Make analog prints, that’s what Legacy did. For digital degradation issues, just use a crazy amount or RAR/PAR2 redundancy. Your average time capsule is only going for a 100-year increments anyway, so they won’t have a proper official version of Star Wars then anyway, so they’ll go through the extra effort.
Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.
the inevitable argument would be “whoa, I’m old enough to be drafted to carry a weapon in a war, but not old enough to buy one myself???”
Raise the draft age. Or, even better, eliminate the draft.
We did that. The United States military is a 100% all-volunteer force. No one is drafted ever anymore because of the response by the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.
Carter (no, not Carter USM – President Carter) resurrected the draft in 1980, one of his nastiest legacies. Nobody’s been drafted since due to lack of need, not lack of ability.
None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.
I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.
Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.
That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.
These are 1/3 of fighting words.
Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?
WRONG 1/3
If this is it, please let me know.
The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.
You crack me up.
Be cool or be cast out.
I said cool is the rule.
I was at this obligatory social event with a friend once. We didn’t really want to be there, so we entertained ourselves by inventing a game. While we were having conversations, every time one of us named a band from the 80’s, we’d get a point, but only if nobody else noticed what we’d done – i.e. if it worked relatively well in the conversation and nobody said, “Hey, wasn’t that a band from the eighties?” There were lots of easy ones – the Police, for example. I was particularly proud of working the Dead Milkmen into normal conversation without anyone noticing.
Not sure what made me think of that. And no, I’m not suggesting it. Yet.
None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.
I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.
Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.
That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.
These are 1/3 of fighting words.
Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?
WRONG 1/3
If this is it, please let me know.
The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.
You crack me up.
None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.
I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.
Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.
That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.
These are 1/3 of fighting words.
Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?
WRONG 1/3
If this is it, please let me know.
None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.
I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.
Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.
That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.
These are 1/3 of fighting words.
Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?
None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.
I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.
Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.
That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.
When the Court writes of weapons “in common use,” I think that obviously concerns something more than just the method of loading it.
Well, this has been interesting IMO, but I wanted to add one more thing on this point. I wouldn’t ever actually ever suggest banning breech loaders (yeah, not even CatBus would want that), but breech loading is more that just a method of loading, in its design implications. First off, the projectile is different. In a muzzle loader, it’s just a dumb ball, and you add the powder and wad separately. Boom, it’s just a dumb handheld carronade. In a (modern) breech loader, the bullet is the ball, powder, and wad all at once. Add to that your faster reload time and you’ve got a great increase in speed of fire. Then there’s advancements like rifling, which aren’t really practical in muzzle loaders. So muzzle loaders are slow and inaccurate compared to breech loaders. It’s much more than just a method of loading it. And while technically British soldiers had a handful of Fergusons during the US Revolution, they were very exotic and were quickly retired in favor of what was then the standard musket. AFAIK there were rarer to nonexistent among colonial militias and not a consideration of the drafters of the Second Amendment.
But I’ve got no problem at all with people keeping Winchesters and the like around for varmint control and whatnot, and they are way post-militia. They’re just not as fun and easy as firing an AR-15, which is IMO completely irrelevant in a matter of public safety.
In the meantime, Russian bots are saying he was a registered Democrat and member of Antifa (no, I didn’t make that up). Who can you believe? The truth must be somewhere in between.
The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.
Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.
But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.
Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place?
The line is drawn at weaponry in common use. Given the definition given to “militia” by the Court it does flow logically.
The ruling creates it own contemporary “common use”. Machine guns (Tommy guns) were once pretty common. Now they’re illegal, and they’re not anymore. Ban breech loaders and eventually they won’t be common anymore either.
The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.
Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.
But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.
Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place? That’s not strict constructionism, it’s just wishful thinking with the force of law. The militia clause disappears only when inconvenient, and reappears when needed.
I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.
Yep, agreed. Mostly I’m distressed at how incredible ineffective most proposals would be, and they’re still not mild enough to pass. Moderately effective gun control is generations away at best I’m afraid.
I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.
Agreed, people go on knife rampages from time to time in China. The fact that all of the victims usually survive is certainly significant, as is the fact that there are fewer of them, but they are often maimed and scarred in many ways nevertheless. It’s worth stopping such things in advance whenever possible. Still, after the fact, you can’t help someone overcome trauma if they’re dead.
EDIT: I should add that my personal opinion is that I like guns. Guns are a lot of fun. Mechanically, entertainingly neat ingenious creations of mankind. And most of them should be banned as soon as possible.
I think we collectively answered our own question.
By all means, do legitimate honest non-biased research and see in schools what the percentages are in your scenarios A and B, before we spend 40 billion dollars.
