Another Shooting

[irishff1014]

SO Delta ends some discounts with the NRA. Georgia GOP then takes away tax credits on fuel penalizing Delta specifically.... This is crazy

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wow, this is so not going to end well for Georgia. Delta can easily, and should move to another state. But also shows just how in the pocket of the NRA Republicans lawmakers are, that they would risk losing these jobs. <a href="https://t.co/xzl3Pq2QIR">https://t.co/xzl3Pq2QIR</a></p>— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) <a href="https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/969187855724630017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

All delta has to do is move. Problem solved.

 

[Cackalacky]

All delta has to do is move. Problem solved.

state sanctioned politically motivated economic penalties in response to "fair market" activities by private corporations? ..... what could go wrong?

The GOP has ended all pretense of its former principles IMO.

 

[Legacy]

Where do you get your stats? I mean - 69% isn't anything to brag about but embarrassingly far off of 98%. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Then if we are being intellectually honest - we need to think about how many of those are by LEGAL gun owners. Quick searches have mixed results but I am seeing a lot of single digit answers to that question.

Fair question and unbiased source - the CDC, though Congress in 1996 threatened to take away funding for the CDC data in 1996. So they aren't really collecting that data that shows the extent of gun violence as a public health hazard.

I'd be interested in that statistic, too. I guess it depends on how you define "LEGAL" gun owners. Do you define the method by which a murderer who obtained some guns who went through background checks, training, registered the handgun, etc as Wiz is doing in Connecticut? If you include obtaining the handgun through gun shows, the Internet, in states that require only an instant background check, straw purchases, resale of confiscated weapons by police at auction not requiring registration or background checks, gun advocate groups can point to most of those as "legal purchases". What's difficult to determine if you include those sources of purchases is that "legal purchases" may not be done by "responsible gun owners".

The FBI stats, which are current through 2016, should be more reflective of current stats.
FBI Homicide Data 2012-16 by weapon. Homicide by type of firearm (handgun, rifle, shotguns, "other guns") work out to be 93% of total homicides committed by handguns. I excluded "Firearms not specified". Of course, excluding "other guns" which limits homicides to handguns, rifles or shotguns would be 95% (636 out of 11,004).

The FBI rely on multiple sources, e.g. death certificates, police reports, etc. So many of those "firearms not specified" are probably handguns, because I imagine police or doctors would note if the death was by a shotgun or rifle.

I may have been looking at 2017 data. Still, 92% or 95% is a much more accurate statistic than 69%. Perhaps that 69% stat is a measure of weapons (vs firearms). While mass murders by military-style firearms is what is mostly being discussed as being legislated, we do need to register all sales and have the buyers pass background checks as responsible gun owners do, don't you agree?

 

[IrishLax]

state sanctioned politically motivated economic penalties in response to "fair market" activities by private corporations? ..... what could go wrong?

The GOP has ended all pretense of its former principles IMO.

IMO, there is a subtle - but important - difference between a "penalty" and withholding a "benefit."

If they were passing a law saying "Delta is getting fined $X for breaking away from the NRA" that'd be crazy (and illegal?). That's not quite what they're doing, they're instead saying "we're not going to pass a bill that benefits you if you don't operate in a fashion we think is in line with our political platform." I'd imagine this has been quite commonplace behind closed doors in the history of this country, only difference is that this time it's playing out on Twitter.

 

[Cackalacky]

IMO, there is a subtle - but important - difference between a "penalty" and withholding a "benefit."

If they were passing a law saying "Delta is getting fined $X for breaking away from the NRA" that'd be crazy (and illegal?). That's not quite what they're doing, they're instead saying "we're not going to pass a bill that benefits you if you don't operate in a fashion we think is in line with our political platform." I'd imagine this has been quite commonplace behind closed doors in the history of this country, only difference is that this time it's playing out on Twitter.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this distinction.

