But Seriously...

Is there a motive yet? Given the location there's a lot of potential motives that could fit (including the good old fashioned "random target, because fuck it, this is America").

 

Targeting a doctor he specifically blamed for his back pain.
We need to ban back pain, and I am on board with that.

 

I don't think that goes far enough. We need to arm doctors and nurses and get rid of these stupid laws that make hospitals gun free zones. Only law abiding citizens acknowledge gun free zones, so you are always going to get criminals targeting these soft targets.

 

Agreed.

 

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because that totally sounds like some thing the hardcore 2A crowd would say.

 

We need to reflect on the years of systemic shitty bedside manner that drove this tortured soul to lash out in such a fashion.

 

That's kind of the point.

(I'm being very sarcastic)

 

I’ve had some absolutely shitty doctors — some incredible ones, but some absolutely horrible ones as well. And the last thing I’d ever do is upset any of them. It’s a small world, and everyone seems to know everyone, even in wildly different fields. The moment you piss one doctor off, all the sudden your dentist is drilling a bit deeper than the numbing meds go because you chewed out his brother in law or some shit.

 

So, if every gun law proposed here at TiB, and recently in US Congress were passed today and made law, there would be no more school shootings?

 

Putin has cancer confirmed. A psychopath who may be dying trying to assure his place in history. And oh by the way, has a huge nuclear arsenal. Terrific.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/02/us-in...ve-vladimir-putin-is-sick-with-cancer-report/

 

Probably not immediately, but it would put a major dent into making it extremely difficult to commit a shooting of this type. As with anything, zero is probably not realistic, but it would certainly stop the majority.

 

That's basically saying that since seat-belts don't stop 100% of automobile deaths, there shouldn't be laws requiring people to wear them whenever they're driving. 100% efficacy shouldn't be a requirement for enacting SOMETHING to help curtail these types of incidents.

If an enacted law doesn't work, just repeal it. Or, even if it DOES *cough*abortion rights*cough* you can just repeal that too...

 

to be fair, they also started out as criminals. So they were used to life without guns anyway

 

If these recommended laws are passed, and maybe a year or so afterward, a school shooting occurs that kills…let’s say 10+ students, is the reaction going to be “we mourn the loss of life in this shameful act,” full stop?
What if the perpetrator followed all the new laws to the letter? Type of gun, purchase age, wait time, full background check, ammo purchase intervals, storage, registration, or frequent training certification, etc…

 

The first thing would be, before any laws are enacted, set the expectation that no amount of regulation is going to 100% stop shootings or crimes. It is being put in place to make it as difficult as possible, but it is not a 100% deterrent. We don't need another replay of COVID vaccine efficacy where people are quarreling over 2% points and losing their fucking minds.

If a shooting happened, with all of these new processes, I would first look at what was a weak point where this person was still able to acquire weapons and shoot up a school. The second would be, although we understand these new policies won't stop every crime, there has been a major reduction in these events. Then it would be, thoughts and prayers. Then it would be let's stay resolute and continue to work on the other problems which are causing so many people to reach for violence first.

 

There will not be laws to prevent dead kids, because kids don't vote.

You want gun control, start shooting politicians, old rich white dudes, or ideally both. Problem solved.

Seriously, if you wanted to do something, you have to start small. Gun census.
Statewide registry for all firearms, supported by federal grants. The states set whatever responsibility they want, but they have to report a total number of guns in that state to the feds, and they have to keep track of what guns were used in violent crimes seized by police and submit a number (not itemized serial numbers) to the feds. Feds get 2 numbers: how many guns and how many guns seized by cops.

States don't want to do that? No federal money for cops, which means no fancy mil-spec gear. Gun sold in your non-registry state shows up in a mass shooting? Victims fund used to be your highway money. Number of one or both off by too much? Goodbye easy federal money, hello ATF crawling up your state's ass. Give the feds those two numbers, take the money and just do the bare fucking minimum which is pretend you can keep track of who is walking around armed.

We are decades away from effectively preventing anyone from getting a weapon if ever, because guns are easy as shit to steal, 3d print, buy at flea markets, etc. I don't see how law enforcement, who is rapidly getting worse at their actual job, is going to effectively navigate and prevent all the ways a strawman purchase works. Knowing how shitty and flimsy psych evals can be, I don't think any restriction on one's personal freedom to own a firearm will hinge on one for very long. That is literally a layup of a lawsuit for anyone living in Montana.

With those two numbers, we can start to see some basics about what the scope of this issue actually is, and start to align incentives/disincentives for state, county and local law enforcment to address it.

I trust a federal gun law to be political theatre converted into security theatre, accomplish fuck all beyond simply being a nuisance.

 

I wouldn't hold out hope on this one. Someone shot Steve Scalise and his politics somehow managed to get worse afterward.