The Great Debate: Impotence in the Face of Tragedy

We now come to the end of this series offering solutions to the problem of school shootings.  At least for the time being.  Circumstances of one kind or another may prompt more, but for now, this is it.

For this one, I want to look at things that won't work and things that don't work.  Much of what follows has been offered by one particular low intellect individual who hasn't any actual solutions of any kind.  He does have bumper sticker slogans, one of which is particularly idiotic:

"Simple rule: the more guns, the more gun deaths.  Start there on any plan, for it to be rational and workable. Doesn’t mean banning everything. It dies (sic) mean caring for everybody."

But this is merely simple-minded.  He bases this nonsense on alleged studies that allegedly bear this out.  Basically, this dude hasn't the brain capacity to think beyond a superficial level, being that he's simple-minded, posting this kind of drivel because he believes it backs his preconceived notions...notions he hasn't a clue regarding how they came to exist in his pointy head.  I guess he's happy to have something in there besides space.

What his "study" doesn't really answer, is the question of which came first...the more guns part or the more gun deaths part.  Never mind the fact that where there are more automobiles, there are more automobile fatalities.  Or where there are more bathtubs, there are more slips and fall fatalities.  Or where there are more people like this guy, there are more really, really stupid things said as if they were (and this is the funny part) intelligent.  By the reasoning of this guy, if Homer shoots somebody, Gomer down the street might feel having a gun for protection is a good idea.  If after Gomer buys the gun, Homer shoots another guy, did Gomer's purchase have anything to do with the increase in shootings?  I don't think so.  So it could be that the reverse of that equation...more gun deaths equal more guns...is just as likely, if not more so.

More importantly, this poop-for-brains platitude doesn't take into account where the gun deaths are occurring...as if it matters not.  But in rural areas, gun ownership is generally higher percentage-wise than cities with strict gun-control laws...like Chicago...and there isn't a whole lot of gun violence compared to Chicago.  It's not the guns.  It's never the guns.  There's nothing at all rational about this simple-minded rule.  Worse, it does nothing to truly demonstrate caring, because it's so meaningless and there's no way to apply it so that it gives the results this incompetent fool thinks it will. 

Finally as regards this useless crap, "it doesn't mean banning everything".  There is nothing that can be banned that would do much to address the real problem, which is not guns, types of guns or how many exist among law-abiding people.  This pants-wetter thinks he can know what somebody he doesn't know nor knows about needs for protection.  He certainly doesn't have the brain power for far less, so there's no way he's competent enough to judge for anyone else.  But let's move on to what he pretends is a plan.  While this list is likely not dedicated to school safety per se, it's so stupid I had to include it:

1.  Bar sales to all violent criminals
2.  Assault weapons ban
3.  Semiautomatic gun ban
4.  High-capacity magazine ban
5.  Universal checks for gun buyers
6.  Universal checks for ammo buyers
7.  Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider
8.  Bar sales to convicted stalkers
9.  Require gun licenses
10. Ammo purchase limit
11. Centralized record of gun sales
12. Report lost or stolen guns
13. 3-day waiting period
14. Gun purchase limit
15. Workplace weapons ban
16. School weapons ban
17. Guns that microstamp bullets
18. Require gun safes
19. Require safety training
20. Fingerprint gun owners

To begin with, this insipid suggestion fails to account for the fact that almost all of these points of his "plan" are already in play most everywhere in the country to one degree or another.  So, to pretend one is suggesting solutions by doing what is already being done pretty much means that the job is finished and, all students everywhere in every school are now perfectly safe and school shootings will never again take place in the United States of America from now until time eternal.    But let's go through them, as I enjoy showing this dude what he can't see because his head's up his backside:

1.  It is already illegal for violent criminals to purchase a gun.  But hey, dude...try denying one criminal from buying from another.  I'm sure that'll work out just fine.  

2.  This was tried and failed.   What's more, rifles the stupid refers to as "assault rifles" aren't used all that often for crimes of any kind.  The most recent serious school shooting involved the use of a shotgun and a revolver...two guns that are not normally on a gun-grabber's list of guns to grab.  What's more, it didn't matter to the dead.

3.  See point #2.  The stupid in this one is that what the stupid refers to as "assault rifles" are simply semi-automatic weapons, which I believe comprise the most popular weapons, whether rifle or handgun.  So this is really a blatant gun grab considering how many guns would be denied the law-abiding public.  It's also a case of stupid people dictating to others what they need based on the baseless criteria of the stupid, not those who know their own situations and the risks they face.

4.  A worthless proposition.  There is no correlation between magazine size and how many are killed.  What matters is aim.  But assuming one's aim is perfect, there is still no difference in how many can be hit.  The time it takes to drop and empty 10 round mag and replace it with another is tiny and presents no legitimate opportunity to interfere unless one is pretty much right next to the shooter.  Here are two links to debunk the notion that magazine size matters.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/the-high-capacity-magazine-myth/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

In self-defense, stopping a person with a gun requires some skill.  Cops in gun battles fire far more shots that miss than those that hit.  Having more ammo at the ready in a larger mag makes sense, particularly with handguns, as carrying extra mags is inconvenient.  What's more, stopping that assailant might take several hits.  To have to reload could mean one's life.  And for the purposes of protecting students or others, it makes no difference at all how many rounds a magazine carries if the purpose is to kill as many as possible.  The shooter will likely have extras.

5 & 6.  This sounds good even to a lot of pro-gun people.  But the reality is that it, too, will make little to no difference and thus save no one.  What's the point?  To deny criminals and the insane, both of whom are already restricted.  What's more, the criminal who attempts to purchase a gun and goes through a check will be arrested.  They simply won't submit to a check in the first place.  A crazy person or suicidal person might, but if there is no record of one's insanity or suicidal tendency, the nut will pass the check. 

7.  Already in place pretty much everywhere.  The problem, though, is reporting and detecting early enough to do something about it.  Thus, it is no solution.

8.  Already in place pretty much everywhere.

9.  Total infringement on the right to bear arms for self-defense.  What's more, those who license their weapons are not likely to be those who use them for criminal acts.  In the meantime, criminals won't get licensed.

10.  This is goofy.  To limit ammo purchases severely inhibits one's ability to practice and it's another way to prevent the law-abiding from protecting themselves as THEY see fit, which is their right.  More importantly, it can be ignored and side-stepped by a potential mass murderer by simply buying a little at a time, or having another buy on the shooter's behalf.  But what would that limit be?  If it is less than, say 1000, it hurts the law-abiding, while doing nothing to stop the mass shooter, who usually doesn't fire that many rounds before the incident has come to an end.  I think the Las Vegas shooter might have fired off quite a bit, but he's an anomaly among incidents that are especially rare in the first place.

11.  This is the most stupid.  Ask any Jew who was around in 1930s Germany.  This is a call for a registry, which leads to confiscation.  Who puts in charge of storing such information the very entity the 2nd Amendment was meant to deny such controls?  It's amazing how idiotic this one is.

I'm going to leave it there for now.  The rest will follow.  If possible, feel free to address any of the 11+ points made thus far.