AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Mentioned this above, so maybe it's just a terrible idea, but how about requiring sponsors for gun purchases. Just 2 or 3 other citizens that are willing to vouch that you are not a menace and are willing to be held as accomplices if you commit a felony with that firearm.

Most these people are loners and couldn't find 3 people to vouch, or all the people that know them would refuse very quickly. Maybe these people join a gun club to try and find 3 people, but in the process they make actual friends and all of a sudden don't want to shoot up schools anymore.

Best I can tell the problem is isolation plus access to weapons in these instances and many others, so take away the isolation part. It doesn't seem burdensome to me, not in a paperwork sense. Notaries are not hard to find

---

This is a bad idea. No same person in a litigious society like ours would do that, even for your best friend. Is this indefinite? How long are you on the hook? What if you made a rational and reasonable decision and something changed in their life (mental health decline due to COVID isolation, drugs, abuse, etc.)? Can you revoke it? Can you swap people out?

---

Your objections are sort of the point. If you sponsor someone for a gun and then one of those things happens, then you are going to be damn sure you are keeping an eye on their mental health. Which is probably all it would take to prevent something tragic.

Or maybe you could revoke your sponsorship, which gets you off the hook and triggers enhanced surveillance and mental health outreach to the owner if they can't find another sponsor.

Like I said, the goal is to stop isolation and put the responsibility on the people that actually know the gun buyers. This is a community oriented solution, not a government driven one

Actually it would be super cool if a large gun retailer (like Academy) or someone put out a big marketing effort saying that they were putting this in place at *their* stores, then other retailers might fall in line and do the same, making it truly community oriented.

nortex97 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Actually it would be super cool if a large gun retailer (like Academy) or someone put out a big marketing effort saying that they were putting this in place at *their* stores, then other retailers might fall in line and do the same, making it truly community oriented.

---

That would be helpful probably for some Texags sponsors, so I would be fine with that. I've never bought a gun from a big box retailer (outside of a couple 22's decades ago).

Why does this thread insist on ignoring that Wyoming has the most guns per capita in the US but essentially no mass shootings? How can we solve gun crime when Wyoming isn't being addressed?

---

Since you need to have 4 or more people killed, Wyoming is statistically unlikely to have a mass shooting. That would be 75% of the state population right there.

But your focus solely on mass shootings is telling. Wyoming, despite its widely dispersed population, is not as safe (per capita) as Virginia, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. And the states with the worst rates of violent crime are also pretty lax with their gun laws: Alaska, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Arizona.

As far as gun deaths, Wyoming has gotten much worse over the last decade. Their gun death rate has increased 2.5 times faster than the nation as a whole and their suicide rate has increased by 3 times.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Mentioned this above, so maybe it's just a terrible idea, but how about requiring sponsors for gun purchases. Just 2 or 3 other citizens that are willing to vouch that you are not a menace and are willing to be held as accomplices if you commit a felony with that firearm.

Most these people are loners and couldn't find 3 people to vouch, or all the people that know them would refuse very quickly. Maybe these people join a gun club to try and find 3 people, but in the process they make actual friends and all of a sudden don't want to shoot up schools anymore.

Best I can tell the problem is isolation plus access to weapons in these instances and many others, so take away the isolation part. It doesn't seem burdensome to me, not in a paperwork sense. Notaries are not hard to find

---

This is a bad idea. No same person in a litigious society like ours would do that, even for your best friend. Is this indefinite? How long are you on the hook? What if you made a rational and reasonable decision and something changed in their life (mental health decline due to COVID isolation, drugs, abuse, etc.)? Can you revoke it? Can you swap people out?

---

Your objections are sort of the point. If you sponsor someone for a gun and then one of those things happens, then you are going to be damn sure you are keeping an eye on their mental health. Which is probably all it would take to prevent something tragic.

Or maybe you could revoke your sponsorship, which gets you off the hook and triggers enhanced surveillance and mental health outreach to the owner if they can't find another sponsor.

Like I said, the goal is to stop isolation and put the responsibility on the people that actually know the gun buyers. This is a community oriented solution, not a government driven one

---

Normal human beings miss pertinent information all the time until after the fact. We see this often in criminal cases: something was odd but not so odd that it stood out. I had a friend robbed in broad daylight last Sunday and many people saw the car that did it and remembered the color and make because it stood out just enough but was also plausible for regular activity (sitting in a car in a parking lot with doors slightly open near a walking trail, could have just been getting ready to leave or coming back, normal explanation). How many people are cheated on and saw the breadcrumbs but explained them away? Your goal may be community but it demands perfect knowledge and cognition in such a way as to be unreasonable.