The Republican was a vocal supporter of the $50 million tax break, which would have eliminated the state’s tax on jet fuels. But Senate Republicans voted Wednesday to strip it out of the measure after Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle said he would “kill” the incentive unless Delta restored ties with a gun rights group.

Delta was set to receive this break up until the other day. As a response they moved to takeaway a $50 million tax break on jet fuel. While I conceded that technically you are correct and I accept that but are we really not just having a semantic difference like... how taxes from the public are actually revenue for the government? Isnt a $50 million break on taxes to be paid synonymous with a net increase in revenue for Delta if they do not have to pay it? Is that not a financial penalty simply in the sense that Delta probably negotiated that with the Ga government (in good faith) over time and now on a whim it was removed. Moving the needle $50 million dollars in outlays is a significant chunk of money for any company let alone an airline and to do so on a whim is disturbing.

This move wasn't becasue of operational issues, poor performance, labor issues, or logistics, or anything related to the operation of the airline... it was GA. GOP getting their hard-ons for guns rustled based on a private matter between two private entities that doesnt affect the tax break and its prior negotiations whatsoever. To me, this is a penalty, or at a minimum political retribution.

 

[NorthDakota]

IMO, there is a subtle - but important - difference between a "penalty" and withholding a "benefit."

If they were passing a law saying "Delta is getting fined $X for breaking away from the NRA" that'd be crazy (and illegal?). That's not quite what they're doing, they're instead saying "we're not going to pass a bill that benefits you if you don't operate in a fashion we think is in line with our political platform." I'd imagine this has been quite commonplace behind closed doors in the history of this country, only difference is that this time it's playing out on Twitter.

Thats what i was kinda thinking. Cant penalize someone by taking away a benefit they never had anyway. Doesnt mean I agree with it necessarily.

 

[wizards8507]

Maybe I am misunderstanding this distinction.

Delta was set to receive this break up until the other day. As a response they moved to takeaway a $50 million tax break on jet fuel. While I conceded that technically you are correct and I accept that but are we really not just having a semantic difference like... how taxes from the public are actually revenue for the government? Isnt a $50 million break on taxes to be paid synonymous with a net increase in revenue for Delta if they do not have to pay it? Is that not a financial penalty simply in the sense that Delta probably negotiated that with the Ga government (in good faith) over time and now on a whim it was removed. Moving the needle $50 million dollars in outlays is a significant chunk of money for any company let alone an airline and to do so on a whim is disturbing.

This move wasn't becasue of operational issues, poor performance, labor issues, or logistics, or anything related to the operation of the airline... it was GA. GOP getting their hard-ons for guns rustled based on a private matter that doesnt affect the tax break and its prior negotiations whatsoever. To me, this is a penalty.

I'm torn on this one. The tax break was a corrupt and illegitimate bargain in the first place, but the basis on which it's being revoked is also corrupt and illegitimate. But yeah, screw Republicans who claim to be against cronyism and then they go make shit deals like this one. See also: Pence and Carrier Air Conditioning.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm torn on this one. The tax break was a corrupt and illegitimate bargain in the first place, but the basis on which it's being revoked is also corrupt and illegitimate. But yeah, screw Republicans who claim to be against cronyism and then they go make shit deals like this one. See also: Pence and Carrier Air Conditioning.

OMG are we best friends now?

 

[wizards8507]

OMG are we best friends now?

 

[ACamp1900]

OMG are we best friends now?

 

[IrishLax]

I'm torn on this one. The tax break was a corrupt and illegitimate bargain in the first place, but the basis on which it's being revoked is also corrupt and illegitimate. But yeah, screw Republicans who claim to be against cronyism and then they go make shit deals like this one. See also: Pence and Carrier Air Conditioning.

Put well, this was a lobbyist-driven corporatist tax break for their "buddies" who have a big hub in Atlanta. Then they pissed off some people, and now they're saying "fine, no back scratch for you."

So it's punitive, but it's not like they're 'sanctioning' Delta... they're just saying if you want favors, you better align with us. Should there be favors in the first place? Hell no. But these kinds of corporate tax breaks are all too common... whether it's for coal, or who can give the sweetest tax break to a sports franchise to move to their town, or you name it.

 

[NorthDakota]

The problem here is they are both bottoms.

 

[IrishLion]

The problem here is they are both bottoms.

That's okay as long as one of them is a Power Bottom, and the other is a Twink Versatile.

 

[RDU Irish]

Fair question and unbiased source - the CDC, though Congress in 1996 threatened to take away funding for the CDC data in 1996. So they aren't really collecting that data that shows the extent of gun violence as a public health hazard.

I'd be interested in that statistic, too. I guess it depends on how you define "LEGAL" gun owners. Do you define the method by which a murderer who obtained some guns who went through background checks, training, registered the handgun, etc as Wiz is doing in Connecticut? If you include obtaining the handgun through gun shows, the Internet, in states that require only an instant background check, straw purchases, resale of confiscated weapons by police at auction not requiring registration or background checks, gun advocate groups can point to most of those as "legal purchases". What's difficult to determine if you include those sources of purchases is that "legal purchases" may not be done by "responsible gun owners".

The FBI stats, which are current through 2016, should be more reflective of current stats.
FBI Homicide Data 2012-16 by weapon. Homicide by type of firearm (handgun, rifle, shotguns, "other guns") work out to be 93% of total homicides committed by handguns. I excluded "Firearms not specified". Of course, excluding "other guns" which limits homicides to handguns, rifles or shotguns would be 95% (636 out of 11,004).

The FBI rely on multiple sources, e.g. death certificates, police reports, etc. So many of those "firearms not specified" are probably handguns, because I imagine police or doctors would note if the death was by a shotgun or rifle.

I may have been looking at 2017 data. Still, 92% or 95% is a much more accurate statistic than 69%. Perhaps that 69% stat is a measure of weapons (vs firearms). While mass murders by military-style firearms is what is mostly being discussed as being legislated, we do need to register all sales and have the buyers pass background checks as responsible gun owners do, don't you agree?

68%-73% seems like a pretty tight range to me - nowhere near 92%-95%. If you are arguing handguns are by far the largest contributor - why are we banning the things that are the minority of the (real) problem? I mean, fists kill more people by these stats than rifles, shotguns and other guns combined - lets cut those off everyone until that person proves they are not a danger to others.

2012
12888 total homicides
8897 total from firearms
= 69%

2013
12253 total homicides
8454 total from firearms
= 69%

2014
12270 total homicides
8312 total from firearms
68%

2015
13750 total homicides
9778 total from firearms
71%

2016
15070 total homicides
11004 total from firearms
73%

For the record - the homicide via explosives is impressively persistent but next to non-existent.

 

[Legacy]

68%-73% seems like a pretty tight range to me - nowhere near 92%-95%. If you are arguing handguns are by far the largest contributor - why are we banning the things that are the minority of the (real) problem? I mean, fists kill more people by these stats than rifles, shotguns and other guns combined - lets cut those off everyone until that person proves they are not a danger to others.

2012
12888 total homicides
8897 total from firearms
= 69%

2013
12253 total homicides
8454 total from firearms
= 69%

2014
12270 total homicides
8312 total from firearms
68%

2015
13750 total homicides
9778 total from firearms
71%

2016
15070 total homicides
11004 total from firearms
73%

Just to be clear. My handgun stats are for percentage of homicides by firearms, not total homicides by any means or even limiting it to weapons which would include knives, etc.

Are you in favor of Red Flag laws?
Gun control: N.J. Legislature closer to approving 'red flag,' other measures after debate

Kasich Proposes 'Red Flag' Law, Other Gun Changes in State

'Red flag' laws gain steam after Florida shooting

‘Red Flag’ Law To Seize Guns Moving Through Md. General Assembly

 

[wizards8507]

Lmfao.

 

[RDU Irish]

.
You make points on the difficulties of gun control legislation that, unless there are changes in our culture or consensus opinion, paint a dark picture for the future, especially considering our homicide rate per capita. Worth noting is that 98% of homicides are committed with handguns. A recent analysis of mass murderers show that 22% might be categorized as having some kind of mental disorder with the same criteria in the general population is 1%. So focusing strictly on mental disorders does nto address the problem and more of a canard by those who wish to preserve the status quo.

.

Are you intentionally obtuse?

 

[Cackalacky]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“The FBI analyzed 160 cases of active shooters over the period from 2000-2013, and not one was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder who was not active duty military, a security guard, or a police officer. 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians.” <a href="https://t.co/JQCqTj3jV8">https://t.co/JQCqTj3jV8</a></p>— C. Damien Arthur (@damien_arthur) <a href="https://twitter.com/damien_arthur/status/969023596071997440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“The FBI analyzed 160 cases of active shooters over the period from 2000-2013, and not one was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder who was not active duty military, a security guard, or a police officer. 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians.” <a href="https://t.co/JQCqTj3jV8">https://t.co/JQCqTj3jV8</a></p>— C. Damien Arthur (@damien_arthur) <a href="https://twitter.com/damien_arthur/status/969023596071997440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Strawman. The purpose of armed "good guys" isn't to win shootouts, it's as a deterrent from the shootout beginning in the first place.

 

[Cackalacky]

Strawman. The purpose of armed "good guys" isn't to win shootouts, it's as a deterrent from the shootout beginning in the first place.

I don’t think you and I can be friends anymore. And I don’t think that is the argument that has been made.

 

[SonofOahu]

I definitely believe a reaction to guns could help gun violence and that's a conversation worth having but that guns are not the real issue here as Bishop talked about... this is a culture issue and anyone not wanting to have that discussion, in my opinion, is just using 'guns' as a political football.

I kind of appreciate a culture where you don't have to worry about your kid getting shot at school.

It is a gun issue, and not admitting that the US has a gun problem, is ignoring a root cause of mass killings. I don't remember who made this point (besides me) but assault weapons present a capacity and reloading problem. Assault weapons and semi-auto handguns allow too much fire-power, with too little reload delay. That's why they should be banned from civilian use. It's not political football to argue the obvious.

 

[SonofOahu]

The problem here is they are both bottoms.

Well played... Well played.

 

[irishff1014]

This sheriff has more excuses than than enough. The more info that comes out the worse his agency and his lack leadership looks.

 

[NorthDakota]

I kind of appreciate a culture where you don't have to worry about your kid getting shot at school.

It is a gun issue, and not admitting that the US has a gun problem, is ignoring a root cause of mass killings. I don't remember who made this point (besides me) but assault weapons present a capacity and reloading problem. Assault weapons and semi-auto handguns allow too much fire-power, with too little reload delay. That's why they should be banned from civilian use. It's not political football to argue the obvious.

Assault rifles are illegal and have been for a long time.

Call these guns what they are.... semi automatic rifles. Stop hiding behind the stupid and legitimately retarded phrase of "assault rifles" or "assault weapons."

If you want to have a legitimate conversation on guns with gun people, you are going to need to use proper terminology. Especially when there is a stark difference between the two, its like calling an F-150 a Ferrari. They aren't the same... at all.

 

[phgreek]

.
You make points on the difficulties of gun control legislation that, unless there are changes in our culture or consensus opinion, paint a dark picture for the future, especially considering our homicide rate per capita. Worth noting is that 98% of homicides are committed with handguns. A recent analysis of mass murderers show that 22% might be categorized as having some kind of mental disorder with the same criteria in the general population is 1%. So focusing strictly on mental disorders does nto address the problem and more of a canard by those who wish to preserve the status quo.

Yup, the proposed ban on assault rifles is about a relatively small number of murders and yup, < 1/3 of mass murderers are CLINICALLY mentally Ill…at least known to be BEFORE hand.
Also, legislation generally requires some consensus...so you kind of lose me there....and Trump/Manchin/Toomey?
The discussion we were having previously, seems like I was offering what I thought were the most likely things to bare fruit in the narrow discussion of school shootings/mass shootings...and maybe how the death toll can be reduced within an event. Like maybe capacity, and limits on retrofits that increase firing rate...maybe bullet construction…even suggested adding shooter safety concerns as part of the justification for banning bump stocks....however the reality is, some time in the future...probably not in our lifetime, those things might make a difference in a school shooting. Of course the people drawing a paycheck to stop said shooter might ...ya know...do their job too...and that would have stopped the one in Florida. Which also puts on display the competency of the institutions you think “help”. Small sample size acknowledged…but bureaucrat failure does not have a small sample size.
In subsequent discussions with others I did indicate agreement with the idea that people who do mass shootings are losers fueled by infamy seeking, and I added that the media (24 hour news), social media, etc add rocket fuel to infamy, and the frequency of these attacks on soft targets increases. I also said I thought the violent video games and movies played some role...but live in the category of cultural decline. I also added the idea that if you believe legislation is the solution, it is weird that ONLY the Second amendment seems to be the source of solution, considering the first has a role to play too, particularly in fueling repeats by feeding the infamy.
FWIW…I’m sensing scope creep in the discussion nationally…

.Registration, documentation of sales, background checks and restrictions on some types of weapons and/or ammunitions fall within the interstate commerce powers of the federal government. States can and do pass legislation that can restrict some commerce within the state and other regulations to protect their citizens from what they perceive as a public health problem.

Sure…but do it. So my OPINION is, very little at the Federal Level will fly, yet that is where anything meaningful/lasting related to reducing body count at a mass shooting would need to come from. Scope creep threatens even the narrow scope you and I discussed, because the current good will is perishable. As for State and local...the NRA line, I believe, would be thats where regulation belongs...then they’d oppose the state regs when they came up, which is not somehow sinister BTW. You can, in good faith, argue the issue does not belong at the federal level, and then have members at the state and local levels compel you to pick a side there. And BTW, it seems the left’s argument that local and state level constraints fail because bad guys get weapons from elsewhere...thats not my argument, thats the left's assessment for why gun policies in places like Chicago fail. I'm seriously not trying to do the lifting for the NRA here...but if you want anything that has a hope of helping...like ever...folks need to be strategic, which begs realism.

Mental criteria based on admission type is easily established - involuntary admission by a probate court, voluntary admissions to psych hospitals, and, in some places, a physician's certification emergency certification that allows hospitalization for a period of time (15 days in one state) based on the criteria that people are deemed disabled or a danger to themselves or others.

Remember I’m looking at this fairly narrowly…so I’m using the litmus test that asks how proposals stop mass shootings, or reduce the body count related to mass shootings. I'm ok with the criteria you mention…it should be accounted for…BUT do you think you can get people to plug the data in...so social workers, courts and hospitals etc. have time...really?…more time/money than the courts and police who can't be bothered to notify ICE on illegals? Further, we seem to live in a society that picks and chooses the laws they abide by based on their own code…see sanctuary cities and the people therein. So even with Federal Laws, are Wyoming and Utah gonna play along? What are you willing to do about it? As well, the mental criteria can't just be clinical. The other 78% of mass murderers are at least undocumented crazy, so you hope something in their background pops out in a background check. However, this kinda forces a need for definition of criteria regarding mental state / risk that goes beyond CLINICAL definitions if you want any predictive/preventive benefit. The background check you really want is probably closer to the one DoD uses for secret clearance, and you need personnel to have the wherewithal to know the sources of data, and to be apolitical in judging someone's capacity to own a weapon. First that investigation can take a year or more. Anything short of that level of background check, and IMHO, the value/effectiveness fades quickly. But sure tighten up and better utilize current systems to the degree you can.

