to delve into, honestly has nothing to do with school shootings.  It's more about gun violence in general.

Having said that, I wanted to throw out something that came to me as I watched "Hate thy Neighbor" last night.  I'm wondering what some of your thoughts are about my casual observation.  As I watched the show, with all of the different cultures and viewpoints clashing, many of the participants armed, I thought about this thread.  What mainly came to mind was the alluding to Swiss and Australian gun laws and the violence statistics associated with them.  It occurred to me that maybe a part of all of this was the huge differences in their societies and ours.  So I looked up some numbers.  When you think of America, you think of the large "melting pot".  A whole bunch of different views, cultures, traditions, ethnicities, and sub-societies....if you will....trying to assimilate into one homologous society.  There's always going to be some clashes, it's just human nature.

What I found was what I thought I would find, albeit not as lopsided as it ultimately wound up being.  There's a rather large discrepancy in the population demographics between the two and us.  Australia is 90% white, 3% Aboriginal, and 7% Asian.  Switzerland is 94% white, and the remaining 6% was listed as "other".   Here, we are 72.4% white, African-Americans 12.6%, Hispanics 16.3%, Asian 4.8%, etc....from the 2010 census.  Here, we also have a rather large gang problem, while Australia is mainly biker gangs, and there was very little info on Swiss gang activity.  So, with all of these numbers taken into consideration, is it possible that having an overwhelming percentage of the population being able to readily identify with each other, versus a litany of backgrounds in another population has a bearing in any of this?  In other words.....maybe they have more in common with each other, so there's less of a chance of vehement opposition in viewpoints that could wind being a violent confrontation.  Do they even have "hate crimes" in these countries? Something to ponder, or no?

Of course, maybe their media and politicians don't fan the flames of division to push an agenda and get votes.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2018, 11:14 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: Echoing some sentiments already stated here....this thread definitely HAS been enlightening.  Not only from an educational standpoint, but also noteworthy is that I find that most of us are really rather close in our beliefs about gun control....if you honestly stand back and look at it, removing partisan rhetoric (which is the MAIN problem in my opinion, but I digress....)  What I'm about to delve into, honestly has nothing to do with school shootings.  It's more about gun violence in general.

Having said that, I wanted to throw out something that came to me as I watched "Hate thy Neighbor" last night.  I'm wondering what some of your thoughts are about my casual observation.  As I watched the show, with all of the different cultures and viewpoints clashing, many of the participants armed, I thought about this thread.  What mainly came to mind was the alluding to Swiss and Australian gun laws and the violence statistics associated with them.  It occurred to me that maybe a part of all of this was the huge differences in their societies and ours.  So I looked up some numbers.  When you think of America, you think of the large "melting pot".  A whole bunch of different views, cultures, traditions, ethnicities, and sub-societies....if you will....trying to assimilate into one homologous society.  There's always going to be some clashes, it's just human nature.

What I found was what I thought I would find, albeit not as lopsided as it ultimately wound up being.  There's a rather large discrepancy in the population demographics between the two and us.  Australia is 90% white, 3% Aboriginal, and 7% Asian.  Switzerland is 94% white, and the remaining 6% was listed as "other".   Here, we are 72.4% white, African-Americans 12.6%, Hispanics 16.3%, Asian 4.8%, etc....from the 2010 census.  Here, we also have a rather large gang problem, while Australia is mainly biker gangs, and there was very little info on Swiss gang activity.  So, with all of these numbers taken into consideration, is it possible that having an overwhelming percentage of the population being able to readily identify with each other, versus a litany of backgrounds in another population has a bearing in any of this?  In other words.....maybe they have more in common with each other, so there's less of a chance of vehement opposition in viewpoints that could wind being a violent confrontation.  Do they even have "hate crimes" in these countries? Something to ponder, or no?

Of course, maybe their media and politicians don't fan the flames of division to push an agenda and get votes.