If you want community require interviews of the applicants by therapists and drop liability. It's going to make firearms much more expensive but at least you've now introduced a professional into the process to assess the applicant and their friends.

Edit: btw this also likely won't work. Abusive parents or those who have mental illness frequently switch kids' counselors when counselors get too close to pinpointing real problems (the parent) thus kids repeatedly start over with new ones in custody disputes. Have seen this exploited a lot. Lots of people can hide stuff for long enough.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that it's unreasonable for us to know anyone well enough to sponsor their good behavior, but we should trust everyone to act well under our current laws and let whoever buy a gun? Which is it? You wouldn't sign a paper sponsoring your friend because "who knows what could happen?", but you want him to be able to go buy a gun whenever and wherever? How does that make any sense?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Just so we're clear, you're saying that it's unreasonable for us to know anyone well enough to sponsor their good behavior, but we should trust everyone to act well under our current laws and let whoever buy a gun? Which is it? You wouldn't sign a paper sponsoring your friend because "who knows what could happen?", but you want him to be able to go buy a gun whenever and wherever? How does that make any sense?

---

Your base assumption is perfect knowledge and static personalities as a requirement for owning a gun. Perhaps we should ask how that makes any sense? You're asking for collateral damage unless your goal is to end the sale of firearms.

Perhaps you've had such a privileged life that no one you've fully trusted has betrayed you or their close friends or family. Maybe you've never had a friend who hid abuse for a decade or a drug problem. I can rattle of a lot of friends who I thought I was close with that hid things from everyone even in their innermost circle. They hide things from therapists too. Family members help cover stuff up. It's a really messy world if you make yourself available to people and listen. Consider yourself lucky if none of this describes you.

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, but what is "extreme death?"

Respectfully, of course.

17 and 18 year olds in the Army/USMC are routinely taught how to dish out death with great efficiency, yet this isn't a common problem in the barracks etc. But a common civilian armament manufacturer advocating safe instruction was demagogued in this thread, ahem, up a ways, with no reason given. Why? Why is it we need to keep infantilizing young adults outside of the military specifically?

For reference, the majority of continental army soldiers were 17 or 18, with 15 being the limit with parental consent.

---

The military does Infantalize soldiers. They are under a very rigid structure. Those same soldiers misbehave and have similar maturity issues as other 18 year olds because 18 is still a kid.

First off this has happened with the military at fort hood some years ago. It's not as frequent but there are far more schools than barracks also. And the military does take some effort at psychological testing. There is also a forced and natural camaraderie that may help alleviate the isolation often associated with these shooters.

I don't think it's a different treatment for military. Boys in the military broadly don't show enough maturity for legal booze before 21 just like 18 year olds in college.

It's a silly and common lie we tell ourselves that 18 year old boys at war are men. They are not, and it's to our great shame they we send boys to murder boys.

Aggrad08 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, but what is "extreme death?"

Respectfully, of course.

17 and 18 year olds in the Army/USMC are routinely taught how to dish out death with great efficiency, yet this isn't a common problem in the barracks etc. But a common civilian armament manufacturer advocating safe instruction was demagogued in this thread, ahem, up a ways, with no reason given. Why? Why is it we need to keep infantilizing young adults outside of the military specifically?

For reference, the majority of continental army soldiers were 17 or 18, with 15 being the limit with parental consent.

---

The military does Infantalize soldiers. They are under a very rigid structure. Those same soldiers misbehave and have similar maturity issues as other 18 year olds because 18 is still a kid.

First off this has happened with the military at fort hood some years ago. It's not as frequent but there are far more schools than barracks also. And the military does take some effort at psychological testing. There is also a forced and natural camaraderie that may help alleviate the isolation often associated with these shooters.

I don't think it's a different treatment for military. Boys in the military broadly don't show enough maturity for legal booze before 21 just like 18 year olds in college.

It's a silly and common lie we tell ourselves that 18 year old boys at war are men. They are not, and it's to our great shame they we send boys to murder boys.

---

What in the world is this whole rant about?

Major Hassan, the muslim terrorist at Fort hood?

the military infantilizes young men so that somehow means…what?

The military tries to test kids psychologically?

Forced cameraderie in the military means, what?

We should only send older men into battle/war?

Seriously, wtf is this even remotely about?

This should be required pre-reading for this topic

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I see the secular world making moral claims again. Any justification for those claims yet?

---

And what is the religious justification for moral claims? Invisible magic sky God says so? Sorry, was that condescending? Was I being rude? Very sorry.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are trying to claim we infantilize young men outside the military. We infantilize all young men. Because 18 year olds exhibit low levels of maturity and knowledge.

