Nintendo Switch
Banned
There have been many momentous speeches in US history, and I am increasingly starting to believe that this will go down as one of them.
Just seeing all that this movement, started by high school students that put my generation to shame, has sparked already, along with the nature of how it is being spread and how it is expanding, to now encompass a mass boycott of any corporations that have any ties with the NRA.
I first saw this speech as a result of a Facebook post shared by my grandparents of all things! These are not the types of people that post or watch viral videos. It’s insane how widely it is being shared on Facebook by people from older generations. But it’s not surprising given how damn compelling that speech is. It literally sends shivers every time I hear it. The last speech that did that was Obama’s Inaugural Speech and that was aided by the emotions of having just achieved a historic first.
What laws could even be passed?
As for proactive effective solutions that would prevent future shootings, Brian Mast is a GOP Congressman, NRA member and Afghanistan war veteran that lost both his legs to an IED. He wrote an excellent op ed full of suggestions to reduce mass shootings.
His op ed is all over the internet and I encourage you to read it below:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/...pons-ban.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Would passing laws even help?
We have had an absolute explosion in mass shootings in handful of years since the assault weapons ban expired. And the vast majority of the most lethal of these shootings were all committed using an AR15.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-w451452
The stats back up the fact that there is far more gun violence in the places with the least amount of gun regulations...
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/19/
As an aside, if you don’t believe that laws can help, then why the hell do we even pass laws?
If laws have no impact then Lets make machine guns and grenade launchers legal again. Lets make it legal for 3 year olds to buy guns. Lets make it even easier for people with mental illness or a history of violence to buy guns. If you really believe laws have no impact then why do we bother to pass any laws?
Don’t you find it odd that all these shooters use legal guns? None of them are shooting up schools with machine guns, rpgs or grenade launchers. Either that’s one hell of a coincidence or regulations and laws do work.
Don’t places like Detroit and Chicago with strict gun regulations have higher rates of gun violence?
Cities (including Detroit and Chicago) have lower per capita gun violence deaths than the suburbs and rural areas.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/crime-and-corrections/public-safety
It doesn’t fit the agenda of the NRA or Fox News to talk about the 25 bright red states that have much higher rates of crime and violence than both Illinois and Michigan.
Michigan and Illinois are 24 and 25 on the list. There are 25 mostly bright red states ranked lower on this list due to having significantly higher rates of crime.
The most populated states with the most and biggest cities, and the strictest gun regulations, all rank high in terms of public safety and rank very low in terms of violent crime.
Per capita, red states with lax gun regulations have far far higher gun violence and gun deaths... https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/
If your point is that more people die where more people live (in the cities), duh. But if you compare number of deaths as a proportion of the number of people living there, cities and states with gun regulations are by far the safest places to live.
How would you even define an “assault rifle”?
These assault rifles could be defined as anything that allows for accurate shooting of crowds from 100 yards away and can shoot over 12 bullets before having to reload (modded AR15s can shoot 40 bullets without having to reload giving less opportunity for good guys to come close enough to the shooter to stop them).
This kid was shooting up targets from all the way from one end of the hall way to the other end, to the point that four well trained police officers “good guys with a gun” and in fact most police officers would be afraid to even try to engage him until he uses up the ammo in his clip and has to reload.
The vegas shooter shot 300 people from over a 1000 yards away using rifles, extended ammo clips and bump stocks that he bought legally. These are the weapons of cowards.
With a 8 shooter pistol, both would have had to be much closer to their targets and would have had to reload much more frequently providing ample opportunity for a large crowd of people that are being shot at to gang up and overpower the shooter.
And it’s a medical fact that people shot with a pistol are much more likely to survive than people shot up with these rifles.
But perhaps the most scientific way to define assault rifles specifically as those that have a long range of accuracy, can discharge over 12 rounds without needing to reload, and still manage to be deadlier than handguns as well documented by radiology scans of bullet wounds in the below article...
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/
Wouldn’t this violate the second amendment?
The Supreme Court has affirmed that the second amendment clearly protects the right of people to own handguns and revolvers barring a compelling reason (such as a history of violence, extremist views, or threats of violence).
At the same time, and this is what the NRA and Guns rights advocates leave out, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to expand second amendments rights to apply to anything other than muskets, handguns and revolvers. The NRA had tried over a dozen times to get the Supreme Court to expand the second amendment to apply to things beyond handguns and muskets and the court refused them on every turn. Even Anthony Scalia said that that’s not something he was ready to do.
Therefore, as per the law of the land, the 2nd amendment applies, but it applies to handguns and revolvers only (I don’t think anyone even makes muskets these days). Both blue states and federal laws may impose restrictions on any firearms except for revolvers. And this is by design, eventhe most conservative Supreme Court in history reaffirmed this interpretation of the second amendment.