Okay, using data to guide policy is good.
the pro gun people would probably argue that the stats are off.
Whoops, you’re right. The same argument/stalemate would happen with or without data supporting one side. But if the data supported armed guards, I guess the anti-data side wouldn’t mind, so it would still do something.
The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.
Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.
Some how I’m having a hard time equating it being easy to buy pot with being easy to buy a machine gun. I can buy pot any time. Can I buy a gun as easily? Obviously not I’m still posting
Yeah, but you’re not posting from Florida 😉
There’s also the inherent problem of solving the problems of guns in schools by intentionally putting more guns in the schools. Basically the same thing as with homes: we know that having a gun in your home makes your family less safe, is that also true for schools?
look all I know is
A: nut comes into school, no one there has a gun: nut kills a lot of kids and teachers
B: nut comes into school with armed guards: nut tries to kill a lot kids and teachers and gets killed in the process. less kids and teachers are dead than would have been.
Also most of people who have guns in their homes aren’t trained police officers.
C: Nut comes into the school unarmed, gets weapons from guards. Goes on killing spree he wouldn’t have even considered before he grabbed the gun.
D: Guard goes postal, kills students. Or guards.
Did you follow those links? Trained can be a generous term. Here’s how you do the risk assessment. Scenario A: a gun is in place to prevent crime. Scenario B: No gun is in place to prevent crime. Bad things can happen due to both the gun AND the lack of a gun. With homes, we’ve done the research, and the verdict is in. The bad things due to a gun in scenario A are over 40 times more likely than the bad things due to lack of a gun from scenario B. Therefore, don’t bring a gun into your home if you like your family. Easy so far.
Now I’m not saying schools are the same as homes, or security guards are the same as private citizens, or even that all security guards have lapses like the ones in those articles (but some percentage inevitably will). But presumably the data is already available to research. It would be a shame to spend 40 billion dollars to make our kids more likely to get shot, don’t you think?
EDIT: Why research when my guts says it’s right and it’s an emergency? Well, millions of Americans used their gut feeling to make the wrong call about their home safety because they either don’t know the statistics, or don’t believe the statistics apply to them. Knowing what you’re doing is a good thing when it comes to matters of life and death. If armed guards at a school are 10x less risky than armed homeowners, that still means they’re over 4x riskier than no guards or unarmed guards.
At least it’s somewhat difficult in Illinois. I can’t get a gun for 5 years because I admitted to a doctor that I had suicidal thoughts. I’ve never been convicted of any crime much less a violent one.
And they are right for that too because I would absolutely be dead right now if I could have gotten my hands on a gun.
I know we are talking about homicide and not suicide though and that’s different.
The thing is, when it comes to gun deaths in America, it really is primarily about suicide. Suicide is just so commonplace it rarely makes the news, and given our country’s rates, that’s a shame. I’m glad Illinois managed to do something to help you.
There’s also the inherent problem of solving the problems of guns in schools by intentionally putting more guns in the schools. Basically the same thing as with homes: we know that having a gun in your home makes your family less safe, is that also true for schools?
considering the size of the campus, normal noise levels, communication, etc.
um, gun fire (unless you are using a silencer and I haven’t heard the nut was) is very, VERY LOUD. It would easily rise above normal noise level. I realize kids are loud, but kids being kids is not the same sound as gunfire and screaming.
No, but it does prevent you from hearing reports over the walkie-talkie WHERE the echoing gunfire is actually coming from.
I am talking about having enough police so that at least one would heard the gunfire with his own two ears, not through a walkie-talkie. Even with echos, I don’t think it would take too long for trained police officers that are sufficiently spread throughout the school(in sufficient numbers for the size school) to find where the repeated gunfire and screams are coming from.
AFAIK there was one guard. Tracking the source of gunfire in a semi-enclosed concrete echo chamber is a tough enough problem that we build and distribute these to law enforcement. You can’t necessarily follow the screams because people who have fled the scene continue to scream, people at the scene may in fact be to afraid to scream. It’s really not as easy as you think. A walkie-talkie confirmed location and status would be very helpful to any responder.
considering the size of the campus, normal noise levels, communication, etc.
um, gun fire (unless you are using a silencer and I haven’t heard the nut was) is very, VERY LOUD. It would easily rise above normal noise level. I realize kids are loud, but kids being kids is not the same sound as gunfire and screaming.
No, but it does prevent you from hearing reports over the walkie-talkie WHERE the echoing gunfire is actually coming from, how many shooters there are, etc.
Well, if we are not going to get rid of the guns, our schools need protection. Maybe not armed teachers, but armed trained police/security guards.
Schools already have police officers in the building. It isn’t working.
Yeah, the “we need armed security guards” argument has been coming up since Columbine. Except Columbine had armed security guards. So did Parkland. Schools are sprawling, public-access facilities. Effectively locking them down against armed attackers would require redesigning the entire facility to operate more like a prison.
And they won’t even fix a leaking roof, so even that unattractive option is unrealistic.
I don’t think it would require redesigning the schools. Just have armed police officers man various positions throughout the school building. Look any attempt to ban guns is getting stopped over and over again by the NRA and conservatives. Having armed police in schools is something that might pass. I don’t see the NRA or conservatives objecting to it. It is not the optimal solution, but maybe one that can pass. Maybe one that can save lives.
Even assuming you manage to avoid incidents like this, you’re talking probably 8 FTE’s per school to adequately cover all the positions in a school, let’s say 100,000 public schools in the nation (are we only talking public? and what about daycares and colleges?), so maybe in the neighborhood of 800,000 FTE’s, each FTE costing maybe an average of 50K. That’s 40 billion dollars for the base model. I can see lots of people objecting.
Well, if we are not going to get rid of the guns, our schools need protection. Maybe not armed teachers, but armed trained police/security guards.
Schools already have police officers in the building. It isn’t working.
if the school in Florida had armed police officers already in the building, I’d like to know what the heck they were doing while the nut was shooting about 31 people(I have heard 17 dead and 14 hurt, which equals 31 shot).
Compare a sixty-second response time vs. how many times you can fire an AR-15 in sixty seconds. And I’m not saying the guard responded in sixty seconds, which would have been phenomenally fast, considering the size of the campus, normal noise levels, communication, etc.
Well, if we are not going to get rid of the guns, our schools need protection. Maybe not armed teachers, but armed trained police/security guards.
Schools already have police officers in the building. It isn’t working.
Yeah, the “we need armed security guards” argument has been coming up since Columbine. Except Columbine had armed security guards. So did Parkland. Schools are sprawling, public-access facilities. Effectively locking them down against armed attackers would require redesigning the entire facility to operate more like a prison.
And they won’t even fix a leaking roof, so even that unattractive option is unrealistic.
This might be my last post in this thread since I don’t think I contribute to it at all:
While I do understand why some people would want to have a handgun in their drawer just in case, I fail to see any logic whatsoever behind people arguing that we shouldn’t take automatic rifles or any sort of military-grade weapon out of the marked.
Hey, stick around. We like you. Even if we think your avatar from a distance looks like a green robot head.
There’s all kinds of angles to this issue. The “having a handgun in a drawer” statement is itself subject to a thousand questions. Is the drawer locked, or does the gun have a trigger lock? Is the gun loaded? Is ammunition stored in the same drawer as the gun? Has the gun been sitting, unmaintained, in that same drawer for several decades? Does anyone else know that gun is there? Does having a gun in your home make your family more safe or less safe? (okay, we actually know the answer to this one: less safe)
Like all controversial issues, people try to work on “edge cases” first. Mass shootings, automatic weapons, semiautomatics, bump stocks, background checks, etc. Now, all of these are “gimme” options: lots of public support, no downsides. Except they can’t even pass most of these restrictions because of the NRA. The problem is they really only deal with edge cases. But if you want to cause a meaningful change, IMO you’re going to have to start talking about restricting handguns as well. And I’m fine with that.
I’d like to know how the hell someone the FBI thought was suspicious and whom had mental issues was allowed to legally buy guns.
BECAUSE OUR GUN LAWS ARE A FUCKING JOKE AND EVERY TIME THIS SHIT HAPPENS AND ANY SORT OF SANE REGULATIONS ARE PROPOSED PEOPLE WHINE “BUT NO MUH FREEDUMZ” AND NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENS AND EVERYONE IS SHOCKED WHEN IT INEVITABLY FUCKING HAPPENS AGAIN A WEEK LATER.
I say this as a gun owner, but holy shit it should not have been as easy as it was for me to legally get one without any sort of training or proof that I actually know how to use one.
Fuck our country’s gun laws.
I thought there were all sorts of barriers in place and background checks and such for getting a license as well as purchasing the weapon itself. Perhaps I’m not remembering correctly.
In Florida, you don’t need a permit, license, or registration, and Florida still has the gun show loophole, so as far as I can tell, the only obstacle to getting a gun in Florida is having enough money.
EDIT: Oh, and gun sellers don’t have to be licensed either. Who the hell is running this state?
Russia has announced their official position on the Parkland shooting, as if there’s any surprise.