Your lack of comprehension is your own issue

---

I'm not trying to claim a single thing. I asserted simple truths, regarding how young men (and frankly women) today are treated socially. Society today has young men/women living at home with their parents, on their parents health insurance, at a far greater rate than ever before, into/through their 30's. I don't think I even need to post examples/studies of the impact/uses of social media on today's young adults, or the dismissive/excuse-approving nature many give for their 'immaturity' in various acts today.

Again, if you want people to grow up, raise them in a nuclear household, don't give them puberty blockers/confuse them with hormone injections etc., and teach them responsibility/the importance of holding a job early on.

To assert that I must be arguing 18 year olds exhibit high levels of maturity consistently is a parody of a straw man argument.

Your lack of ability to logically connect to a discussion where not all parties agree with you is a shortcoming I am not really able/willing to help you with.

Wow, just, wow. LOL.

Just pointing out that you are basically saying no one would ever sponsor another gun owner because people lie and all gun owners are just one bad life event from becoming mass murderers. Seems like an argument against private gun ownership to me. Again, if you won't sponsor your friend, and you know him better than anyone, why should society trust him with a gun?

I can personally think of a dozen people off the top of my head that I would sponsor. People I've known for most of my life that I speak with frequently that have no violent past or criminal tendencies. People that I would notice if they started acting off.

3 years old but I think Beau is on target with this. And you see what he is talking about on 16chan and this board. The difference between the 20th century guns at school culture (rifle teams, guns in trucks for hunting after school, etc) is that guns were seen as tools not an external projection of masculinity.

Yep. Lots of hate on this thread but not much reasoning. Sad. Flagged and moving on.

Why did you flag fife's post?

That is just strange.

They might not have been the children of gun advocates but they were certainly influenced by that culture and the ads like the "get your man card back" ad.

If you don't think the operator cosplay culture didn't impact this kid, the El Paso shooter or the buffalo shooter you and I are living in two very different realities.

And again, I have a not insignificant gun collection. So it isn't like I am antigun

I have no idea what ad you're talking about, and I'm pretty sure that a the mental illness to do something like this isn't caused by ads.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I see the secular world making moral claims again. Any justification for those claims yet?

---

And what is the religious justification for moral claims? Invisible magic sky God says so? Sorry, was that condescending? Was I being rude? Very sorry.

---

Oh we have a great metaphysical framework that contains epistemically justification. Sky daddy is a materialist construction from someone who doesn't even have justification for logic haha. That's about as dumb as Galileo's primary and secondary qualities. You most likely don't even have a category for non material universal entities (even though you use ours daily).

Can any of you secular/materialist folk provide an argument with justification against the shooter? Oh wait you can't because you share the same ideas as the shooter that convert people to full on nihilism. The only thing holding you back from being one of them are Christian presuppositions embedded into your worldview.

---

Oh! Wicked burn. The difference between my moral foundation and your is that I don't hide mine behind a wall of bull**** and pretend that its better than anyone else's because it contains overly complex and detailed frameworks to hide the fact that at the end of the day you believe your morality comes from a sky daddy for which there is zero evidence of.

In case my last post was misunderstood. . . . my point is that if you are going to act like a dick and not have respect for anyone else's beliefs, you should expect the same in return. Do unto others . . . . or something like that.

Feel free to respond with something clever. I don't need the last word.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

They might not have been the children of gun advocates but they were certainly influenced by that culture and the ads like the "get your man card back" ad.

If you don't think the operator cosplay culture didn't impact this kid, the El Paso shooter or the buffalo shooter you and I are living in two very different realities.

And again, I have a not insignificant gun collection. So it isn't like I am antigun

---

Well I don't have a very impressive gun collection at all, but putting that aside I'm trying to look at it objectively.

You mention two different realities, but really it's perspectives - there is only one reality. That's key because everyone in this debate specifically has a hard time looking at it from a different POV. Go read the comments on that video, and you'll see many folks looking for that singular reason for shootings/gun crime, or think with this video they've found the magic bullet (hehe) that explains American gun culture and shooting issues. Many of them are non-Americans or liberals who see the bearded gun nut in the video speaking calmly, with an aura of confidence, and talking some sense, and they say ah ha! THIS guy makes sense! Because it matches the stereotypes/biases they hold and it's someone on the "right" who finally sees the light.

I was thinking about this more, and he's forgetting some things too. What else do you see from the gun nuts? The ones I know and see online are fanatical about gun safety. They treat firearms very reverently and the majority of the time are laser focused in educating children and noobs correctly in their handling/use. Yes they have weird photos holding guns, maybe not the best idea in the world but there is a lot of crazy **** on social media.

