...with the other thread 10 pages long, time to continue the discussion on the various issue that stand in the way of finding solutions. If we are going to make any progress, imo, we must take "politics on" because it seems to be the main issue standing in the way of progress.
A majority of Americans want the politicians to do their job and find the solutions to the problems surrounding Mass Shootings.
How can politics not be part of the discussion when an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans, across all political sides want the same thing, but THE POLITICIANS refuse to address the wants and needs of the majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents?
The U.S. Lawmakers Who Have Received the Most Funding from the NRA
Virginia Chamlee Fri, May 27, 2022, 11:17 AM·11 min read link
In the wake of Tuesday's mass shooting at a Texas elementary school — in which a gunman killed 19 students, a teacher and another adult — many lawmakers are calling for gun reform.
But even with hundreds of mass shootings taking place in the U.S. every year, Congress has repeatedly failed to pass any major piece of gun control legislation.
One of the most recent efforts to reform federal gun laws came in 2013 with the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a measure that would have required background checks on all commercial gun sales. The amendment — which came to a vote four months after 20 first-graders and six educators were fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School — failed, getting only 54 of the 60 votes it needed to overcome a filibuster.
Most of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment expressed the opinion that it simply wouldn't work, with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley telling reporters at the time: "Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks."
But they also shared something else in common. According to the non-partisan campaign finance research group OpenSecrets, nearly all of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment had accepted significant campaign contributions from PACs associated with gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association.
Since then, U.S. lawmakers have continued to rack up donations from gun rights groups – some to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Even in the immediate wake of the shooting, many Republicans continue to throw their support behind the NRA. On Friday, just days after the Uvalde school shooting, Republicans including former President Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are scheduled to headline a forum at the group's annual meeting in Houston.
OpenSecrets maintains a list of the top recipients of NRA and gun rights groups funds, with data updates as recently as May 16, 2022.
It's important to note that the NRA contributions on the OpenSecrets list are career totals, some going back as early as 1989 (so lawmakers who have been in office longer will likely have seen more NRA donations). The funds include both direct support to candidates (i.e. money donated by the NRA or NRA employees to a candidate or their PAC) and indirect support, via money spent against their opponent.
Below are the lawmakers who received the most funding from the NRA — either directly or indirectly — according to OpenSecrets data.
In the wake of Tuesday's mass shooting at a Texas elementary school — in which a gunman killed 19 students, a teacher and another adult — many lawmakers are calling for gun reform.
But even with hundreds of mass shootings taking place in the U.S. every year, Congress has repeatedly failed to pass any major piece of gun control legislation.
One of the most recent efforts to reform federal gun laws came in 2013 with the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a measure that would have required background checks on all commercial gun sales. The amendment — which came to a vote four months after 20 first-graders and six educators were fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School — failed, getting only 54 of the 60 votes it needed to overcome a filibuster.
Most of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment expressed the opinion that it simply wouldn't work, with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley telling reporters at the time: "Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks."
But they also shared something else in common. According to the non-partisan campaign finance research group OpenSecrets, nearly all of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment had accepted significant campaign contributions from PACs associated with gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association.
Since then, U.S. lawmakers have continued to rack up donations from gun rights groups – some to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Even in the immediate wake of the shooting, many Republicans continue to throw their support behind the NRA. On Friday, just days after the Uvalde school shooting, Republicans including former President Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are scheduled to headline a forum at the group's annual meeting in Houston.
OpenSecrets maintains a list of the top recipients of NRA and gun rights groups funds, with data updates as recently as May 16, 2022.
It's important to note that the NRA contributions on the OpenSecrets list are career totals, some going back as early as 1989 (so lawmakers who have been in office longer will likely have seen more NRA donations). The funds include both direct support to candidates (i.e. money donated by the NRA or NRA employees to a candidate or their PAC) and indirect support, via money spent against their opponent.
Below are the lawmakers who received the most funding from the NRA — either directly or indirectly — according to OpenSecrets data.
Sen. Mitt Romney, Utah Republican: $13,645,387
What he's received: $1,000 in direct support from the NRA and $3,278,632 in independent support. But the largest contributions to Romney came via NRA spending against his political opponents (including Barack Obama, during the 2012 presidential race), to the tune of $10,369,044. Speaking to The Washington Post, a Romney spokesperson said, "No one owns Senator Romney's vote, as evidenced by his record of independence in the Senate."
His recent take: Following Tuesday's school shooting in Texas, Romney expressed support for gun control measures, telling reporters: "Background checks and updating our background check technology is something that I think is an appropriate federal responsibility."
When he's up for reelection: Romney has said he's undecided regarding whether he'll choose to run for reelection in 2024.
Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican: $6,987,380
What he's received: Burr has received $43,900 in direct support from the NRA; $1,356,247 in independent support; and $5,587,233 in money spent against his political opponents.
His recent take: Burr has declined to make much of a stance one or way or the other regarding whether or not gun laws need to be strengthened. Asked by the New York Times whether he would support a pair of House-passed measures to strengthen background checks for gun buyers, Burr said this: "If somebody's got a solution to this, by all means, let's talk about it. But nobody's proposed that they've got one."
When he's up for reelection: Burr said in 2016 that he would not seek reelection in 2022.
Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina Republican: $5,611,796
What he's received: Tillis has received $17,900 in direct support from the NRA; $2,412,153 in independent support; and $3,182,564 in money spent against his political opponents.
His recent take: Asked by the Times whether he supported the House measures to strengthen background checks Tillis said, "I have not seen them, but [Majority Leader Chuck Schumer] hasn't consulted with us, so that's a not a good sign." But in separate statements to CNN, Tillis said, "we need to avoid is the reflexive reaction we have to say this could all be solved by not having guns in anyone's hands."
When he's up for reelection: Tillis' term ends in 2027. It is unclear whether he will run for office again at that point.
Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican: $4,555,722
What he's received: Blunt has received $82,450 in direct support from the NRA; $1,410,401 in independent support; and $3,062,871 in money spent against his political opponents.
His recent take: In a statement sent to PBS News, Blunt expressed a willingness to support some gun laws, but also spoke about the need to expand mental health programs. "As we learn more about the facts in this case, I'm open to looking at what we can do, in a bipartisan way, to prevent another tragedy like this from occurring. That might include the possibility of a red flag law to keep weapons out of the hands of people who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others."
When he's up for reelection: Blunt announced in 2021 that he will not seek reelection, and will retire from office in 2022.
Sen. Joni Ernst, Iowa Republican: $3,688,078
What she's received: Ernst has received $19,800 in direct support from the NRA; $577,396 in independent support; and $3,091,382 in money spent against her political opponents.
Her recent take: Asked if she would support the House-passed measures to strengthen background checks, Ernst told the Times she needed to first better "understand the circumstances" of the Texas school shooting.
When she's up for reelection: Ernst, who was elected to her second term in 2020, won't see her term end until 2027 (it's unclear if she plans to run for reelection at the time).
Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican: $3,303,355
What he's received: $4,950 in direct support from the NRA and $1,008,030 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Rubio is $3,303,355.
His recent take: "The horrific tragedy in Texas should spur Congress to act on proposals that can pass and actually make a difference like our bipartisan Luke & Alex School Safety Act," Rubio reportedly said, referring to a bill that would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish best practices for school safety to be used by state and local educational and law-enforcement agencies.
When he's up for reelection: In 2022, Rubio faces a number of challengers in the Republican primary on Aug. 23. Rep. Val Demings is the likely Democrat who'll be on the ballot in November, hoping to defeat Rubio, who's served in the U.S. Senate since 2011.
Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican: $3,063,327
What he's received: $20,300 in direct support from the NRA and $1,453,432 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Portman is $3,063,327.
His recent take: "My heart goes out to the families of the victims of this horrible tragedy in Uvalde. Our nation mourns for the innocent children, teacher, and all those affected by this senseless act of violence," Portman tweeted. "We also thank the brave first responders who run toward danger in the name of protecting us all."
When he's up for reelection: Portman announced in January, he won't seek reelection in 2022 for a third term. After Ohio's primary elections earlier this month, Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Congressman Tim Ryan will face off in November.
Following the massacre in Uvalde, Vance said in a statement, "Many will call for large scale gun confiscation. This approach would be a mistake."
Rep. Ryan said in a tweet he and his wife are "praying for the Uvalde community and the innocent young lives taken from us in another senseless tragedy. Our babies are being killed by gun violence and we are failing them. We have to do something."
He also tweeted about the Enhanced Background Checks Act and the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, saying those are "two bills we passed in the House that the Senate can take up right now. No more holding the will of the American people hostage. Either stand with us or get the hell out of the way."
Sen. Todd Young, Indiana Republican: $2,899,232
What he's received: $11,950 in direct support from the NRA and $440,645 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Young is $2,899,232.
His recent take: "I am deeply saddened by the horrific shooting today at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Our nation mourns the innocent lives taken in this senseless tragedy," the senator tweeted.
Asked by The New York Times about a pair of House measures to strengthen background checks, Young said, "I'm huddling up with my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike," initiating "conversations about this horrible incident and what we can do to prevent future types of incidents."
When he's up for reelection: In November, Young will face Democrat Thomas McDermott.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, Louisiana Republican: $2,864,547
What he's received: $13,950 in direct support from the NRA and $409,201 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Cassidy is $2,864,547.
His recent take: "Our hearts are with the families in Texas. We owe it to these families to find answers to prevent these events. Real answers that will work. God be with those affected," Cassidy tweeted.
Cassidy is reportedly participating in discussions about gun control measures, including proposals on expanded background checks for firearms purchases and transfers as well as red flag legislation to keep people considered dangerous to themselves or others from possessing firearms, according to The Hill.
When he's up for reelection: Cassidy was reelected for a second term in 2020, so he's not up for reelection until 2026 ahead of the end of his term in 2027.
Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican: $1,973,201
What he's received: $12,400 in direct support from the NRA and $1,960,801 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Cotton is $1,973,201.
His recent take: Cotton tweeted that he and his wife "join all Arkansans in praying for the victims and the childrens' families in Uvalde. And we're grateful for law enforcement and the first responders who are helping in the face of this unimaginable evil." Asked by The New York Times about a pair of House measures to strengthen background checks, Cotton said, "I have no comment on that."
He released a statement in April on President Biden's restrictions on ghost guns, defined by the administration as "unserialized, privately-made firearms."
"Expanding federal gun regulations only makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns," Cotton said. "If President Biden wants to crack down on crime, he should begin by enforcing existing laws and prosecuting violent criminals."
When he's up for reelection: Cotton's term as a senator ends in 2027, though his name has repeatedly come up on lists of those reportedly mulling a run for the presidency in 2024.
I will say that the definition of an assault rifle should be base on the round being used and the capacity of the magazine.
The single trigger pull per bullet is pretty obvious.
The Brady Bill limited magazines to 10.
Numerous times we have seen the magazine change be the thing that allow someone to stop the shooter.
Have we actually seen that often, if ever? I don't know, but I would love to see some actual data on it.
To be fair a little practice and magazine changes are pretty fast. A little practice and it isn't more than 2 seconds and likely closer to 1, unless you care about keeping your magazines.
I've watched a lot of gun channels on YouTube in my time, there seems to be some people obsessed with the capacity issue.
1911's don't have that much capacity (round is usually 45 though), S&W all usually have 5 or 6 shot swing out cylinders. I've concealed carried a Jframe before and this can be done. If you're a good shot with your weapon there's normally no need for a high number of rounds as FBI statistics show encounters end quickly in less than 10 rounds.
The more rounds a gun has the less concealable it tends to be.
I will say that the definition of an assault rifle should be base on the round being used and the capacity of the magazine.
The single trigger pull per bullet is pretty obvious.
The Brady Bill limited magazines to 10.
Numerous times we have seen the magazine change be the thing that allow someone to stop the shooter.
I'm no gun expert ... not a constitution expert either ... I do feel efforts need to be made to try to do something, what that something is, I don't know.
What I do know is there is excessive push back when ever a discussion moves to what sort of restrictions might make a difference. To me that's a bit whack. I have lots of friends who own lots of guns - it seems like if you are a gun enthusiast you never, ever own 1 or 2 guns - you literally own 40-50 guns, I know guys that own nearly 100 different types of guns. And I have a friend who legally owns a Barrett 50 Cal sniper rifle that is wicked fun to shoot ... but I can't think of a single logical, sensible reason that owning a 50 Cal sniper riffle is legal. Sure - that's not the issue in these atrocious mass shootings, it's a non-factor in regards to any kind of killings as far as I know, but the reasoning or logic behind allowing civilians to own that weapon makes zero sense to me. And maybe that is part of the issue - this culture where generally a small % of the population think this is normal? Regards the AR15 - that does seem to be the weapon of choice - and personally I'd like to see some options discussed that might make a difference.
I will say that the definition of an assault rifle should be base on the round being used and the capacity of the magazine.
The single trigger pull per bullet is pretty obvious.
The Brady Bill limited magazines to 10.
Numerous times we have seen the magazine change be the thing that allow someone to stop the shooter.
I respectfully disagree with your second sentence, and your final sentence.
in a vacuum, he's incorrect. but in reality, there has been at least a couple times were swapping mags was the moment the threat was put down.
the reason why is because most mass shooters don't practice dropping/reloading mags. there's actually a lot of normal law abiding citizens who don't, overall.
however, the magazine change narrative shouldn't even be one. IMO, magazine size is irrelevant because if the shooter has 2 + bodies down with the 1st mag, it's already a disaster. the magazine size is a preventive measure during the OCCURRENCE of the shooting itself. it does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from making the decision to pull the trigger, which is the entire point.
no matter how we try to limit the tools and accessories, it's still available.
Eve is the only one who brought up THE reason this crap happens. not the ONLY reason, but the main one.
Before some start crying that I'm singling out just one party...NO, I'M NOT..!
I did a simple search asking for a list of "politicians" who accept NRA donations...and what you see above is what that search provided.
I did do more searching to dig deeper and I did find this...
....The NRA used to be a bipartisan campaign contributor, but that changed in 1994. Here’s why link
Anyone who can find out more information concerning the politicians who accept NRA/gun lobby campaign donations...feel free to post them.
I have an issue with campaign donations in relationship to gun laws and especially 'proposed gun laws'.
Specifically, WHY DO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS...the 80% who want sensible gun legislation passed..?
I don't think you are. It's pretty obvious that the NRA is going to support people who believe in 2nd Amendment Rights and not support those who don't.
Before some start crying that I'm singling out just one party...NO, I'M NOT..!
I did a simple search asking for a list of "politicians" who accept NRA donations...and what you see above is what that search provided.
I did do more searching to dig deeper and I did find this...
....The NRA used to be a bipartisan campaign contributor, but that changed in 1994. Here’s why link
Anyone who can find out more information concerning the politicians who accept NRA/gun lobby campaign donations...feel free to post them.
I have an issue with campaign donations in relationship to gun laws and especially 'proposed gun laws'.
Specifically, WHY DO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS...the 80% who want sensible gun legislation passed..?
I don't think you are. It's pretty obvious that the NRA is going to support people who believe in 2nd Amendment Rights and not support those who don't.
Are you the least bit interested in solving gun issues..?
Here is how I view the situation as a gun owner...approach the situation with an attitude that EVERYTHING IS FINE..and it won't be long before the majority in USA call for EXTREME GUN REFORM.
I appreciate my rights as a gun owner and I don't want to see the vast minority stand in the way of sensible gun reforms. Peen, you ever heard it said that if you abuse your rights...you will lose them..?
You tell me, what are the obstacles standing in the way of sensible gun reform..?
Before some start crying that I'm singling out just one party...NO, I'M NOT..!
I did a simple search asking for a list of "politicians" who accept NRA donations...and what you see above is what that search provided.
I did do more searching to dig deeper and I did find this...
....The NRA used to be a bipartisan campaign contributor, but that changed in 1994. Here’s why link
Anyone who can find out more information concerning the politicians who accept NRA/gun lobby campaign donations...feel free to post them.
I have an issue with campaign donations in relationship to gun laws and especially 'proposed gun laws'.
Specifically, WHY DO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS...the 80% who want sensible gun legislation passed..?
I don't think you are. It's pretty obvious that the NRA is going to support people who believe in 2nd Amendment Rights and not support those who don't.
Are you the least bit interested in solving gun issues..?
Here is how I view the situation as a gun owner...approach the situation with an attitude that EVERYTHING IS FINE..and it won't be long before the majority in USA call for EXTREME GUN REFORM.
I appreciate my rights as a gun owner and I don't want to see the vast minority stand in the way of sensible gun reforms. Peen, you ever heard it said that if you abuse your rights...you will lose them..?
You tell me, what are the obstacles standing in the way of sensible gun reform..?
Just a couple of points.
1. As for abusing rights, I don't, you don't. Bad actors do. I'd also say we don't really know about all of these people. Is it possible some of the kooks doing things like this are actually doing this to push gun control legislation? My replay to you is have you heard it said that it is easy to give up your rights, but you have to fight to get them back?
2. I wouldn't mind if some changes were made, EXCEPT no matter what might be done, it wouldn't be enough until all guns are outlawed. People are going to say that wouldn't happen, but I call BS. I guess what I am saying is I don't really look forward to be legislated in to being a criminal, so I am going to do what I can to see to it that doesn't happen through any legal means possible. If it eventually does happen, I am prepared to live out the rest of my days as a deemed criminal. I wouldn't take part in any amnesty program where you could turn in any firearms one might own.
3. The one fact some seem to ignore is it takes a goofed up person to do things like this recent attack. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem, and for me, that is the bottom line. So yes, I want to solve the problem. We have to fix the way people think.
4. Kind of back to a earlier point, if we wanted to limit magazine size, I could go for that if that makes people feel better. The reality is that doesn't do all that much good. If you own a 9mm as an example, you know you can drop a clip and inset another in a hurry if you want. Nearly everybody has more than 1 clip because as you know, when you go to a range you don't want to spend a whole lot of time reloading empty chambers. You want to shoot then clean and reload things once you get home.
2. I wouldn't mind if some changes were made, EXCEPT no matter what might be done, it wouldn't be enough until all guns are outlawed.
3. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem, and for me, that is the bottom line. So yes, I want to solve the problem. We have to fix the way people think.
.
Just to comment on these two specific points, which I disagree with.
Point 2. Starting a conversation about how to improve something with the false premise that no matter what the negotiation / discussion is the "other side" is going to not accept anything than the nuclear option/outcome is flawed. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with the assumption that there's a predetermined outcome of eliminating all guns. There are nearly 400 million guns in the USA. They aren't all going to disappear. The criminals are not going to hand over their guns. The notion that the end game is to ban legal ownership of guns seems more about preventing a discussion about how to stop these mass shootings than it is about reality.
Point 3. Guns are most definitely part of the problem. The argument that people can kill people with knives, or cars or whatever other option might be available is to not accept that [1] all these mass shootings are carried out by guns [2] that guns are the so deadly, easy to obtain and the fastest way to kill lots of people, especially when we talk about school kids inside a building. . . . . Is it a complicated issue with lots of facets? Yes. Does that mean guns are not one of those facets? That's a completely faulty conclusion. As I have mentioned before - US society is not vastly different than the rest of the first world countries on the planet. Teenage angst, violent video games, loaners that spend their lives on the internet, drugs, poverty etc ... the biggest single difference is the easy access to deadly killing tools.
Once again, I support revising some of the gun laws. It would be wise to help make our citizens safer. I also am in favor of trying to make our schools more secure.
With that said, I know a lot of people who own guns who don't shoot their grandmother in her face over an AT&T bill or murder a bunch of elementary school children. They don't shoot black people in a church or the supermarket. They don't slay a bunch of people because girls reject them.
Once again, there are too many people who want to find a shortcut while trashing the opposing political party. It's shortsighted and frankly, ignorant.
We must do a deeper delve into why our society is raising so many social deviants. Examine all of the evidence and try to find ways to see if we create a more positive environment while finding new ways to deal w/those who are threats to our safety. I suspect that is too difficult for some to comprehend and they want to force-feed the same old argument down the throat of everyone else. In the meantime, more and more of these mass murderers are preying on our society.
Examine all of the evidence and try to find ways to see if we create a more positive environment while finding new ways to deal w/those who are threats to our safety. I suspect that is too difficult for some to comprehend and they want to force-feed the same old argument down the throat of everyone else. In the meantime, more and more of these mass murderers are preying on our society.
So what have you researched into the differences between US culture and society vs other first worked countries with much lower gun violence and mass shootings? I've seen you mention this and it's a worthwhile topic to discuss - but while you talk about others not being able to comprehend things that you do - what have you done to do a deep dive into this - or is it merely a talking point to hit others over the head with without actually - you know - backing up your potential talking point.
I've lived in the USA and the UK. I have traveled throughout Australia, Canada, France, Germany Spain and Portugal. I really don't see a deep divide in teenage and youth cultures.
But while the US is at 23% - other countries are not far behind: UK at 21% - Russia at 18% - Denmark 17%....
You also have mentioned violent video games being a causation of violence a couple of times. There is lots of information and a lot of articles talking about that being a popular belief - but a lot of data and research showing there is not a link and this belief is convenient but misplaced.
If you want to promote a theory - especially one that most will find too difficult to comprehend - I think it's fair to suggest you do some research yourself, back up your talking points .... or stop using it as a way to bash others.
2. I wouldn't mind if some changes were made, EXCEPT no matter what might be done, it wouldn't be enough until all guns are outlawed.
3. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem, and for me, that is the bottom line. So yes, I want to solve the problem. We have to fix the way people think.
.
Just to comment on these two specific points, which I disagree with.
Point 2. Starting a conversation about how to improve something with the false premise that no matter what the negotiation / discussion is the "other side" is going to not accept anything than the nuclear option/outcome is flawed. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with the assumption that there's a predetermined outcome of eliminating all guns. There are nearly 400 million guns in the USA. They aren't all going to disappear. The criminals are not going to hand over their guns. The notion that the end game is to ban legal ownership of guns seems more about preventing a discussion about how to stop these mass shootings than it is about reality.
Point 3. Guns are most definitely part of the problem. The argument that people can kill people with knives, or cars or whatever other option might be available is to not accept that [1] all these mass shootings are carried out by guns [2] that guns are the so deadly, easy to obtain and the fastest way to kill lots of people, especially when we talk about school kids inside a building. . . . . Is it a complicated issue with lots of facets? Yes. Does that mean guns are not one of those facets? That's a completely faulty conclusion. As I have mentioned before - US society is not vastly different than the rest of the first world countries on the planet. Teenage angst, violent video games, loaners that spend their lives on the internet, drugs, poverty etc ... the biggest single difference is the easy access to deadly killing tools.
Like I said, I don't mind if some reasonable restrictions were talked about, but once that starts and changes don't have any results, soon it will move on to more restrictions. Come on man, don't lie to yourself.
Are guns a part of the problem? I suppose so as you outline. My position is that the people who shoot are the main problem. A 5 gal can of gasoline and a bic lighter in a classroom would be a horrible, unspeakable act by a horrible, unspeakable person.
To add on another thing. I think we all need to be on the lookout for the red flags that these people usually exhibit. Flags that probably won't show up on a background check, at least with these younger guys, which most are.
After the fact we find out many of these people have said or written something. Many have exhibited anti-social behavior, are described as being outcasts of sorts. I suppose that borders on profiling, which I don't have a problem with, but many segments do.
To me, if it looks like a cat, it probably is a cat. We are just need to try to determine if it is a friendly house cat or a wild lion.
Well there is no magic bullet. Making it harder for the people who are the major problem to get hold of their tool of choice would seem to be a step in the right direction. Advocating for doing nothing seems be suggesting or accepting that, as a gun enthusiast or 2A advocate, people are willing to accept these atrocities.
5 Gallons of gasoline, explosives, knives ... all could be horrible. But that's not what is happening either in the USA or in countries where they have tighter gun control. In the UK knife crimes are certainly more pervasive than gun crimes - which is a reflection of the numbers and availability of guns vs the availability of knives ... but taken as incidence per population, they are no where near gun death or incidence totals in the USA.
We must do a deeper delve into why our society is raising so many social deviants.
This raises the question of, is our society raising a significantly higher percentage of social deviants than throughout history? Here are a few questions, I am sure there are some I haven't thought about.
1, Are we creating the same percentage but given the significantly higher population the pure number is much higher?
2, Has the internet made it easier for social deviants to connect further propagating their deviant thoughts?
3, Has the development of more advanced weaponry given them a modality for higher devastation? If it was 1722 instead of 2022 and someone went into a school/church/marketplace with a musket, how many people would he have been able to kill? Doubt enough to make it into the history books.
With that said, I know a lot of people who own guns who don't shoot their grandmother in her face over an AT&T bill or murder a bunch of elementary school children. They don't shoot black people in a church or the supermarket. They don't slay a bunch of people because girls reject them.
Once again, there are too many people who want to find a shortcut while trashing the opposing political party.
We have a son who lives a few hours away from where this shooting took place and a couple of days ago I asked what his thoughts were on the issues surrounding the Uvalde shooting as well as the issue of all the recent rash of mass shootings. My son was raised around guns and learned to shoot at an early age and he knows his stuff when it comes firearms, so it's not like he is some novice when it comes to discussing the issues.
My son pointed out the fact that he was raised around guns and was taught to respect the gun and understand the responsibility that comes with gun use and ownership. He wanted to join a local gun range/club and one of the requirements to join was taking a mandatory gun safety course before he could use the facility. The club also required that a parent or guardian must go through the same gun safety course so we went through the same course together. Understand, taking the clubs mandatory gun safety course was not a state requirement in Ohio.
My son said that today gun owners are not taught to respect a gun and it's capabilities and the parents or guardians are lax about their responsibility as it relates to gun safety in the cases where a gun is bought as a gift by an adult. As my son pointed out, today parents buy a gun for their kid as if it's nothing more than a tonka truck or a barbie doll...and he pointed out that a gun is not a toy.
I can't disagree with my son's viewpoint concerning education and parent/guardian involvement...but that leads to more issues that must be discussed...
Pretty long article. To be honest, I didn't finish it, but if looks promising so thought I ould share it before I lsot it and couldn't find it again.
Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?
AP Melanie Warner Fri, May 27, 2022, 2:54 PM·11 min read In this article:
James Densley British-American sociologist Each time a high-profile mass shooting happens in America, a grieving and incredulous nation scrambles for answers. Who was this criminal and how could he (usually) have committed such a horrendous and inhumane act? A few details emerge about the individual’s troubled life and then everyone moves on.
Three years ago, Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, decided to take a different approach. In their view, the failure to gain a more meaningful and evidence-based understanding of why mass shooters do what they do seemed a lost opportunity to stop the next one from happening. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, their research constructed a database of every mass shooter since 1966 who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces and places of worship since 1999.
Peterson and Densley also compiled detailed life histories on 180 shooters, speaking to their spouses, parents, siblings, childhood friends, work colleagues and teachers. As for the gunmen themselves, most don’t survive their carnage, but five who did talked to Peterson and Densely from prison, where they were serving life sentences. The researchers also found several people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.
Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic, reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions. POLITICO talked to Peterson and Densely from their offices in St. Paul, Minn., about how our national understanding about mass shooters has to evolve, why using terms like “monster” is counterproductive, and why political talking points about mental health need to be followed up with concrete action.
POLITICO: Since you both spend much of your time studying mass shootings, I wonder if you had the same stunned and horrified reaction as the rest of us to the Uvalde elementary school shooting. Or were you somehow expecting this?
Jillian Peterson: On some level, we were waiting because mass shootings are socially contagious and when one really big one happens and gets a lot of media attention, we tend to see others follow. But this one was particularly gutting. I have three elementary school kids, one of which is in 4th grade.
James Densley: I’m also a parent of two boys, a 5-year-old and a 12-year-old. My 12-year-old knows what I do for a living and he’s looking to me for reassurance and I didn’t have the words for him. How do I say, “This happened at a school, but now it’s OK for you to go to your school and live your life.” It’s heartbreaking.
POLITICO: Are you saying there’s a link between the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings?
Peterson: We don’t know for sure at this point, but our research would say that it’s likely. You had an 18-year-old commit a horrific mass shooting. His name is everywhere and we all spend days talking about "replacement theory." That shooter was able to get our attention. So, if you have another 18-year-old who is on the edge and watching everything, that could be enough to embolden him to follow. We have seen this happen before.
Densley: Mass shooters study other mass shooters. They often find a way of relating to them, like, “There are other people out there who feel like me.”
POLITICO: Can you take us through the profile of mass shooters that emerged from your research?
Peterson: There’s this really consistent pathway. Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.
What’s different from traditional suicide is that the self-hate turns against a group. They start asking themselves, “Whose fault is this?” Is it a racial group or women or a religious group, or is it my classmates? The hate turns outward. There’s also this quest for fame and notoriety.
POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings?
Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed.
It’s hard to focus on the suicide because these are horrific homicides. But it’s a critical piece because we know so much from the suicide prevention world that can translate here.
POLITICO: I’ve heard many references over the last few weeks to “monsters” and “pure evil.” You’ve said this kind of language actually makes things worse. Why?
Densley: If we explain this problem as pure evil or other labels like terrorist attack or hate crime, we feel better because it makes it seem like we’ve found the motive and solved the puzzle. But we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just explained the problem away. What this really problematic terminology does is prevent us from recognizing that mass shooters are us. This is hard for people to relate to because these individuals have done horrific, monstrous things. But three days earlier, that school shooter was somebody’s son, grandson, neighbor, colleague or classmate. We have to recognize them as the troubled human being earlier if we want to intervene before they become the monster.
Peterson: The Buffalo shooter told his teacher that he was going to commit a murder-suicide after he graduated. People aren’t used to thinking that this kind of thing could be real because the people who do mass shootings are evil, psychopathic monsters and this is a kid in my class. There’s a disconnect.
POLITICO: Do you get criticism about being too sympathetic toward mass shooters?
Peterson: We’re not trying to create excuses or say they shouldn’t be held responsible. This is really about, what is the pathway to violence for these people, where does this come from? Only then can we start building data-driven solutions that work. If we’re unwilling to understand the pathway, we’re never going to solve this.
POLITICO: So, what are the solutions?
Densley: There are things we can do right now as individuals, like safe storage of firearms or something as simple as checking in with your kid.
Peterson: Then we really need resources at institutions like schools. We need to build teams to investigate when kids are in crisis and then link those kids to mental health services. The problem is that in a lot of places, those services are not there. There’s no community mental health and no school-based mental health. Schools are the ideal setting because it doesn’t require a parent to take you there. A lot of perpetrators are from families where the parents are not particularly proactive about mental health appointments.
POLITICO: In your book, you say that in an ideal world, 500,000 psychologists would be employed in schools around the country. If you assume a modest salary of $70,000 a year, that amounts to over $35 billion in funding. Are you seeing any national or state-level political momentum for even a sliver of these kind of mental health resources?
Densley: Every time these tragedies happen, you always ask yourself, “Is this the one that’s going to finally move the needle?” The Republican narrative is that we’re not going to touch guns because this is all about mental health. Well then, we need to ask the follow-up question of what’s the plan to fix that mental health problem. Nobody’s saying, “Let’s fund this, let’s do it, we’ll get the votes.” That’s the political piece that’s missing here.
POLITICO: Are Democrats talking about mental health?
Densley: Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.
Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.
Densley: In Uvalde, there was an army of good guys with guns in the parking lot. The hard approach doesn’t seem to be getting the job done.
POLITICO: Do you support red flag laws?
Peterson: Our research certainly supports them, because so many perpetrators are actively showing warning signs. They are talking about doing this and telling people they’re suicidal. But what Buffalo showed us is that just because you have a red flag law on the books doesn’t mean people are trained in how it works and how they should be implementing it.
POLITICO: What has to change to make the laws more effective?
Densley: There are two pieces. One is training and awareness. People need to know that the law exists, how it works and who has a duty to report an individual. The second piece is the practical component of law enforcement. What is the mechanism to safely remove those firearms? Especially if you have a small law enforcement presence, maybe one or two officers, and you’re asking them to go into somebody’s rural home and take care of their entire arsenal of weapons.
POLITICO: What should have happened in Buffalo, given that the state of New York has a red flag law?
Peterson: From what we know, it sounds like there should have been more education with the police, the mental health facility and the school. If any one of those three had initiated the red flag process, it should have prevented the shooter from making the purchase.
It really shows the limitations of our current systems. Law enforcement investigated, but the shooter had no guns at that moment, so it was not an immediate threat. The mental health facility concluded it was not an immediate crisis, so he goes back to school. If it’s not a red-hot situation in that moment, nobody can do anything. It was none of these people’s jobs to make sure that he got connected with somebody in the community who could help him long term.
Densley: Also, something happens to put people on the radar. Even if they’re not the next shooter, something’s not right. How can we help these individuals reintegrate in a way that’s going to try and turn their lives around? That gets lost if we fixate just on the word “threat.”
POLITICO: I was struck by a detail in your book about one of the perpetrators you investigated. Minutes before he opened fire, you report that he called a behavior health facility. Is there always some form of reaching out or communication of intent before it happens?
Peterson: You don’t see it as often with older shooters who often go into their workplaces. But for young shooters, it’s almost every case. We have to view this “leakage” as a cry for help. If you’re saying, “I want to shoot the school tomorrow,” you are also saying, “I don’t care if I live or die.” You’re also saying, “I’m completely hopeless,” and you’re putting it out there for people to see because part of you wants to be stopped.
We have to listen because pushing people out intensifies their grievance and makes them angrier. The Parkland shooter had just been expelled from school and then came back. This is not a problem we can punish our way out of.
Just to end the conversation on my part, I have never advocated we do nothing. I just said magazine size would be discussed. I wouldn't be adverse to maybe the age of 21 for some types of firearms.
I also advocated a strong police presence in the schools, with common sense restrictions on entry points that are open, and having parents or some sort of volunteer program for having more eyes on the ball on a daily basis.
Some laughed it off, saying I wanted the PTA involved...well you know what, that wouldn't hurt a damn thing. We just saw a lot of parents wanting to get involved a few days ago. As I said then, time is critical. That gives people a chance to prepare and respond.
I will even add that I would be all for various school administrators, teachers, whoever to be trained and armed. Start shooting some of these freaks dead 40 feet inside the building will put a end to much of this crap.
We need to have classes on conflict resolution, empathy, and emotional IQ be a consistent part of our curriculums. Maybe we need our history classes to be darker and more illustrative of the horrors of war instead of glossing over the harsh realities and boiling things down to names, numbers, and dates. Maybe we should have field trips to morgues. Have young adults senses take in the aftermath of gun violence and not just be exposed to bright images of sterile animated bodies that quickly fade away as "killstreaks" climb. Maybe we need more mentoring programs. People associated with schools having positive relationships with students and being able to sense when issues may be cropping up. Just giving them adults to talk to about things not necessarily curricula related.
Maybe we just need our culture to not be so full of opinionated assholes confident in their "sides" righteousness and unwilling to truly consider other points of view. Our society seems intent on getting everyone to fit themselves in one "box" (job, political party, race, religion, etc) or another. When some people can't find a box that fits and they're constantly pushed to find one, while being denied some, their response is to tear down the boxes. Maybe we need to reframe our paradigm away from such boxes. It should probably be okay to be unique instead of being ostracized for being different.
Guns aren't my thing. I get the knee jerk reaction to do away with them. However, I don't think it's a good idea. People bring up the guns aren't going to stop a drone argument, but in a way, the threat of armed violence does stop drone attacks. Guns make politicians/everyone vulnerable. It levels the playing field. Politicians are protected, but if they start wiping out civilians, there would be a violent, armed civilian response. Having the government be the only ones with guns is the first step to full blown despotism. Yes, there is a difference between military hardware and civilian arms, but widening the gap from potentially able to react to completely helpless seems potentially problematic- especially in a world where the likes of Trump can get elected. The government is unlikely to give up its weapons, and the branches of government weren't the only systems of checks in balances that the Framers put in place with good reason.
It's already illegal to kill people with firearms. Will we start only selling minivans to transportation companies because semis can cause giant accidents?
Here's the problem I see with what you're saying. Your pointing to only one side. As of now one side wants to do too much just as you said. I don't disagree with you there. The other side wants to do nothing. They have fought every bit of any change or join in finding logical solutions. Much as myself you seem to agree we do need some common sense solutions. Being a gun owner myself I certainly have my limits as to what I think going too far is as well. You actually mentioned some points we both agree on.
But here's the point at which we disagree. So far advocating we do nothing I believe has the opposite effect you claim it will have. The anti gun people can show that as of now the other side wants to do NOTHING! That looks terrible in terms of the optics. I understand the slippery slope concept you're talking about. I also understand if the pro gun people would go along with just a few common sense concepts like raising the age to 21 as an example, they would then have the grounds to say they were willing to compromise while the anti gun people just keep pushing and will never be happy. I think that's a much better position of stength for them than fighting everything tooth and nail.
Just to end the conversation on my part, I have never advocated we do nothing. I just said magazine size would be discussed. I wouldn't be adverse to maybe the age of 21 for some types of firearms.
I also advocated a strong police presence in the schools, with common sense restrictions on entry points that are open, and having parents or some sort of volunteer program for having more eyes on the ball on a daily basis.
Some laughed it off, saying I wanted the PTA involved...well you know what, that wouldn't hurt a damn thing. We just saw a lot of parents wanting to get involved a few days ago. As I said then, time is critical. That gives people a chance to prepare and respond.
I will even add that I would be all for various school administrators, teachers, whoever to be trained and armed. Start shooting some of these freaks dead 40 feet inside the building will put a end to much of this crap.
I'm not sure if PTA involvement inside the building all the time is a good idea. In theory it could be, but in practice, parents can be crueler than kids. Some sort of 3rd party screened "counselors"/mentors/"hall monitors" independent of the academic stuff might be a better idea.
How do we avoid creating "freaks" (your word) in the first place? If we keep creating damaged people, they'll keep finding ways to spread the damage.
I've seen people mention all of these measures to make schools safe. And don't get me wrong it all sounds good in theory. But let's look at this very latest mass school shooting.
They had a school resource officer. (a good guy with a gun)
He wasn't even at the school when the shooting began. Yet somehow with just a phone call he managed to rush to the school...... a little late to help.
Secure the building.
The policy to keep every entrance to the school locked and secured was in place. Yet for some reason one of the teachers not only had a back door unlocked, but it was propped open.
And I see people saying "Let's arm the teachers". Once again that sounds great in theory but people who have never been involved in an active shooter situation or actually first hand faced a life threatening, violent situation, there's no telling how they might react when it happens. I think that's a very dangerous idea. Having even more projectiles being fired by individuals that have no experience in such situations flying in different directions in rooms full of children is something I don't believe people have thought through very well.
I'm not sure how I feel about having a bunch of armed people in our schools, locking down classrooms every time a class is conducted and some of these more restrictive measures. If such an idea has to be adopted to have armed people in our schools, I would conclude that retired military and retired police officers would be the best equipped to handle these situations and I wouldn't want a lot of them in any school.
Once we reach the point that our children feel more like they're in a secured prison than a school, so much for a positive learning environment.
This school had a sold course of action. They had a solid security plan. But those plans are only as good as the people you have in the building that are supposed to follow them. And keeping the body count low is only as good as the police response that deals with the situation after it begins.
I don't want to discuss much on the subject except to say:
Around the year 2003 III The politicians first nationally advertised the idea of concealed carry laws and laws to give more access to guns.
Now, Prior to that, about years, I980-2002 Nobody was trying to take your flippin guns, there was nothing wrong with the gun laws that existed except for the liberals not enforcing them probably, but, because it could further politicians careers, idiot leaders tried making laws about concealed carry and more access to more guns for more times of day, and more times of the week, and just like scribes and Pharisees that they are, made everythying worse.
Now, imagine a small building, like a public school, just one school, IF, you continure to pour more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more guns into that building, and create laws to where everyone must have a gun, not just one but 5 guns, and clean them each hourly, and unload and reload them and test fire all five of them daily, twice, thrice daily, and then make each person responsible for more and more guns, 20 guns per person not 5, not... Zero
Then, as the number of guns increases, the likelihood that somebody is going to be shot and killed in that building by a gun goes up.
But, between 2003, and 2022, just think of the politicians that got votes because they supported nobody taking yer guns, who nobody was trying to take for the 20 years prior to 2003, but they needed to make new laws. Because that's what they do, ruin everything by not leaving well enough alone.
There has been a lot of comment about the different political parties regarding this debate. The following comments are in regards to actual politicians in the party not necessarilypeople who identify with each party.
The democrats see mass shootings as a problem and want to do something about it. You can argue that it won't work, or disagree with it, but here is no denying that they want to address the issue. The republicans on the other hand don't want to do a thing about it. So which is the do nothing party?
Now, Prior to that, about years, I980-2002 Nobody was trying to take your flippin guns
Who has tried to take away your guns?
Quote
there was nothing wrong with the gun laws that existed except for the liberals not enforcing them probably
I guess you need to be reminded that Texas is a Republican state. Many of these mass shootings happen in Republican states. A mass shooter doesn't care what political party runs a state when he commits the act. So are you saying red states aren't enforcing gun laws too?
The NRA paid out over 29 million dollars during the 2020 elections to politicians that promote doing nothing. I mean if you want to talk about the political side. Pretending only one side is using their stance on guns as a political weapon is dishonest at best.
Once this becomes a political argument. It ends progress.
When people start drawing lines and saying nobody is going to take my guy. Progress ends.
Republicans, democrats, libertarians, independents, or communists we still love our children. Nobody wants this to happen again.
When planes started to get hijacked. Guns were stopped from getting on planes.
Gun laws, mental health, and all the measures that can help face resistance and take time.
Stop guns from getting on school grounds. There are approx. 140k schools. We created a vaccine for Covid in record time.
We have a defense budget of $773 billion.
I am positive security professionals can design a way to secure schools. Then every person employed at schools can be educated in all security measures to limit human error.
ACTION NOW. Not debate. If a million dollars was spent on every school. We are talking peanuts. If there is someone who wants to measure money against children lives.
The time for talk is over. It is time to protect children from being slaughtered in a class room. Do you think kids care about what party their parents belong to?
Should elementary school children be taught drills to protect themselves? Are we effing crazy?
This is time for action at school to stop guns from getting inside.
There will always be guns. There will always be mentally ill.
There has been a lot of comment about the different political parties regarding this debate. The following comments are in regards to actual politicians in the party not necessarilypeople who identify with each party.
The democrats see mass shootings as a problem and want to do something about it. You can argue that it won't work, or disagree with it, but here is no denying that they want to address the issue. The republicans on the other hand don't want to do a thing about it. So which is the do nothing party?
With that said, I know a lot of people who own guns who don't shoot their grandmother in her face over an AT&T bill or murder a bunch of elementary school children. They don't shoot black people in a church or the supermarket. They don't slay a bunch of people because girls reject them.
Once again, there are too many people who want to find a shortcut while trashing the opposing political party.
We have a son who lives a few hours away from where this shooting took place and a couple of days ago I asked what his thoughts were on the issues surrounding the Uvalde shooting as well as the issue of all the recent rash of mass shootings. My son was raised around guns and learned to shoot at an early age and he knows his stuff when it comes firearms, so it's not like he is some novice when it comes to discussing the issues.
My son pointed out the fact that he was raised around guns and was taught to respect the gun and understand the responsibility that comes with gun use and ownership. He wanted to join a local gun range/club and one of the requirements to join was taking a mandatory gun safety course before he could use the facility. The club also required that a parent or guardian must go through the same gun safety course so we went through the same course together. Understand, taking the clubs mandatory gun safety course was not a state requirement in Ohio.
My son said that today gun owners are not taught to respect a gun and it's capabilities and the parents or guardians are lax about their responsibility as it relates to gun safety in the cases where a gun is bought as a gift by an adult. As my son pointed out, today parents buy a gun for their kid as if it's nothing more than a tonka truck or a barbie doll...and he pointed out that a gun is not a toy.
I can't disagree with my son's viewpoint concerning education and parent/guardian involvement...but that leads to more issues that must be discussed...
No argument from me. I'm not some big gun guy. I used to hunt a lot. Bow and arrow and shotgun. Loved grouse hunting because it was so freaking hard. Grouse disappeared in Ohio for the most part. None in SC. I went a couple of trips to the Dakotas to hunt grouse and pheasant, but that has been years ago now. I have my two shotguns and a handgun for home protection. I do some skeet shooting at some land my son-in-law's family own and it's a good time. But, I am not a gun enthusiast. I support measures and laws to keep our country safer.
I just think we have to go deeper. I won't reply to 888 because of how he makes things up about what I say and just wants to fight, but to you and others.........I am NOT claiming to have the answers. I do have some experience dealing w/troubled kids. I know what I have seen. I am not ignorant and know that some of these social misfits exhibit behaviors for years and are often coddled. This actually widens the divide between them and their peers. The social media bullying can be intense. There are so many factors. Again, I am not an expert, but I do think that we need to do a deeper delve into why we are creating so many monsters. Jester mentioned our history and the numbers. I'm older and I can tell you that my generation didn't have so many troubled youths. You are probably in my age bracket, mac. You know what I'm talking about.
Again, I am not fighting you on how we deal w/the gun issue. Let's just not limit it to that.
I would like to add something about the teacher who left the door propped open. I was going to mention this even before I knew that particular teacher did that, but it was a pet peeve of mine while I was teaching. We had multiple teachers use a chair or a small piece of wood to keep doors open because they were too lazy to walk all the way around the school from our wing to the wing where the fine arts classrooms were and instead wanted to cut through the courtyard so their fat asses wouldn't have to walk so far. I used to kick the crap out of the way and allow the door to lock each time I noticed it. My room was at the end of the hallway and across from the courtyard door.
I always felt my number one priority as a teacher was to keep my students safe. I know that is what I wanted from my own children's teachers. Being lazy and sacrificing a child's safety is inexcusable in my world and you have no idea how many teachers do exactly that.
I saw that story - and I'm glad lives appear to be saved. It'll be interesting to see if this becomes and intensifies the "see, more good individuals with guns is the answer" mantra.
Point 3. Guns are most definitely part of the problem. The argument that people can kill people with knives, or cars or whatever other option might be available is to not accept that [1] all these mass shootings are carried out by guns [2] that guns are the so deadly, easy to obtain and the fastest way to kill lots of people, especially when we talk about school kids inside a building. . . . . Is it a complicated issue with lots of facets? Yes. Does that mean guns are not one of those facets? That's a completely faulty conclusion. As I have mentioned before - US society is not vastly different than the rest of the first world countries on the planet. Teenage angst, violent video games, loaners that spend their lives on the internet, drugs, poverty etc ... the biggest single difference is the easy access to deadly killing tools.
If you implement gun control measures that are successful, the shooters will move on to something else. Guns are not the only way to mass murder people. Personally, I want to stop these kids from murdering people regardless of how they do it. Too many people want to tunnel vision on guns. Putting doors on airplane cockpits would stop another 9/11, it did not stop terrorism altogether.
I saw that story - and I'm glad lives appear to be saved. It'll be interesting to see if this becomes and intensifies the "see, more good individuals with guns is the answer" mantra.
A good guy with a gun that had the conviction to use it when called upon.
I saw that story - and I'm glad lives appear to be saved. It'll be interesting to see if this becomes and intensifies the "see, more good individuals with guns is the answer" mantra.
A good guy with a gun that had the conviction to use it when called upon.
Problem is, if cops arrive on scene and see 2 people in a gunfight, how do they know who the good guy is? This isn't call of duty where the bad guys have a red mark over their head.
Just to end the conversation on my part, I have never advocated we do nothing. I just said magazine size would be discussed. I wouldn't be adverse to maybe the age of 21 for some types of firearms.
I also advocated a strong police presence in the schools, with common sense restrictions on entry points that are open, and having parents or some sort of volunteer program for having more eyes on the ball on a daily basis.
Some laughed it off, saying I wanted the PTA involved...well you know what, that wouldn't hurt a damn thing. We just saw a lot of parents wanting to get involved a few days ago. As I said then, time is critical. That gives people a chance to prepare and respond.
I will even add that I would be all for various school administrators, teachers, whoever to be trained and armed. Start shooting some of these freaks dead 40 feet inside the building will put a end to much of this crap.
I'm not sure if PTA involvement inside the building all the time is a good idea. In theory it could be, but in practice, parents can be crueler than kids. Some sort of 3rd party screened "counselors"/mentors/"hall monitors" independent of the academic stuff might be a better idea.
How do we avoid creating "freaks" (your word) in the first place? If we keep creating damaged people, they'll keep finding ways to spread the damage.
Just sitting around shooting (no pun intended) the breeze with neighbors the other day regarding this matter.. Pretty good mix of gun lovers, gun haters and those that don't really care other than they want the killing of school children stopped.
While discussing what could/should be done, we all started throwing out various ideas.. Not that I'm the brilliant one or anything but by accident I may have stumbled across a solution.
All these different solutions we were hearing, TRY THEM ALL.... Its kids for cryin out loud....
Try something,, if it doesn't work, don't make it political, just stop it and try something else.
It's really time for the nonsense to stop.., IT'S ABOUT THE KIDS........
Is there anyone here against stopping the killing of KIDS?
Problem is, if cops arrive on scene and see 2 people in a gunfight, how do they know who the good guy is? This isn't call of duty where the bad guys have a red mark over their head.
Not only that - anyone that's been the gun range and shot with a handgun at more than 15 ft knows it is not easy. Add stress and other random factors ??? To me it's a potential recipe for disaster depending on the situation and environment. All my gun loving friends lock their guns away, they take training classes, they shoot regularly. I do not think that is necessarily the norm for most people that own a gun.
Problem is, if cops arrive on scene and see 2 people in a gunfight, how do they know who the good guy is? This isn't call of duty where the bad guys have a red mark over their head.
Not only that - anyone that's been the gun range and shot with a handgun at more than 15 ft knows it is not easy. Add stress and other random factors ??? To me it's a potential recipe for disaster depending on the situation and environment. All my gun loving friends lock their guns away, they take training classes, they shoot regularly. I do not think that is necessarily the norm for most people that own a gun.
Ye, I see your point. Allowing someone to shoot at innocent people without resistance is a way to lower the body count. She should have minded her own business and let things happen, I am sure it would have deescalated the situation.
No really, the bad guy tried to hurt people. Someone decided to stop it and the only person dead is the bad guy. Disaster averted.
BTW the police have protocols for these types of situations. But it seems more often than not when a bystander gets involved like this the situation is resolved before the police arrive.
If you implement gun control measures that are successful, the shooters will move on to something else. Guns are not the only way to mass murder people. Personally, I want to stop these kids from murdering people regardless of how they do it. Too many people want to tunnel vision on guns. Putting doors on airplane cockpits would stop another 9/11, it did not stop terrorism altogether.
Other than an explosive device, what weapon other than a semi automatic weapon can you kill so many, so quickly? And I agree with you that it would not stop all mass shootings. But as we have all seen, many of these, especially mass school shootings have been committed by people 18-20 who have purchased them legally. I'm not a big proponent of gun control. But I do however believe that if there is an obvious demographic who we can target which will help reduce these mass shootings we should use that as a way to reduce them.
"No Billy, I can not sell you beer. Society has decided you are not mature enough to use alcohol. But if you like you can go to Big Jim's Gun Emporium and purchase two AK-15,s several 30 round magazines and thousands of rounds of ammunition!"
Air bags do not prevent all deaths in auto accidents. But they help greatly reduce them. I think air bags are a good idea.
Problem is, if cops arrive on scene and see 2 people in a gunfight, how do they know who the good guy is? This isn't call of duty where the bad guys have a red mark over their head.
Not only that - anyone that's been the gun range and shot with a handgun at more than 15 ft knows it is not easy. Add stress and other random factors ??? To me it's a potential recipe for disaster depending on the situation and environment. All my gun loving friends lock their guns away, they take training classes, they shoot regularly. I do not think that is necessarily the norm for most people that own a gun.
Ye, I see your point. Allowing someone to shoot at innocent people without resistance is a way to lower the body count. She should have minded her own business and let things happen, I am sure it would have deescalated the situation.
No really, the bad guy tried to hurt people. Someone decided to stop it and the only person dead is the bad guy. Disaster averted.
BTW the police have protocols for these types of situations. But it seems more often than not when a bystander gets involved like this the situation is resolved before the police arrive.
I see you completely twisted everything I said out of context - funny because I see you constantly trying to antagonize other posters in the same way. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
This is the third of my comments on the situation. My very first comment was I am glad the person saved lives.
That said the idea that this happened once so the same positive outcome would result in every such situation is faulty - and I gave some reasons for thinking that. If you disagree that's fine, but please don't distort what I said just because you want a fight.
Problem is, if cops arrive on scene and see 2 people in a gunfight, how do they know who the good guy is? This isn't call of duty where the bad guys have a red mark over their head.
Not only that - anyone that's been the gun range and shot with a handgun at more than 15 ft knows it is not easy. Add stress and other random factors ??? To me it's a potential recipe for disaster depending on the situation and environment. All my gun loving friends lock their guns away, they take training classes, they shoot regularly. I do not think that is necessarily the norm for most people that own a gun.
Let me help you understand FrankZ - seeing as you want to fight and you are either deliberately misrepresenting a post or can't comprehend.
Squires post is in response to your comment about a good guy with a gun being a good solution. Squires comment highlights a potential issue with that solution.
My response adds other context and challenges to that solution. Namely people not trained to be in that situation. We have trained police officers sometimes shooting innocent bystanders ... what are the odds of a less well trained individual doing the same thing or worse? Higher or lower? What are the odds of a good guy with a gun with no training doing the same - much higher or much lower?
My original comment on the story: "I saw that story - and I'm glad lives appear to be saved."
So your comment -
"Ye, I see your point. Allowing someone to shoot at innocent people without resistance is a way to lower the body count. She should have minded her own business and let things happen, I am sure it would have deescalated the situation.
No really, the bad guy tried to hurt people. Someone decided to stop it and the only person dead is the bad guy. Disaster averted."
Is a 100% misrepresentation of my posts and my point. Thanks
If you implement gun control measures that are successful, the shooters will move on to something else. Guns are not the only way to mass murder people. Personally, I want to stop these kids from murdering people regardless of how they do it. Too many people want to tunnel vision on guns. Putting doors on airplane cockpits would stop another 9/11, it did not stop terrorism altogether.
Other than an explosive device, what weapon other than a semi automatic weapon can you kill so many, so quickly? And I agree with you that it would not stop all mass shootings. But as we have all seen, many of these, especially mass school shootings have been committed by people 18-20 who have purchased them legally. I'm not a big proponent of gun control. But I do however believe that if there is an obvious demographic who we can target which will help reduce these mass shootings we should use that as a way to reduce them.
"No Billy, I can not sell you beer. Society has decided you are not mature enough to use alcohol. But if you like you can go to Big Jim's Gun Emporium and purchase two AK-15,s several 30 round magazines and thousands of rounds of ammunition!"
Air bags do not prevent all deaths in auto accidents. But they help greatly reduce them. I think air bags are a good idea.
...I can think of several, but I don't want to give you any ideas.
I'm 63 years old. If I were going to do something crazy like that I would have done it well before now. I'm not the one you need to worry about giving ideas to. I also already have the weapons it would take to pull of such a disastrous act if that was my intent.
Problem is, if cops arrive on scene and see 2 people in a gunfight, how do they know who the good guy is? This isn't call of duty where the bad guys have a red mark over their head.
Not only that - anyone that's been the gun range and shot with a handgun at more than 15 ft knows it is not easy. Add stress and other random factors ??? To me it's a potential recipe for disaster depending on the situation and environment. All my gun loving friends lock their guns away, they take training classes, they shoot regularly. I do not think that is necessarily the norm for most people that own a gun.
Let me help you understand FrankZ - seeing as you want to fight and you are either deliberately misrepresenting a post or can't comprehend.
Squires post is in response to your comment about a good guy with a gun being a good solution. Squires comment highlights a potential issue with that solution.
My response adds other context and challenges to that solution. Namely people not trained to be in that situation. We have trained police officers sometimes shooting innocent bystanders ... what are the odds of a less well trained individual doing the same thing or worse? Higher or lower? What are the odds of a good guy with a gun with no training doing the same - much higher or much lower?
My original comment on the story: "I saw that story - and I'm glad lives appear to be saved."
So your comment -
"Ye, I see your point. Allowing someone to shoot at innocent people without resistance is a way to lower the body count. She should have minded her own business and let things happen, I am sure it would have deescalated the situation.
No really, the bad guy tried to hurt people. Someone decided to stop it and the only person dead is the bad guy. Disaster averted."
Is a 100% misrepresentation of my posts and my point. Thanks
I apologize. I wasn't trying to fight.
People keep talking about banning guns like the guns did something, or the millions of gun owners who did nothing wrong are somehow at fault. Then there i a situation that arises that a bystander stops some idiot bent on hurting people and someone points out a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with one. The narrative generally goes to the idea that if more people had guns these situations would just be a blood bath and that turns back to everyone should lose their guns again. I suppose right now I am just tired of being told I killed babies since I am a white male that owns guns and the liberals locally just blame everyone but the guy that did the shooting, he's not actually at fault for going into a school and shooting kids.
There is a statistic that indicated in a mass shooting 4.5 people died if a bystander interceed but if you wait for the police it was twelve (or somewhere in that area). The ire and gnashing of teeth that ensues with some people when you suggest that armed teachers could help is tiresome.
Another “Mass Shooting” Happened This Morning, but it Was in Chicago So Democrats and Corporate Media Will Ignore By J.D. Rucker • May. 29, 2022
The phrase “mass shooting” is being used as the centerpiece of the left’s push for gun control. It’s a fearmongering phrase that draws emotional remembrance of events both recent and in the distant past. Whenever it’s used, generally it means the public is supposed to get angry and call to remove those dastardly guns from law-abiding citizens because apparently, that’s supposed to help.
It won’t of course, as 2nd Amendment proponents can certainly tell you. Wherever there’s strict gun control placed on law-abiding citizens, criminals flourish. By their very nature, they tend to disregard laws, so the notion that gun control will do anything other than make an area less safe is ludicrous. Nevertheless, the false narrative persists.
But not every “mass shooting” gets media attention. One happened in the early morning hours Sunday. Kids were shot. The perpetrator is still at large. But since it happened in the strictly gun-control criminal haven of Chicago, you won’t see it getting any national attention. Democrat darling Lori Lightfoot will not be in front of any cameras today.
According to local news channel Fox32Chicago:
Five people were shot in Chicago’s West Garfield Park neighborhood Sunday morning. The shooting occurred in the 800 block of South Karlov.
At about 1:32 a.m., the victims were standing on the sidewalk with a group of people when a fight broke out, police said. Shots were fired, and five people were struck.
A 21-year-old man was shot in the left side of the body, and transported to the hospital in serious condition. Another 21-year-old man was shot in the left arm, and transported to the hospital in serious condition. A 21-year-old woman was also shot in the left arm, and transported to the hospital in serious condition. A 16-year-old girl was shot in the back, and transported to the hospital in serious condition. A 33-year-old was shot in the face, and transported to the hospital in serious condition.
I think the person you directed this towards feels much the same way I do. To a large extent all three of us want the same thing. We feel it's the right thing to do to have armed people placed within our schools. The difference is that you advocate it be teachers. People with no experience in life or death situations involving firearms. While from my understanding both myself and mgh would prefer it be someone more experienced with that type of situation such as retired law enforcement or retired military. I think there's too much on the plate of teachers now. We expect them to teach, counsel, discipline and be support for these kids. And now we think we should expect them to carry a gun too? It's not that large of a disagreement.
I have found it's best to block out the extreme voices on both sides to try and find common sense solutions that vast majority of us can live with on things that never should be political to start with. Saving the life of and cutting down on the deaths of our nations children is one such topic. I get labeled a liberal on here all the time. But I don't advocate banning any firearms. I don't blame anyone but the shooter for his actions. I also expect accountability from those who ignored the safety protocol which allowed this shooter easy access to the school that may very well have prevented it. I also expect accountability for those who broke police protocol that may have prevented many of these deaths. The shooter is certainly guilty for what he did. Just as everyone else is accountable for their actions before and after the shooting started.
Try to focus and stay on topic for a change. We're talking about mass shootings in our own schools. A little common decency on this topic might make you look less foolish than normal.
Utah has allowed teacher with permits to carry in schools for quite a while now.
We don't read about school shootings there. There was the incident of a teacher carrying and having a ND but really it is pretty quiet on the school front in UT.
Just to add, my sweetie was involved in a school shooting, she would have been number 2 if the guy hadn't missed. I have seen the video, she was stellar. She went towards the shooter almost instantly, this might be why she was missed. Other teachers pinned the kid against the wall. I think had she been armed she would have made the right decisions, and a lot of teachers would. Most teachers I know are about making sure students are safe first.
I am not against training teachers in schools to be more proficient with arms. I would expect it to be honest, proper training and not the crap that is done in some of the current training (throw erasers and distract the shooter type nonsense).
Most teachers I have encountered personally would be a poor choice to arm and rely on. Having an armed police officer at every school, coupled with strict locked entry like my kids school and possible metal detectors.... All positives.
Wondered how long it would be before we circled back to Chicago... next we'll see posts about how blacks kill blacks more than anything... Same old crap every time some SOB kills kids... I can't do it anymore. I don't give a damn about your guns, I want to protect the babies in their schools, AND not have them 'training' to not die from this idiocy. Hunters are fine, anyone else crying about their guns need to shut up and think for a minute. Put themselves in the position of these parents burying their babies. Then tell me the guns are worth it. All Political crap aside, I want to hear them say these kids lives are worth losing to keep their guns, if you can't say that, then everything else you are saying is a lie.
Wondered how long it would be before we circled back to Chicago... next we'll see posts about how blacks kill blacks more than anything... Same old crap every time some SOB kills kids... I can't do it anymore. I don't give a damn about your guns, I want to protect the babies in their schools, AND not have them 'training' to not die from this idiocy. Hunters are fine, anyone else crying about their guns need to shut up and think for a minute. Put themselves in the position of these parents burying their babies. Then tell me the guns are worth it. All Political crap aside, I want to hear them say these kids lives are worth losing to keep their guns, if you can't say that, then everything else you are saying is a lie.
My guns are worth it.
And it wasn't just children that died, we have already forgotten the teachers that did as well. Of course, politically, children play to the base so much better than adults do. "For the children" is a such the rallying cry.
Most teachers I have encountered personally would be a poor choice to arm and rely on. Having an armed police officer at every school, coupled with strict locked entry like my kids school and possible metal detectors.... All positives.
I agree.
As for teachers, no doubt you might want to be selective, and you would even need to have some that want to carry.
If you implement gun control measures that are successful, the shooters will move on to something else. Guns are not the only way to mass murder people. Personally, I want to stop these kids from murdering people regardless of how they do it. Too many people want to tunnel vision on guns. Putting doors on airplane cockpits would stop another 9/11, it did not stop terrorism altogether.
Other than an explosive device, what weapon other than a semi automatic weapon can you kill so many, so quickly?
So, I’ve been trying to decide if I should post or not. I’m from Uvalde, I currently live in Uvalde. I’m a few blocks away from Robb Elementary. I use to pick up my siblings from the school. It’s a poor neighborhood where wild chickens have run of the place. But regardless,
I’ve always felt safe here. I ride my bike around the neighborhood, people are friendly here. It’s a neighborhood filled with Latino families, I’m half Latina. We heard the shots. We knew to stay inside as the reports came in about a shooting on Diez st. Then we heard he was
Chased into the school. We are helpless. The cops do nothing but harass citizens they are suppose to be serving and protecting. I’m disgusted by our mayor sitting with Abbott and Cruz. Throwing [censored] rhetoric of thoughts and prayers. I need people to know.
We are not a red state. We are a oppressed state. Gerrymandering has put the power into the few. Stop telling us to just go vote. We vote. But the system is rigged. We need help. We are being held hostage by this corrupt government. It is such a helpless feeling.
I’m so angry. I’ve been angry. And I feel like I’m just screaming into a void. Abbott and Cruz, let us die in the cold two years ago. They let us die in the ongoing pandemic. And they will continue to let our children die with gun reform because of money.
I don’t know what more I can do. Sorry for this unorganized rant. I just don’t know what to do. #Uvalde #uvaldetexas
I see you completely twisted everything I said out of context - funny because I see you constantly trying to antagonize other posters in the same way. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
If you disagree that's fine, but please don't distort what I said just because you want a fight.
Funny ... because I explained why what he said was out of context. After I explained he agreed. By comparison I see you making claims of posters not saying what you said - but then the exact quote is cut and paste. Hmmmm. You are always the victim - you always try tin insinuate something - but then when you scratch the surface there is a pattern. Consistent. Repeated. Constant.
The gunmaker whose rifle was used in Uvalde shooting reportedly runs direct-to-consumer ads aimed at younger buyers
Rosie Bradbury Mon, May 30, 2022, 6:50 AM·2 min read
The gunmaker that made the rifle used at Uvalde advertises aggressively online, the NYT reports.
Daniel Defense was an early adopter of advertising directly to consumers online, per the outlet.
Its website promotes a buy-now-pay-later scheme and it runs "Call of Duty" inspired ads.
The gunmaker that made the rifle used in the Texas elementary school shooting uses online direct-to-consumer advertising tactics to attract young buyers, according to the New York Times.
Daniel Defense also runs ads modeled after popular video game "Call of Duty," likely also aimed to appeal to a younger audience, per the Times. The Uvalde shooter bought the rifles used in the attack days after his 18th birthday.
The Times reported how Daniel Defense also runs a buy-now, pay-later scheme, which is advertised on the home page of its website.
The financing program allows buyers to spread out the cost of an assault-style rifle, some models of which retail for more than $1,800, over multiple pay periods in "three easy steps."
The scheme is in partnership with Credova, a buy now, pay later company, according to Daniel Defense's website.
The Uvalde shooter reportedly bought a military-style rifle online from Daniel Defense a week before the massacre which left 19 children and two adults dead on May 24.
Legislators in several U.S. states are pushing to strengthen gun control laws. Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey called on his state's senate last week to pass a bill that would raise the legal gun purchasing age from 18 to 21, progress on which was stalled last year.
California Governor Gavin Newsom also said that he would move to expedite stricter gun laws, including allowing individuals to sue gun manufacturers, according to Forbes.
The Times also reported last week that Daniel Defense was one of many gun manufacturer companies which received pandemic aid from the US government in 2020. It was granted a $3.1 million loan through the Paycheck Protection Program.
Daniel Defense did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. The Times reported CEO Marty Daniel did not respond to their requests for comment.
In a statement posted on its website, Daniel Defense said it was "deeply saddened by the tragic events in Texas."
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and community devastated by this evil act," the statement continued.
"As reported in Governor Abbott's press conference, it is our understanding that the firearm used in the attack was manufactured by Daniel Defense. We will cooperate with all federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities in their investigations.
"We will keep the families of the victims and the entire Uvalde community in our thoughts and our prayers."
Well be careful. I mean he didn't say that the rifles were functional or that they actually fired any rifles. He'll just post innuendo and then say you're reading things into it.
The rifles were functional, hard to shoot them if they were not.
At one point I placed 32 out of 1500+ competitors in competition.
Anyone that thinks that is terrifying would have likely passed out walking the parking lot of the school. Kids routinely showed up for school after hunting in the morning. It wasn't an issue.
It was a long long time ago, but once it was proven that Smoking causes cancer, didn't we stop allowing advertising on TV and Radio? I see that in the future for weapons such as this
When I was in high school a kid brought in a shotgun for demonstrating cleaning in our sports lit class. He just walked in with it and kept it in his locker. The teacher knew he was bringing it in and told him to be sure there were no shells in the case. Times have changed a little.
HOW IN THE HELL DOES SOMETHING HAPPENING IN CHICAGO CHANGE WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS?
KIDS GOT KILLED... THAT'S GOTTA STOP... WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND
The title of the thread is mass shootings and how politics get in the way. Chicago is a poster child of those two things going together. It's not what you want to talk about, but it's a logical outshoot of that thread title.
I get that you are focused on the most recent event, that's natural, but it's also an example of politics getting involved in a way. The "We've got to fix this because of this particular event" approach tends to deadlock in politics. Instead an approach of we've got to fix this period and analyzing potential solutions tend to get longer lasting results. High emotions rarely lead to good decision making. It's definitely something that needs addressed, but kneejerk reactions typically have unintended consequences.
Means, motive, and opportunity are the elements that lead to crime. It seems to me that too many people are focused on the means. To me, this is problematic because the means is the easiest thing to change. I feel we should focus more on the motive part of the triad. If there is no motive, one won't go looking for means or opportunity. If one has a motive, they will find means and opportunity. What is motivating these events? How do we detect and defuse them, or prevent situations from reaching that point in the first place? How do we foster more cooperation, goodwill, and "community?"
When we were kids, we didn't produce all these mass murderers like today's society. Of course, our parents did not park us in front of video games and make tons of posts on a football site all day either. Maybe some should spend more time w/their kids instead of spreading their constant lies and hate? Just saying.
I better clarify.......I am not accusing you of that jfan. It's directed at the pathological liar on this board who has young children.
When we were kids, we didn't produce all these mass murderers like today's society. Of course, our parents did not park us in front of video games and make tons of posts on a football site all day either. Maybe some should spend more time w/their kids instead of spreading their constant lies and hate? Just saying.
I better clarify.......I am not accusing you of that jfan. It's directed at the pathological liar on this board who has young children.
im starting to think the whole "back in my day" rhetoric is BS.
it seems to be based around nostalgia rather than fact.
example 1: when people say they miss the good days of the 50's and 60's.
good for who? certainly not the black veterans who were blocked from using their GI Bills, or segregation, or the fact that it was illegal to be in an interracial relationship. and those people never mention the fact that corporations had a government boot on their necks 24/7 by way of high taxes and regulations.
example 2: the reagan era. i'm starting to think the Boomers/Gen Xers don't actually remember much because that cocaine and hair spray was sedating yall. that's when we got trickle down economics, and our economic freedoms and purchasing power as americans have been on a downward spiral ever since.
example 3: we didn't have mass shooters.
is that true? or did the lack of connectivity through media prevent yall from hearing about it. i'm starting to believe it was because information flow back then was a lot slower than previously thought and a lot of local news stayed local, making it a lot easier to keep a lid on things.
i mean look at all these cops and politicians talking about how unfair it is to criticize law enforcement during this incident. i can't even begin to imagine what kind of crap has been covered up back in the day, and not because of some big government conspiracy, but because it was easier for some corrupt A-holes at a local level to keep their story straight and control the narrative.
I can see why you think it is BS. I actually agree w/some of the points you made--for example I despised Regan-- but bro, we didn't have near the number of mass shootings that we do today. I graduated in 1975. I don't ever remember a single time where any of us were worried about another student shooting the school up. We used to fight w/our fists and that was pretty much a daily activity.
I know you have two young daughters and I feel so bad for people like you who have to deal w/this. I taught and I know the fear my 5th grade students had when we practice for school invasions. It's horrific.
But, I'm not BSing you, bro. There were issues back then and race was certainly a thing. So was sexist behavior. Bullying was bad, but there wasn't social media. Thus, if you said something about someone, you might get your eye dotted. Clicks were a real thing. Jocks vs Freaks. I was both.. And I never used hair spray, bro. I had perfect hair. LOL
Let's stay good. I won't question your takes even if I disagree. I respect them. Respect mine, please. I don't wanna fight w/you.
There are so many things we could be doing better... there is no one solution to this problem.....
1. There needs to be armed guards at every school with proper training 2. All doors need to be locked and stay shut... and have bullet proof glass 3. We need common sense gun control.... an 18 year old should not be able to buy two AR-15s on his 18th birthday.... we need better background checks for all gun sales.... 4. We need to hold parents accountable who do not secure their weapons and they get used in a mass shooting by their child... 5. We need better mental health services 6. We need to do a better job fighting the drug war (like securing our boarder) 7. We need to decrease access to violent video games to minors... there are IPad games where users can create a school shoot scenario... 8. The media needs to stop naming the shooters and sensationalizing them... 9. Social media needs to stop worry about canceling users whose beliefs they disagree with and start canceling users who truly promote violence
Just a few off the top of my head... won't get done because politicians on both sides of the aisle will keep spewing the same crap...
I don't think those games make kids violent. Hell, I played violent games, and watched violent cartoons on saturday mornings... Never felt the desire to get a gun and kill people, not even in the slightest. You might say a big part of it was access. I got a 410 single shot for my 15th birthday. I was trained in a gun safety course at the local hunting club before ever getting to touch it. Then, it was locked up unless I was shooting at the club or out with a responsible adult hunting. When I left for the military, a week out of high school, it was passed on to my little brother, who had the same basic experience. At no time did I ever consider anything like shooting up a school. Hell we used to have people bring their guns and bows for show and tell in high school. Friend of mine had shotguns mounted on a rack in his truck all through his last two years.
But nobody was teaching us, "F-Biden, he's not getting my guns" type crap like you see today. We would have kept a close eye on somebody like that back then. There had never been anything like columbine that I knew of. We saw a few assassinations and I think there was a Texas sniper once, that's about it. Did have a guy murdered on the same street I lived on. but he was at least two or three blocks away, and only the cops got the details. So no, no crap like that.
Also, we grew up with BB and Pellet guns. We knew at an early age what it was to kill. We hunted and fished, but senseless killing of birds and such, for target practice or thrills was not something you seen much of. We all carried knives, made nunchucks, quarterstaffs, and bolas. We could all set a snare trap and a steel trap. But again, we never killed or thought about killing anyone. It was unimaginable for us.
On the other hand, guns have been around for a long time. The Republicans have been around for a long time. At no point have I ever wanted to kill another person. In fact, most people who are on the right, or fascists as you label them, don't want to kill people. Most gun owners do not want to kill people.
I do think that these violent video games that reward kids for killing people are probably not a good thing. And again, I think a lot of lazy ass parents or parent in many cases shove their all-too-willing kids in front of a video game so they can pursue their own activities is a huge problem w/in our society.
I really don't see how that any rational person can believe that glorifying death, dismissing the importance of life, and reducing the amount of human interaction and compassion is a good thing for society. But, y'all just keep trying to simplify things along party lines and political ideals and this will all magically disappear.
On the other hand, guns have been around for a long time. The Republicans have been around for a long time. At no point have I ever wanted to kill another person. In fact, most people who are on the right, or fascists as you label them, don't want to kill people. Most gun owners do not want to kill people.
I do think that these violent video games that reward kids for killing people are probably not a good thing. And again, I think a lot of lazy ass parents or parent in many cases shove their all-too-willing kids in front of a video game so they can pursue their own activities is a huge problem w/in our society.
I really don't see how that any rational person can believe that glorifying death, dismissing the importance of life, and reducing the amount of human interaction and compassion is a good thing for society. But, y'all just keep trying to simplify things along party lines and political ideals and this will all magically disappear.
Right!
Old school republicans didn't act like or do the things you see today. Sure, people expected their guns, but as a kid I don't ever remember anyone being worried they would lose them. I label fascist - fascist, get that straight. I have nothing against conservatives. I have nothing against republicans that don't act like Trumpians or the Q zoo. I have nothing against gun ownership for hunting or home defense. I do not think ARs should be legal. But sell those 18 year olds all the black powder or single shot weapons you want, no issues by me. But when we get into rapid fire capacity, I think there should be reasonable limitations. Insurance companies charge young men more for car insurance because they know the average boy at 16 is an idiot. They don't drop the higher rate until they turn 25, if they were forced to issue liability insurance for gun owners (like when driving), I bet not many under 25 would get that gun. The insurance would be higher and they would consider all the data they had on you to decide the risk you represent, maybe we should go to single payer healthcare and let those insurance companies losing out, regulate guns by imposing insured registration.
Oh, and from your tone, I can tell you been at it in here today. I don't have time nor desire to go there, so if you don't want to just talk, then... bye felicia.
I agree that video games don't make kids violent... but 1st graders shouldn't have access to video games that promote shooting or even school shootings..... a popular game with my 7 year old and all his friends is Roblox which allows users to create their own games... there are several first person shooting games on there including school shooting games...
Also, in this day and age I don't think any prepubescent boy should be playing a first person shooting game where there are shooting other people...
Wasn't trying to fight, trying to understand what the hell you meant by that. I have just got in here for the first time today and still have 50+ posts to scan.
Fair warning.........you are not going to like my reply to you on the Memorial Day thread. LOL. But dude......seriously? All that hate is not good for the heart.
I'm so sick of seeing this same ole same ole every damn day, you don't even know. And those small children being killed and the callous right acting flippant about it because they are scared to death the left wants to take their guns... it grinds hard on my psyche. If we can't protect our kids, what the hell is the point of anything? Civilization? Really?
Most of the left that I know, has zero intention of EVER going aver all the guns or even most the guns... I don't want to make any guns unavailable for purchase, but I absolutely want some common sense gun regulations. And I would like to see rapid fire capacity require something extra to thin the idiots having access. Maybe a special permit, like if you own a wild beast? or Special proof of insurance. I honestly think liability insurance is a reasonable ask. And that insurance won't bring kids back to life, but if the financial pain is bad enough after a mass shooting incident, they will find ways to lower those risks. It's who they are and what they do. So maybe we should put it into their hands? just a thought.
I agree w/your sentiment. I do not agree w/your assignment of blame. To think that stricter gun laws alone will diminish the amount of mass murders is delusional. Bad guys get guns. Just like folks get illegal drugs. The supply has been established.
And once again before Pit or 888 misquote me..........I am NOT against stricter gun laws. Raise the age. More comprehensive background checks. Cool. But, it goes way beyond that. We are raising and nurturing social misfits. We bring more hate to the table than any nation I know of. It's the perfect storm.
None of us have the answers, but we never will if we can't agree across the board that we must protect school kids. We must protect people in churches, at work, and on the streets too. But I thin a good first step is trying to get everybody to agree that we must protect the kids, period. I've already had one poster tell me, his guns were more important than the lives of those kids... of course that sent me full tilt.
Guess you did come at me in that thread, lol. I was driving home a point. It's going to happen. And I really don't spend much time in here on a daily basis. I click into the site a few times a day, some days not at all, somedays I do spend a good bit of time in here, but they are farther and fewer apart these days. If something big happens I like to come in for the fireworks and see what is being said by both sides, and those not attached to either. But honestly, I'd say I average about an hour a day, less than two usually.
BTW - you are right, I can be a hateful grumpy SOB on the political and social media fronts. But that is far from who I am in day to day life. I can get pretty damn amped up on some topics, and the teeth and claws come out... sometimes a straight up shank. But many of my post are seen as mean because I'm laughing at or making fun other's views. As far as I'm concerned, that's part of the game. If you skin is thin, PP ain't for you. But there are only a few on here that I really have trouble tolerating or getting along with, and that's usually because we are polar opposites and the have somehow irked me more than a little.
For instance, a good while back I went off on arch. It was too far, and I genuinely felt bad for it. I did try to make amends, to no avail. But after going back a forth with him a few times, and many weirdly coincidental mini bans... I decided that he and I will never get along well enough to have a decent conversation. He's on ignore, once in a while I read what he has to say, but I have stopped responding. He's far from being a bad guy, but his thing is to pull loose threads, poke, and prod to manipulate the conversation and attack you with whatever he twists your words into. I don't think much of those tactics. I'd rather a guy just say whatever is on his mind, get it out there, and move on. So, I just don't engage. He has a lot of nice things to say about me in almost every thread. I don't know why it bothers him that I ignore his posts, but it sure seems to for some reason.
Just like what you said to me, that you warned me about... I couldn't care less about that kind of post. You said what was on your mind. You criticized me, but I'm ok with that. Nobody is perfect. And I've always been oldcolddawg, never mincing words, saying whats on my mind and moving on. I don't hold a single grudge toward anybody in here, because I say whatever I have to say, get it off my chest in the moment, and move on. A few guys can't stand me, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But there are also a few who like me and we get along fine. Hell, me and pit go at each other from time to time and he's my boy. Others too. Just because we vote blue, doesn't mean we see eye to eye even half the time.
When we were kids, we didn't produce all these mass murderers like today's society. Of course, our parents did not park us in front of video games and make tons of posts on a football site all day either. Maybe some should spend more time w/their kids instead of spreading their constant lies and hate? Just saying.
I better clarify.......I am not accusing you of that jfan. It's directed at the pathological liar on this board who has young children.
When we were kids AR-15’s and AK-47’s were not able to be purchased.
I agree w/your sentiment. I do not agree w/your assignment of blame. To think that stricter gun laws alone will diminish the amount of mass murders is delusional. Bad guys get guns. Just like folks get illegal drugs. The supply has been established.
And once again before Pit or 888 misquote me..........I am NOT against stricter gun laws. Raise the age. More comprehensive background checks. Cool. But, it goes way beyond that. We are raising and nurturing social misfits. We bring more hate to the table than any nation I know of. It's the perfect storm.
Let me expand on one thought; bad guys do get guns, yes. But the average mass shooter, especially school shooters are very young. They are usually NOT hardened criminals, but kids who have either been radicalized over ideas they can't even really grasp or they have some sort of mental issue. I think some are bullied, treated bad in the school, have crap home lives or nobody gives a damn about them... They are not inherently evil, but the resulting actions of whatever triggers them to do these things are. I can't help but think we could do better at identifying these people. If facebook were a school, the data collected would damn sure help you pinpoint most at danger of doing something like this, and appropriate mental help could get things under control. I use facebook as an example of what could be done with data, not a moral example for sure.
And that could easily look like a Big Brother state, so not going there... But at all points these kids are interacting with adults who are responsible for them, are opportunities missed if they are not paying the right kind of attention. Maybe more student advocacy for the at risk kids. Of course, this will never stop them all, all the time, but avoiding the next one at any cost should always be the goal IMO.
I can see why you think it is BS. I actually agree w/some of the points you made--for example I despised Regan-- but bro, we didn't have near the number of mass shootings that we do today. I graduated in 1975. I don't ever remember a single time where any of us were worried about another student shooting the school up. We used to fight w/our fists and that was pretty much a daily activity.
I know you have two young daughters and I feel so bad for people like you who have to deal w/this. I taught and I know the fear my 5th grade students had when we practice for school invasions. It's horrific.
But, I'm not BSing you, bro. There were issues back then and race was certainly a thing. So was sexist behavior. Bullying was bad, but there wasn't social media. Thus, if you said something about someone, you might get your eye dotted. Clicks were a real thing. Jocks vs Freaks. I was both.. And I never used hair spray, bro. I had perfect hair. LOL
Let's stay good. I won't question your takes even if I disagree. I respect them. Respect mine, please. I don't wanna fight w/you.
oh broskie i wasn't calling you out or anything like that. i was just making a general point that sometimes when we think "back in my day" when it comes to issues, those times were based in the moment from a individual perspective.
i'll use a more personal example as well:
when i joined the army, all the older NCO's would go "oh this new army is different. this must be the new army blah blah blah".
8 years later when i'm getting out, the same guys i came in with are now looking at all the new soldiers and how they act going "oh this must be the new army, blah blah blah".
it's no different than the guys who are always like "i dont recognize my country anymore!!" well, did they actually ever recognize america for what it is in the first place? if we buy into that nostalgia, then guess what happens?
this country has apparently been going to sh... since 1776.
i have no doubt that mass shootings have gotten EXTREMELY worse since after the columbine shooting. i was simply pushing back on the idea that it wasn't a thing prior to the more recent events. the reason why is because the overall violence in this country has been trending down for years. so we get more clumps of violent incidents in modern times. but that ALSO means that because of those trends, violence was more common back in the day, but it was spread out throughout the country.
We had a shooting in our neighborhood last year. The dude was arrested, charged with felon in possession and the let walk. It was his 8th time charged with felon in possession. The laws are there, enforce them. Quit pandering to the nonsense that cash bail is racist, that incarnation of violent offenders is racist. Harm others, go rot.
Chicago's gun laws are among the most strict in the nation.
I read a while ago that Chicago is kinda unique because it's within spitting distance of places where it's extremely easy to get whatever firearm you want (Indiana?). IMO, I thought the article was dumb because it was essentially whining about criminals not following laws... but it is an interesting conversation about extremely restrictive laws in the city but you can just walk a couple blocks and it's the Wild West.
Well that sort of goes to the heart of one of the major issues when discussing any changes to gun regulations and availability. there are close to 400,000,000 guns in the USA. They aren't going anywhere - they don't have a shelf life, they don't magically disappear. The criminals - by their very definition are not relinquishing any guns. And in Chicago with "strict gun laws" - what does that mean for the massive gang population? Nada.
I hear this all the time. I also hear about the mental illness angle all the time. Yet other than third world nations where people are too poor to buy these video games, every child in every other nation do the same thing. They play violent video games. Their children park themselves in front of their computers. They have mental illness.
Yet little to nothing in the way of mass shootings. I think it's time people stop trying to blame what only happens here with great frequency on the very same conditions that exist in countless nations where it does not happen.
It makes sense only if you ignore the vast majority of video game players that come out the other end completely fine and unaffected. Violent video games are an easy/lazy scapegoat (IMO, even moreso than guns themselves) because video games are viewed as a child's activity even though that's nowhere near true (as evidenced by video games being more and more geared towards adult consumers). It's more a case of correlation vs causation... in that if a person who can't/won't differentiate between fantasy/game and reality probably is much more likely to grab a gun and shoot up a school. Doesn't mean the video game is the culprit (but it could be an indicator).
[bn]And once again before Pit or 888 misquote me[/b]..........I am NOT against stricter gun laws. Raise the age. More comprehensive background checks. Cool. But, it goes way beyond that. We are raising and nurturing social misfits. We bring more hate to the table than any nation I know of. It's the perfect storm.
While I agree with most of your post, I do not misquote you. I quote your exact words which I quote from your own posts. Why do you continue to perpetuate this lie?
It makes sense only if you ignore the vast majority of video game players that come out the other end completely fine and unaffected. Violent video games are an easy/lazy scapegoat (IMO, even moreso than guns themselves) because video games are viewed as a child's activity even though that's nowhere near true (as evidenced by video games being more and more geared towards adult consumers). It's more a case of correlation vs causation... in that if a person who can't/won't differentiate between fantasy/game and reality probably is much more likely to grab a gun and shoot up a school. Doesn't mean the video game is the culprit (but it could be an indicator).
Yet, guns and Republicans are being blamed for these mass shootings far more than any other reasons. Do all gun owners commit mass murders? If not, do a high percentage of commit mass murders? What percentage of gun owners commit mass murders? Same w/Republicans and those that listen to far right messages. Do they all go out and shoot up schools? Do most of them? What percentage of them do that?
It's a complex problem w/multiple factors that play a role in what is happening. It's not very smart to try and narrow it down to one or two things.
What percentage of children that grow up playing violent videos murder people?
You seem to agree that raising the age to 21 to buy such weapons is a good idea. Who has prevented that from happening?
I'm pretty sure you understand it's not about "how many murders Republicans are committing". It's about the NRA lobbyists paying millions to republicans so nothing will ever be done to try and stop it.
We had a shooting in our neighborhood last year. The dude was arrested, charged with felon in possession and the let walk. It was his 8th time charged with felon in possession. The laws are there, enforce them. Quit pandering to the nonsense that cash bail is racist, that incarnation of violent offenders is racist. Harm others, go rot.
What fraction of murders in Chicago are committed by people who have been previously convicted of a violent felony? I'd have to guess it's pretty small -- especially because the average shooter is a teenager.
They simply travel to the next state over, Indiana to purchase firearms and guns are brought into Chicago from Indiana and other states where gun laws are lax.
36K illegal guns taken off Chicago streets in recent years; trafficking remains a perplexing problem
It makes sense only if you ignore the vast majority of video game players that come out the other end completely fine and unaffected. Violent video games are an easy/lazy scapegoat (IMO, even moreso than guns themselves) because video games are viewed as a child's activity even though that's nowhere near true (as evidenced by video games being more and more geared towards adult consumers). It's more a case of correlation vs causation... in that if a person who can't/won't differentiate between fantasy/game and reality probably is much more likely to grab a gun and shoot up a school. Doesn't mean the video game is the culprit (but it could be an indicator).
I found this article - which imo is truly excellent. Detailed and in depth and with cases for and against why video games may influence kids to be more aggressive (or more aggressive kids gravitate and simply are more likely to go seek these games). But with 15.4 Billion kids playing Grand Theft Auto 5 - the numbers we are talking about in comparison to who then becomes a "shooter" is truly minute.
Maybe you can liken some of the angst against video games to how Rock and Roll was viewed/called "the Devil's Music" at one time - and dancing like Elvis was first viewed back in the 60's vulgar and animalism... Possibly - just a thought. In that article it does state that individuals who never played Video Games are much more likely to blame real world gun violence on Video Games than those who have played.
Reality is there are lots of factors and influences - they should all be discussed and reviewed and considered. Guns are part of that - the type that are repeatedly used - the ammo - the availability - the legal age limit - any, all potential factors that *might* make a difference one day. just my 2 cents
What percentage of children that grow up playing violent videos murder people?
Didn't see this Q before I just posted. Based on 15+ Billion gamers playing GTA 5 - and if you assumed a high number like 1,500,000 people murder people in a year. that there are the percentage might be something around 0.00000000001% ? Maybe less if you identify all the gamers who play other violent video games that have never played GTA 5.
I mean super rough ball park numbers. But I think that's about 1.5M as a % of 15B.... happy to be corrected by any math gurus.
Edit . . . Yeah my math is off - I'm traveling and don't have a calculator. Someone grab a calculator and figure it out. It's going to be in the 0.1 - 0.001 range
We had a shooting in our neighborhood last year. The dude was arrested, charged with felon in possession and the let walk. It was his 8th time charged with felon in possession. The laws are there, enforce them. Quit pandering to the nonsense that cash bail is racist, that incarnation of violent offenders is racist. Harm others, go rot.
What fraction of murders in Chicago are committed by people who have been previously convicted of a violent felony? I'd have to guess it's pretty small -- especially because the average shooter is a teenager.
They simply travel to the next state over, Indiana to purchase firearms and guns are brought into Chicago from Indiana and other states where gun laws are lax.
36K illegal guns taken off Chicago streets in recent years; trafficking remains a perplexing problem
This is why state laws and city laws alone will never address this problem.
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
Just answering a question ... And then as for your question, which isn't a smart butt Q at all ... you could further skew things by asking "what % of legally owned guns in the USA are used in Gun Violence / mass shootings" ....
