Yesterday's Mass Shooting.

Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
It's just a matter of time before the next mass shooting occurs, probably days.

To those who are scratching their heads and wondering why the US allows this to go on, I agree with the head scratching. Witness the struggle over measure 114 in Oregon. Background on that measure is found in the links below.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/gun-control-is-coming.995611/page-56#post-17264802

Post made after the ballot first passed

We passed that measure by a very slender margin in November, 2022. Three weeks later, it was struck down by a circuit court judge (an elected office) in a rural county of 10,000 people who ruled that it infringed on the State's Constitution's section that protected the right of people to obtain arms. The measure most explicitly does not but using gun nut pretzel logic, the judge said it did.

Then, he dragged his feet before making the final ruling that finally allowed his ruling to go before higher courts. The state's Supreme Court blocked enforcing the new amendment to the Oregon State Constitution while the appeals process worked its way through the system. The judge in Harney County held that measure up in his court for as long as he could.

Delay tactics in court by right wingers. They use the courts as a weapon, not for justice. But I digress.

Finally, on January 9, 2024, one year and one month after that Harney County judge decided to defeat the will of the voters after he issued his final ruling.

www.kgw.com

Oregon judge enters the final order striking down Measure 114, a voter-approved gun control law

Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio signed the general judgment on Monday. The judgment finalizes the opinion Raschio issued in November.
www.kgw.com www.kgw.com

And now, we may proceed to correct his error.

www.kgw.com

Measure 114 case goes before Oregon Court of Appeals as state seeks to overturn lower court ruling

State attorneys have asked the Oregon Court of Appeals to block a ruling that struck down the voter-approved gun control law.
www.kgw.com www.kgw.com

So, now the case will go before the Oregon State Supreme Court. The hearing date is not posted anywhere online as far as I can tell.

It's not a matter of if but when. When seems to be sometime next year. That's what we are up against right now. The simplest, most rational and data-driven measures to save lives from guns will take nearly three years and multiple court actions to enact into law. The next threshold to clear is implementation. Many sheriffs in Oregon are saying they will refuse to enforce this law.

www.opb.org

Pulling from extremist playbook, Oregon sheriffs refuse to enforce gun laws

A growing list of Oregon sheriffs are telling their constituents they won’t enforce voter approved gun restrictions despite not yet knowing how some aspects of the law will work and not having a clear role in enforcing others.
www.opb.org

So, here we are. We are working to enact laws that make incremental progress toward protecting people by implementing rational gun safety laws and not the complete package. More will be needed but it's a start that will save lives. It takes years to make even these marginal changes. Meanwhile people have joined with others to prevent enacting even these rational gun laws, are causing mayhem through negligence by failing to ensure the gun they bought are kept, used and maintained in a safe manner. So, I say, OK. If we can prove negligent manslaughter, let them have what they want until it hurts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the great and informative post. Measure 114, the list in the post you linked to, seems like the very least of rules that should be in place and it's shame such a small minority is set on continuing the dangerous situation. Like you said "it's a start". A major step in the right direction. You explained in the gun control is coming thread what measure 114 is not, which is aside from 'for other purposes' what it should be. It's what we call a French deal, take what you can now, try to negotiate more later. I prefer a different approach on matters like this, less compromise. What happens now is "first they wanted to control the type of guns, the amount of guns, the amount of bullets, the left clearly creeps closer to taking our guns, we need to make a stand now, we've given in enough already" and it drags on and on. Practically hard, sure, especially now everything is politicized and every issue can tip an already delicate balance. Like EU giving in to farmers on climate change, they are rewarded for their resistance especially if they show willing to fight. Next time they'll fight even harder regardless. I do not prefer democracy to appease everyone, but do what's necessary and just.

Fogdog said:
What else do you propose we do?
Click to expand...
Rhetorical I assume, I don't have a roadmap for fix for the general problem. I was expressing my thoughts on the increased focused on retribution. My reference to christian justice wasn't an analogy. While probably as old as apes it's historically in the west primarily the origin, that and british monarchs. Again, I don't disagree with the parents getting punished. Pragmatically, in this specific case, maybe a few years less would save millions that could be spend on more fruitful and more fair and preventative action rather than seemingly stretch a few key principals of justice. Justice it is, but the form matters. How retribution is in balance matters. If it doesn't save lives, can it really be justice, a concept made up by people to prevent people in a society from killing each other, not some divine thing on its own that must be satisfied with retributive punishment.

Another way to put it (I don't make light of it, but same sentiment...)



Bonding with a kid and boosting their confidence by introducing them to guns... on a homestead where you got to provide your own meat maybe... what happened to throwing that oddly shaped projectile you call football?

Head scratcher indeed. The school and mass shootings are an inherent part of the gun culture.
 
sunni

sunni

Administrator
Staff member
This is very interesting to see how older generation male presenting people are talking about the evolution of games people who i suspect actually are not gamers.

or stopped gaming at some point,

games have always been social online games are exceptionally social MMORPGS have been proven to help kids with social anxiety, teach children and adults to better themselves by learning how to become team players which translates into the workforce of team building, team skills, better reading comprehension , how to deal with conflict and conflict resolution in guild problems.

Many online games utilize in game voice and chat , discord is not the only voice chat ever created, in the early 2000s we utilized ventrillo similar to discord, discord is not the issue.

A lot of this stuff being posted on here is interesting to read but IMHO not correct, and very speculative rather than first hand experience.

Comments here are pinning video games and their social needs as "new" and the reason for problems. Its not it. youre looking in the wrong area to place blame.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
sunni said:
This is very interesting to see how older generation male presenting people are talking about the evolution of games people who i suspect actually are not gamers.

or stopped gaming at some point,

games have always been social online games are exceptionally social MMORPGS have been proven to help kids with social anxiety, teach children and adults to better themselves by learning how to become team players which translates into the workforce of team building, team skills, better reading comprehension , how to deal with conflict and conflict resolution in guild problems.

Many online games utilize in game voice and chat , discord is not the only voice chat ever created, in the early 2000s we utilized ventrillo similar to discord, discord is not the issue.

A lot of this stuff being posted on here is interesting to read but IMHO not correct, and very speculative rather than first hand experience.

Comments here are pinning video games and their social needs as "new" and the reason for problems. Its not it. youre looking in the wrong area to place blame.
Click to expand...
I am not sure anyone outside of the dickheads finding and radicalizing vulnerable people to the point that are willing and able to murder their fellow human beings are to blame for anything in this thread outside of the people who commit the horrible acts. I don't think social media companies are even to blame, unless they are ones that are in on the radicalization efforts, which many are.

But you did nail it, I think very highly of the benefits games bring. People just need to be far more aware of the mass amount of observation they are under by bad actors at all times, and how easy it is to turn that information around to use to attack them and the ones they care about, and every other person living in the connected world are facing.

You did nail me on the gaming profile though.
 
OldMedUser

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
But the US isn't the only country with people, not just kids spending way too much time alone and online. Yet we are seven or eight times the rate of homicide by gun. I agree that mental health issues are probably on the rise in connection with the rise of people spending more time isolated from their community. But the US isn't exceptional in that area. What we exceed at more than any other similar nation is gun violence. Sure, do lets work on improving mental health in our populations but gun violence in the US is also connected with our insanely easy access to killing machines in ways that no other nation like ours have..
Click to expand...
I totally agree. The wild west mentality from a period of US history that really only lasted 50 years is still alive and well thanks to the media's romanticism of it starting with newspapers and dime novels that began in that era.

I'm pretty sure that if the founding fathers could of had a bit of vision into the future the 2nd amendment would have had a few restrictions built in to it. As it is an amendment the societal pressure building for gun reform should lead to some re-amendment before too long. We're long past the days where even a well regulated militia is going to be able to defend itself from a government gone rogue and what's going on now is in no way well regulated.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How do common sense gun laws infringe on the right to bear arms? The armed forces won't knowing employ people who are mentally unfit to use or care for weapons so why should the public not have the same restrictions.

Here in Canada everyone has to take a training course consisting of two tests at the end of it. One written and one practical. Once that's successfully completed then you have to fill out a pretty extensive application to the federal government which will run background checks before issuing you a license to buy a non-restricted weapon or even ammo. I had let my old license expire long enough ago I had to take the course again last year tho I've had rifles and a shotgun the whole time. The license is good for 5 years and can be renewed for a fee without re-taking the course if you get it renewed within 3 years of its expiry date. There's even a section in the application for your significant other to sign off on that they are cool with you having weapons. If you don't have a current SO you have to supply the name of any past relationship within the last 5 years or so and sign off yourself if such doesn't exist. If you lie and are found out in the background checks not only is your license denied but you're looking at legal repercussions as well.

Safe storage of guns and ammo is also a big deal to keep them out of the hands of non-licensed people or kids. Doesn't have to be a fancy gun safe but must be kept locked up to prevent casual access. A locked closet or even just a trigger lock with ammo kept separately in a secure location. I keep my 12 gauge in the unlocked closet beside my bed that has a trigger lock on it with the key in the lock and a couple rounds of 00 stashed close at hand. If I leave the property I take the key with me and that's perfectly legal and keeps my access quick and easy if needed.

Our closest neighbour a half mile away had a home invasion a few years ago so we've been a little more paranoid since. We're rural here and calling 911 might have the cops show up in 15 min or so but that tends to be too late. The home invaders that hit my neighbours weren't armed with anything other than a bat and a knife until they forced him to hand over the key to his gun safe. His wife was so traumatized they stayed in their 5th wheel trailer parked in a barn at their daughter's farm a mile down the road for over 6 months. They spent close to 5G on security measures before she felt safe enough to move back into their home about half a mile from us. She's still being treated for PTSD and has frequent nightmares tho probably would still be severely affected even if hubby had of had a gun handy.

Also here in Canada you don't have the right to shoot someone who invades your home so hopefully it never comes to that. No law against holding an invader at gunpoint until the cops show up but I'd still rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. :)

:peace:
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
The problem is them being able to buy guns to give to their kids period. (without the audio of your posts it sounds like the emphasis is not on 'they bought him/ provided 15 y/o guns but on the remaining part of your sentence).
Click to expand...
No disagreement from me regarding the availability of guns IS the problem.


Sativied said:
Lady justice is supposed to be blind and treat everyone equal under the law ánd remain consistent. Their past actions not their character or possible future actions should be on trial.

Rehabilitation is one of the goals of punishment that doesn’t seem to apply to this case at all. And 15 years incarceration for the sake of incapacitation, to protect the society, not so much either. That would at least be disproportionate. (People like them are generally speaking a threat to society, sure.) 15 years as denunciation/deterence… I think that‘s the worst argument. The circumstances for all those other messed up parents and kids that led to this tragic situation isn’t going to change by such a harsh sentence. The idea that it can have that effect seems to stem from an emphasis on people having full autonomy no matter the circumstances.

Which leaves the law of Moses: retribution. To satisfy feelings, emotions, a desire for vengeance. Justice? Well, a form of it. All i’m saying extra retribution under the guise of denunciation doesn’t seem right, nor helpful.
Click to expand...
I haven't spent too much time looking into all the details in this case, but what I did see was enough for me to conclude the parents should be held accountable as well. When I start to breakdown what happened while trying to determine what would be a just punishment, I don't think it is far out of line. We all know the final conclusion of a crime being committed is taken into account regarding penalty, that applies to something as simple as speeding on a roadway, and shows how punishment does not have linear correlation with the level of wrong committed.

If no one died, and that kid only discharged the weapon in the school, would the parents be likely to serve time a prison? What does the law say?

JUVENILES
Youth Handgun Safety, 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)
The Violent Crime Control Act makes it a federal offense for a juvenile under 18 years of age to
knowingly possess a handgun or handgun ammunition. The Act also makes it unlawful to transfer a
handgun or handgun ammunition to a person the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to
believe is under 18 years of age.
These provisions are subject to a number of exceptions, such as for the armed forces, ranching,
farming, hunting and other specified uses. Some exceptions require the juvenile to be in possession
of the prior written consent of his or her parent or guardian. The penalty for possession of a
handgun or handgun ammunition by a juvenile is probation if the juvenile has never been convicted
of an offense or adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for an offense. Otherwise, the maximum penalty
for a juvenile is one year of imprisonment.
The penalty for an adult who transfers a handgun or handgun ammunition to a juvenile is ordinarily
a maximum of one year of imprisonment. However, if the violator knew or had reasonable cause to
know that the juvenile intended to possess or use a handgun or ammunition in a crime of violence,
the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

Guns In School, 18 U.S. C. § 922(q)(2)(A)
The reduction of gun violence and gun possession in schools is also a priority of this Office.
Accordingly, any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows,
or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone (on school grounds or public property within
1,000 feet of school grounds) violates 18 U.S. C. § 922(q)(2)(A) and faces a maximum of five years
imprisonment. See enumerated exceptions listed in § 922(q)(2)(A).

I would expect them to receive at least some punishment even if no person was physically hurt:

If the parents removed the child from the school after their meeting, or did everything in their control to ensure the firearm was secured, or even just attempted to get their child any kind of counselling - they would have received much closer to the minimum penalty, but likely no time in prison.

If they acknowledged the mistakes they made, in good faith and could convince most reasonable people they wouldn't repeat the same mistakes again, I would expect them to receive somewhere in the middle range of that penalty.

Unfortunately, they didn't do any of that, and it was reported the father was recorded in jail making threats towards the prosecutor even. If no one was hurt and they received two or three years in prison, would that be fair?

Now taking into account that four people did die, so add two to three years for each child that was killed - doesn't seem all that harsh to me.

I'll agree it wouldn't make sense when looking at it as only rehabilitation, or denunciation, or retribution, but it does make sense to me because it's about all three of those.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Samwiseman420 said:
Been a gamer for 50 years. From pong to my first Atari 2600 to my first computer. FPS games all the way then online with friends in the early 90's. Still gaming today and never have owned a gun. Never wanted one :eyesmoke:
Click to expand...
I’ve been gaming since then as well, using dial up to start. Duke nukem was my fave lol. I own lots of guns, first one at 15. I haven’t shot anyone …….although I have had the desire to a few times lol. My belief is, if your mentally troubled, FPS games may not be helpful but are by no means the cause. If that were the case every country would be overrun with rampaging murderers :o!
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
OldMedUser said:
Easy accessibility to what are basically weapons of war is the prime reason for most of the shootings. Decades of fear mongering by the NRA making everyone believe that simple and sensible gun control like training, storage and mental health screening means they're coming for your guns is also a big contributor.

A huge contributor in not only my opinion is the rise of internet culture and it's impact on youth especially tho not exclusively. Before online gaming gamers would have to gather together to battle each other in group settings so there was still a lot of social interaction. Since smart phones came came along and most games are now almost exclusively online platforms even that aspect of sociability has disappeared. Young people are more isolated than any generation before them and have lost a lot of the ability to interact with their peers IRL. Young men in particular have been affected what with the 'femininization' of masculinity added to the already present anxiety about interacting with females in their peer group. Just look at the rise of incel groups all over social media. I checked out a couple of them on Reddit and it boggles my mind how these poor outcasts feel about the opposite sex. Add to that the free availability of porn and the radicalization these guys get exposed to and it's no wonder to me that there is so much mental illness in the young these days.

Personally I believe it all began with good old TV once media went from just the news ala guys like Walter Cronkite to the kind of sensational broadcasts that pass as news today. Parents became more fearful of letting their kids roam freely like my generation and used the TV to babysit their kids beginning the isolation cycle that has spiralled out of control these days with so many giving their smart phones to their kids to fill that role.

I saw an interview on Amanpour and Company on PBS the other day with the author of 'The Anxious Generation', by Johnathan Haidt that really makes sense of it all. My book budget is limited to thrift store books or the local library so won't likely get to read it any time soon but looks like a good read.

The Anxious Generation | Jonathan Haidt

jonathanhaidt.com jonathanhaidt.com

:peace:
Click to expand...
“Add to that the free availability of porn”………..IMG_1347.jpeg
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
Thanks for the great and informative post. Measure 114, the list in the post you linked to, seems like the very least of rules that should be in place and it's shame such a small minority is set on continuing the dangerous situation. Like you said "it's a start". A major step in the right direction. You explained in the gun control is coming thread what measure 114 is not, which is aside from 'for other purposes' what it should be. It's what we call a French deal, take what you can now, try to negotiate more later. I prefer a different approach on matters like this, less compromise. What happens now is "first they wanted to control the type of guns, the amount of guns, the amount of bullets, the left clearly creeps closer to taking our guns, we need to make a stand now, we've given in enough already" and it drags on and on. Practically hard, sure, especially now everything is politicized and every issue can tip an already delicate balance. Like EU giving in to farmers on climate change, they are rewarded for their resistance especially if they show willing to fight. Next time they'll fight even harder regardless. I do not prefer democracy to appease everyone, but do what's necessary and just.

Rhetorical I assume, I don't have a roadmap for fix for the general problem. I was expressing my thoughts on the increased focused on retribution. My reference to christian justice wasn't an analogy. While probably as old as apes it's historically in the west primarily the origin, that and british monarchs. Again, I don't disagree with the parents getting punished. Pragmatically, in this specific case, maybe a few years less would save millions that could be spend on more fruitful and more fair and preventative action rather than seemingly stretch a few key principals of justice. Justice it is, but the form matters. How retribution is in balance matters. If it doesn't save lives, can it really be justice, a concept made up by people to prevent people in a society from killing each other, not some divine thing on its own that must be satisfied with retributive punishment.

Another way to put it (I don't make light of it, but same sentiment...)



Bonding with a kid and boosting their confidence by introducing them to guns... on a homestead where you got to provide your own meat maybe... what happened to throwing that oddly shaped projectile you call football?