I've never seen the ad you're talking about, but ostensibly it's targeted at the gun nuts. But once again - they aren't the ones committing the crimes, it's the maladjusted young men (who aren't gun nuts). It's definitely possible this culture affects these guys, but I would bet they also despise the gun nut type in real life. Back to the point: gun nuts aren't committing these crimes even with this "toxic culture" - so what OTHER contributing factors are there? Lack of strong father figures? Radicalized via social media? Bullying? So on and so forth. And what measures in place had no effect? School discipline instead of having a criminal record? (Would flag on a background check). Cops knowing but not doing anything? School lockdown procedures not followed? Cops not following procedure responding to active shooter? There's a lot to it has nothing to do with limiting citizens' access to firearms, and it's definitely not only because of gun nut culture.

nortex97 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You post ignorance and half truths as facts and are so addle minded you think people who see through those flawed arguments with bored ease are worthy of contempt.

For a simple example in you last post you claim the children staying with their parents longer in life is a maturity issue, when it's heavily driven by economics and the high relative cost of homes for young people compared to their grandparents and parents.

Falsely identifying it as a maturity issue and then pointing to it as some sort of generational failure related to school shootings is ignorant twice over

Also you seem ignorant of how this practice varies heavily from one country to the next.

And I have no idea what dismissive excuse approving acts you are referring to with regard to immature behavior or how you think it's related to school shootings.

---

Speaking of ignorance and half truths, here it is in real time: Infantilizing/excusing the decisions/actions of adult males. "He had his reasons."

https://www.kbtx.com/2022/05/27/mother-texas-school-shooting-suspect-pleads-forgiveness/

Sure, but I am just "trying" to argue that. And…now maybe, just maybe, you can get an idea of what dismissive excuse approving acts/words impact our young adults today. But I doubt it.

That parent failed, period. So did the father, who said he wished he (the deceased killer) would have killed him. So did the grandmother.

---

Of course those parents failed and any excuse from that parent is nonsense, nonsense I'm not sure if they actually believe it's so dumb. I thought you were referring to something more widespread than parents who would excuse their child's actions to this degree.

If you limited you comments to calling out the parents or people making such excuses I'd have no issue,…you didn't.

the ignorance and half truths comes from your ridiculous assertion that kids living with their parents is somehow a maturity issue that contributes to gun violence among other sporadic nonsense.

Aggrad08 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You post ignorance and half truths as facts and are so addle minded you think people who see through those flawed arguments with bored ease are worthy of contempt.

For a simple example in you last post you claim the children staying with their parents longer in life is a maturity issue, when it's heavily driven by economics and the high relative cost of homes for young people compared to their grandparents and parents.

Falsely identifying it as a maturity issue and then pointing to it as some sort of generational failure related to school shootings is ignorant twice over

Also you seem ignorant of how this practice varies heavily from one country to the next.

And I have no idea what dismissive excuse approving acts you are referring to with regard to immature behavior or how you think it's related to school shootings.

---

Speaking of ignorance and half truths, here it is in real time: Infantilizing/excusing the decisions/actions of adult males. "He had his reasons."

https://www.kbtx.com/2022/05/27/mother-texas-school-shooting-suspect-pleads-forgiveness/

Sure, but I am just "trying" to argue that. And…now maybe, just maybe, you can get an idea of what dismissive excuse approving acts/words impact our young adults today. But I doubt it.

That parent failed, period. So did the father, who said he wished he (the deceased killer) would have killed him. So did the grandmother.

---

Of course those parents failed and any excuse from that parent is nonsense, nonsense I'm not sure if they actually believe it's so dumb. I thought you were referring to something more widespread than parents who would excuse their child's actions to this degree.

If you limited you comments to calling out the parents or people making such excuses I'd have no issue,…you didn't.

the ignorance and half truths comes from your ridiculous assertion that kids living with their parents is somehow a maturity issue that contributes to gun violence among other sporadic nonsense.

---

Your ridiculous assertion that my assertion that young men are increasingly infantilized by society today, as demonstrated partially by the portion of young adults living at home into their mid 20's and 30's with their parents (and anecdotally throughout an infinite amount of commentary) and ad hominem name calling about that, betrays your irrational fear/hatred of this reality.

But to try to claim I somehow am ignorant, because I didn't limit my analogy as you wished, or that it is invalid that many parenting failures are responsible for…many of the shooting deaths both in big cities and schools today, instead of the weapons used and parents/individuals involved, is just silliness.

Some of us still believe individuals should be held responsible for their actions and inactions alike.

