So Let’s Pass Some Laws and Make The World A Better Place

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

441 Responses

  1. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    I think step one is asking what you’re trying to achieve, is your approach likely to achieve it, and what other important interests/realities are in play that need to be accounted for. Our problem is that most of our proporsals revolve around scratching culture war itches for arbitrarily slapping people around,
    or as you say, expressing sentiments. Just as importantly, doing something that might help requires backing down on the histrionics to which too many people have long since committed themselves.

    To the question, I have my quibbles with some of the specifics (particularly the EU garbage they felt forced to implement) but the Czech Republic has what in my opinion is a framework that could actually be adapted. Like us they have a strong tradition of personal firearm ownership and do a good job protecting rights without allowing someone to buy a rifle off the rack on their 18th birthday, no questions asked, as TX seems to permit.

    What’s critical though to their regime is the principle that people have a right to firearms, and the laws are designed around safe exercise of that right. Not deep down we don’t believe people should have weapons anyway and so we’re going to restrict as much as we can without rhyme or reason. Not we know these things piss off the people we don’t like so lets stick it to them wherever we can and have yahoos get in peoples’ faces about it.Report

  2. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    1. Universal background checks for all purchases. All the time. No exceptions.
    2. Five day holds on all long guns; 7 days on all handguns.
    3. Proficiency testing with all the firearm types you own every 5 years, to be waived only for active duty military, employed police officers, and those no more then 5 years retired from these professions.
    4. Mandatory $1 Million per firearm insurance riders for accidental discharge or malicious killing.
    5. Mandatory trigger locks and safe storage requirements with stiff penalties. A requirement for submission of a notarized affidavit at the every 5 year qualifying event attesting to compliance.

    Start there.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      After that is done, pivot to the hard work of addressing the root causes of gun violence in America, not just mass shootings:

      The tragedy is that the conventional wisdom that crime is a product of bad people led America to focus on a narrow set of policy responses that created the world’s largest prison system. You don’t throw someone in prison for life if you think they can change.

      The good news is that our improved understanding of human behavior helps us see that preventing gun violence isn’t about dealing with bad people. It’s about creating the situations that give young people those key 10 minutes back.

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/23/opinions/surprising-solution-to-gun-violence-ludwig/index.htmlReport

    • InMD in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      I think you start good but then go on to prove Jaybird’s point. 1 and 2 seem obvious and really the fact that we even have to debate 1 is a total travesty. 3 I’m with you in principle, though differ on the details, provided the test is akin to a drivers license (i.e. healthy adults can easily pass with a little training and practice) as opposed to a sham process intended to deny/confiscate. 4 seems like just am F you cost with no rational relationship to the facts of gun deaths. 5 I agree with the sentiment on safe storage but I have no idea how you enforce it in a way that isn’t either way overly intrusive and ripe for abuse or completely ineffective. The trigger lock thing is another that to me just makes no rational sense. Like are you going to fine someone for storing in a biometric safe that actually works for safe storage and keeps the weapon usable for self defense? That’s silly and it’s also silly to say the only way you can have a weapon is for it to be rendered useless at all times.Report

      • Philip H in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        If you own a gun you need basic training on how to use it. You need to show you know how to use it safely. Frankly if you can’t do that by type every five years – not by individual gun – you have no business owning. I’d imagine the penalty being akin to a bar on buying more of that type of gun until you demonstrate proficiency.

        Four and 5 go together and are essentially on the honor system, until something bad happens. It makes people think about what they are doing with guns in their house. Because as a dad I’m almost as pissed off about toddlers killing themselves with loaded unsecure weapons as I am about school shootings. So, I put those on the table so people will know there’s a cost to not securing your firearms.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          A government requirement that you have a government-issued Firearms License implies racial-equity issues, because if you’re going to charge user fees then you’re saying that black people and poor people shouldn’t be allowed the means to defend themselves against violent assault or home invasion.

          Or these training centers could operate like the DMV, where the whole thing is run by the state. It’ll be amusing to see people explain why there are government-operated How To Kill People centers as a gun-control measure.Report

          • InMD in reply to DensityDuck
            Ignored
            says:

            Per my link on the Czech Republic the licensing process runs equivalent to about 30 bucks. I would not see something similar as particularly burdensome and I’d be totally on board to do it DMV style. In fact it could possibly be the most America F— Yea thing we’ve ever done as a society.Report

          • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
            Ignored
            says:

            A government requirement that you have a government-issued Firearms License implies racial-equity issues, because if you’re going to charge user fees then you’re saying that black people and poor people shouldn’t be allowed the means to defend themselves against violent assault or home invasion.

            I’ll give you this – you do like interesting twists. What statistical evidence do you have that black and brown people are so much more susceptible to this that a requirement to demonstrate proficiency creates too much of a burden? for that matter, if black and brown people face this disproportionately, what are the root causes of that level of violence in their communities and how do we address those?Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              What statistical evidence do you have that black and brown people are so much more susceptible to this that a requirement to demonstrate proficiency creates too much of a burden?

              I’d compare to driver’s licenses. I understand that there are many who cannot get driver’s licenses (or other official government identification) because it is an undue burden.

              This is similar. (Or I’d need it explained how it’s not.)

              for that matter, if black and brown people face this disproportionately, what are the root causes of that level of violence in their communities and how do we address those?

              We probably need to hammer out whether it’s disproportionate.

              If it is, then we have to look at potential root causes.

              If it’s not disproportionate, any attempt to point to a root cause will be a mistake. I mean, it could be pointing out to something universal and thinking “this is notable” because of prejudice.

              Once we establish “nope, this is actually different”, only then is it possible to note differences.Report

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              Evidence? The fact that voter ID is constantly resisted on the grounds that certain demographics can’t easily get an ID to exercise a right to vote.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s’ not the statistics I’m talking about though – DD was harping about the need for black and brown people to have easy access to firearms to defend themselves against certain violent crime types and I was asking for statistics supporting the claim they have a disproportionate need for that level of defense. Because most of the data I’ve seen in that regard is about fears white people have of black and brown people doing the home invading.Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              “What statistical evidence do you have that black and brown people are so much more susceptible to this”

              I think everyone is susceptible to it in the same degree.

              My argument here is the same one that is used against poll taxes and property-owning requirements for voting eligibility.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Fine, let’s complete the slide into urban distopia then and let everyone have all the guns they want for any reason at any time with no restrictions and no penalties.

                Because what we have now is people dying needlessly because we are too stupid, too fearful and too unwilling to do anything else.

                That about sum up your position?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                let’s complete the slide into urban distopia then and let everyone have all the guns they want for any reason at any time with no restrictions and no penalties.

                That is a very odd way to describe Chicago (and other urban murder center) gun control laws.

                For that matter, how many of your ideas has Chicago already tried?Report

              • Jacob in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                The only people left in urban centers NOT carrying firearms are the ones who care about the law. Here in New York, if you get collared for an illegal handgun, you’re out in 24 hours and will likely get pleaded down to a misdemeanor or violation. No jail time. No incentive not to go out and get another illegal gun. Hate to break it to you, but the urban dystopia is already here.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          If you own a gun you need basic training on how to use it. You need to show you know how to use it safely.

          With the exception of military and police, of course.Report

          • InMD in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            My understanding is that the police can certify while still being hilariously under-trained and uh… accordingly under-competent with much less hilarious results.Report

        • InMD in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Like I said, no problem in my book with periodic basic proficiency and safety training and tests provided the metrics are reasonable and they’re conducted fairly, and certainly not at all with your details and the proposed penalty.

          I still can’t get on board with make a statement laws on storage and wouldn’t require the insurance, though safe storage should certainly be a point of emphasis in any safety instruction.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Given all the complaints about how lawmakers screw with the right to abortion or the right to vote, it’s interesting how no one seems concerned with how much the government would screw with the right to firearms?

            PS this flows both ways.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              what’s your concrete counter proposal?Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                There is a way to do red flag laws correctly. It’s very rare that these people go off without some kind of noticable build up (not that it never happens, only that it’s rare to come out of the blue).Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Outlaw making spree mass murders celebs. His name doesn’t get reported. He doesn’t become famous. His agenda doesn’t get published.Report

              • Murali in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Wouldn’t that violate the first amendment? Press freedoms and all that.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Murali
                Ignored
                says:

                Wouldn’t that violate the first amendment? Press freedoms and all that.

                Just saw this. And yes, that is the problem.

                The good news is outlawing making him a celeb is trying to control the law abiding and doesn’t suffer from the collective action issues.

                The better news is it’s addressing the actual problem head on. The killers are doing this to become famous and successful. Don’t allow that.

                The bad news is yes, there are Constitutional issues.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      Universal background checks wouldn’t have mattered for this (or for Sandy Hook!) because the person who bought the guns was not the person who did the shooting.

      “holds” on purchases are similarly meaningless because most mass-shooters collect guns for a long time before they decided to shoot anyone.

      See below for “proficiency testing” requirements.

      Firearm insurance does nothing for the dudes who decide that Today Is A Good Day To Die. “Oh, I owe fifty million dollars in liability payments? Tell them to sue my corpse.”

      Trigger locks and safe storage requirements only matter if the weapons are stored off the property and require third-party verification to access. The Sandy Hook guy’s guns were locked in a safe. His mother had the key. First thing he did was kill her. After that the safe was meaningless.

      “well so whadda YOU suggest” Massive empowerment of law enforcement to detain people based on suspicion of psychiatric instability? Massive increase of public surveillance infrastructure along with legal authority to grab people off the street based on They Was Actin’ Kinda Funny? I dunno. What sort of total re-concepting of the relationship of law enforcement to citizens are you comfortable with? “what the hell are you talking about, I just think we should ban guns to stop the murder” You can ban all the guns you want but then someone will grab a knife and start slitting throats, someone will build a backpack bomb and throw it down in a busy restaurant, someone will center a crowd in their windshield and hit the gas.Report

      • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        Notice I didn’t propose banning weapons. Though the 1994 Assault weapons ban – which was far from perfect as a law – did result in a measurable drop in the use of those weapons in violent crimes, including mass shootings.

        Since you’ve told me all the things that you don’t think will work, what do you propose?Report

        • InMD in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Notice I didn’t propose banning weapons.

          Just to throw it out there I appreciate that aspect of your proposed approach and think we’d get a lot further in the debate if we took that off the table as a go-to.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          “Notice I didn’t propose banning weapons.”

          Oh, no no no, of course you didn’t, not at all!

          Just…you say that would-be gun-owners have to have a license, and pay a fee, and buy insurance, and have training, and submit to inspections, and if they can’t do all those things then too bad they didn’t fulfill the entirely reasonable requirements that white wealthy neurotypical people with salaried employment and permanent addresses have no trouble covering, and they just don’t get to have a gun, and you get to tell yourself that it’s not a gun ban, it’s just those dumbasses’ own fault for being slackers.

          “Since you’ve told me all the things that you don’t think will work, what do you propose?”

          You’re the one who needs to answer that.

          What do you actually want?

          Why do you think we don’t already have it?

          What are you willing to not have in order to get what you want?

          I can’t tell you what the solution is until you tell me what solutions you’re willing to accept.

          I can tell you that if what upsets you is “crazy people are violently killing children” then banning guns isn’t gonna stop that. And if you just want guns banned then say “I want guns banned” and don’t build a bailey from the corpses of infants.Report

          • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
            Ignored
            says:

            I want fewer toddlers dead because their parents won’t secure their weapons.

            I want my kids to go to school without the trauma of repeated mass shooter drills, so they can learn and grow.

            I want young black men in Chicago to have alternatives to pulling a gun as a way to protect their economic livelihoods, much less their manly reputations.

            I want rural farmers to be able to hunt wolves that attack their cattle.

            I’m willing to submit to background checks every time I buy a gun to achieve that. I am willing to pay extra for insurance to achieve that. I’m willing to submit to a qualification test every 5 years to achieve that. I’m willing to be prevented from buying more guns if I fail that test to achieve that.

            But I’m not willing to sit on my hands, waiving thoughts and prayers.

            What do you want? What are you willing to do?Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              “But I’m not willing to sit on my hands, waiving thoughts and prayers.”

              that’s an amusing typo

              Are you okay with a government body conducting surveillance of every teenager’s Instagram page in case this is the day they post a picture of themselves sitting in front of a wall of weapons their grandmother bought them and a comment that says “kayleigh: stay home today, just wnated u 2 kno ;)” and then sending the cops to put that teenager to jail for the rest of his life? Because that’s what it would’ve taken, this time. “Well guns made it a lot easier for him!” yeah they did, but lack of them wouldn’t make it never happen, and you aren’t talking about “less”, you’re talking about “not”.

