Fucking Guns

2456731

Comments

  • No it's pretty clear he was far gone. I hope he never knew was his son was up to.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    cliffdweller--

    BG might not have been able to comment. He was very old; and IIRC had some sort of long-term illness.

    Evangelicalitis?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Billy Graham lying in state is an indicator of how fucked up the current political situation in America is.
    This quote typifies the stupidity, arrogance and ignorance.
    “I don’t think we’ll ever see anything like this again,” said John Fea, a historian of American religion at Messiah College. “Graham represented the white middle class religious revival of the post-World War II era. He was the embodiment of a mass culture that was largely white and Protestant. We are now–for good or bad–a fragmented society. There is no religious figure who can command consensus the way he did.”
    In this very statement is part of the reason America is fragmented. Graham is not to be lauded for his part in this.
  • Did Graham command consensus, or did he command white evangelical consensus?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Did Graham command consensus, or did he command white evangelical consensus?

    You do not need to to be an influence.

    For the first part, the theoretical separation of church and state should have kept him from the rotunda.

    For the second, he has a mixed record. Whilst he did appear with MLK, he also urged him not to press hard on racial equality, shared anti-Semitic conversations with Nixon, supported presidents who did not support equality. He is supposed to have come round a little more later in life. He was not an evil person. But that is secondary to the first bit where he, as a religious leader with no direct service to the US, should not have lain in state.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    He is reportedly the 4th person to lie in state without the usual qualifications. I haven't looked the other 3 up, but it's been mentioned in the recent news.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    *cough*

    This is not a Billy Graham legacy thread.

    Go and find Purgatory.
  • Noted. FWIW: it was relevant to the thread when it started, IIRC.
  • The Tasmanian Liberals released a policy the night before today's State Election somewhat loosening gun laws. It was in a document they prepared privately for the Fishers and Shooters lobbying organisation. At this stage, it looks like they are going to win anyway, the dirty bastards.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Noted. FWIW: it was relevant to the thread when it started, IIRC.

    And it's now become irrelevant, something I'd hoped you'd all recognise since you're allegedly grown-ups. No more Grahams.

    DT
    HH
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited March 2018
    No one is more reliable than Wayne LaPierre.
    He's not very reliable about making sure he owns his own domain, something that's been used, um, creatively against him.

    Try - at your own risk, see below - visiting the url with his full name plus dot com.

    WARNING: I have not supplied a clickable link because while the front page of that site has nothing worse than bad language, the "portfolio of selected work" link leads to graphic images of what guns do to people, and by "graphic" I mean not suitable for work, lunch, trauma sufferers, or indeed anyone who doesn't need educating in the gruesome facts about the damage to the human body high-powered weapons actually inflict, as opposed to what even the most violent of movies make us think they inflict. I have a pretty strong stomach and I couldn't stand that portfolio page for very long.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Did Graham command consensus, or did he command white evangelical consensus?

    You do not need to to be an influence.

    I don't understand how this follows on from what you quoted. Does "you" here mean me, or "one"? My point was that Graham's command of consensus is more constrained than was stated. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
    There was something that I thought had been very clear. No more talk about Billy Graham here. This thread is about fucking guns, stick to the subject.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Sorry thought better of this post and can't delete.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    So, the same day as the Florida shooting, the police shoot the wrong man when responding to a hostage situation.
    Yeah, so teachers and "Good Guys with Guns" will do sooo much better.
  • Ok, Billy Graham has ascended to Purgatory, so we won't get in (more) trouble here. See the "Rev. Billy Graham" thread in Purg.

    If you feel the need to copy any BG posts from this thread to that, have fun.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    So, the same day as the Florida shooting, the police shoot the wrong man when responding to a hostage situation.
    Yeah, so teachers and "Good Guys with Guns" will do sooo much better.

    What was it Buffy said taking some guns off people? "These things? Never make things better." hyperbole, but the point remains. Good guys having guns still can have bad results. Bad guys not having them works in the rest of the developed world.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    What was it Buffy said taking some guns off people? "These things? Never make things better." hyperbole, but the point remains. Good guys having guns still can have bad results. Bad guys not having them works in the rest of the developed world.

    Though Buffy had her Slayer powers, Mr. Pointy (her stick for stabbing vampires), and whatever other accoutrements Giles and the Scoobies came up with. ;)

  • Though on at least one occasion that was taking a gun from an armed security guard. "Never helpful" was directed at everyone, including the good guy with a gun, rather than just specific to a Slayer.

    And, yes I know she once made use of a rocket launcher
  • edited March 2018
    It might do to spend some public money, even a few billions, on identifying those who are troubled by bullying, loneliness, deprivation and abuse in their families, from peers, whatever they're suffering. Then help them. Teachers and others will know who the troubled people are. Teachers aren't paid to shoot their students, but they could direct attention to those in need of help. More better than way. The Florida shooter was suspended from school wasn't he? FBI was said to have been warned: which is on the face of it only interesting because it is so pathetic. If this guy was troubled, why would his troubles whatever they were, be downloaded on to legal enforcement? And why not to social services, support, help, of any kind?

    There's always this excuse that basic public health and social support cannot be paid for, but it wouldn't be hard, just pretend it's a weapons system designed to murder other people, or a bank in need of a few billions to bail it out. It would be better than paying teachers to shoot their students.
  • I'm not convinced that using anybody other than specialist doctors to identify people who are mentally ill in accordance with the DSM used for that purpose will do anything other than unnecessarily limit people's freedom. I do not think that trying to guess who is going to commit mass murder is going to work very well. There are well known categories of people who are at greater risk of shooting someone, such as people who commit acts of domestic violence, but there needs to be a clear line that says that certain definitively established categories of people cannot have access to firearms. My great fear, for example, is that mental illness will become such a whipping boy in America that I who live with bi-polar disorder will not be allowed to enter the country. I know that's probably unlikely, but I still fear it. I fear this argument will wind back the clock on prejudice against we nutters.

    Identifying categories of people who shouldn't own guns is a valid part of a sensible gun control regime, and possibly a first step in America. I guess I'm a bit frightened.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I'll see your fear of irrational vilification, and raise you a logical fallacy.

    Mental illness happens to people. Any people. Trying to prevent mental illness from having guns is magical thinking. Especially if most mental illnesses have fuck-all to do with this sort of tragedy, while the sort of broken-ness that is dangerous is mostly only noticeable after violence has occurred.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    I'll see your fear of irrational vilification, and raise you a logical fallacy.

    Mental illness happens to people. Any people. Trying to prevent mental illness from having guns is magical thinking. Especially if most mental illnesses have fuck-all to do with this sort of tragedy, while the sort of broken-ness that is dangerous is mostly only noticeable after violence has occurred.

    Especially given that (1) some mental illnesses are cyclic or episodic, and predicting swings or changes is a dicey business; (2) some mental illnesses are temporary; (3) diagnosing mental illness is sometimes a matter of figuring out what med has produced a measurable or observable change, and then affixing the label that matches up with that change & that med.

    You can buy an AR-15 at 18 in Florida (or wherever), and then develop schizophrenia at 22. It's barely possible that your first serious episode of hearing voices or seeing familiar faces as hideous, distorted masks is going to lead to mowing down schoolchildren with your weapon, but it's not likely.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Identifying categories of people who shouldn't own guns is a valid part of a sensible gun control regime
    Indeed. But, a simple "mental illness" test fails to do that. A very large number of false positives, people identified as unsuitable who objectively pose no greater risk of using a gun to endanger themselves or others than the general population.

    A better first step would, ISTM, to base the decision on known behaviour - so, ban gun ownership to people who are "known to the police" (a phrase common here in the UK, I don't know whether it's commonly used in the US). Any conviction for violence, any incident of the police being called for violence in recent years (say, last 10 years - so that "youthful indiscretion" can drop out of the system if not repeated) to weed out those with a record of domestic violence or animal cruelty etc. Not only would this be better at identifying a group of people more likely to pose a risk of causing harm, it also means the decision would be based on information already available to the police without the need to get doctors break patient confidentiality.
  • I don't want a bloody gun. It's not that I fear committing mass murder, but instant, irreversible suicide (not feeling that way now, I hasten to add). It just seems as though the NRA is looking for somebody to blame.
  • A better first step would, ISTM, to base the decision on known behaviour - so, ban gun ownership to people who are "known to the police" (a phrase common here in the UK, I don't know whether it's commonly used in the US).

    Felons are in general banned from owning guns. Removing guns from people who have not been found guilty of a crime, given the status of the second amendment in the US constitution, strikes me as something that would not survive the constitutional challenge that would be bound to result.