And the NRA is well aware of this fact, because they are the people that have been asking the Supreme Court to review cases to try to get the second amendment to apply to other types of guns as well for decades, and have failed every time.
I agree with the Supreme Court. The states and the nation can and should make new purchases of long range high capacity semiautomatic rifles illegal. As long as they do not impose restrictions on the sales of handguns or revolvers, they are completely in line with the second amendment.
But no one should ever impose restrictions on revolvers. The only individuals that can be made unable to buy or keep revolvers are those explicitly found by the courts or by law enforcement (pending court review within 72 hours) not to be safely able to own a gun.
This is exactly what is done with psychotic people. The laws allow law enforcement to involuntarily send people with psychosis to mental health hospitals for 72 hours. But within 72 hours of them being sent to the hospital, they have to be seen by a psychiatrist and if the psychiatrist feels they are not safe for release, they have to have a court hearing within a week or less (the exact number of days varies state by state) with a lawyer for the defendant present and three judges review all the evidence to determine if they should be forced to stay in the hospital and be made to take medication to get better initially for 30-90 days based on how severe the illness is before needing to have another court hearing to extend this stay further if indicated.
Feel free to repost and share this OP without attribution as you would like anywhere you wish.
Just seeing all that this movement, started by high school students that put my generation to shame, has sparked already, along with the nature of how it is being spread and how it is expanding, to now encompass a mass boycott of any corporations that have any ties with the NRA.
I first saw this speech as a result of a Facebook post shared by my grandparents of all things! These are not the types of people that post or watch viral videos. It’s insane how widely it is being shared on Facebook by people from older generations. But it’s not surprising given how damn compelling that speech is. It literally sends shivers every time I hear it. The last speech that did that was Obama’s Inaugural Speech and that was aided by the emotions of having just achieved a historic first.
What laws could even be passed?
As for proactive effective solutions that would prevent future shootings, Brian Mast is a GOP Congressman, NRA member and Afghanistan war veteran that lost both his legs to an IED. He wrote an excellent op ed full of suggestions to reduce mass shootings.
His op ed is all over the internet and I encourage you to read it below:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/...pons-ban.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
The Second Amendment is unimpeachable. It guarantees the right of citizens to defend themselves. I accept, however, that it does not guarantee that every civilian can bear any and all arms.
For example, the purchase of fully automatic firearms is largely banned already, and I cannot purchase an AT-4 rocket, grenades, a Bradley fighting vehicle or an Abrams tank. I know that no single action can prevent a truly determined person from committing mass murder, and I am aware of other ways to commit mass murder, such as bombings and mass vehicular slaughter. Not being able to control everything, however, should not prevent us from doing something.
Therefore, I support the following:
Defining what constitutes an assault or tactical firearm and not allowing them for future purchase — just as we already prohibit the purchase of fully automatic firearms. The exact definition of assault weapon will need to be determined. But we should all be able to agree that the civilian version of the very deadly weapon that the Army issued to me should certainly qualify. I would not support any version of a ban that results in confiscating existing legally owned firearms.
Ensuring that every firearm purchaser has a background check. We also need to improve the background check system.
Banning the sale of accessories and add-ons that circumvent the ban on automatic firearms, and increasing the ages at which individuals can purchase various categories of firearms.
Ensuring that those who have been detained for mental illness, or have been ordered by courts to receive treatment for mental illness, cannot purchase firearms.
Ensuring that someone who is being looked at as a possible terrorist, through a system of due process, cannot purchase a firearm and that any person threatening to shoot or blow up a school, in word or on social media, is placed on an F.B.I. watch list for a long time.
Providing behavior detection training to anyone seeking a Federal Firearms License.
Making substantial resources available to schools, at their discretion, for security measures, including the opportunity to purchase enhanced security screening, install classroom panic buttons wired directly to law enforcement and hire additional school resource officers.
Holding the F.B.I. and state agencies accountable for their failures to identify a threat like Nikolas Cruz, as well as ensuring that schools enforce basic security protocols to prevent access by unauthorized personnel.
And finally, conducting further research into the nexus of gun violence, violence in mass media and mental illness.
The president, House of Representatives, Senate, every state legislature, sheriffs, police officers, school boards, students and parents must unite with one mission: that no one will ever be murdered in school again.
Brian Mast, a Republican, is the representative for Florida’s 18th congressional district.
Would passing laws even help?
We have had an absolute explosion in mass shootings in handful of years since the assault weapons ban expired. And the vast majority of the most lethal of these shootings were all committed using an AR15.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-w451452
The stats back up the fact that there is far more gun violence in the places with the least amount of gun regulations...