Head scratcher indeed. The school and mass shootings are an inherent part of the gun culture.
Click to expand...
The intent of Measure 114 is to save lives with reasonable measures that voters would approve. It's not an "either-or" measure. There are plenty of people advocating stronger measures. They were working on them before this measure passed and are still working on them. People's sentiments are shifting too. The passage of Measure 114 relied on support of a sizeable contingency of gun owners who agree that gun regulations in the US ought to change. Rather than being a French bargain, I see it as progress.

I don't think the analogy of rewarding European farmers for resisting climate change regulations holds wrt the fight that 114's supporters are engaged in against the gun lobby. We knew going in that the gun lobby resists all changes to gun laws except ones that make gun access easier. This was a political fight from the beginning and we won a small but significant battle at the ballot box. I think the analogy will work if the state of Oregon caves to sheriffs who refuse to enforce the law. That's the next hurdle to cross. I have no idea how well that will go.

Regarding to that horrible case about the parents who bought their kid a gun and ignored all sorts of warning signs that he was about to hurt people with it. The law was already on the books. I don't like any of the actors in that story. They wanted their guns, they got them, they were negligent with them, people died, they got charged and convicted. Now they are going to jail. I'll save my empathy for the parents of the kids that died due to their negligence.

That said, I see your point about punitive justice. The ends must justify the means. Punitive justice should have a purpose that is more than retribution. I'm not sure that any purpose will be accomplished by those long sentences. Because of that, it's quite likely that those long sentences will be greatly reduced. But I have to wonder what happens to our society if we simply write laws and then ignore them. I believe that when people don't think a law is reasonable, right or fair they should work to change it, not ignore it.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Tennessee teacher arrested after bringing guns to preschool and threatening to shoot colleague
Sheneca Cowart faces multiple felony gun charges following the incident at The Academy of McCrory Lane on Thursday. Staff members alleged 29-year-old Cowart threatened to “shoot up” the preschool and that she keeps a gun “on her,” Another teacher claimed to overhear Cowart say “when I start shooting, you better run,”
www.nbcnews.com

Tennessee teacher arrested after bringing guns to preschool and threatening to shoot colleague

Sheneca Cowart faces multiple felony gun charges following the incident at The Academy of McCrory Lane on Thursday.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Oregon voted this measure into law November, 2022 by a vote of 970,000 for and 942,000 against. Almost immediately, the law was put on hold to allow the murder by gun lobby to file a suit against it in a rural county with 10,000 residents -- fewer people than even the slim margin the measure passed by. . The judge first ruled that the measure prevented Oregonians from exercising their right to bear arms, which was predictable, coming from that part of the state. The problem with that ruling is the measure does nothing of the sort. But whatever, The hick judge then sat on the measure for the maximum allowable time before releasing his final ruling. No reason given, it just took him a year to release it. It took a year for him to, I guess, to hunt and peck his way through typing it out. Then the measure was slow walked to the State Appellate Court in order to let real judges in a real court review his ruling and give the state a chance to appeal.

What does measure 114 do?

  • It closes the gun show loophole.
  • It requires a permit before purchase. To obtain the permit, a person must be legally entitled to own a firearm under existing state and federal laws. They must take a gun safety class that includes how to safely store, handle and use the weapon. It also provides information regarding suicide including where to seek help if they are having suicidal thoughts. Once a permit is issued, its good for 5 years.
  • It bans the sale, manufacture, etc. or firearms that use cartridges capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
  • It does not ban the ownership of existing high capacity cartridges, etc. It bans the sale of those items going forward.
Measures such as these are already in use in various states in the US and have passed constitutional challenges. They have been shown to reduce deaths due to mass shootings and suicide by about 20%. These aren't extreme measures. They don't solve all problems guns cause in this country but they do save lives and they aren't onerous. Unless, that is, the prospective gun owner is a felon, like Donald Trump now is.

In our schools, public venues, concerts, meeting areas, city transit stations, it's just a matter of time before the next mass shooting takes place. The state petitioned the court to allow it to enact the law in order to save lives. The court rejected the State's request to allow the law to go into effect while the appeal is made but it did agree to expedite the appeals proses. What does the word "expedite" mean? It mean 3 months. 3 months are given to each side to submit arguments to the court. The measure has already been through court hearings. Arguments were submitted then. The judge used those papers for something but he clearly didn't read them. But we must wait three months before arguments can be submitted to the court. No date has been set to hear arguments. Would anybody like to bet that will happen immediately after arguments are submitted?


aaatempfornow.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top