    (Personally, I'd be in favour of an individual having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was a proper person to own a gun. But that would take a constitutional amendment.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Removing guns from people who have not been found guilty of a crime, given the status of the second amendment in the US constitution, strikes me as something that would not survive the constitutional challenge that would be bound to result.

    A blanket ban on all guns might be unconstitutional. Banning certain classes of weapons deemed problematic would not be. For example, the Clinton-era assault weapons ban survived all court challenges without ever being found unconstitutional.

    Remember that the Second Amendment doesn't specify a right to own guns, it claims a right to "bear arms". Despite this there are many classes of arms (nuclear bombs, biological weapons, helicopter gunships, etc.) that American civilians are currently prohibited from owning and this is not seen as Constitutionally problematic.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I may have missed this being linked earlier but it is informative.

    The NRA moved opinion to the right of Warren Burger? That tells you a lot in itself.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I may have missed this being linked earlier but it is informative.
  • Another problem: some people *make* guns--e.g., with 3D printers.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    An effect of our gun laws..., from Crikey (an online Oz news source):
    Australian laws have inadvertently led to the country's resurgent gun lobby building a massive campaign war-chest -- a bounty it is tipping into electoral contests.

    A Guardian report today shows that more than half a million dollars was spent by pro-gun groups at the Queensland state election in order to tip the balance towards minor, pro-gun parties including One Nation and the Katter's Australian Party. The story examines a concern long held by anti-gun advocates: that by forcing gun owners to have a genuine reason to own a gun -- for instance, being a member of a shooting club -- Australia's laws bolster shooting club membership, effectively ensuring millions of dollars in fees end up with pro-gun groups.

    The report comes after gun control groups and survivors of the Port Arthur massacre criticised re-elected Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman for secretly promising to weaken his state's gun laws. The policy was not publicised by the Tasmanian Liberals, instead being discussed privately with pro-gun advocates. Hodgman now says he will plough ahead with all the promises made at the election, including those made secretly.

  • Let Hodgman do it. It will give plenty of scope for attack ads on the mainland, and he will be gone soon enough. Of greater concern is the fringe parties gaining leverage in the Federal Parliament. I found the ALP's anti-pokies position to be of more interest. It's looking like they might keep it despite the loss.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    A blanket ban on all guns might be unconstitutional. Banning certain classes of weapons deemed problematic would not be.

    Yes - I agree with you that some kind of revamped "assault weapons" ban would pass muster, probably even with the current SCOTUS. But that wasn't Alan's proposal. Alan is suggesting targeting people that the police suspect of a crime for removal of their gun rights, which I think would not pass constitutional review.

    Golden Key wrote: »
    Another problem: some people *make* guns--e.g., with 3D printers.

    The mostly plastic 3d-printed guns are basically a gimmick. Metal printing? Don't know enough about the limits of current technology to know whether it would work well, but metal printing is pretty expensive.

    But consider something like the AK-47. The receiver (which is the part that US law considers the "gun") can be made by more or less anyone with some sheet metal and basic tools. And it will just work, and keep on working.

    A whole gun can be made from the ground up from stock metal by anyone with a half-way decent home metal shop.

    I don't think anyone is under the impression that any kind of gun ban magically makes guns vanish. But if you make guns 90% less available, you won't get so many shootings.
  • It might do to spend some public money, even a few billions, on identifying those who are troubled by bullying, loneliness, deprivation and abuse in their families, from peers, whatever they're suffering. Then help them. Teachers and others will know who the troubled people are. Teachers aren't paid to shoot their students, but they could direct attention to those in need of help. More better than way. The Florida shooter was suspended from school wasn't he? FBI was said to have been warned: which is on the face of it only interesting because it is so pathetic. If this guy was troubled, why would his troubles whatever they were, be downloaded on to legal enforcement? And why not to social services, support, help, of any kind?

    One of the problems is that many people knew, for a long time, that Nick was seriously troubled. (Back to at least 6th grade. His teacher from then spoke on...NPR, I think.) Lots of people tried to get him various kinds of help. But there was a lot of bureaucracy, and not enough slots for troubled kids. He finally was put into a special school for a couple of years, then somehow was out of there and into this new school. (I think those are the only details I could find, in the week after the shooting. You can probably find more online, or look for whatever links I posted at the time.)

    His mom died last fall, and his dad some time earlier. (Both adoptive parents--which only matters if it affected Nick.) This next bit is kind of piecing things together, because news was given in spurts, and the media didn't always cover it consistently nor thoroughly. But AIUI and IIRC Nick and probably his brother were somehow assigned to live at a woman's house. (I think this is the woman who's trying to get access to the boys' inheritance.) Something happened between Nick and...her son, I think. Don't know what. She called 911. Later on, *Nick* called 911 himself, trying to give his POV. TV had short audio clips. I think he called once, talked to the dispatcher, and hung up. Then he called again, saying something like "I forgot to mention: my mom died a couple of weeks ago".

    There's also an idea that he has fetal alcohol syndrome. I don't know if his biological brother does, too. The woman seeking the inheritance reportedly put the brother on psych hold, after the shooting. He's spoken out, since, but I haven't read anything on that.

    At some point, Nick went to live with a friend's family, where he was living until the shooting. They're pro-gun, and IIRC ex military. AIUI, they stored his weapons with theirs.

    Nick did horrible, horrible things. But I do feel some compassion for him: so many problems, and so many grownups and systems screwed up. (FBI, included. Different branches of law enforcement aren't good at playing nicely and sharing info with each other. If they were, 9/11 might have been prevented (it's known lots of info wasn't shared). And this shooting might have been prevented, too.)

    :votive:
  • But that wasn't Alan's proposal. Alan is suggesting targeting people that the police suspect of a crime for removal of their gun rights, which I think would not pass constitutional review.
    On the other hand, gun rights are already removed from some people AIUI (eg: those convicted of a crime, is that any crime?). Is that constitutional, or is it just that once you commit a crime and get convicted for it that you get put in the category of "scum" and no one is going to fight for your rights? Either constitutional rights apply to everyone, or they don't. If they don't then the question is where the line is drawn between those with those rights and those who don't.

    The current resident of the White House is suggesting removing gun rights from people with a mental health diagnosis, that would surely not pass constitutional review for the same reasons as my proposal. IMO, less likely since mental illness isn't a reliable indicator of likelihood to commit acts of violence whereas a history of violence is.
  • Alan--

    I think maybe the "no guns" proviso is for people previously convicted of violent felonies, and/or people on probation.

    Rights of current and former prisoners are complicated, like whether they can vote. I think some of that varies state to state.
  • :votive for Nick.
  • On the other hand, gun rights are already removed from some people AIUI (eg: those convicted of a crime, is that any crime?). Is that constitutional, or is it just that once you commit a crime and get convicted for it that you get put in the category of "scum" and no one is going to fight for your rights?

    Being convicted of a felony removes your right to own a gun in most places, and tends to pass constitutional muster. (You also have a constitutional right to liberty, but we'll still imprison you after a conviction...) The mere existence of hearsay about someone doesn't meet the same standard.
    Either constitutional rights apply to everyone, or they don't. If they don't then the question is where the line is drawn between those with those rights and those who don't.

    The current resident of the White House is suggesting removing gun rights from people with a mental health diagnosis, that would surely not pass constitutional review for the same reasons as my proposal.

    Yes, you're right that constitutional rights have to apply to everyone.

    In the case of the proposal to remove guns from people with diagnosed mental illnesses, this would surely require a court order following such a diagnosis (and not merely the police action of a government bureaucracy). I suspect that would pass a constitutional challenge.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    But that wasn't Alan's proposal. Alan is suggesting targeting people that the police suspect of a crime for removal of their gun rights, which I think would not pass constitutional review.
    On the other hand, gun rights are already removed from some people AIUI (eg: those convicted of a crime, is that any crime?). Is that constitutional, or is it just that once you commit a crime and get convicted for it that you get put in the category of "scum" and no one is going to fight for your rights? Either constitutional rights apply to everyone, or they don't. If they don't then the question is where the line is drawn between those with those rights and those who don't.

    The test of constitutionality here is the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which was extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The relevant bit states that:
    No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    In the case of those convicted of crimes, the trial and their conviction are considered sufficient "due process" to deprive them of their rights in various ways (imprisonment, forfeit of property, restrictions on their movements, etc.). A law which deprives a class of people of their rights without any kind of process or appeal does not pass the Constitutional due process test.
  • So, it would be possible in the event of police being repeatedly called to a property in regard to domestic abuse, where the abused party refuses to press charges, for the authorities to go through a judicial process to say that the abuser is clearly violent and should be denied the right to a gun. But, that right couldn't be taken away without that sort of judicial process.