Do you…live with your parents?

nortex97 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You post ignorance and half truths as facts and are so addle minded you think people who see through those flawed arguments with bored ease are worthy of contempt.

For a simple example in you last post you claim the children staying with their parents longer in life is a maturity issue, when it's heavily driven by economics and the high relative cost of homes for young people compared to their grandparents and parents.

Falsely identifying it as a maturity issue and then pointing to it as some sort of generational failure related to school shootings is ignorant twice over

Also you seem ignorant of how this practice varies heavily from one country to the next.

And I have no idea what dismissive excuse approving acts you are referring to with regard to immature behavior or how you think it's related to school shootings.

---

Speaking of ignorance and half truths, here it is in real time: Infantilizing/excusing the decisions/actions of adult males. "He had his reasons."

https://www.kbtx.com/2022/05/27/mother-texas-school-shooting-suspect-pleads-forgiveness/

Sure, but I am just "trying" to argue that. And…now maybe, just maybe, you can get an idea of what dismissive excuse approving acts/words impact our young adults today. But I doubt it.

That parent failed, period. So did the father, who said he wished he (the deceased killer) would have killed him. So did the grandmother.

---

Of course those parents failed and any excuse from that parent is nonsense, nonsense I'm not sure if they actually believe it's so dumb. I thought you were referring to something more widespread than parents who would excuse their child's actions to this degree.

If you limited you comments to calling out the parents or people making such excuses I'd have no issue,…you didn't.

the ignorance and half truths comes from your ridiculous assertion that kids living with their parents is somehow a maturity issue that contributes to gun violence among other sporadic nonsense.

---

Your ridiculous assertion that my assertion that young men are increasingly infantilized by society today, as demonstrated partially by the portion of young adults living at home into their mid 20's and 30's with their parents (and anecdotally throughout an infinite amount of commentary) and ad hominem name calling about that, betrays your irrational fear/hatred of this reality.

But to try to claim I somehow am ignorant, because I didn't limit my analogy as you wished, or that it is invalid that many parenting failures are responsible for…many of the shooting deaths both in big cities and schools today, instead of the weapons used and parents/individuals involved, is just silliness.

Some of us still believe individuals should be held responsible for their actions and inactions alike.

Do you…live with your parents?

---

Literally no one in this thread claimed parents and those students involved aren't responsible. Who in this thread said this is solely a gun issue? For a guy complaining about straw men you seem incapable of making an argument without them.

Your links show you are a guy who loves his anecdotes, how about you try and mix some more data. You've conflated what is primarily an economic issue as an issue of maturity an expectations being lowered. It seems you think the number of kids living with parents isn't driven by economics, this is ignorance. No need trying to mix in some straw men about people not believing in responsibility.

And in none of your links did you attempt to demonstrate how kids living with their parents is connected to school shootings.

And no I don't live with my parents you silly fool. I haven't since I was 17. Do you really think like this? Is this the characteristics you imagine for people who don't buy your nonsense. It actually explains a lot.

I think this is the 3rd or 4th time in this thread you've resorted to name calling.

I don't believe you. You are touchy about adults living with their kids because you do this.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I see the secular world making moral claims again. Any justification for those claims yet?

---

And what is the religious justification for moral claims? Invisible magic sky God says so? Sorry, was that condescending? Was I being rude? Very sorry.

---

Oh we have a great metaphysical framework that contains epistemically justification. Sky daddy is a materialist construction from someone who doesn't even have justification for logic haha. That's about as dumb as Galileo's primary and secondary qualities. You most likely don't even have a category for non material universal entities (even though you use ours daily).

Can any of you secular/materialist folk provide an argument with justification against the shooter? Oh wait you can't because you share the same ideas as the shooter that convert people to full on nihilism. The only thing holding you back from being one of them are Christian presuppositions embedded into your worldview.

---

Oh! Wicked burn. The difference between my moral foundation and your is that I don't hide mine behind a wall of bull**** and pretend that its better than anyone else's because it contains overly complex and detailed frameworks to hide the fact that at the end of the day you believe your morality comes from a sky daddy for which there is zero evidence of.

In case my last post was misunderstood. . . . my point is that if you are going to act like a dick and not have respect for anyone else's beliefs, you should expect the same in return. Do unto others . . . . or something like that.

Feel free to respond with something clever. I don't need the last word.

---

It's not complex. Our origin story allows for things like logic through God's revelation to man through consciousness. Materialists origin story suggests things like logic are just a convention (same with love) which makes it arbitrary and self defeating. Why should I have respect for nihilistic beliefs? It's all relative so what does it matter?

"For the wisdom of this age is foolishness with God."