              “I want my kids to go to school without the trauma of repeated mass shooter drills, so they can learn and grow.”

              one would think that instead of subjecting children to the repeated terrifying thought of burning to death in a locked room, they could simply design schools not to catch on fire.

              “I want young black men in Chicago to have alternatives to pulling a gun as a way to protect their economic livelihoods, much less their manly reputations.”

              you might have wanted to think about that one a little harder before posting about “black men” and their “manly reputations”Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Are you okay with a government body conducting surveillance of every teenager’s Instagram page in case this is the day they post a picture of themselves sitting in front of a wall of weapons their grandmother bought them and a comment that says “kayleigh: stay home today, just wnated u 2 kno ;)” and then sending the cops to put that teenager to jail for the rest of his life? Because that’s what it would’ve taken, this time.

                That’s already legal in the US under the Patriot Act and it’s reauthorizations. That we choose to use that power for other things is not my call.

                you might have wanted to think about that one a little harder before posting about “black men” and their “manly reputations”

                I’m just following the science:

                In disadvantaged areas, a large body of research from sociology suggests young people unfortunately learn they’re on their own in terms of keeping themselves safe.
                In many of these neighborhoods, large numbers of local adults are incarcerated in the justice system, which overwhelms the adults and institutions that remain, and leaves the young people who live there vulnerable to the intimidation, aggression or violence of others.
                When challenged, they need to develop an automatic response to fight back so they’re not seen as an easy target. A friend of mine who grew up on Chicago’s high-violence West Side put it this way: to not fight back would “open the flood gates to victimization.”
                But the same mental shortcut that may allow young people to avoid being repeatedly harassed, picked on or beaten up outside of school puts them in danger when relied upon in an out-of-the-ordinary situation, like when someone has a gun.

                https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/23/opinions/surprising-solution-to-gun-violence-ludwig/index.htmlReport

        • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Though the 1994 Assault weapons ban – did result in a measurable drop in the use of those weapons in violent crimes, including mass shootings.

          I’m looking at the research right now. I see…

          “no evidence that ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides”
          “There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives”
          ” the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates”
          Oh, here’s one. If we cherry pick areas in Mexico then they had an increase in violence when the ban stopped.
          “inconclusive”
          “insufficient evidence”
          “no impact”
          “no significant effect”
          “state level assault weapons ban had no significant effect on gun related murder rates and federal ban was associated with a 19% increase in gun related murders”
          Some outcomes that look like the author cherry picking subsets of data.
          Oh, and Columbine happened during the ban using weapons illegal under the ban.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        One thing that I thought “you should have added this part” as I was falling asleep was something to the effect of:

        You have to assume that your plans include law enforcement as it exists and changes happen at the policy level… you can increase or decrease funding, but you can’t magically establish that the police department is *DIFFERENT*.

        You can pass a law in a matter of days. You can establish a policy that police officers receive training on how to do house-to-house searches in a sensitive and inclusive manner.

        You cannot assume that the house-to-house searches being done tomorrow will be done by any police other than the ones who are on the force today.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Critical Race Theory has heard your plea, and is here to save you.

          Yes, the same racism that is woven into our laws, cultural mores and institutions cause virtually all efforts, whether anti-drug efforts, literacy efforts, anti-terrorism efforts or urban renewal efforts to all be carried out in ways that reinforce the existing racial caste system.

          These efforts are all to be considered “Necessary but insufficient”.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            It’s more that I consider the posturing to be expressing a sentiment and the expression of the sentiment should be assumed to be the goal.

            Nothing wrong with expressing a sentiment, of course.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              What posturing are you talking about?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The whole “DEFUND THE POLICE!” vs. “WE NEED HOUSE-TO-HOUSE SEARCHES FOR GUNS!” thing.

                It allows people to advocate for whatever the current thing happens to be, loudly communicating group membership but not, you know, actually changing anything.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Not sure what that has to do with your objection (that any law will be carried out by abusive police forces) or my response (that racism is indeed deeply engrained in all our institutions).Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, in this case, I’m not sure we can both Defund *AND* do House-to-House searches.

                We actually have to pick one and pick it wholeheartedly and abandon the other.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I can imagine doing both.

                Transferring a lot of funding from police to mental health and crisis intervention teams who can red flag disturbed people and make home visits, and when necessary, confiscate weapons.

                Just an example.

                Another example is here in downtown LA, where the local Business Improvement Districts have created security teams of people who patrol the neighborhoods and act as eyes and ears and resolve all the low level petty brawls, belligerent drunks and shoplifters.
                They also have mental health intervention and outreach, where they counsel and help place at-risk people in homes and jobs.

                Not every problem needs to be solved by a gun.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “red flag disturbed people and make home visits, and when necessary, confiscate weapons.”

                I guess I misunderstand what “house-to-house” means.

                If all it means is the cops going to the homes of the red-flagged… would they need a warrant to pass the threshold or, in this case, we’d waive the requirements for police to have a warrant when it came to the people they deemed “disturbed”?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure, warrants are good.

                The idea is we don’t ignore mentally ill people until the only tool is mops to handle the blood.

                One of the benefits of regulations and licensure is that they help bring people in contact with authorities which can then set off tripwires and red flags allowing early intervention.

                Like, a counselor makes a wellness check or has a scheduled interview to assist a person with job training, which allows them to spot signs of trouble or abuse.

                I mentioned our local BID; Here is their page on their outreach program, where they initiate contact with street people and connect them to local charities and organizations:
                https://downtownla.com/the-dcbid/safe-and-clean/district-outreach

                I personally witnessed them intervene in the life of a young homeless person who was spirallying downward, and now he is living in an apartment with a job.

                So again, not every problem needs the solution of a gun.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                So “House-to-House” is no longer on the table, then.

                Just defund (and, of course, “defund” doesn’t mean “defund”, just “reallocate to counselors”).Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You want unarmed counselors going to the homes of mentally ill people to confiscate their guns?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                No they call for assistance when needed.

                But the point is, the contact with authorities is proactive, not after the catastrophe.Report

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        Universal background checks wouldn’t have mattered for this (or for Sandy Hook!) because the person who bought the guns was not the person who did the shooting.

        I wonder if making gun owner liable for whatever crime was committed while using the gun has been tried. If I was a gun owner and knew I’d be on the hook you better believe I’d be very careful with storage.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      Okay. Five points, none of which are “ban guns”.

      Good.

      Let’s go through.

      1. Okay. Let’s assume that I’m down with this. I’m not sure that this would have stopped this particular shooting. What are the red flags this guy had?

      2. Okay. I might be fine with this as it would give a few days’ worth of “cool down”, for a lack of a better way to think about it, for crimes of passion. For this shooting, though, was it a crime of passion done on a whim?

      3. I assume that this testing could be done at places like Dragon Man’s Gun Range in addition to the official shooting range that they’d have a couple of blocks away from City Hall.

      If there’s a situation where “you must have an official proficiency test to own a gun” and “there is nowhere in our state where you can get a proficiency test”, you’re effectively banning guns without banning them. Which is clever, but transparent, and will have disparate impact.

      4. Meh. Others have covered this one.

      5. Meh. Others have covered this one.Report

      • InMD in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        1 and 2 are just sound policy and I don’t think the standard can be ‘would have stopped every shooting ever.’ Nothing is going to do that.

        3 is really all about the details.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m not sure that I’m asking for “would have stopped every shooting ever” as much as noticing that these policies, no matter how good they are, wouldn’t have stopped this one (or the last one?) and, as such, I can’t help but think that they’re the equivalent of me suggesting that we need to legalize marijuana to help prevent these shootings.

          Legalization of marijuana is all fine and good, of course. I’m a fan.

          But if we want to prevent these types of shootings, we probably want laws/policies that will prevent these types of shootings instead of using it as an opportunity to advocate for policies we’ve been wanting for a while anyway.Report

          • InMD in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            I think trying to ever 100% stop it is a fool’s errand. But there’s some low hanging fruit that I don’t think there’s any good reason to oppose. If I’m understanding correctly this guy was able to buy his rifles right off the retail rack, day of, with no state level background checks (someone more familiar with TX can correct me if I’m wrong). Now maybe they implement changes to that and he does it all anyway. But I’m a bit of a firearm enthusiast and that being the (really lack of) rule strikes me as nuts.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Yeah, I think I’d be okay with 1, 2, and 3 on here.

              I am not sure how effective they’d be but they seem that they’d be more effective than “nothing at all” and would not be particularly burdensome.

              1, 2, and 3 are a fine, fine camel’s nose.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Better a camel’s nose in the tent than a MOTHERFUCKING ARMED MURDERER IN GODDAMN CLASSROOMS!

                Jesus F Christ man… grow a goddamn heart.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Kazzy, I said I was okay with these policy changes.

                I asked for ones that were more than merely loudly expressed sentiments and 1, 2, and 3 on Phillip’s list are fine and do more than nothing at all.

                This has little to do with “heart”. “Heart” is the whole “loudly expressed sentiments” thing. I’m down with policy changes that will result in fewer shootings and remain in line with my thought that law enforcement is corrupt and captured and needs to be overhauled stem to stern.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “1, 2, and 3 are a fine, fine camel’s nose.”

                That’s the opposite of saying you are okay with those policy changes.

                Cut the bullshit. Kids are dead.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                No, it’s not.

                It understanding that these policy changes are a necessary start that won’t solve the problem (or bring us to an acceptable level of violence, anyway) but bigger policy changes aren’t really workable given the constraints of such things as a Republican party that opposes gun control on principle and, as previously mentioned, corrupt and captured law enforcement.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose

                You know what you’re doing. You’re smarter than that. Either own your position or cut the crap.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Kazzy, I know that there are many things that need to be done and there are pre-reqs to the many things that need to be done and the easy things need to be done before the more difficult things become easier.

                If we want the camel in the tent, we’re going to need to go slowly rather than quickly.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The idea of the camel being in the tent is a negative thing. Do you even know what that phrase means?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I know what the phrase means.

                Would you have preferred “the slim end of the wedge”?

                “Gun Control” is something that will need to go slowly and incrementally if it is to succeed.

                The camel being in the tent is the goal, in this case. Or, at least, its ears.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “The camel’s nose is a metaphor for a situation where the permitting of a small, seemingly innocuous act will open the door for larger, clearly undesirable actions.”

                So, no, you don’t know what it means.

                Saying you are on board with something while describing it as the camel’s nose paints the thing as a bad idea because bad things will come of it.

                We’re arguing stupid f’ing semantics now because you can’t just say what you f’ing thing. Again, kids are dead and you want to play word games. If you support a policy, say so and own it. If you don’t, say that and own that. Or just go the f away.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If the obstacle to sensible laws is control by the Republican party, what possible things could voters do to change this?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Seems like “have different values” needs to be on the table.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Is “Stop voting for Republicans” on that same table?
                Or possibly, and I’m spitballing here so bear with me, “Vote for Democrats”‽Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                That seems to have “have different values” as a pre-req.

                I know, just being obviously Right isn’t enough. What a pain.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m actually agreeing that people should “have different values”.

                I just think, as with religion, that it ends up manifesting as change in behavior otherwise whats the point?Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              buy his rifles right off the retail rack, day of, with no state level background checks

              Didn’t he use handguns for all the actual shooting? Reporting is a mess but one I read claimed that.Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          I was going to make that first observation myself. We can’t solve a complex problem with a single change in policy.

          The good news is that the Founders built a system that doesn’t give in to panic, so we’re not likely to get the laws that get brought up after a tragedy. The bad news is that the people who understand guns don’t trust the policy people, and the policy people don’t understand guns. This is the kind of situation where a blue-ribbon commission might do some good.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            The bad news is that the people who understand guns don’t trust the policy people, and the policy people don’t understand guns. This is the kind of situation where a blue-ribbon commission might do some good.

            Like the Blue Ribbon Commission on School Safety that President Trump created after Parkland? That Betsy Devos chaired? care to tell us what recommendations came out of that?Report

            • Pinky in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I said “might do some good”. There’s never a guarantee with them. For that matter, it may have had great recommendations that never got taken up.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              https://www2.ed.gov/documents/school-safety/school-safety-report.pdf

              (page 61 of pdf, 59 of report)
              the accused, via a social network, recorded a video bragging about how the massacre he planned would make him notorious: “when you see me on the news you’ll all know who I am.”3
              Researchers have found that most shooters desire fame and wish to emulate other mass shooters.