I don't think it is just a racial or ethnic breakdown. I think a lot of it has to do with an overall cultural difference that exists within our country. Now, Australia isn't tiny, but their population is more condensed on the coasts than ours is. We are a very widespread population with many different cultural identities, even within racial and ethnic demographics. This isn't to say that other countries don't have this, as well. I look to Germany for an example, because there is a sizable cultural difference between someone in Schlesswig-Holstein and someone in Bayern, and even within those states. So there is cultural diversity in other countries, but when you compound that with our country being relatively young, with our size, with our two-party system, it makes it interesting. Adding to that you have the fact that the American cultural identity itself doesn't exist as we like to pretend it does. We are a country which is made up almost entirely by descendants of immigrants that for many generations stuck to their own communities as much as possible.

I don't have a ton of time this morning, or I could go on and on about this. You're right, it is our diversity that makes this difficult to really nail down, but it is because of so many factors it could make your head spin. When I look at policy solutions, these are things we actually have to take into account. I would love it if I could look at policy in a quantitative way only and that would work. But that's not our system, that's not our society, that's not our cultures. We have to take into account all of these different things when we look at how policy will be perceived. For a city it's one thing, for a state it's another. Doing it at the federal level? No thank you. I don't want that job.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2018, 11:14 AM)Wyche Wrote: Echoing some sentiments already stated here....this thread definitely HAS been enlightening.  Not only from an educational standpoint, but also noteworthy is that I find that most of us are really rather close in our beliefs about gun control....if you honestly stand back and look at it, removing partisan rhetoric (which is the MAIN problem in my opinion, but I digress....)  What I'm about to delve into, honestly has nothing to do with school shootings.  It's more about gun violence in general.

Having said that, I wanted to throw out something that came to me as I watched "Hate thy Neighbor" last night.  I'm wondering what some of your thoughts are about my casual observation.  As I watched the show, with all of the different cultures and viewpoints clashing, many of the participants armed, I thought about this thread.  What mainly came to mind was the alluding to Swiss and Australian gun laws and the violence statistics associated with them.  It occurred to me that maybe a part of all of this was the huge differences in their societies and ours.  So I looked up some numbers.  When you think of America, you think of the large "melting pot".  A whole bunch of different views, cultures, traditions, ethnicities, and sub-societies....if you will....trying to assimilate into one homologous society.  There's always going to be some clashes, it's just human nature.

What I found was what I thought I would find, albeit not as lopsided as it ultimately wound up being.  There's a rather large discrepancy in the population demographics between the two and us.  Australia is 90% white, 3% Aboriginal, and 7% Asian.  Switzerland is 94% white, and the remaining 6% was listed as "other".   Here, we are 72.4% white, African-Americans 12.6%, Hispanics 16.3%, Asian 4.8%, etc....from the 2010 census.  Here, we also have a rather large gang problem, while Australia is mainly biker gangs, and there was very little info on Swiss gang activity.  So, with all of these numbers taken into consideration, is it possible that having an overwhelming percentage of the population being able to readily identify with each other, versus a litany of backgrounds in another population has a bearing in any of this?  In other words.....maybe they have more in common with each other, so there's less of a chance of vehement opposition in viewpoints that could wind being a violent confrontation.  Do they even have "hate crimes" in these countries? Something to ponder, or no?

Of course, maybe their media and politicians don't fan the flames of division to push an agenda and get votes.

Culture, and the mix of cultures, clearly plays into it.

But also America has always thought that being "tough" to settle disagreements is the main way to go.  That's part of the generic "American culture" that feeds into others in my opinion.

Add in black on black crime and white on white crime and other on other crime and I don't know if different cultures clashing is a big part of it or not.

I do know that it is an issue that will take a generation at least to straighten out .

[Griever]

im so glad we had a good guy with a gun on campus to stop the shooting


wait, no, we had a sherrif deputy on campus who was too busy hiding behind a stone pillar to do anything about what was going on inside

***** coward

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-23-2018, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Culture, and the mix of cultures, clearly plays into it.

But also America has always thought that being "tough" to settle disagreements is the main way to go.  That's part of the generic "American culture" that feeds into others in my opinion.

Add in black on black crime and white on white crime and other on other crime and I don't know if different cultures clashing is a big part of it or not.

I do know that it is an issue that will take a generation at least to straighten out .