There is no requirement that mental illness hospitalizations or those hospitalized as dangers to themselves or others be reported to the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) by states. Unfortunately for mandatory universal background checks, the interim provisions of the Brady were challenged and upheld by SCOTUS in Printz v. U.S. which gun rights advocate groups funded. Each state can choose to establish such a database and report these to NICS. Over 5,000 voluntary psych admissions have been entered into Connecticut's database and reported to NICS, New York entered over 34,000, Florida entered over 140,00, Wyoming has entered four.

Yea...these are called the realities of the playing field you are on. Do you think that can be corrected as quickly as you could have some legislation on bump stocks and capacity...hell Trump might do an EO if the left would just not try and pile on. My advice, shut up and TAKE IT.
I would likely dispute some of the things said about the NRA, but they are aggressive, and have money and an agenda...and they are unapologetic about the pursuit of their cause...perceived fair or not, moral or not, ethical or not. Right now, they are Trump-stunned...left needs to learn to throw a jab and not a haymaker on every damn punch.

 

[wizards8507]

Really, no response to the Feinstein tweet? That was a real tweet.

 

[phgreek]

I kind of appreciate a culture where you don't have to worry about your kid getting shot at school.

It is a gun issue, and not admitting that the US has a gun problem, is ignoring a root cause of mass killings. I don't remember who made this point (besides me) but assault weapons present a capacity and reloading problem. Assault weapons and semi-auto handguns allow too much fire-power, with too little reload delay. That's why they should be banned from civilian use. It's not political football to argue the obvious.

you and I, yea we do Root cause WAY differently. There were semi automatic rifles around in the 70s...how many mass shootings were there? And they were around in the 80s and 90s, how many then?

Root cause is not equivalent to the "obvious" thing you could "try"...and thank God engineers know that.

System A is designed to run at B temperature. The fielded system is experiencing down time. Initial review shows system A has ICs that are failing frequently...more so over time. So you'd remove that capability those ICs support, and say "screw it", its "obviously" the problem.

 

[GowerND11]

Really, no response to the Feinstein tweet? That was a real tweet.

When you said this, I went back to look at the tweet you embedded again. I had NO idea who wrote it the first time. Just thought it was either some satire post that some might believe it real, or some crazy SJW hack nobody that has no idea about guns at all. (I guess I was kind of right in the last part though)

 

[dublinirish]

Shots fired at a dorm at Central Michigan University this morning, suspect still at large

UPDATE: Suspect at large at CMU, school on lockdown

 

[Bishop2b5]

you and I, yea we do Root cause WAY differently. There were semi automatic rifles around in the 70s...how many mass shootings were there? And they were around in the 80s and 90s, how many then?

Root cause is not equivalent to the "obvious" thing you could "try"...and thank God engineers know that.

System A is designed to run at B temperature. The fielded system is experiencing down time. Initial review shows system A has ICs that are failing frequently...more so over time. So you'd remove that capability those ICs support, and say "screw it", its "obviously" the problem.

This is exactly my thought and frustration with so many of the approaches or suggestions for solutions from the Left. Actual automatic weapons and assault weapons were legal and quite available a generation or two ago and yet mass shootings were dramatically more rare. Access to guns was significantly higher then, yet again, nowhere near as many problems. It's not that restricting access to certain weapons can't contribute to a solution now, but clearly isn't addressing or solving the underlying main cause. It's like saying the solution to alcohol related traffic fatalities is to lower the speed limit. Yeah, that might help just a bit, but a person who drives drunk isn't obeying the law anyway, won't likely obey the lower speed limits, and it all fails to address the actual issue: alcohol abuse and driving while intoxicated.