              The American Psychological Association released a study in 2016 that concluded that “the prevalence of mass shootings has risen in relation to the mass media coverage of them and the proliferation of social media sites that tend to glorify the shooters and downplay the victims.”9

              “significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past.”11 Researchers further hypothesize that television, radio, and other media exposure of one mass shooting could infect the next perpetrator.12Report

          • InMD in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            This response also goes to @Oscar’s comment above re:licensing and training but how you go into it is the key factor. One of the reasons I point to the Czech approach is because, while more restrictive than many US states, it’s clear to me they went in with the idea that the right is important and something to be preserved. On the other hand you can appoint some commission or licensing authority or whatever that operates under the (most likely unstated) presumption that really none of this should be allowed at all and have the kind of outcomes those who value gun rights fret about. Hence the trust issues.Report

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              The Swiss (IIRC) have something similar, where exercising the right involves effort, but the system is not designed to make that effort onerous.Report

              • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m always a little more hesitant about using them as an example. I’m not an expert on it by any means but my understanding is that what the Swiss have is tied up in their model of conscription and unique history of neutrality and national defense.

                Conversely my understanding of the Czechs is that their culture on guns is closer to our own. They have a long history of personal ownership that over time evolved into a connection to civil liberties particularly after being disarmed by the Nazis then the Soviets.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Personally, I’m fine with reasonable requirements for ownership, it’s just that no one seems able to agree on what constitutes reasonable.

                The parallels to how people feel about the laws for guns & abortion never fail to interest me.Report

              • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Concur. The dynamics in play are IMO close to identical.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Personally, I’m fine with reasonable requirements for ownership, it’s just that no one seems able to agree on what constitutes reasonable.

                84% of voters, including 77% of Republicans, support requiring all gun purchasers to go through a background check.

                https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/10/house-gun-legislation-background-checks-polling/

                PEOPLE agree. Politicians don’t. Lay blame where it belongs.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not opposed to it, I just want the system fixed. If all transfers need a BC, the system needs to be more robust, and ideally, it needs to be opened up so I don’t have to pay an FFL to run a BC.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        3. I assume that this testing could be done at places like Dragon Man’s Gun Range in addition to the official shooting range that they’d have a couple of blocks away from City Hall.

        Sure – make it a part of their FFLReport

        • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Okay. I’d be fine with this part of it, then.

          The fee would probably have to be somewhere around “trivial” (say, $25 or so) and I’d support that.

          What happens if the testing starts to lapse?Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Whose FFL? Is a gun shop responsible for each purchaser’s regular recertification?Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            Gun shops have an FFL to sell weapons. As a condition of maintaining that FFL they would be required to offer and supervise the testing. Its still on the owner to comply. Of an owner lapses, then the background check database would be updated automatically to say they can’t buy that type of weapon again until they retest.

            This is not technologically hard folks.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              Would you really be ok with all those people having guns they’re no longer certified to use?Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              So if I have an aging relative who has a gun and I want to buy it because I don’t think he should have it any longer, can I?Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                You could always do a transfer via an FFL. I’ve bought several guns from my uncle that way (he is an FFL in a neighboring state so we have transferred through an FFL in Maryland, which is required and not particularly cumbersome). There was a small fee for the paperwork.

                I really have never understood a legit reason to have off the books private transfers, but that’s just me.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I really have never understood a legit reason to have off the books private transfers, but that’s just me.

                The issue isn’t “legit reason”.

                The issue is “will this law be followed or did we just turn lots of otherwise law abiding people into criminals”?

                My dead grandfather was in WW2. Let’s say he’s got some boxes of stuff somewhere that we haven’t gone through yet, and there’s a gun in there.

                Am I doing a few minutes of paperwork on line with instructions that are easily understood? Or am I into “spend hours of research and maybe hire a lawyer because the law insists information I don’t have be supplied”?

                Keep in mind the local murder rate is zero and this is someone else’s virtue signaling that you’re trying to impose on me so the children of Chicago don’t shoot each other.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re really talking about 2 different things. One is process, which I agree, should not be particularly burdensome in that situation. You can always handle inheritance via estate administration.

                Your hypo though was transferring of a firearm from a relative who may be losing the mental competency to possess it. I’m telling you I’ve gone through FFL transfers. It took me more time to drive to the FFL than to complete the paperwork (like 15-20 min of federal and state forms). I then politely shot the s— with them for awhile because I’m a nice guy like that then came back a week later when everything cleared to pick up my stuff. It’s a perfectly reasonable and worthwhile approach to minimizing the number of grey and black market firearms.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I have bought all my firearms as private party sales in places with no background check requirements. I have received others as gifts as have my children. I don’t think my purchases should be under the radar – and I get my background checked every 10 years by the FBI to remain employed.Report

  3. Sir Arcane
    Ignored
    says:

    I would just like to introduce some friction into the process to hopefully reduce the frequency and intensity of these types of events. Violations would range from tickeatable to 30 days in jail, and confiscation of the firearm for individuals. Million-dollar fines for companies.

    We’ll start with universal background checks and the associated waiting period. Limit magazine sizes, I’d say 6 rounds but I am not an expert. Gun ownership requires a license, prove to the state you understand the basics of gun safety and usage. Each gun should be registered with the state, and owners would be required to maintain liability insurance.Report

  4. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    someone on another website pointed out that it would be amusing to see all the liberals who got really upset about Kyle Rittenhouse crossing state lines to perform an illegal act figure out how to handle it when that’s how you get an abortion.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      This liberal has no objection to laws against crossing a state line to commit an illegal act.

      I mean, the Mann Act was around long before I was born.Report

    • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      someone on another website pointed out that it would be amusing to see all the liberals who got really upset about Kyle Rittenhouse crossing state lines to perform an illegal act figure out how to handle it when that’s how you get an abortion.

      That suggests that abortion has a commerce component to it aside from the privacy right component, and we have a commerce clause in the constitution that speaks to that. Which Alito studiously avoided in his draft Roe trashing . . . .Report

  5. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s worth looking at our peer nations like Australia and Scotland which reacted to mass shootings with legislation and how that turned out.

    One of the more common objections is that no law can stop a determined and suicidal attacker. In theory this is reasonable. But empirical evidence shows that it actually does.

    Our peer nations have just as many sociopaths, just as many organized criminal gangs, just as much poverty, just as many confused and deranged young men as we do, but somehow much lower levels of gun violence.Report

  6. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Plenty of other countries have managed to past gun control legislation that works. They have no mass shootings or school shootings or students doing active shooter drills. Now there is a pragmatic argument that there are already too many guns in circulation for gun control legislation to work but I don’t think that this proves gun control legislation can’t work.Report

  7. Chris
    Ignored
    says:

    Just as there are no examples of how we can prevent cops from killing about 3 people per day, there are no examples of how to reduce or nearly eliminate gun violence. It is a complete mystery. All one can do is shrug one’s shoulders in resignation.

    Which reminds me, I need to finish the paperwork for my Italian passport.Report

  8. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Jaybird proves the infamous Onion headline. https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1846494525

    I can’t tell whether “gun control won’t work” is learned helplessness or a kind of argument you are using pre-emptively to shut down debate on an idea you oppose.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      “Gun control” isn’t a magic bullet, Saul.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Except it seems to work in every other country. Your claiming this does not make it so. You just hate the idea of government doing anything positive or pro-active in general so your complaint is that it will not work. This just creates a bunch of sophistry and tautalogical arguments and games for you to play which are inherently unwinnable by anyone who disagrees with you. Can I claim that gun control laws will stop all mass shootings and gun violence? No, I’m not a psychic. But there is a good chance based upon looking at other countries that they will or at least will drastically reduce the number and that is worth trying in my opinion. But because an experiment does not guarantee success, it is not good for the pseudo-Socrates of the libertarian set.Report

  9. Pat
    Ignored
    says:

    This is no longer a political problem, because there is no pathway to a political solution. We could throw out 22 GOP senators in November and whatever they pass would be immediately thrown out anyway.

    Hell we are on a countdown of days to a massive expansion of gun access in this country, when the Court reports out on thile current docket.

    Tolerate the deaths, they will keep coming, because we can do nothing with the law or politics.

    Or don’t, but don’t kid yourself that politics is where you can make any gains.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Pat
      Ignored
      says:

      Sister Elizabeth had a great point a few moments ago:

      There may be a handful of political alleviations (I’ve agreed with a handful of Phillip H’s above) but if we want a solution, it’s going to have to be cultural.

      And I don’t think we have the stomach for that conversation.
      I don’t think we have the stomach to track the variables.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        For a very smart person, this is a very silly view of how the Senate works and how change happens (very slowly and often with two steps forward and one step backward). But it fits your sophistry and constant need to bash Democrats so I guess you love it.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          Before the passage of the PPACA, Nancy Pelosi had one hell of a line:
          “We came here to do a job, not keep a job.”

          If all this is about is making noises and expressing sentiments, I sympathize.

          For what it’s worth, I share many of the sentiments.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            “Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat and an outspoken gun control advocate, said he’s tired of reading Tweets from Republican colleagues, like Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, expressing sympathy for the families of those killed in mass shootings.
            “I mean, our job is not to send thoughts and prayers, our job is to pass laws,” Murphy, who witnessed Sandy Hook’s pain, told reporters at the Capitol. “So if you think the beginning and end of your responsibility after a mass shooting is to sympathize with the victims and the families, then you know, why are you in the Senate? Why ask for this job?””Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              Chris Murphy is great but the Senate is unfortunately nearly perfectly designed to prevent sweeping change. Elizabeth lives in solidly blue Maryland I believe so I can kind of see why she gets frustrated but it is a matter of getting Senators elected in states like Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina Nebraska, etc who will vote for gun-control legislation and/or court packing. This is possible but not necessarily plausible except with a lot of patience and time. So voters in solidly blue states need to keep on voting as red states get turned purple or purple states blue at very slow levels of change.Report

  10. Glyph
    Ignored
    says:

    I won’t opine on the laws, but if you haven’t looked at The Onion yet, please do so.

    They’ve been publishing variations on that same article using the same headline every time a big one hits the news for years, with the only change being the particulars of that instance. This is not just great political commentary, this is a great callback/escalation of a running black joke.

    I didn’t know they still had it in them; this rivals their 9/11 comeback.Report

    • Glyph in reply to Glyph
      Ignored
      says:

      Following on (and continuing to refrain from opining or debating on the laws) – anyone who doesn’t have kids in school today likely has no idea what it’s now like – schools barricaded like prisons with fences and gates and metal detectors and security/police on staff everywhere, and parents not permitted onto school property whatsoever except under extremely controlled/time-limited/monitored preplanned scenarios, and the kids running monthly-or-more Active Shooter Drills where they all have to cluster and hunker down and hide behind desks and tables in darkened rooms, being shushed so hopefully the Bad Man Won’t Find Them, getting yelled at if they were in the bathroom when the Drill was commenced because they need to assume The Terrified Hiding Position.

      Yeah, yeah, I know for another generation it was Duck and Cover. I’m glad I missed that. I wish I’d missed this, because it is Deeply and Supremely Fished Up that as a nation and culture we’ve allowed it to get to this point.

      Do I have an answer? No, I don’t.

      But my sense is that someone’s going to try to find one, whether it works or not, whether it’s a good idea or not, whether it’s Constitutional or not, because parents will not – CAN not – take much more of this.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Glyph
        Ignored
        says:

        Well, this is part of the thing… my kids’ schools have all this. Your kids’ schools do. Do Texas schools? Did Florida schools?

        I can’t get inside my sons’ schools without scanning my ID outside the door.

        How’d this guy get in?Report

        • Glyph in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          For all that we’ve made schools LIKE prisons, the only way to really truly stop a committed gunman from getting in would be to go full prison, with all the measures and guards that implies.

          For all the security measures I named, I guarantee there’s ALWAYS a gate that is left unlocked somewhere or a door that doesn’t close all the way; or if all that fails, a teacher opening a keycard door that I could shoot in the back and then walk right in over their still-warm body.

          It would take a maximum of maybe a week’s observation, at MOST, for me to plan a reliable route inside bypassing security, if I wanted to.

          Could I show up unplanned on the spur of the moment and get in? Probably not. MAYBE not.

          But my sense is that the kind of person that does this, plans it out to some degree. And schools aren’t ACTUAL prisons, they were never meant to be, and we can’t achieve that kind of security without MAKING them so.

          (and hey Kaz, good to see ya, even under such a topic).Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Glyph
            Ignored
            says:

            The thing that keeps coming back for me is the fact that the police who were there failed to go inside after the shooter. They believed he had body armor, apparently, and failed to risk themselves.

            I’m glad the border control guy was there.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Glyph
            Ignored
            says:

            All entirely possible… though I do have to wonder what security steps were in place.

            Which is not to say that the onus is on schools to make themselves impenetrable. But if we see states that A) make guns really easy to get AND B) have lax security standards in schools and C) pass laws about what teachers can/cannot say about gay people, we can start to connect the dots on how much that states’ leaders really care about the welfare of children.Report

        • Chris in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          It sounds like they had a bunch of security measures in place, including at least one armed cop on the campus. It does not sound like their measures and procedures were observed, though the video of him entering the school doesn’t show exactly how he got in, so maybe he used force? I assume we’ll find some of this stuff out at some point in the relatively near future.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Glyph
        Ignored
        says:

        Unfortunately whenever someone writes that X/we can’t take much more of this, the answer always that they seemingly take a lot more. Sandy Hook did not change anything, Parkland did not change anything. What is the event that will change anything? The issue is not what Jaybird thinks it is. The issue is unfortunately that support for progressive issues is often wide or wide-seeming but very shallow. Either people get cold feet when they hear the details of what change/reform means (healthcare) or it is just one of my concerns or reasons why they vote (abortion, gun control, etc.). The GOP will always have the single-issue voters for many issues. The Democrats, seemingly not as much.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          In this case, the issue that I think it is involves a whipsaw between the fierce urgency of defunding if not abolishing the police and the fierce urgency of passing more laws and regulations and making sure that those laws are enforced.Report

          • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            I know you like to harp on the defund thing, but it seems there was plenty of funding in Uvalde (the school district has its own PD for Christ’s sake), and the result is nearly a couple dozen dead. Doesn’t seem like money well spent.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Slade the Leveller
              Ignored
              says:

              “Defund the police” or “abolish the police” is not a favorite expression of mine either because I think it invites itself to nut picking and it is clearly something opposed by a majority. Even in liberal San Francisco. It also invites these kind of discussions:

              Person 1: Defund/abolish the police and prisons.

              Person 2: What do you mean by defund the police? How will they investigate crimes and arrest people? What about the irredeemably violent? What about domestic abuse calls?

              Person 1: I don’t mean it as a literal statement…goes off on long and winding statement about what they do mean.

              Person 3: I mean it literally! Defund the police and abolish prisons!!

              Person 1: Don’t listen to Person 3, he is an extreme minority.

              Person 3: Abolish the police and ban prisons!!!Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Apparently none of us liberals are saying “Defund the police” so you need to do it on our behalf, then make that the fierce urgent issue to be addressed.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Your discomfort with the recent past doesn’t make it off-limits.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Indeed. The President himself talked about the need to *FUND* the police in the State of the Union address.

              “Defund” still hangs around your neck like an albatross, though.

              “We only argued that for one summer!” doesn’t do a whole lot for whatever the current fierce urgency is. It kinda undercuts it, actually.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                For a movement whose system of belief is completely against the sins of one’s father carrying over this seems kind of disingenuous.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re not in “sins of the father” territory.

                We’re in “this happened two freaking years ago in the middle of the coronavirus lockdown during the freaking mostly peaceful protests”.

                If we were arguing this in 2040, maybe “sins of the father” would be an appropriate analogy.

                It’s two years later. Not even.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Who is hanging defund, around whose neck?

                Upthread, you asked about it, and I responded that we should transfer money from police to mental health counselors.

                If that’s the albatross I’m happy to wear it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I want to say that the defunders did it to themselves.

                Saul has a handy explanation of the phenomenon above.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Are any of those people here?

                Maybe you should argue with the people who are here, or go find the people you do want to argue with.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, one of them is. He still shows up from time to time.

                And if you want to pretend that “Defund” isn’t going to be part of any argument involving the increased need for increased law enforcement, your head is in the sand.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That argument is happening right now in Los Angeles.

                The race for city Mayor is between Karen Bass and Rick Caruso- He favors hiring more cops and Karen Bass favors- well here, I’ll show you :

                Bass will support – and fund – the community-based public safety practitioners who work day and night to prevent crime. Intervention workers – often men and women who were formerly gang involved – have deep ties to the community and are best equipped to bring peace to our neighborhoods. But they are constantly traumatized by what they see and do, and do not receive the support or respect from the city that they deserve.
                https://karenbass.com/policies/crime-prevention/

                This is the real world where the argument for “increased need for law enforcement” is being played out.
                And it pretty much mirrors what I’m saying, that there is a need for increased crime intervention workers.

                Maybe you could address that, instead of chasing after the guy who shows up from time to time.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I look forward to seeing what happens.

                (Also, Chesa is up for recall in a couple of weeks on the 7th.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This is where you always end up.

                “Democrats are doing Bad Things!”

                *Evidence that Democrats are in fact doing a good things*

                “Good luck with that! Behold, the power of reactionism!”

                When your accusations are disputed, you pivot to telling us how it doesn’t matter since people will vote Republican anyway.

                Which we already know! But it completely contradicts your point.

                If people are going to vote against Bass regardless of whether she is pushing “Defund” or something sensible, why harp on “Defund”?

                It obviously is not moving anyone’s vote, you are telling us this yourself.
                So why is it such a “issue of fierce urgency” for you?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure that Chesa’s tenure should be seen as evidence of him doing good things.

                As far as I can tell, he’s decreased the quality of life in San Francisco somewhat substantially. (I can find you essays about this, if you’d like.)

                For what it’s worth, I am not particularly convinced that Democrats are, in fact, doing good things.

                (Please don’t see that as an endorsement of Republicans.)

                There are tradeoffs being made, costs being paid, and mistakes failing to be even acknowledged.

                You know the thing where a celebrity says a slur or something and then gives a mealy-mouthed apology that says something like “I’m sorry that you people are so thin-skinned”?

                If Democrats find themselves wondering why nobody is paying attention to any given new change in direction, it’s because that there have been changes in direction without acknowledgment that people made the mistakes (instead of something like “mistakes were made”).

                And they’ll find themselves in a place where there’s a recall that goes 70-30 in the most progressive city in the country and people are arguing on behalf of the 30 and wondering why more people aren’t agreeing.

                You’re likely to be wondering for a long time.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait, how did we move from “Defund-which-is-mentioned-by-a-random-commenter” to Chesa Boudin?

                Isn’t Karen Bass doing exactly what you say you want, offering nuanced and sensible police and criminal reform efforts? Aren’t these “good things”?
                Instead of the thing you say you hate, silly “Defund” talk.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                We got there via the election for LA’s Mayor.

                There’s another election, of a sort, in a couple of weeks in which a new and improved approach to crime will be voted upon.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Isn’t what Bass is doing, pretty much what you have urged us to do? Offer sensible popular and effective programs?
                Aren’t these in fact, “Good things”?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Isn’t what Bass is doing, pretty much what you have urged us to do?

                She’s promising pretty much what we want her to promise.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Would you expect any less from Mr. Goalpost himself?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                I never take conservatives at face value because the stated objections are just window dressing concealing the real objection.

                I” won’t vote Democrat because:”

                They are weak on defense.
                *Democrats nominate a wounded veteran hawk.*
                Ah, nevertheless!
                Because they are weak on crime.
                *Democrats nominate a prosecutor*
                Ah, nevertheless!
                Because they are sexually licentious.
                *Democrats nominate a faithful husband and churchgoing father.*
                Ah, nevertheless!
                Because they blow up the debt.
                *Democrats reduce the debt*.
                Ah, nevertheless!

                It doesn’t matter what Democrats do, or say. For that matter, it doesn’t matter what the Republican does or says.
                Mock the disabled? Doesn’t matter.
                Say something unkind about coal miners? Doesn’t matter.
                Remain faithful to your wife or grab every pu$$y?

                It. Doesn’t. Matter.
                They. Don’t. Care.

                They’ve made it clear that it is the Democrats themselves, our identity that they reject.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Sounds like you might be able to beat them by providing an example that will embarrass the hell out of them.

                Look, for example, to California.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The state with a spectacular budget surplus?

                It. Doesn’t. Matter.

                Texas has the electrical grid of a Third World country?

                They. Don’t. Care.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You’d think that the budget surplus could address (insert example here).

                And the electrical grid of California is one to be emulated?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You will need to work very hard to convince anyone that you or any other conservative would vote Democrat “if only they would do X”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I’m not saying “this is what you need to do to get me”.

                That one’s pretty easy. Legalizing weed and ending DST.

                When it comes to other folks? They probably have opinions that need to be swayed by stuff like “wow, I wish my city/state were more like X”.

                And this is where pointing to LA or San Fran or just California in general has bite.

                “We have a budget surplus!” is a pretty good argument, not gonna lie. But I can see how it might not be sufficient for everybody.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No, that isn’t believable given all your other statements over the years.

                You oppose almost every policy and value the Democrats have, and embrace all the talking points of the right.

                It wold be easier to get Pinky.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve been saying the same thing for a decade, Chip.

                This isn’t like yelling “DEFUND!” one day and “WE NEED MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT ENFORCING MORE LAWS!” the next.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe its more like yelling “LESS GOVERNMENT!” one day and “MORE BORDER ENFORCEMENT!” the next.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m one of the open borders guys (or close enough for jazz, I guess), Chip.

                But I am glad that the Border Patrol guy was there.

                God knows, the cops were outside for an hour.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Given your past comments critical of multiculturalism you seemed to favor border restriction.
                But in any case, you are frequently critical of the protests and riots, and the videos of shoplifting people, and especially, those people who drove out the police and armed themselves in the CHAZ/CHOP.

                This isn’t a charge of hypocrisy, its to point out that your veering erratically between anarchic freedom one moment (“Police cannot protect you!”) and authoritarian control on the other (Murders are OUTTACONTROL!”).

                The idea of a collective entity like government and police which can maintain order effectively and justly is the middle you are working overtime to exclude.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                you are frequently critical of the protests and riots, and the videos of shoplifting people, and especially, those people who drove out the police and armed themselves in the CHAZ/CHOP

                Yeah, put me down as smack dab in the middle of the road on that one.

                I believe that the police are corrupt and captured and need to be reformed.

                I also believe that, if forced to choose between the police and the riots and shoplifting and the CHAZ/CHOP, I’d pick the police.

                But I still think that they need to be reformed and find people who want to give them more power without reforming first to be incomprehensible.

                I mean, they waited outside while children were being murdered.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The very essence of the Democratic Party and modern liberalism is that there can exist a government which administers state functions in a manner that is efficient, just, humane and responsive to the people’s desires.

                Like, the government can administer old age health programs efficiently, or control crime and disorder with a mixture of armed and unarmed professionally trained agents using both preventative interventions and punishment.

                Given your comment history, I really think you struggle with the very concept of this.

                I referenced this once before about how the basic libertarian viewpoint doesn’t accept the idea of this third party being able to exercise its own agency and will.
                That if the power is acknowledged, it is grudging and always with a degree of emnity.

                For example, you say you want to reform the police.

                But other than abolishing QI and police unions, you have never mentioned how such a reformed police force would be different than it is now.

                Would they handle riots differently? Shoplifting? Murders? How?

                Most police reformers point to social welfare type ideas such as drug and relationship counseling, job training, and values “nudging” to , well, frankly, make people behave better.

                I get the sense you aren’t really on board with such heavy handed government stuff, because you view the government with skepticism bordering on hostility.

                Its that middle, the modern effective liberal social welfare state that you just can’t seem to embrace which ultimately lands you in Republicanland.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not opposed to the police *IN THEORY*.

                I understand what they’re for *IN THEORY*.

                I’m opposed to the whole “corrupt” thing. The whole “captured” thing.

                And making appeals to how it should work IN THEORY instead of the whole “well, how does it actually work?” thing was well explored already in the 20th Century.

                I’d rather a government that did what it said on the box. As it is, I’m stuck looking at what is actually done.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Like I said, you struggle with the concept.

                Not a criticism actually, just explains why you don’t fit in with either of our parties, and have difficulty articulating a third alternative.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                My third alternative is to vote for third alternatives and to push for stuff that I think will actually result in better lives.

                Such as ending the drug war, reforming the police, that sort of thing.

                Rather than voting for politicians who are recalled in short order. (Though, I’ll grant, I support the recalls.)Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You will need to work very hard to convince anyone that you or any other conservative would vote Democrat “if only they would do X”.

                Make economic growth and job creation the priority.

                This presumably means dumping the “burn the economy down” communist wing and/or the “end inequality by ending growth” wing.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                The economy generally does better under a Democrat than a Republican.