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/19/
As an aside, if you don’t believe that laws can help, then why the hell do we even pass laws?
If laws have no impact then Lets make machine guns and grenade launchers legal again. Lets make it legal for 3 year olds to buy guns. Lets make it even easier for people with mental illness or a history of violence to buy guns. If you really believe laws have no impact then why do we bother to pass any laws?
Don’t you find it odd that all these shooters use legal guns? None of them are shooting up schools with machine guns, rpgs or grenade launchers. Either that’s one hell of a coincidence or regulations and laws do work.
Don’t places like Detroit and Chicago with strict gun regulations have higher rates of gun violence?
Cities (including Detroit and Chicago) have lower per capita gun violence deaths than the suburbs and rural areas.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/crime-and-corrections/public-safety
It doesn’t fit the agenda of the NRA or Fox News to talk about the 25 bright red states that have much higher rates of crime and violence than both Illinois and Michigan.
Michigan and Illinois are 24 and 25 on the list. There are 25 mostly bright red states ranked lower on this list due to having significantly higher rates of crime.
The most populated states with the most and biggest cities, and the strictest gun regulations, all rank high in terms of public safety and rank very low in terms of violent crime.
Per capita, red states with lax gun regulations have far far higher gun violence and gun deaths... https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/
If your point is that more people die where more people live (in the cities), duh. But if you compare number of deaths as a proportion of the number of people living there, cities and states with gun regulations are by far the safest places to live.
How would you even define an “assault rifle”?
These assault rifles could be defined as anything that allows for accurate shooting of crowds from 100 yards away and can shoot over 12 bullets before having to reload (modded AR15s can shoot 40 bullets without having to reload giving less opportunity for good guys to come close enough to the shooter to stop them).
This kid was shooting up targets from all the way from one end of the hall way to the other end, to the point that four well trained police officers “good guys with a gun” and in fact most police officers would be afraid to even try to engage him until he uses up the ammo in his clip and has to reload.
The vegas shooter shot 300 people from over a 1000 yards away using rifles, extended ammo clips and bump stocks that he bought legally. These are the weapons of cowards.
With a 8 shooter pistol, both would have had to be much closer to their targets and would have had to reload much more frequently providing ample opportunity for a large crowd of people that are being shot at to gang up and overpower the shooter.
And it’s a medical fact that people shot with a pistol are much more likely to survive than people shot up with these rifles.
But perhaps the most scientific way to define assault rifles specifically as those that have a long range of accuracy, can discharge over 12 rounds without needing to reload, and still manage to be deadlier than handguns as well documented by radiology scans of bullet wounds in the below article...
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/
I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.
I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
Wouldn’t this violate the second amendment?
The Supreme Court has affirmed that the second amendment clearly protects the right of people to own handguns and revolvers barring a compelling reason (such as a history of violence, extremist views, or threats of violence).
At the same time, and this is what the NRA and Guns rights advocates leave out, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to expand second amendments rights to apply to anything other than muskets, handguns and revolvers. The NRA had tried over a dozen times to get the Supreme Court to expand the second amendment to apply to things beyond handguns and muskets and the court refused them on every turn. Even Anthony Scalia said that that’s not something he was ready to do.
Therefore, as per the law of the land, the 2nd amendment applies, but it applies to handguns and revolvers only (I don’t think anyone even makes muskets these days). Both blue states and federal laws may impose restrictions on any firearms except for revolvers. And this is by design, eventhe most conservative Supreme Court in history reaffirmed this interpretation of the second amendment.
And the NRA is well aware of this fact, because they are the people that have been asking the Supreme Court to review cases to try to get the second amendment to apply to other types of guns as well for decades, and have failed every time.
I agree with the Supreme Court. The states and the nation can and should make new purchases of long range high capacity semiautomatic rifles illegal. As long as they do not impose restrictions on the sales of handguns or revolvers, they are completely in line with the second amendment.
But no one should ever impose restrictions on revolvers. The only individuals that can be made unable to buy or keep revolvers are those explicitly found by the courts or by law enforcement (pending court review within 72 hours) not to be safely able to own a gun.
This is exactly what is done with psychotic people. The laws allow law enforcement to involuntarily send people with psychosis to mental health hospitals for 72 hours. But within 72 hours of them being sent to the hospital, they have to be seen by a psychiatrist and if the psychiatrist feels they are not safe for release, they have to have a court hearing within a week or less (the exact number of days varies state by state) with a lawyer for the defendant present and three judges review all the evidence to determine if they should be forced to stay in the hospital and be made to take medication to get better initially for 30-90 days based on how severe the illness is before needing to have another court hearing to extend this stay further if indicated.
Feel free to repost and share this OP without attribution as you would like anywhere you wish.
Last edited: