THIS IS AMERICA. SANDY HOOK BACK TO SCHOOL PSA (2A / GUN RIGHTS DISCUSSION)

[DETO]

 

[misteraven]

Probably a half dozen threads this could have gone in, but anyways...

 

Indeed, this was very well done. Someone did their homework and put effort into what emotional strings to tug on, to capitalize on the cultural conversation taking place, at just the right time. Then executed it perfectly with a video that hits hard. Would take someone pretty deeply familiar with the subject to pick it apart and only glaring short coming (IMO) is that "common sense laws" are only good until the next incident, when suddenly we need more "common sense laws" until anyone that adheres to the law no longer owns a gun. End result... The same people that don't give a shit about the law enough to break the biggest law of the land - murder - are left with guns since there's zero chance that any of them are going to suddenly respect the new law that says to go to the police station and turn your gun in.

 

Oh yeah, criminal on criminal violence makes up the huge majority of gun related deaths in the USA. Yet dems are saying to include the gang database in the new red flag legislation that they're screaming for is "racist".  Yep, for real. Does anyone still really believe they're just trying to solve the issue with gun violence and that there isn't a deeper agenda at play?

 

Congressional Dems: Red Flag Confiscations Are Good for Joe Sixpack, but Not for Gang Members

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/congressional-dems-red-flag-confiscations-are-good-for-joe-sixpack-but-not-for-gang-members/

[misteraven]

Might merge this with https://forum.12ozprophet.com/topic/87863-2nd-ammendment-being-justified-by-2020-candidates

 

[Kults]

Yawn. 

[Guest]

I wonder how many people had to approve this through-out the process of, pitch, production and release? 

[Mercer]

Surprisingly, looking through the website there wasn't any gun control talk. Their approach to addressing this problem is mainly focused on identifying and preventing the next shooter, or potential shooter. Social inclusion training to prevent situations from developing.

 

They do advocate for a "Red Flag" system called extreme risk protection orders, but navigating through the site they seem to be purposely avoiding typical gun grabber talk, I'm assuming in an effort to have an even broader reach. 

 

Excerpt from the site:

 

Quote

LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES:

Gun violence is preventable and we're currently advocating for three main gun violence prevention policies to protect our children and communities. Please join us and call on your legislators to pass these life-saving bills!

Pass Model School Safety Policy

 

In the vast majority of incidents of school violence, students display many warning signs or signals before taking harmful action. We already have evidence-based programs that we know have helped stop multiple school shootings, suicides, and other acts of school violence. Sandy Hook Promise supports state and federal policy to require all schools to implement the following proven school safety programming to stop violence before it happens.

 

• School Threat Assessment: Threat assessment teaches adults in schools and youth organizations how to identify, assess and respond to threats of violence or at-risk behavior BEFORE a tragedy takes place.

 

• Threat assessment not only addresses the threat itself but also helps identify and treat the underlying problem that led the youth to make the threat.

 

• Student Safety and Violence Prevention Training: Students need training to recognize signs and signals, especially within social media, from individuals who may be a threat to themselves or others. They should also be encouraged and empowered to say something to a trusted adult BEFORE it is too late. This training should be required at least once a year in every school.

 

• School Personnel and Student Suicide Prevention Training: Youth, educators and administrators must know how to identify, intervene and get help for youth who may be depressed or suicidal. Every school should be required to provide at least one hour of evidence-based suicide prevention training each year to both students and teachers.

 

• Student Social Inclusion Training: Studies have shown that social isolation and loneliness can have a significant impact on students’ mental and physical health, academic performance, and peer relationships. By teaching students how to be more inclusive and connected to one another from a young age, we can create stronger school communities where marginalization and rejection are minimized, bullying is significantly reduced, and students’ mental wellness is optimized.

 

• Anonymous Reporting Systems: Every state should establish a 24/7 anonymous reporting system that is free and accessible to all schools, parents, teachers, students, and administrators. When combined with training, it is a critical tool for ensuring everyone in the school ecosystem knows how to identify the warning signs of violence and that key information quickly gets to those who can help prevent harm.

 

DOWNLOAD MODEL SCHOOL SAFETY POLICY: DOWNLOAD

 

Pass Extreme Risk Protection Orders

 

In the aftermath of a shooting incident, we often hear stories from friends or family members about the warning signs the shooter exhibited. Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) empower family members and law enforcement agencies to prevent gun violence and gun-related suicides. Under such a law, family members and law enforcement officials can petition a court to temporarily separate at-risk individuals from firearms. If the judge finds the person poses a significant danger of injury to self or others, the judge will order that the firearms be temporarily placed in safe storage until the person receives the help they need.

 

Sandy Hook Promise supports legislation that enables family or friends to alert law enforcement to a potentially dangerous situation and gives law enforcement the tools and authority they need to remove firearms in the interest of public safety. This legislation can be passed at the state level, as it has been in Connecticut, California, Oregon, Indiana, Washington, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Congress can also take action at the federal level to require or incentivize state passage of these life-saving laws. If you live in a state without an ERPO law, contact your state and federal representatives and ask them to support ERPOs. If you live in a state with an ERPO, educate your family, friends, and neighbors about the law and how it can save a life.

 

Pass Background Checks

 

Background checks are a proven and critical tool to help keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others. Background checks help protect our children and communities. States with expansive background check laws have seen 52% fewer mass shootings¹, a 48% reduction in suicide deaths by firearm², and a 48% reduction in law enforcement death caused by gun violence³. By requiring that firearms be sold and transferred through licensed sellers and subject to background checks, we can prevent future tragedies. Sandy Hook Promise is proud to support legislation to strengthen our background checks system at the state and federal level to protect our children and communities from preventable gun violence.

 

With the support of millions of Promise Makers, Sandy Hook Promise has proudly helped lead the effort at federal and state level to strengthen our background checks system since our founding. We are closer than ever to passing universal background checks, but we need your help to build the votes to protect our children and communities from preventable gun violence. Call on your Representative and Senator to support universal background checks today.

I really can't blame them for taking action. Obviously I think there needs to be due process before confiscating someones guns, or any other private property so the red flag shit is out if there's no recourse to fighting it. That's just a tool angry ex wives will use to get back at their ex's or some shit 99% of the time and invites abuse/violations of property rights..

 

Someone needs to do a counter video now:

"Do you want to rob your neighbor but you're afraid he has guns at home?"

 

"What if I told you we had a way for you to drop an anonymous tip, and get his guns taken first?" 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Mercer

[abrasivesaint]

Preventing a minor from shooting up a school seems fairly simple.

 

It’s these older cunts that go back to the school or are in college that seem to be the problem. 

 

Demolish all schools. No schools, no school shootings. 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, iloveboxcars said:

Common sense gun laws are defined differently by everyone, so it's sort of hard to nail this down what a group might consider common sense. These sort of ambiguous terms is what make us go in circles, probably by design, and get us  no where when discussing things as delicate as gun laws.

 

I think background checks are necessary, and there should be licenses and levels of licenses similar to a driver's license. That's common sense to me. I don't like that I can't use a suppressor in California, as it protects my ears a bit more.

I think you're right, its likely by design. Background checks are already necessary. Can't go to a dealer and buy one without a NICS check. They aren't mandatory at the federal level for private sales, but as I described in other threads, its self policing. If you sell a gain privately and don't have indisputable evidence of the transaction, you're held liable when its used in a crime. So nobody really does, especially when an FFL will do the transfer for like $10 - 20. Plus in many states, its required at the state level so its a moot point. Made more so if you check the states that generally have the most gun violence.

 

1 hour ago, iloveboxcars said:

Criminals aren't necessarily gang members.

Being included in a gang database doesn't make you a criminal, and specifically targeting people listed in a gang database that can be edited and added to on an officer's whim is straight up fucking retarded. I've been in a gang database. I might still be, I don't know.

This gives law enforcement WAY too much power. Imagine Officer OMalley adding you because you run a graffiti website because gang members do graffiti. They would very easily be able to swing that as probable cause.

 

Gang databases, and the definition usually used by gang task forces are so broad that any 3 or more people that hang out and do a crime (vandalism, theft, whatever) are eligible to be put into the database.

 

 

I had more but a friend just arrived with beer and I can't explain to her that I disagree with someone on the internet so she'll have to give me a bit more time before I hang out with her.

By your logic, you're against red flag laws as everything you've described as bad applies. Its a flaw in logic that people that are all for having a system to disarm someone else without due process would be against using that system and include records of people that were identified as violent without due process.

 

And yes, it gives the law way too much power. Also will be unbelievably abused since anyone that has a gripe about someone else can call in a concern about someone else and suddenly cops show up to ransack your house looking for guns. If they find any, they get taken away, leaving you to prove to them that you deserve to have them back.

 

Amazing people don't see this or the precedents established in NAZI Germany, Soviet controlled Eastern Germany or even the Commie paranoia under Hoover in the USA as examples of how bad it is to encourage people to start snitching each other out for the "greater good".

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

Like Dave just said. “Son, you prolly gonna get shot....”

 

 

In all seriousness though.........

 

What. The. Fuck. 

 

I cant get behind that video at all whatsoever. Perhaps if it cut out the absolute terror parts and maybe jumped over to some kids in a desolate canyon doing some judo crossfit shit while simultaneously disassembling a gun blind folded, then maybe, yeah. 

 

We need less fear in EVERYBODY, especially the kids!!! Idek the point in discussing this particular topic anyways. Gun laws aren’t changing and it wouldn’t matter anyways. We have too many freaks in this country who’ve never heard of therapy or caught enough ass whoopins to stay in line. And the fucking kids are already afraid gluten, peanuts, and bullying. Might as well put out some school shooting advertisements and really seal the deal....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[One Man Banned]

Eh.  Rather than focus on red flags or the specific message(s) in the ad it's probably worth considering where it comes from, the Sandy Hook families.  Part of their intentions IMO is coming to terms with their grief, wanting their children's deaths to mean something.  The other piece though is those families and others in the country making collective efforts to restrict 2A rights.  The ad or their website may not say we're coming for your guns but they are still part of a bigger movement that does want to.  Sandy Hook= Connecticut, Connecticut= Senator Chris Murphy, Senator Murphy= I want your guns and more restrictive legislation.

 

I thought the ad was clever in some spots but maybe a bit over the top and slightly traumatizing in other ways.  I get their focus, a reaction to tragedy.  Still, I feel if you want to help protect kids at school, better background checks/supervision of school employees would do far more good.  We've had a few bad tragedies that easily linger in the public's conscience.  On the other hand if you google shit like teacher or school bus driver had sex with student there's 1000's of those stories.  Willing to bet that somewhere in the U.S. on a daily or weekly basis a school employee gets arrested for fucking with kids.

[misteraven]

2 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

I thought the ad was clever in some spots but maybe a bit over the top and slightly traumatizing in other ways.  I get their focus, a reaction to tragedy.  Still, I feel if you want to help protect kids at school, better background checks/supervision of school employees would do far more good.  We've had a few bad tragedies that easily linger in the public's conscience.  On the other hand if you google shit like teacher or school bus driver had sex with student there's 1000's of those stories.  Willing to bet that somewhere in the U.S. on a daily or weekly basis a school employee gets arrested for fucking with kids.

Personally I don't believe that the ones driving this narrative are doing it for altruistic reasons like keeping kids safe. Best case scenario is their leveraging tragedy because its low hanging fruit. Seems to get a lot of attention and they can utilize that to get attention, rally support and get reelected. But again, personally, I think it goes deeper than that.

 

But you're, I think you're pretty spot on.

 

This was posted in the political memes thread. Thought it was an interesting take on things as well.

 

[abrasivesaint]

I Fucked up. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[abrasivesaint]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-43990090

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[misteraven]

Guess that last one makes a strong case for the medias hand in all of this madness.

[Guest]

I read that article and didn't see anything about how they caught them. Mention of DM's from may 2017 article from may 2018. They screen DM's Snowden style? 

[misteraven]

 

[abrasivesaint]

29 minutes ago, KILZ FILLZ said:

I read that article and didn't see anything about how they caught them. Mention of DM's from may 2017 article from may 2018. They screen DM's Snowden style? 

So this made me realize i grabbed the wrong article, haha. I read an article someone sent me, and got rid of it. Then googled it because i figured it would make sense posting in here. Completely coincidental that it was even based around the Columbine shooting. My fault for not doing the proper checking and just screen grabbing like a twat..

 

 

This is the one i meant to send.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/19/us/washington-student-journal-school-attack/index.html

 

 

[misteraven]

https://nypost.com/2019/09/20/video-shows-cop-search-turnstile-jumper-but-miss-gun-tucked-in-waistband/

 

Damn, they really should make a law about jumping turnstiles with a concealed handgun and a grocery bag full of weed so stuff like that doesn't happen.

[Guest]

College Place High School sounds like something that would be in The Simpsons lol 

[abrasivesaint]

2 hours ago, KILZ FILLZ said:

College Place High School sounds like something that would be in The Simpsons lol 

Ya the person who sent the link sent it from a questionable site so i assumed it was satire but then saw multiple reports about it.

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

I know some folks with assault rifles. Surely plenty of y’all have’em too. Personally, I legit don’t see the point aside from fun or firmly believing the revolution gon come. Civil war? Probably maybe. All I know is there should absolutely be some form of regulation on those fucking things. Too many weirdos out there. Too easy access. (Not sure if this particular subject has been gone over) (fuck y’all) (DONT TREAD ON ME BRO) 

 

 

 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

I would sincerely like to hear all your takes on the matter though. (The ones with the battle guns not you pussies with unregistered pistols in a glovebox)

[abrasivesaint]

Hahaha. Glove box one got me. 

 

There’s a gun thread and plenty of topics on Red Flags laws and the such in the News section. 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

25 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Hahaha. Glove box one got me. 

 

There’s a gun thread and plenty of topics on Red Flags laws and the such in the News section. 

Word I’ll check it out. I hate re makes 🤣. 

[misteraven]

12 hours ago, NightmareOnElmStreet said:

I know some folks with assault rifles. Surely plenty of y’all have’em too.

You’re confusing assault rifles with AR’s / AK’s. An assault weapon must have a select fire feature to be classified as an assault weapon by most military’s. To own one, you need a class 3 license and a shit ton of money because pre ban weapons are not cheap ($20k+) and not easy to get it decent condition. 

 

AR’s, which fire .223 cartridges are underpowered.  Few countries use the NATO equivalent for it (5.56) and the USA itself is phasing off that cartridge because it’s underpowered. 

 

Not to call you out, but I hear it over and over again. Because they look scary, they’re extra dangerous. Yes, all guns are dangerous. All tools are dangerous if handled improperly. In the grand scheme of things .223 is a glorified .22. There’s a massive array of hunting calibers that nobody ever talks about because they’re shot from hunting rifles with wood furniture and lack the whole tactical look, that are exponentially more capable and exponentially more devastating as they’re engineered to bring down North American game, which regularly exceeds 1000lbs and at regular distances of several hundred yards, if not more. 

[misteraven]

12 hours ago, NightmareOnElmStreet said:

All I know is there should absolutely be some form of regulation on those fucking things.

There’s thousands of laws on the books at the federal level and generally thousands more at the state level. There are probably few other things in the USA regulated nearly as much, especially considering “shall not be infringed” was only mentioned in regards to the right to bear arms with nothing near as specific being said about the other 9 amendments in our bill of rights that were guaranteed. 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

My b. I don’t know a fucking thing about which is which🤣. But whatever kind of shit these crazy cacs are able to let off enough shots per how ever many seconds in order to hit multiple people simply ain’t necessary for common use. Hunting or not. And there is no way some teenager unless filthy rich is getting there hands on no 20k shit. Clearly I’m ignorant on specifics but obviously there is some form of easy access to be danger zone. 

[Hua Guofang]

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

You’re confusing assault rifles with AR’s / AK’s. An assault weapon must have a select fire feature to be classified as an assault weapon by most military’s. To own one, you need a class 3 license and a shit ton of money because pre ban weapons are not cheap ($20k+) and not easy to get it decent condition. 

 

AR’s, which fire .223 cartridges are underpowered.  Few countries use the NATO equivalent for it (5.56) and the USA itself is phasing off that cartridge because it’s underpowered. 

 

Not to call you out, but I hear it over and over again. Because they look scary, they’re extra dangerous. Yes, all guns are dangerous. All tools are dangerous if handled improperly. In the grand scheme of things .223 is a glorified .22. There’s a massive array of hunting calibers that nobody ever talks about because they’re shot from hunting rifles with wood furniture and lack the whole tactical look, that are exponentially more capable and exponentially more devastating as they’re engineered to bring down North American game, which regularly exceeds 1000lbs and at regular distances of several hundred yards, if not more. 

When you say underpowered, do you mean range or impact?

 

Australia uses 5.56

[misteraven]

2 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

When you say underpowered, do you mean range or impact?

 

Australia uses 5.56

Both, since they’re both important characteristics in an effective round for general military, even if most small arms confrontations are at fairly close distances. Most of the world is using 7.62, which has greater range and hits a hell of a lot harder. Countries going up against that have realized that they are disadvantaged with 5.56. Further, from a ballistic standpoint, you’re still shooting roughly .22 caliber projectiles. Putting more charge behind them, just punches clean little holes more effectively, compared to the stopping power and ballistic coefficients of other commonly available rounds. 5.56 was largely developed for portability and since we have better supply chain ability in the decades since it was developed, the slight portability over 7.62 isn’t worth the disadvantage faced when that’s what you’re almost always going up against. Not saying it’s going away as LEO will still use it for decades to come, but USA military already phased it out mostly for spec ops and already starting to phase it out for big army. Once we do it, most others will follow suit because it’s smarter and because it’s often us selling it to everyone else. 

 

I think we’ll see 10mm make a wider appearance. Might even see other countries adopt 300BLK since it overlaps with 7.62 quite a bit. 7.62 will almost entirely eclipse 5.56. And we’ll see far better rounds like 6.5 creedmore and 3.38 lapua become more popular for distanced precision shooting, though the latter is already a pretty popular round with snipers. But then again 50mm is super widely manufactured and though not as optimized, it’s still gets the job done (with overkill). There’s also still something to be said about the big American hunting rounds that are still common and still pretty good, like 30-06. 

[Brink]

4 hours ago, misteraven said:

There’s thousands of laws on the books at the federal level and generally thousands more at the state level. There are probably few other things in the USA regulated nearly as much, especially considering “shall not be infringed” was only mentioned in regards to the right to bear arms with nothing near as specific being said about the other 9 amendments in our bill of rights that were guaranteed. 

The full 2nd Amendment is stated as "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."

 

I don't know enough about gun, gun safety, or gun laws to feel comfortable weighing in on any of these debates without sounding like an idiot. However, I do know that America does NOT have a well regulated militia. The magic of these amendments is that they can be altered and changed, but any gun-lobbying argument that cherrypicks the 2nd Amendment in its current form as their complete defense for owning weapons is simple not an air-tight argument. 

 

My own (albeit slightly under-informed) opinion on our current state of affairs is that heavy licensing and background checks are essential, as well as routine checkups. The only people who are avidly against regulation like this are probably the ones you wouldn't want to have any guns to begin with IMO