                Even at the state and local level, the best places to operate a business are places like the coastal cities.

                And despite my best efforts as commandant of the Burn The Economy Down Communist Caucus Governor Newsom and Mayor Garcetti remain popular with the bourgeoisie.

                *Shakes fist menacingly*Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The economy generally does better under a Democrat than a Republican.

                It’s a random walk on extremely thin data.

                Worse, growth policies are going to lag their implementation.

                So Bill Clinton passed a number of free trade agreements, and had a lot of economic growth, but one had little to do with the other.

                Worse, a President Clinton 2 would probably have to act against those policies or at least pretend she would to get the Nod.

                Far as I can tell, current Team Red doesn’t give a damn about growth.

                On the other hand, current Team Blue wants to sacrifice growth to fight inequality and there are wings insisting true communism has never been tried.

                If those are my options, then it has to be Red but I’m not happy.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                A lifetime in this day and age.

                Even leaving that aside, it sure does make a handy excuse for doing nothing, doesn’t it?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, I’m a big fan of running on specifics. “Abolish QI!” or “Break up Police Unions!” or similar.

                Oscar wrote a nice little essay a couple of years ago called “Altering the Police Paradigm“.

                I agreed with it then and agree with it still. (Well, I have a couple of quibbles but they’re the same quibbles as two years ago.)Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That was an excellent article.Report

  11. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    Kids at risk of learning gay people exist: LAW PASSED!
    Kids at risk of seeing naked mice in ‘Maus’: EMERGENCY BOARD SESSION CALLED AND BOOK REMOVED FROM CURRICULUM
    Kids at risk of getting medically supported therapy to support their gender identity development: LAW PASSED!
    Kids at risk of being shot in classrooms: Well, what can be done?Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Your examples on solutions were all “pass a law that the law abiding will follow”.

      Their equiv would be banning guns in that school or outlawing murder.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Dark Matter
        Ignored
        says:

        That’s how every law works.

        I’m pointing out that, when motivated, Republicans have shown an ability to act when it comes to their concerns about schools.

        Given that Republicans have proposed and taken zero actions after each and every school shooting, I can’t help but assume they are unconcerned by them and therefore unmotivated to act.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          We have already taken action. The things you want stopped have already been criminalized, exactly like with your examples.

          The question now is how to show we care by virtue signaling because otherwise people will claim we don’t care.

          Team Red normally goes with “hearts and prayers”. Team Blue’s previous assault weapons ban outlawed bayonet fixtures.Report

  12. Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ve opined on this topic so many times…

    Background Checks – Sure, but the system is full of holes. Government agencies that are supposed to report people to the system, both state & federal, often fail to do so, and there is no accountability to make sure the holes are plugged (sovereign immunity, doncha know). Or, if they do, the information is incomplete and it fails to ID someone (re: Dylan Roof). Finally, the process for removing yourself from the system in the event of a false positive, or the restoration of rights, is a massive clusterfish.

    Before we expand the system, let’s figure out how to plug the obvious deficiencies.

    Red Flags – Honestly, one of the smartest ideas out there, and only a handful of states that have them don’t leave them open as a vector for personal grudges. And I have a hard time believing that social media algorithms can’t flag a post for danger. They totally can, they just don’t want to, because it’s not profitable, or it’ll risk reduced engagement. And sure, future shooters could get smart and keep their mouths shut, but 95+% of them are not like the Mandalay Bay shooter, they couldn’t shut up if their life depended on it, because people like that are pretty effing stupid to begin with.

    Anyway, Red Flag laws are simple, they are a civil intervention, not an excuse for PDs to confiscate guns and sell them at auction, or destroy them. And they can’t be requested by just anyone, it’s gotta be someone that interacts with the person on a regular basis, unless the person makes a clearly public statement (then anyone who sees the statement, like on social media, can request one). Once issued, guns are confiscated and held by the PD until the Red Flag order is resolved by the courts, and no new ones can legally be purchased. If the order is defeated, the firearms are returned. If it’s upheld, then the court has to decide on how the person can satisfy the order (complete counseling, etc.), then once the court is satisfied, the firearms are returned. A Red Flag is not a criminal conviction, it’s a civil order, it should not involve the permanent loss of property unless the person fails to act to resolve it. And if the request for a Red Flag is spurious (A acting out a grudge against B), then B can sue for damages.

    As I’ve said on the culture front, the culture needs a lot of work, and I think training can help with that, as long as state & local lawmakers aren’t using it to discourage the exercise of the right. If it’s bad to reduce access to polling places, or places to get an ID, or an abortion, it’s just as bad to ban access to firearms training centers. So law makers at local or state levels can’t make it onerous to own & operate a range in or out of city limits. Range ownership already involves considerable costs on the environmental front (noise, lead abatements, safety, etc.), if we are going to require training, then these places need to be allowed to exist.

    And finally, spending some serious research dollars on non-lethal or less than lethal self defense tools, and then making them widely legal, will also help. Stupid crap, like making nunchuks illegal because of Bruce Lee, is not helping.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      Before we expand the system, let’s figure out how to plug the obvious deficiencies.

      Raise taxes to pay for effective systems, to pay bureaucrats well enough to actually do their jobs, and fire them when they don’t.Report

      • Damon in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        “pay bureaucrats well enough to actually do their jobs” They already are-least round here.
        “fire them when they don’t.” The first rule of bureaucrats is to CYA. How quickly are gov’t employees fired for stuff that private sector folks get fired for instantly, or swiftly?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        fire them when they don’t.

        One of the pre-reqs for this is weakening public sector unions.

        I assure you that that is a price that I am willing to pay.

        May I assume that you’re down with it too?Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        IIRC, the problem isn’t pay, it’s a lack of accountability (they don’t get fired & can’t be sued), and no federal reporting standard, so it’s often difficult to enter the information, because the fields don’t align. Is a federalism problem, right up there with why we have crap data on police violence, because the reporting requirements are crap.Report

  13. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Beto might not win in November but he is acting like things matter outside of fundraising e-mails and willing to stand up for what he believes in a state where it will alienate a lot of people: https://www.axios.com/2022/05/25/beto-orourke-abbott-uvalde-texas-mass-shootingReport

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      You’ve got to be kidding. That was completely about raising his profile rather than raising issues. If he watned to raise issues he could have held his own press conference that he wouldn’t have been dragged out of. Instead he wanted to be a theater kid.Report

    • Chris in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Beto won’t win, but if he somehow does, he’d be taking over a weak governorship, and dealing with a veto-proof majority of some of the worst people on the planet in the legislature. Even his ability to appoint the people to commissionerships (the true power of the Texas governor, and one which Abbott, and Perry before him, have wielded extremely effectively) would be limited, because they have 6 year terms, only some of which would expire in the first few years of his single term (and it’d be a single term). Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if Abbott got all his commissioners to resign and appointed/reappointed all of them during his lame duck period, effectively eliminating even this power for Beto. He’d also be able to call special sessions of the legislature, and keep them in session until they did what he wanted, but that’d just mean the Texas legislature would become a full time legislature doing absolutely nothing half the time.

      And there’s no hope that he’d be able to steer his party to even a veto-allowing minority of the legislature in his one term (or 2, for that matter), because the state is gerrymandered so heavily that there cannot be significant change in the makeup of the legislature until at least the next decennial census (and given that they’ve set themselves up for a supermajority until then, they’ll just do that again in 2031).

      Definitely leaving this state.Report

      • Chris in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        But of course, this is silly hypothetical conjecturing anyway, because the Democrats we have can’t, and wouldn’t if they could, pass truly meaningful gun legislation. Anything that would actually make a dent will be thrown out by the courts, so the Democrats will, as they’ve all but admitted today, use it as a campaign issue rather than even making a hopeless effort.

        More dead children it is then. More dead concert-goers, grocery store-shoppers, church/mosque/temple-goers, etc., etc., etc. it is then. More suicides, more spousal murders, more, more, more. So glad to live in a country where we have this otherwise pretty worthless freedom.Report

        • Glyph in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          Hey Chris (and good to see ya too, although again this isn’t the topic I’d prefer to see ya under). Your second para reminds me of this piece , which I re-read every few years and probably linked more than once back when I was still a regular in these parts.

          That it was written in response to Columbine, and here we are, is incredibly, unutterably sad to me. (And if you haven’t taken a look at The Onion’s front page today , give it a gander.)Report

          • Chris in reply to Glyph
            Ignored
            says:

            Hey man, and that piece is great. I think you may have linked it here before, because it felt very familiar.

            I used to post here and elsewhere that we are all responsible, in various ways, and perhaps to varying degrees (though the variations in degrees are probably pretty trivial, and themselves largely caused by the very things that we’re all responsible for), but I gave up doing that, and just rant it at home and to people with whom I share a great deal, politically. But we are all responsible: we didn’t built our society and culture — no one did — but all of us uphold them, further them, reinforce them, even strengthen them. Do most of us have much power to change the law, or push top-down cultural changes? Obviously not, but we live it, and we don’t reject it, or when we do, we reject it in ways that ultimately serve to reinforce it. We are guilty collectively, and there’s nothing Americans hate to hear than that something is collective.

            I actually think I see signs of some of this changing, and more rapidly than I thought. One of the biggest issues here is, of course, patriarchy. I know word loses even more people, especially on this site, but I lack a better one for the way our culture does gender, and the way it distributes power between genders. Note, I don’t mean men are responsible, I mean patriarchy, a part of our culture that harms men as well as women, something that I think is implicit in the piece you linked. And, if what I’ve seen among young people, and I don’t merely mean high school and college kids, but middle school kids, and younger, is any indication, the deconstruction of gender is happening at a rapid speed. Perhaps it’s just a different version of 70s/80s gender-bending as a fashion, I don’t know, but I like to hope that what we’re seeing is the breakdown of the very foundation of patriarchy. I guess what I’m saying is, maybe there’s hope, after the reaction to the deconstruction of gender, and the reaction to the reaction. Maybe a society in which people, and especially boys and men, aren’t alienated by and within the violent soup of our culture, and can build healthy, or at least healthier, ways of coping and identity formation. Maybe 20, 30, 40 years from now, children will be going to school without metal detectors and barred windows and barbed wire fences. Maybe young folk will be able to go to a concert without, in the back of their minds, thinking about how to get out, without getting crushed, if they hear the tell-tale popping sounds of gunfire. I have hope, even if it’s constantly threated by the sheer magnitude of my cynicism.

            Between now and then, though, what to do? I have a 2-year old. These are pressing questions. I do know we’re getting the hell out of Texas, though.

            Also, ban guns.Report

            • Glyph in reply to Chris
              Ignored
              says:

              Your thoughts on gender are fascinating and I will ponder that further. It hits home especially close because my youngest sibling very recently came out as trans, something none of us in her immediate family had the slightest inkling about (like none whatsoever).

              My 80-year-old extremely conservative and religious parents have taken the news SHOCKINGLY well, and we will all be getting together in a couple weeks. My mom’s been providing my new sister with makeup and dress tips, some clothes, and even a new name – my sister had already picked out a name, but asked my mom if my mom had had a girl’s name picked out in case she had had a girl and my mom said she had, she’d always wanted a girl and never got one, and she had picked out a name that she thought was absolutely beautiful but never got to use it.

              And my sister agreed that it WAS beautiful, and chose THAT name instead.

              It’s a funny ol’ world isn’t it? It often goes in directions you never expected. But not all of those directions are bad, and I have to try to keep looking for and appreciating the positive, especially in the face of so much that’s not.Report

              • Chris in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                That is truly amazing, just beautiful to hear. I hope the meeting goes well and everyone comes out of this even closer.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                It was also a reminder that for all we see religion so frequently being invoked to justify hateful behavior, it can just as easily be invoked to encourage people to behave better, to BE better, than they might on their own impetus and given their own upbringing and background and feelings.

                My mom said something to me like, “Do I think it’s a ‘sin’? Yeah, probably. But all I can think about is how much pain she must have been in for all those years, how alone she must have felt, it makes me so sad; and my job is to love her like Jesus loves her, and that’s what’s important and that’s what I’m going to do.”

                I was pretty proud of my folks and my other brother as well, since everyone’s immediate reaction on receiving the letter was to pick up the phone and call and reassure my sister that our love and support was unconditional and unchanged by this news – while we all did pre-emptively beg forgiveness for the many times we will undoubtedly mangle pronouns and names. We all have 40 years of applying a particular mental framework to our familial relationships and that’s a lot of habit to quickly break and rethink/reorient.