I agree with a lot of what you and Matt had to say. One thing to ponder.....it may just be a stereotype....but it seems Australia has that "tough guy" image as well.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-23-2018, 11:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think it is just a racial or ethnic breakdown. I think a lot of it has to do with an overall cultural difference that exists within our country. Now, Australia isn't tiny, but their population is more condensed on the coasts than ours is. We are a very widespread population with many different cultural identities, even within racial and ethnic demographics. This isn't to say that other countries don't have this, as well. I look to Germany for an example, because there is a sizable cultural difference between someone in Schlesswig-Holstein and someone in Bayern, and even within those states. So there is cultural diversity in other countries, but when you compound that with our country being relatively young, with our size, with our two-party system, it makes it interesting. Adding to that you have the fact that the American cultural identity itself doesn't exist as we like to pretend it does. We are a country which is made up almost entirely by descendants of immigrants that for many generations stuck to their own communities as much as possible.

I don't have a ton of time this morning, or I could go on and on about this. You're right, it is our diversity that makes this difficult to really nail down, but it is because of so many factors it could make your head spin. When I look at policy solutions, these are things we actually have to take into account. I would love it if I could look at policy in a quantitative way only and that would work. But that's not our system, that's not our society, that's not our cultures. We have to take into account all of these different things when we look at how policy will be perceived. For a city it's one thing, for a state it's another. Doing it at the federal level? No thank you. I don't want that job.

TOTALLY agree with this.  Admittedly, my post was condensed....a Cliff Notes, if you will.  I just wanted to use raw numbers to illustrate the barrage of thoughts that raced through my mind last night, and get some outside thoughts on them.  I didn't want to bore you guys with some huge diatribe.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2018, 11:45 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: TOTALLY agree with this.  Admittedly, my post was condensed....a Cliff Notes, if you will.  I just wanted to use raw numbers to illustrate the barrage of thoughts that raced through my mind last night, and get some outside thoughts on them.  I didn't want to bore you guys with some huge diatribe.

Wyche, this is what I am studying. My day job is bean counting, but almost all of my spare time is spent researching policy and assessing it, coming up with alternatives, and analyzing how we can do it better. I am constantly looking at these factors. It's why what I do is considered a social science. So believe me when I say you would not bore me with a huge diatribe.

I legitimately spend my free time reading academic journal articles in the fields of psychology, sociology, and public policy.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-23-2018, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wyche, this is what I am studying. My day job is bean counting, but almost all of my spare time is spent researching policy and assessing it, coming up with alternatives, and analyzing how we can do it better. I am constantly looking at these factors. It's why what I do is considered a social science. So believe me when I say you would not bore me with a huge diatribe.

I legitimately spend my free time reading academic journal articles in the fields of psychology, sociology, and public policy.

I did not know that was your "hobby"......makes me value your input even more than I already did.  You obviously delve into WAY more than I do....I just have these simple musings that come to me....often when that bastard insomnia shows up.

I probably haven't read much in the line of such articles since I was TAKING sociology and psychology in college.  (although I do read some stuff on those subjects from time to time)

[GMDino]

(02-23-2018, 11:40 AM)Wyche Wrote: I agree with a lot of what you and Matt had to say. One thing to ponder.....it may just be a stereotype....but it seems Australia has that "tough guy" image as well.

Yes they do.  My dad said when he was in the service they always said in a battle they wanted the Australians with them!  LOL!

But they seem to not have a gun culture to go with it.  At least from afar it seems that way.  More of a drink and fight and forget than get angry and kill.

I have a friend who moved there a couple years ago as her husband is from there and his visa was up.  I'm going to ask her feel for it.  Mind you SHE is a hippy chic so it may be skewed but she'll give me as honest an assessment I she can I am sure.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-23-2018, 12:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes they do.  My dad said when he was in the service they always said in a battle they wanted the Australians with them!  LOL!

But they seem to not have a gun culture to go with it.  At least from afar it seems that way.  More of a drink and fight and forget than get angry and kill.

I have a friend who moved there a couple years ago as her husband is from there and his visa was up.  I'm going to ask her feel for it.  Mind you SHE is a hippy chic so it may be skewed but she'll give me as honest an assessment I she can I am sure.

Sadly, I remember days like that here.....what happened?

It would be interesting to hear what she says.