    Likewise someone with a medical condition could only be denied the right to own a gun if they went through some similar legal process.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So, it would be possible in the event of police being repeatedly called to a property in regard to domestic abuse, where the abused party refuses to press charges, for the authorities to go through a judicial process to say that the abuser is clearly violent and should be denied the right to a gun. But, that right couldn't be taken away without that sort of judicial process.

    Likewise someone with a medical condition could only be denied the right to own a gun if they went through some similar legal process.

    Essentially. There are a few exceptions, mostly related to public safety and emergency situations. (e.g. you have a right to access your own home, but if the local authorities detect a gas leak you can be kept out of it until after the situation is dealt with.)
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    ... A whole gun can be made from the ground up from stock metal by anyone with a half-way decent home metal shop. ...

    Bad chaps have been making zip guns out of a few basic parts for a century, at least. (Of course, they're not very reliable, and could blow up in your hand, and not everyone has even that much skill.) 3-D printing is a problem, but if the government were to ban semi-automatic rifles, it would eliminate much of the problem of rogue shooters.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Bad chaps have been making zip guns out of a few basic parts for a century, at least.

    A functional AK47 is buildable in a home shop by anyone with moderate skills, from stock materials. (You can also buy kits which need a modest amount of work to convert them to a "gun", but let's assume you change the law and ban those.) It probably won't be very accurate (you need to be a pretty good machinist to make an accurate one) but it will just work, and keep on working.

    But although you can, most people won't, because it's too much like work. And that's really all you need to put a sizable dent in the gun deaths statistic - just make guns a bit less available.
  • To get back to the Tasmanian election: Hodgman is a Tory, and so I'm sorry that his outfit got back in. But the guns thing is an absolute beat-up. All that Hodgman is doing is bringing Tasmania into line with the other Australian states. He's not proposing that any old Tom, Dick and Harry can have a semi-auto rifle (which, by the way, would not be an assault rifle, but a good old-fashioned wooden stock with a limited - perhaps 5 - magazine capacity). But if you can demonstrate that you have a professional need - say a licensed kangaroo shooter - Tasmania Police firearms branch will consider that, along with all the other checks and balances which Australian shooters (quite happily, in the main) live with. And if you're a competitive clay or skeet shooter with a disability, then firearms branch will consider that if you ask for a Permit to Acquire a semi-auto shotgun.
    This is what happens in the other states already, and was envisaged in the original National Firearms Agreement.
    I can't have a semi-auto rifle or shotgun, because I don't need one. Trusty bolt actions or double barrels are fine for paper targets at the range, and the odd feral pig, dog or cat who wants to disrupt our rural idyll. Or to put venison into our freezer if I knew how to butcher the poor deer after its demise.
  • Good to know Duck. Didn't like how they did it. Mind you, it really does show how skittish we still are about guns.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    A functional AK47 is buildable in a home shop by anyone with moderate skills, from stock materials. ... But although you can, most people won't, because it's too much like work. And that's really all you need to put a sizable dent in the gun deaths statistic - just make guns a bit less available.

    Oh, agreed. My point is simply that banning firearms won't get rid of them all.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    . My point is simply that banning firearms won't get rid of them all.
    I wasn't aware that anyone was claiming banning guns would get rid of them all. It would mean that getting hold of a gun would be much more difficult, taking ingenuity (eg: to make one), or money and contacts to buy one illegally. Of course, given the vast number of guns currently in circulation in the US, and the impossibility of collecting them all (I assume that there isn't even an accurate count of how many there are, let alone a list of who owns what guns), getting a gun would still be relatively easy compared to, say, the UK.

    It would mean that a teenager who has a row with his girlfriend would almost certainly not be able to just go up to his room, get out his arsenal of guns and blow away a dozen kids at school.
  • Bad stuff going on up in Napa:

    "Gunman takes 3 hostage at Yountville veterans home"
    .
    The man is a veteran, involved with the PTSD program at the VA home. His main focus seems to be staff from the program. He was kicked out recently.

    This has been going on most of the day.
  • I saw a story on that GK. :votive
  • TV news just said that the hostages and the veteran are all dead.
    :( :votive:

    Thx, Simon.
Sign In or Register to comment.