                (Because of our age difference and working parents I even functioned as a bit of surrogate “parent” to her – changed her diapers and fed her, and in the past at times when I’ve been frustrated with her for one reason or another, I’ve nearly called her “son”. In fact I may have slipped once or twice and done just that, because that’s what the relationship sometimes felt like to me, less “sibling” and more “parent”.)Report

              • Chris in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                I genuinely believe that you and your family are making the world better with you level of empathy and respect. Being good makes it easier for the next person to be good, and so on. “Be the change you want to see in the world” has become a cliche, but I really think that’s how the world changes: we do better to make it easier for others to do the same, or still better.

                I know, of course, that is not your motivation, but it’s still important.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          “More dead children it is then. More dead concert-goers, grocery store-shoppers, church/mosque/temple-goers, etc., etc., etc. it is then. More suicides, more spousal murders, more, more, more. So glad to live in a country where we have this otherwise pretty worthless freedom.”

          And from the side that has the gall to self-identify themselves as pro-life.Report

  14. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    The basic problem with reasonable gun control in the United States, beyond the 2nd Amendment, is that you have a minority that believes in the abstract principle of the right to bear arms over any actual societal good. They are willing to live with mass shootings and schools that have to engage in psychologically traumatic active shooter drills in order to keep their precious right to bear arms. The political system gives them a big stranglehold over the political desires of everybody else.Report

  15. PD Shaw
    Ignored
    says:

    Illinois just passed a law banning ghost guns made with 3D printers or online parts. Apparently the number of gun violence incidents involving ghost guns in the state is doubling every year and expected to continue. Owners have six months to get them serialized. I wonder how many will comply? How effective is regulation of gun transactions in a brave new world where everyone is a producer?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to PD Shaw
      Ignored
      says:

      I wonder how many will comply?

      My guess is somewhere between diddly and squat.

      How effective is regulation of gun transactions in a brave new world where everyone is a producer?

      We can’t get cops to go inside of a building where children are being murdered.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to PD Shaw
      Ignored
      says:

      With this “World Wide Web” there is no way to restrict the flow of child pornography, since anyone can produce it and distribute it anonymously!Report

  16. Slade the Leveller
    Ignored
    says:

    We need judges who are more willing to sign warrants.

    I have to admit, I’ve never heard this one from law and order types. Every time a raid goes sideways it seems the police have had no trouble finding a judge to sign the (usually somewhat free of facts) warrant.Report

  17. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    What seems to be on the table:

    Report

    • Chris in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Ah great, this will definitely stop 1/10th of 1% of gun deaths, if not less, while denying what y’all consider a right absolutely necessary to basic human liberty to people who can’t afford to get out of it. This is almost as good as the “no fly list” proposal Democrats floated a few years ago.

      I love this country.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m not sure what Red Flag laws are supposed to accomplish that existing mental health laws already provide. I was pointed to a David French piece this morning and it comes across as being more gun specific and a cynic might conclude its merely intended to provide an alternative path from gun control regulation.

      Traditionally, a person could lose freedom and property if mental illness made one a danger to oneself or others. People shouldn’t be deterred from seeking mental health care by laws that fail to make that distinction.Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Red Flag laws could be a solid start. They need to be aimed at anybody who commits DV/family violence of any sort. There is a solid connection between becoming a shooter and previous family violence. Most pro gun peeps i see tend to be fine with restricting gun ownership to people with restraining orders or something similar. Of course you need some form of background check to make these laws work.Report

  18. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

    How Australia bought back 650,000 guns and murder and suicide plummeted in the country.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      650,000 is a lot easier than the hundreds of millions of guns in private circulation in the United States. There is something like one gun per person in the United States and the ownership is very concentrated.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      An amazing law, it not only reduced the homicide rate in Australia by 42%, it also reduced it in the US by 36%, 45% in Italy (missing one year of data), 11% in Finland (again, one year missing), and pretty much everywhere else not in a war zone.Report

      • InMD in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Just to emphasize your point because I think this is where we start leaving reality, it’s worth mentioning that there are in fact ‘mass shootings’ in other countries, including with way stricter gun laws. We just tend not to hear about them except for the absolute bloodiest or if Islamist terrorism is involved.

        The real differentiator in death by gun numbers if we’re comparing ourselves to the small, rich social democracies of Europe and Asia is (i) people killing themselves differently and (ii) nothing comparable to the criminal violence in 10-15 US cities. But then if you compare us to pretty much every other country in the Americas whose history more closely resembles ours, save I guess Canada, we’re actually not that bad.Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          The homicide rates may have dropped throughout the world in the 1990’s, but the US is still absurdly high. But we have to be careful about what we’re talking about. Murder rates, mass shootings, gun violence, gun deaths, they’re all different and each of them may need to be addressed in multiple ways.Report

          • InMD in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            I don’t want to be glib about this or seem to suggest we should not be very open to ideas on how to improve our situation. However I think we also need to be realistic about what the benchmark is. Compared to a small, rich European or Asian nation-state it is really high. But compared to the post-colonial countries of the Americas? Not so much.

            It’s why above I said to Chip that instead of thinking about Scotland or even Australia, which while post colonial, still has a very different history, we should be looking at other big countries in the western hemisphere when thinking about where we are but also what is possible.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Right.
              So we should really consider America to be on par with Mexico or Kazahkstan or maybe Nigeria.

              Perhaps one day our grandchildren may hope to live in a place equal to Canada or Australia but today is not that day.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There are parts of America that are like the Netherlands.

                There are parts of America that are like El Salvador.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                In my little corner of the world virtually all violent crime is within the communities of recent immigrants from central America, and as best as I can tell, has very little impact on anyone outside of it.

                Now I doubt the area would exactly be the Netherlands otherwise but I think it’s also fair to say that this is just not a situation anyone in the Netherlands has to navigate, certainly not on remotely the same scale.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                There are parts of the Netherlands that are like El Salvador.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Is it really though with respect to this issue? I mean, per google, the murder rate in El Salvador is like 105 per 100,000 and the Netherlands is .6. Ours for reference is 6 or 7 depending on where you look, and with significant variation for locality and sub populations.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I said the Americas, so Nigeria and Kazakhstan are out.

                But really your reaction suggests to me that you don’t actually take the problem seriously. These incidents are terrible and up above I’ve endorsed some ideas in these comments that I hope would make them less likely. However most of the US is incredibly safe and our homicide rate is not what it is because of children being murdered in small towns and suburbs. It is what it is because of a number of seemingly intractable socio-economic problems afflicting 10-15 urban areas.

                Now, would I love to have a crime rate of x western European country? Of course. But all of them have always had much less crime than we do in the post war era, independent of their policy decisions. So if we’re going to examine our problems in context of other places it makes sense to do it with countries with similar governments and histories of immigration. Asking why we can’t just be more like Europe is like asking why we can’t just solve all of the issues with our healthcare system by importing 10,000 Swedes to run HHS.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                It is what it is because of a number of seemingly intractable socio-economic problems afflicting 10-15 urban areas.

                They aren’t intractible though – we just don’t want to take what works, nationalize it and then pay for it.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                If it’s about a less stingy welfare state and some intelligent investment in those places you have my support.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                They aren’t intractible though – we just don’t want to take what works, nationalize it and then pay for it.

                These are cultural problems. Person X shoots person Z because Z stole X’s girlfriend.

                What would work is for X (or anyone) to not have that culture.

                We don’t know how to do that. Worse, any effort to do that is going to be labeled as “racist”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                When Mexicans want to immigrate here, it is a sh!thole country. When someone suggests we become more like Europe, then the excuse is that we’re more like Mexico.

                This is adolescent excuse-making. Johnny is a stupid nerd and I’m superior to him, but i can’t get grades like Johnny because I’m more like Steve the stoner.

                Its as Lee noted, a desperate search for some excuse to avoid doing what we already know works.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                One has to have the ability to become more like Europe to actually be more like Europe. But hey if you know what would stop it then we need to elect you mayor of Baltimore post haste. Then St. Louis. Then Detroit. Then New Orleans.

                But I have to warn you, they already take lots and lots and lots of guns off the streets in those places. And you’ll never believe it but the people that have them aren’t buying them from the nice sales clerk at Wal Mart or Bob’s gun shop with a license from the state.Report

              • bobtuse in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                “One has to have the ability to become more like Europe to actually be more like Europe.” We don’t have that ability? Chip I reckon is interested in statistics here, not architecture.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            Murder rates, mass shootings, gun violence, gun deaths, they’re all different and each of them may need to be addressed in multiple ways.

            That. That exactly.

            The homicide rates… US is still absurdly high

            We are multi-cultural. We have most cultures as safe as the best of Europe. That includes most gun owners. We also have a sub-culture or three that have terrifyingly high levels of violence.

            Disarming my zero-murder-rate zip-code will have no impact on the guns-already-illegal parts of Chicago and the other murder centers.Report

        • Brandon Berg in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          What are the countries in the Americas whose history closely resembles ours, besides for Canada?Report

          • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            I’d say virtually all of them have more in common with us in that they started as colonies for resource extraction, developed social hierarchies based on that model, participated to varying degrees in the slave trade and accepted mass immigration from all over the place, and when they got free from European empires put into place presidential, federal systems of government. They’re also all operating more from a pre-nation state, pre-social democracy paradigm. It isn’t like Europe, where most countries are operating in their modern form from more of a post-feudal (and to some degree now also post imperial), 19th century, nationalist kind of structure.

            When you think about it that way Canada is really the outlier. Just because their people are mostly white and they speak English (and some bad French) doesn’t mean they resemble us in the ways that are IMO important to understanding these issues.Report

            • Brandon Berg in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              I was thinking more in terms of developmental and economic history. Excluding a few small countries with economies based on oil or tourism, no other country in the Western hemisphere besides Canada is even half as wealthy as the United States.

              Canada and the US are also basically the only countries that weren’t total basket cases for most of the past century.Report

              • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                On a macro level we are definitely really, really rich, which helps mitigate our situation considerably. But we also have higher levels of inequality, worse social welfare systems, and urban environments shaped by histories of (not to mention ongoing) immigration and racial/ethnic hierarchies. Those are the places where gun homicides leave their mark on the statistics. Nothing like it has ever existed in modern Europe which is why I don’t take seriously the argument that they’ve solved something we haven’t. They’ve never had the issues we do in the first place.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t have the data at my fingertips, but I think almost every country in Europe is dealing with those kinds of enclaves thanks to refugees.Report

              • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s totally possible they could be dealing with something like it in a generation or two if they don’t assimilate them and otherwise manage the situation well. And their voting populations absolutely understand that which is why accepting them has been so controversial.

                Frankly I’ll take our immigration problems to theirs any day of the week.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                And the Canadians don’t seem to have any qualms about shooting an armed person NEAR schools.

                https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/world/toronto-police-shoot-man-firearm-near-schools/index.htmlReport

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                To me the real distinction with Canada is that it has a much more functional welfare state than we do. A happy consequence is fewer disenfranchised people and fewer incentives to turn to criminal trades where people settle their disputes with violence.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Very true and they also tax their citizens to create that much more functional welfare state.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                The incentives we have to turn to criminal trades have little to do with the lack of a social net.Report

  19. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    I do not understand why so many people want to live in a country or world so hopeless that we just have to let horrible things happen rather than find real solutions and make the world a better place. Will any solution be perfect? No, of course not. That doesn’t mean we can’t strive to be better and make what improvements we can.Report

    • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      Who doesn’t want solutions that work? I mean, other than that guy over there made of straw. I bet he doesn’t want solutions that work. He looks like the type.Report

  20. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

    John F. KennedyReport

  21. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    The NRA is banning guns during Trump’s speech at their upcoming convention. Chickenhawks.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101181842/nra-trump-speech-guns-banned-houstonReport

  22. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    American 2022: Where we are too racist to enact laws that would reduce gun violence because the end result would be cops using those laws to further persecute innocent Black and Brown folks.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      It looks like the cops were actively preventing parents from going into the school.

      This is *AFTER* the cops rushed the school and removed their own children.

      Your laws will be enforced by cops like these.Report

      • InMD in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Out of curiosity do you have a link for that? Because if that’s what happened… I mean good lord. I’d have to think those guys are going to have to start being concerned for their own safety in a very different way.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        As someone pointed out on Twitter, the effect of stricter gun laws won’t be “crackers gotta turn in their death dicks lolololol”, it’ll be “many many many more Philando Castiles and Breonna Taylors”.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
          Ignored
          says:

          Yrp, that is basically my point. I concede that — for now at least — stricter gun control would prevent very very very few mass shootings, very few other instances of gun violence, perhaps make a noticeable dent in suicides, and result in much, much, much, much, much more harassment of Black and Brown folks.

          AMERICA!Report

        • Greg In Ak in reply to DensityDuck
          Ignored
          says:

          Very possible and also not an excuse. Lots of us have been talking about fixing the cops. Cops need to be improved no matter what. Saying cops suck so we can’t change laws is a great reason to keep cops sucking.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Thanks to SCOTUS, police officers have no duty to protect. And they don’t.Report

  23. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    “Waiting periods” and “background checks” are for gun control what “rape, incest, and the life of the mother” are for abortion restrictions.Report

  24. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    If I may…

    I would encourage our right-leaning/conservative/Republican/gun-rights-supporting/whatever posters to consider their immediate responses to our left-leaning/liberal/Democrat/gun-control-supporting/whatever posters (here and elsewhere) after tragedies like these.

    So many of us are hurt or mad or scared or angry or heartbroken or despondent over these events. And maybe you are, too. But it tends not to show. When those of us who are parents or teachers (or both!) or people who just can’t stomach more news like this shout, “JESUS CHRIST CAN’T WE DO SOMETHING?!?!?!” just about the worst response is a “Well, actually…” followed by all the reasons why we can’t do something or why all the somethings won’t make it better or might make it worse or whatever.

    Heck, many of us know all that. But we’re in places of such immense hurt and needs outlets to show that. Just as we’ve been encouraged to truly listen to the fears and concerns of Trump voters, I encourage you to take the time to just listen and hear the fears and concerns of those of us on this side of the issue. You don’t have to agree with us or support our ideas or even feel anger and fear and hurt yourself (though many of you are indeed feeling that already) but simply recognize that, for many of us (not all of us) these calls to “do something” are not actual policy proposals but expression of such indescribable anger and fear and hurt and despair.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      “We’re in places of such immense hurt and needs outlets to show that.”

      mmmhmm

      baby I know I broke the dish but you just have to understand how upset I wasReport

    • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Maybe the left/liberal/Democratic side could stop saying “Eff your thoughts and prayers”. We’re hurting too. And we’ve wrestled with these issues, and did so because we hate these tragedies. We’ve come to different solutions than you, but we’re willing to listen to proposals. No one hangs out here because they hate people or want tragedies; we’re here because we want to see the best possible solutions.

      I notice that the first article on the tragedy was more personal, and the second one more policy-oriented. That’s reasonable. We all want to express our hurt, then talk about how to make things better. But that first thread didn’t fill up with “I’m sad”, it filled up with “this is the right’s fault”. Where’s the coming together in sorrow there?Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not saying we need to come together in sorrow. I’m saying that “THIS IS THE RIGHT’S FAULT!” is often an expression of rage and anger and fear and sorrow and maybe just letting it linger instead of addressing it would be better for all involved.

        Just like when poor whites blame Democrats for their taxes going up even though they’re wrong about that. We’re still supposed to listen, right?Report

        • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          I wouldn’t expect anyone to react to tax complaints the way he reacts to the death of children. That’s a crazy analogy. But it sounds like you want permission to attack your opponents in time of tragedy, and you don’t want your opponents to defend themselves. Well, we’re hurting too. Your pain doesn’t trump our pain just because you feel it. That’s not empathy, that’s the opposite!Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            It’s the reaction to the reaction.

            Trumpers: “Dems raised our taxes!”
            Dems: “Actually the GOP did.”
            Others: “No no… just listen.”

            Dems: “They killed those kids! Ban guns!”
            GOPers: “Banning guns won’t work.”
            Others: “Dems should listen.”Report

            • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              That’s not true though; you’re not addressing the others asking them for more courtesy, you’re addressing your opponents telling them that they should just take it because you’re hurting. It comes off as selfish.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                That they should just take *what* exactly? I’m not saying you have to actually support any proposals or you just need to say “Thank you” if someone calls you a murderer.

                But what I am saying is that if someone –in a moment of anger and fear and outrage — says something that sounds stupid and wrong… maybe you just let them being stupid and wrong for a little while.

                No? We can’t do that? We can’t let people grieve the loss of innocent life? Cool.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Your way of grieving is to call me a murderer. My way of grieving and responding to being called a murderer is to say I’m not a murderer. Then you spend a day thinking about it and conclude that I was in the wrong for not respecting your feelings?Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        “Maybe the left/liberal/Democratic side could stop saying “Eff your thoughts and prayers”.”

        No, see, “screw your thoughts and prayers” is just part of letting out the immense hurt that Kazzy feels, part of the abuse that we’re just supposed to sit quietly and accept while he blows his rage-load all over our faces, part of that thing we’re supposed to just understand is emotional rhetoric that comes out in a heated moment, part of the hurt and insult that we should just agree to pretend we forget and certainly never mention again.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
          Ignored
          says:

          Again, 19 children are dead. Children. And you want to compare that to your choosing to read online comments that criticize your worldview.

          You’re a sick individual.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            He didn’t do that at all, at least not in that comment.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              His argument is that having to read someone say “Screw your thoughts and prayers” in the aftermath of 19 children being slaughtered is some sort of burden that just can’t reasonably be asked of anyone. On a day when 19 families will not see their children come home, I think saying ANYTHING involving words on a website is too much is inhumane.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t follow that last sentence, but are you saying that any restriction in such a circumstance is inhumane? Because your original “If I may” argues the opposite. It sounds like it’s only your opponents’ words that are inhumane, but yours are exempt because you’re grieving.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think I made my original point very clear… I’m still in a place of intense emotion on all of this.

                I think EVERYONE should be allowed to grieve how they need to grieve and that includes expression of anger.

                What I don’t think is helpful — to anyone — is interjecting into someone’s grief and trying to argue with them.

                So if someone came on here and said, “WE NEED MORE COPS IN SCHOOLS!” I would hope that we could just let that person have that moment and wait a day or two or a week before we engage intellectually with an argument that was very much likely made emotioinally.
                Likewise if someone said, “WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!”

                I think we would ALL do better to recognize when and where folks are needing space to grieve and vent and resist the urge to turn those into policy debates.

                I don’t hold myself up as an example of someone who is doing this right since I have certainly made this error myself countless times. It was in a moment of reflection that I realize we do nobody any favors by trying to have intellectual debates in highly charged emotional spaces while all that emotion is still raw.

                I should not have made my initial comment so one-sided. It was an attempt to make “my side” better understood but obviously I failed in that endeavor.

                Like, I don’t really support gun bans but fuck do I feel like I think I do when these news headlines hit.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                What was your side grieving over last week that justified the name-calling and gave them the right to talk policy but didn’t give us the right to respond? Was it Roe? Or Elon Musk buying Twitter? Disney losing tax status? Next month, will your side’s grief over gas prices make me a Moloch-worshipping sexist who shouldn’t respond to policy proposals? I know I’m going hard on this point, but when you say you failed to make your point clear, I don’t think you did. I think you said exactly what your terms of engagement are. We don’t show emotion (being defined as agreeing with your policies) so we can be attacked as inhuman and certainly have no right to discuss policy.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes lets not lose sight of the real victims here.

                Conservatives feeling bad about the consequences of their voting choices.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Kazzy was the one who wanted to talk about the site’s liberal victims. Take it up with him.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think I made my original point very clear… I’m still in a place of intense emotion on all of this.

                I think EVERYONE should be allowed to grieve how they need to grieve and that includes expression of anger.

                What I don’t think is helpful — to anyone — is interjecting into someone’s grief and trying to argue with them.

                So if someone came on here and said, “WE NEED MORE COPS IN SCHOOLS!” I would hope that we could just let that person have that moment and wait a day or two or a week before we engage intellectually with an argument that was very much likely made emotioinally.
                Likewise if someone said, “WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!”

                I think we would ALL do better to recognize when and where folks are needing space to grieve and vent and resist the urge to turn those into policy debates.

                I don’t hold myself up as an example of someone who is doing this right since I have certainly made this error myself countless times. It was in a moment of reflection that I realize we do nobody any favors by trying to have intellectual debates in highly charged emotional spaces while all that emotion is still raw.

                I should not have made my initial comment so one-sided. It was an attempt to make “my side” better understood but obviously I failed in that endeavor.

                Like, I don’t really support gun bans but man do I feel like I think I do when these news headlines hit.Report

        • Pinky in reply to DensityDuck
          Ignored
          says:

          My dad was a stiff-upper-lip guy. I don’t recall ever seeing him cry, but he carried a lot of sorrow. I respected that he mourned in his own way. I never told him how he should mourn.

          I understand if Kazzy wants to lash out at the moment of tragedy. I notice that the lefties on this site feel they have the right to lash out at any time, though. And as for lecturing us about how we should be more forgiving when we’re being attacked, while we’re also grieving, that just comes off as entitlement. When Kazzy says to Chip that his side is being human and my side isn’t, that’s depersoning, but he thinks he’s the one who holds the high ground.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        The offering of thoughts and prayers come off politically as a dodge, since it is generally followed by little to any legislative or policy action. It also comes off insincerely from a theology perspective since Christ reminded us repeatedly in His Gospels that as Children of God we have an obligation to act against evil in our world, and seek justice for the least of these our Brothers and Sisters.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          If you were unpersuaded on the benefit of the unidentified policy, would it still come off as a dodge?Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            That’s a funny response right there. If they want to make a policy proposal I’d look at it and see if it could address one of the several cause we’ve collectively identified and if so Id take it seriously. They don’t make proposals while issuing thoughts and prayers. That’s the problem I’m pointing at.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      “Can’t we do something” merits a suggestion on what we can do. Preventing these guys from becoming celebs counts.

      If “something” has to mean “restrict gun rights in ways that wouldn’t have stopped this because it will make us feel better”, then no, I’m not going to respect your feelings. The proposals are serious. Their impact would be in the real world.

      Similarly, we shouldn’t give credit to the anti-abortion’s movement’s feelings. They don’t get a pass because they think there’s a genocide going on when they make real world proposals.Report

  25. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m at the point where I just want the Moloch worshippers to come out and say that mass shootings are something we have to live with because the abstract gun right is incredibly more important.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      A: This has been a great tragedy, we need to change the law!

      B: But that wouldn’t have stopped this tragedy.

      A: Doesn’t matter! It will make us feel better! Our virtue signaling is way more important than your rights. We need to pass a law that won’t be followed and will cause massive problems when it’s enforced.

      Welcome to the anti-abortion movement sir.Report

  26. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    What will we learn tomorrow?

    Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      If you’ve ever daydreamt about house-to-house searches to confiscate guns, please note:

      Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You know, if I were inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, I’d think that this story has a lot of fodder for them.

        Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Yep, respect muh authoritah!Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          The issue is way more basic.

          Law enforcement’s job of enforcing laws on the law abiding is easy and safe. That’s the parents.

          Law enforcement’s job of enforcing laws on the law breaking is much harder and much more dangerous.

          When we say “lets pass a law” to understand which group we’re targeting and whether it matters.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Again, thanks to SCOTUS, the police have no duty to protect.

        Cowards. Snowflakes.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          They hide behind their fear every chance they get.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          What’s interesting is how much LE has bought into their own mythology. So much that they are the only ones allowed to be heroes (if the reports are true that they were stopping parents from trying to get in there with their own weapons).Report

          • Slade the Leveller in reply to Oscar Gordon
            Ignored
            says:

            There’s footage of several cops on top of a parent(?) who they’ve wrestled to the ground.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon
            Ignored
            says:

            In a structurally racist society, “Blue Lives Matter” can be the other side of a dialectic if the thesis is “Black Lives Matter”.

            They thought that “Blue Lives Matter” worked (or worked well enough) there that it’d work again against “Schoolchildren Lives Matter”.Report

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              If I was going to be uncharitable (& I am so inclined), it would be Brown School Children’s Lives Matter, because let’s face it, most of the kids killed were Hispanic.Report

              • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I saw a big black pickup truck the other day with a giant sticker that said ‘No Lives Matter’ on the back. It’s a terrible message, but I appreciated the honesty.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                The shooter himself throws a small wrench into that. I’m not sure at the demographics of the various officers outside of the building but the spokespersons I’ve seen so far have Hispanic last names (Olivarez, Escalon).

                It’s not exactly clear cut for that part of it.

                I mean, it *COULD* be. “White Hispanic” vs. “Black Hispanic” and all that.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Exactly the opposite of a wrench, it is confirmation.

                In all repressive apartheid societies, the idea of some lives not mattering has always been so ingrained that when members of the Outclass murder each other, it is considered acceptable, even by many members of the Outclass themselves.

                Modern police even have a nickname for the phenomenon, “No Human Involved”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, I’m glad the Border Patrol guy was there.

                Jacob Albarado is a damn hero.

                Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait, that was a *DIFFERENT* border patrol guy than the one who actually killed the shooter.

                WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON THEREReport

              • KenB in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re still in the “fog of war” period. Any takes at this point should implicitly be considered preliminary and retractable at any time.Report

              • Pinky in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                Seconded. I’d expect things to start getting clearer now, but any information from the first 48 hours should be discounted entirely.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                The cynic in me who watched CPD circle the wagons in the McDonald case suspects the conference rooms at the Uvalde PD are pretty busy these days.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know if this is common knowledge or even accurate, but I just saw a reference to *dozens* of border patrol officers on scene.Report

            • InMD in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              The whole mythology on the subject is out of control and it has been for some time. What needs to happen but probably never will is the acceptance that the dialectic itself is based on a bunch of bad premises.

              Which doesn’t mean we don’t need better cops. We absolutely do and we absolutely need them to be trained with a more selfless, public service minded ethos. That’s the only path to the honor they say they want. But even with that the only person you can 100% rely on is yourself. No public servant no matter how good can relieve us of our responsibilities. The idea that they can is one of several weak pillars in the dialectic at issue.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              The other side of “Black Lives Matter” is the Wilhoit Principle, that there are to be two classes in society: One that the law protects but does not bind, and the other that the law binds but does not protect.

              Uvalde was a good example.Report

  27. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    Is there a stronger word than cowardly? Gutless? Heartless? I am shaken.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Chickensh*t?Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        That’s a good one.

        And then there is the dissonance. What does the Venn Diagram look like with one circle being labeled “Cops” and the other circle being labeled “Gun Rights Advocates”? I could be naive but my hunch is that there is much more overlap between them than mutually exclusive area.

        And yet… these cops were so terrified of a teenager with a handgun and a rifle that they ran and hid while school children were being slaughtered.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          The flip side of this, of course, is the “you don’t need to own a gun for self-defense, you should rely on the police!” argument that used to be more popular a few years ago.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Or…
            “You don’t need a gun for self defense because you live in a society in which your neighbors and coworkers are trusted not to shoot you.,”Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              I live in a neighborhood like that.
              I’m sure you do too.

              There are many who don’t.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, I live at the edge of Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles with homeless people on my doorstep.

                We’ve gotten to know a few of them by name and when I walk thru the tent encampments I feel completely safe.Report

            • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              An assailant doesn’t need a gun to be at a threat level that merits having one. I mentioned my anecdote below about having to leave my wife and newborn son alone for the work day with a crazy person in the condo below ours. The whole situation sucked.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                But you know that, statistically, your wife and child have more to fear from you and the gun you have for protection, right?
                That the biggest threat to any family is the husband and father.

                I know it’s emotionally hard to grasp but “I was in a plane that crash landed” doesn’t change the safety of airlines.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Citation neededReport

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                We all understand our own responsibilities differently. Mine include my own safety and their safety, and not just letting something bad happen that I can prevent. Not that I presume to tell others what to do. But I am pro-choice on the subject.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                statistically, your wife and child have more to fear from you and the gun you have for protection, right?

                This is nonsense.

                On average, you never need to deal with an aggressively insane person who has targeted you and your family.

                Up until that point you can quote statistics on how your risk level is lower without a gun in the house.

                After that has happened, your risk profile changes dramatically and he’s no longer “statistically safer without a gun” because he’s not the average person any more.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s what I said.

                “I’m not an average person” doesn’t tell us much about what a gun does for the safety of the average person.

                Jaybird’s assertion was that “you can’t rely on cops” with the implication that an average person should therefore protect themselves with a gun.

                The average person is safer without a gun.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird’s assertion was that “you can’t rely on cops”

                Would you like to know what I’m basing that on?

                You might not believe the story because it’s really far-fetched, but it’s not, like, based on nothing at all.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not disagreeing with the first part of your assertion.
                It’s your insistent exclusion of the other alternative I’m challenging.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s not an insistent exclusion.

                It saying “you know the argument that you don’t need a gun because you can trust the cops? Well, you can’t trust the cops.”

                If you want to make an argument that someone shouldn’t arm themselves, great. Make it.

                Just don’t use “you should trust the cops instead!” as your reason for why someone shouldn’t have a gun.

                Maybe try something like “if we keep you from getting a gun, that means that we were successful at keeping bad people from getting them too.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                There’s something else I said that you’re insistently excluding.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, “The average person is safer without a gun.”

                Even if this is true, that means that this is not true for the below average person.

                And this ain’t Lake Wobegon.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Since you’re trying very, very hard not to respond to what I wrote, I’ll post it again.

                You don’t need a gun for self defense because you live in a society in which your neighbors and coworkers are trusted not to shoot you.

                This true, not just for the average person, but the vast majority. Very few people are ever in a situation where deadly force is needed by either the police or themselves.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s always useful to look at what people actually do. Most people don’t own guns, for self-defense or any other reason. They obviously felt they haven’t needed them, and have been right so far. I own and have owned guns, probably longer than most people here have been alive, and I have never needed one, or felt the need for one, to defend myself. (My skills are so rusty, I’m not sure I’d be doing more harm than good if I used one. Maybe my sword would be a better bet.) And I live in the Bronx — the real Bronx, not Riverdale or Pelham. Some people have, and some more think they have, different needs, but most people have decided that they don’t need guns to protect themselves, and they seem to be right.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I haven’t either… but I’ve been right on the edge of deciding my risk profile had changed drastically and I’d be a lot safer if I had something.

                I don’t want a firearm in the house right now because it would increase risk. However I do want the ability to be able to buy one in a reasonable time period if that changes.

                If that does happen, the last thing I want to have to deal with is laws written for the “average” situation.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I fear coming to that same conclusion. At least since Columbine, Colorado police seem inclined to go in and stop the shooter. The state has also passed a number of laws that statistically should help: universal background checks, no guns for people guilty of certain violent misdemeanors, what seems to be a balanced red flag law, limits on magazine size. It’s been a long time since I owned a firearm — since I lost interest in hunting. I really don’t want to have to go buy a serious handgun and relearn the skills to use and maintain it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s always useful to look at what people actually do.

                You mean like stand outside of a school where someone is murdering children and instead of doing something to stop the murderer, they, instead, taze and handcuff parents?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird, you have made your feelings on the Uvalde cops crystal clear, multiple times. You don’t have to repeat them in response to comments that have nothing to do with that subject. Or maybe you do. For whatever reason.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Your reply was to someone who had been targeted by a nut for 18 months.

                Your collective approach here, i.e. we’d be better off in a gun free society, is asking him to take one for the team.

                I think it’s very reasonable for people to be able to evaluate their own risk and be able to select which risk they want to live with.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I look at the question a little bit differently, as less about what you should do and more about what you should be allowed to do.

                You may be surprised to read this but I don’t totally disagree with you. I think people who sleep with a loaded gun in their nightstand ‘just in case’ but with nothing specific going on aren’t being very smart. I also look askance at people who feel the need to carry for a quick trip to the grocery store or something (you don’t see this where I live but you do in parts of neighoring states). It’s dumb and on balance is probably creating more risks than it’s mitigating.

                But if you’re in a situation where there is something going on? The calculus changes. Not to over personalize but I always adhere to safe storage practices with the only variation being the period of time I was being woken up at 2 AM with someone shouting obscenities at me through the walls (and for the record I was still pretty careful). Since I removed myself from that situation I am back to the old and preferable protocol. Other people aren’t me but I don’t think my approach is super outside the norm either or that it was irrational under the circumstances.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree.
                There will always be a category of people who have a legitimate need for a gun.

                It’s funny how gun proponents are always using militaristic imagery and phrases and cosplaying soldier, when nowhere are guns more tightly restricted than the military.

                Unless a soldier is in an actual combat situation, that is, with an actual need for a weapon, guns are normally off limits.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Or during training. Or certain guard duty.

                But yes, normally the weapons are secured, although everyone knows where, and how to get there.

                Also, everyone is trained to fight, so even if unarmed, they are all still dangerous to some degree.

                IMHO, when it comes to personal defense, we have fundamentally skewed the incentives towards the most lethal means available.Report

        • Chris in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          Interestingly, cops as a class have long been advocates for restrictions on the types of guns people can own, for obvious reasons. Remember in the 80s when the cops’ fear of gang members with automatic weapons was so great it made it into half the cop movies (e.g., Lethal Weapon)? It’s one thing on which conservatives have flat-out ignored cops.Report

  28. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    So we are 360-ish comments in, and we basically have three proposals:

    – My five points, centered on gun control
    – Dark’s “Don’t Say The Shooters Name”
    – Several vague “mental health” allusions with few specifics.
    – Jaybird’s reform the police proposals (which aren’t all in one place)

    Not a long list compared to the scope of the problem, and nothing new.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      What I wanted was something that had a snowball’s chance of passing and a snowball’s chance of making things measurably (or noticably) better.

      I’d say that three of your five points are pretty good. “Don’t say the shooter’s name” might work and, at least, couldn’t hurt.

      And reforming the police is a pre-req. At the very least, you want a force that doesn’t appear to be colluding with the shooter to ensure as high a body count as would be reasonably plausibly deniable.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        And, yeah, I don’t see how a stem-to-stern revamp of the cops isn’t a pre-req for freakin’ anything:

        Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I’ve always been a situational awareness guy. Just kind how I’m wired. As a kid I’d daydream, “What would I do if ninjas swung in through the windows? Ah, a fire extinguisher! I could use that!” But I’m weird like that.

          My girlfriend is a longtime teacher who thinks it so weird I think that way. As we discussed the police response yesterday, she found herself saying things like, “I guess if that happened in my room I’d do X, Y, and Z.”

          Despite all of the school shootings that have occurred during her career… some not far from us (we’ve driven through the town where Sandy Hook was)… some targeting the very age children she teaches (she was a K teacher when Sandy Hook happened)… she never found herself mentally preparing to resist a shooter in her room.

          After this? Because of this? Now she is.Report

          • InMD in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            I preface this by saying I am not one that thinks ‘arm the teachers’ or turning the schools into fortresses is really a useful answer to this (obviously basic security makes sense). But I think your mentality is the one everyone needs to have. Not in some kind of make my day fantasy, hair trigger society way, but in a ‘we all take our responsibilities seriously’ kind of way.

            I’ve mentioned previously at OT that when my son was first born we had an issue with a crazy neighbor constantly threatening us and who broke into our condo a couple times. We got peace orders and had him prosecuted for misdemeanors but there was only so much we could do. The first time it happened I had to physically eject him (thankfully I had friends over who helped) and it took the police 90 minutes to arrive. I think the fastest they were ever there was 15-20 minutes which was more than enough time for something bad to happen. It took us 18 months to get out of there and that time period was tense (I hated leaving my wife and son there every day during her maternity leave) but we changed our habits and took the measures we had to take.

            Anyway I only mention it as a real eye opener about law enforcement and what can realistically be expected of them. We should demand good public services but they aren’t a substitute for doing the right things for ourselves.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Most teachers at this point have received some sort of training on what to do once an alert is given. Most of us have had cops walk around buildings and classrooms and point out where we should shelter in place. Most have participated in safety audits of some kind. Etc, etc, etc.

              I agree that folks being prepared — and being supported in being and feeling prepared — is a good thing.

              But I shared that anecdote because many of us teachers are feeling like we need to move beyond basic preparedness. The shelter-in-place drill is not meant to be a prolonged response to an active shooter situation. “I’ll lock the door, push a table in front of it, turn off the lights, and put the kids in this corner with me between them and the access points,” only works for so long. If we now need to adapt a mindset of, “I need to fend this guy off single-handedly,” we’ve moved beyond basic preparedness and taking responsibility to do the right thing by ourselves and our students.

              And, again, I can’t help but draw us back to previous conversations where so many folks said, “Teachers can’t be trusted to talk about gay families with their students,” but now we’re saying, “Well, teachers should be ready to fend off active shooters.” Like… which is it… are we not even trusted to have the basic skill set most of us are trained for? Or are we superheroes who can transcend our roles and do what even the trained and armed cops won’t do?Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Pretty sure after Columbine, all the police everywhere have assured the populace that the SOP was, going forward, the first officers on the scene will immediately engage the shooter.

          Apparently, immediately means “sometime in the next hour”.Report