I think the social influences is a valid facet to look into. I think the most common tools to carry out these attacks is a valid facet to look into. Just as I think how deadly different guns are and if it makes sense for legal ownership .... as I mentioned in a different post, I've legally fired a friends 50 cal Barrett sniper rifle. I can't think of a single reasonable justification why it's legal to own that.
Just answering a question ... And then as for your question, which isn't a smart butt Q at all ... you could further skew things by asking "what % of legally owned guns in the USA are used in Gun Violence / mass shootings" ....
I think the social influences is a valid facet to look into. I think the most common tools to carry out these attacks is a valid facet to look into. Just as I think how deadly different guns are and if it makes sense for legal ownership .... as I mentioned in a different post, I've legally fired a friends 50 cal Barrett sniper rifle. I can't think of a single reasonable justification why it's legal to own that.
And yet how often is a rifle like that used in a crime?
There are long range events and people enjoy long range shooting. It is a challenging sport. I seem to recall an event in WV that is a 2 day hike and shoot and everything is distance. Sounds fun but, IIRC, you have to be invited in or prove your way in as they don't want people who aren't capable of making the shots.
Why should anyone own a Hellcat? Way too much power for the street.
What percentage of children that grow up playing violent videos murder people?
Didn't see this Q before I just posted. Based on 15+ Billion gamers playing GTA 5 - and if you assumed a high number like 1,500,000 people murder people in a year. that there are the percentage might be something around 0.00000000001% ? Maybe less if you identify all the gamers who play other violent video games that have never played GTA 5.
I mean super rough ball park numbers. But I think that's about 1.5M as a % of 15B.... happy to be corrected by any math gurus.
Edit . . . Yeah my math is off - I'm traveling and don't have a calculator. Someone grab a calculator and figure it out. It's going to be in the 0.1 - 0.001 range
How did you arrive at 15 billion gamers when there only about 8 billion people on earth?
Yes - I noted before when I talked about it, crimes aren't being committed with 50 cal sniper rifles. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't think of a logical justification to legally own that weapon.
There are other much smaller caliber rifles that can and do shoot competitively at 600 yards + .... friend had one of those too.
mathematically speaking, my hypothesis is that the number of school shootings (100 years ago) compared to the USA population has stayed the same since or decreased slightly
We have been dealing with mass shootings/school shootings since the first one happened in the 1760's
mathematically speaking, my hypothesis is that the number of school shootings (100 years ago) compared to the USA population has stayed the same since or decreased slightly
We have been dealing with mass shootings/school shootings since the first one happened in the 1760's
Somehow, your calculations are "meaningless" as we try to search for solutions to the murder innocent school kids and adults.
Kind of lame attempt to justify how bad the shootings have become in the USA, imo.
Yes - I noted before when I talked about it, crimes aren't being committed with 50 cal sniper rifles. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't think of a logical justification to legally own that weapon.
There are other much smaller caliber rifles that can and do shoot competitively at 600 yards + .... friend had one of those too.
So we should ban AR-15s because they are used in crime and ban .50 Barrets because they are not?
Sadly .50BMG is the largest caliber allowed for civilian use but we should reduce from there? This is exactly the issue. One little bite of cake, and another and another and another.
We don't legalize Barrett 50 cal because there is not justification for legalizing such a weapon - in my opinion. You tried to frame the justification around their use in crimes. That is not what I said, anywhere.
As for the piece of cake. No. Not at all - but I realize that's a troupe that gun rights enthusiasts fall back on ... to suggest any restriction must mean the end game is to ban all.
mathematically speaking, my hypothesis is that the number of school shootings (100 years ago) compared to the USA population has stayed the same since or decreased slightly
We have been dealing with mass shootings/school shootings since the first one happened in the 1760's
Somehow, your calculations are "meaningless" as we try to search for solutions to the murder innocent school kids and adults.
Kind of lame attempt to justify how bad the shootings have become in the USA, imo.
that's actually the thing.. they are about the same vs getting worse.
is it wrong? yes. does it need to be fixed? yes. But, there is also a % of people in the world who are evil and will continue to do evil things no matter how we try and stop them.
The end game is total ban. It won't be done outright but that is the end game. It gets hinted at from time to time. When they passed the FSA of 2013 here in MD one of the assembly people asked "So how do we take the guns away now?". He thought they passed confiscation, not just bans of sales.
Beto said "Hell yay we're gonna take em" then backed away from it when he failed to get his nomination. He's back at it.
The end game has always been a complete ban. It isn't a secret, it is just hand waved away.
Here is how gun control works:
Anti: We just want to ban these for common sense. Gun owners: Well, ok as long as it's just that. Anti: We just want to ban these for common sense. Gun owners: Didn't we ban other stuff? Anti: Yes but now we need to ban more.
Repeat. The compromise that is talked about is "give up what we say now or it'll be worse later". There is no logical reason a Barret .50 shouldn't be allowed, and since that is how it works, no they should not be banned.
also, school shootings when school is in session and shootings that happen on school property are combined when it comes to "school shootings"
here are two examples of (hundreds) of examples with school shootings that occurred late at night or when school was not in session and count as a "school shooting". https://www.cleveland.com/metro/202...-in-clevelands-tremont-neighborhood.html The shooting happened about 11:45 p.m. at Luis Munoz Marin School on Castle Avenue near Scranton Road, according to police and the medical examiner.
Statistically, this weakens the argument and proves that we need to make gangs illegal and have security on school property when it is not in session. Far more people are shot and killed due to gang-related violence or violence on school property after hours than shootings while school is in session.
not trying to nitpick here, but you posted two examples, one being a single death, the other some random firing shots in the air.
so since you've identified how they combine incidents to label it school shootings, what is the number of shootings that happen on school property that result in death vs the number of shootings during session that result in death.
and just to drive home the point about how pathetic this entire discussion is, let's all take a step back and REALLY understand what people are advocating for:
in the US, supposedly the prosperous and richest country in the world, and the most "free", we are actively having a national discussion about whether we should arm our teachers so that they can potentially intervene in an activer shooter situation.
we sound more like Afghanistan than Afghanistan. i dont know about you guys, but that reality alone doesn't say we live in a 1st world country.
not trying to nitpick here, but you posted two examples, one being a single death, the other some random firing shots in the air.
so since you've identified how they combine incidents to label it school shootings, what is the number of shootings that happen on school property that result in death vs the number of shootings during session that result in death.
well, someone would have to go through all 2,032 . Based on what I can tell, it looks like the vast majority of "shootings" are not in session or are one off things like... kid was shot in leg on way to school before or A stray bullet fired during a street altercation struck a student, or a stray bullet hit a school bus, a stalker knew the person would in a school parking lot at a certain time and kills xyz... worker accidentally shoots and kills self while working on roof, a lot of drive bys.... crazy stuff like that...
tons of domestic violence type stuff that they are counting...(which would probably still happen without a gun just in a different way)
A man shot and killed his wife in the parking lot after an argument prior to their picking up their child for a doctor's appointment. Police later determined that he had killed a female friend of his wife. The man was killed in a car crash attempting to flee from police.
Cedric Baxter drove his SUV into a school bus driven by his estranged wife then opened fire on it, a six-year old child was also on the bus though neither the child or the driver were injured by the gunfire, Baxter then drove away from the scene which resulted in a high speed chase until the car crashed and Baxter was killed by the police in a shootout
A worker fixing the roof of Canyon del Oro High School was fatally wounded after his unholstered weapon accidentally discharged.
A large group of men jumped a fence to gain access to Atascocita High Schools football field, when an argument escalated and a 19-year-old was killed.
not trying to nitpick here, but you posted two examples, one being a single death, the other some random firing shots in the air.
so since you've identified how they combine incidents to label it school shootings, what is the number of shootings that happen on school property that result in death vs the number of shootings during session that result in death.
I've seen, and I won't be able to find, reports of "school shootings" and some of them - SOME - made me think "how is this a school shooting?"
You know if there is a shooting and they can mention the name of a near by school it is a school shooting, though why people are shooting schools I don't know.
The end game is total ban. It won't be done outright but that is the end game. It gets hinted at from time to time. When they passed the FSA of 2013 here in MD one of the assembly people asked "So how do we take the guns away now?". He thought they passed confiscation, not just bans of sales.
Beto said "Hell yay we're gonna take em" then backed away from it when he failed to get his nomination. He's back at it.
The end game has always been a complete ban. It isn't a secret, it is just hand waved away.
Here is how gun control works:
Anti: We just want to ban these for common sense. Gun owners: Well, ok as long as it's just that. Anti: We just want to ban these for common sense. Gun owners: Didn't we ban other stuff? Anti: Yes but now we need to ban more.
Repeat. The compromise that is talked about is "give up what we say now or it'll be worse later". There is no logical reason a Barret .50 shouldn't be allowed, and since that is how it works, no they should not be banned.
Not. One. More. Inch.
In support of what you're saying.....if you bring up any gun control legislation presented in the last 20-30 years, you'll find politicians saying "it's a good start".
Each side has extremists. Every side has extremists. Quoting or listening to them - or reacting to them and forgoing common sense and the middle ground is part of the problem. Good politics, good government means compromise. Because you can find or quote someone with an extreme view doesn't mean there isn't some middle ground that is a good solution. I'm certain there are lots of Gun Enthusiasts who would advocate for fully automatic weapons - no restrictions .... we don't have to listen or try to combat that extreme view. Block out the idiots, focus on what might be practical and work for the overwhelming majority. again - jmo.
I have to disagree. I see the primary causes of mass shootings related to the age and type of weapon.
You can toss in additional requirements for prior ownership and training to be allowed to use a weapon that has a history of use in mass shootings.
I will agree that there are some on the left that would favor much more restrictions. I don't think they even have the support of the majority of those on the left.
On a side note, my wife was telling me about an event my mother in law was at last week where she was talking to a school teacher in my area that was in the school in the vicinity of where a 13 year old kid shot himself in school about 3 weeks ago. She walked out of the cafeteria and there were a bunch of kids in there-it was lunch right after the school ran a drill. A bunch of other kids ran out of the cafeteria and she didn't know what was going on and then she went in the cafeteria and the kid was laying on the ground.
He strapped a holster with a handgun under his hoodie and waited until the drill was over and went in the cafeteria and shot himself. He has died.
the teacher said that when the police went to search his house-this 13 year old had (4) other guns in his closet-Where in the hell does a 13 year old get 5 guns?
The teacher also said that this kid made the 6th middle school or high school suicide in the last 2 or 3 years-in their pretty small school district- a website says their school only has 262 kids total from grades 7 to 12.
She also said she is pretty much done with the whole teaching deal-she didn't sign up for this.
Two mass shootings in Chitown. No hand wringing and pearl clutching. No mention of the arms used which usually means it wasn't an evil black rifle.
This is what weaponized victimhood looks like when it lashes out over its feelings of white suppression, which are truly just latent remnants of bigotry and white supremacy. And THIS IS NOT an accusation that you are these things, it's just where those feelings you've been manipulated to feel originate. Understanding that might help you see things a little better.
And since you brought up the violence in Chicago's black community being ignored, let me educate you. Ignoring the problems in black communities in America is NOTHING NEW. The rates of black girls going missing are quite a bit higher in comparison to white suburban kids, yet this receives almost zero coverage. The rates of poverty, drugs, and crime are all higher than in the average suburb. And very few of those bad things receive coverage in the same way it would for a white suburban neighborhood. That fact also helps increase shooting rates. But you know what else is higher? The stoic willpower these kids have to fight and endure all the crap life has dumped on them while trying to make their way OUT. So the next time you want to say black Chicago is bad too, think about that first.
We had a shooting in our neighborhood last year. The dude was arrested, charged with felon in possession and the let walk. It was his 8th time charged with felon in possession. The laws are there, enforce them. Quit pandering to the nonsense that cash bail is racist, that incarnation of violent offenders is racist. Harm others, go rot.
So if you ever shoot at somebody or shoot somebody, we should lock you up forever? Am I getting this correct? And I thought the far left was harsh.
Chicago's gun laws are among the most strict in the nation.
I read a while ago that Chicago is kinda unique because it's within spitting distance of places where it's extremely easy to get whatever firearm you want (Indiana?). IMO, I thought the article was dumb because it was essentially whining about criminals not following laws... but it is an interesting conversation about extremely restrictive laws in the city but you can just walk a couple blocks and it's the Wild West.
So essentially the surrounding red states are feeding the problem while pissing and moaning about it. Imagine that.
They simply travel to the next state over, Indiana to purchase firearms and guns are brought into Chicago from Indiana and other states where gun laws are lax.
36K illegal guns taken off Chicago streets in recent years; trafficking remains a perplexing problem
This is why state laws and city laws alone will never address this problem.
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
But since we are talking criminals, stealing an AR in Indiana or having some dupe buy and supply you with them illegally probably isn't an issue. They have enough money to make it happen, and intimidation factor or violence if it doesn't. So the higher gun laws fail when surrounding areas don't follow suit. BUT if the guns were not available anywhere, only the existing 400 Million would be available to move around. Hmm...
What a crazy number of guns 400 million is. That's more than one gun per person in the US! And one side wants an unlimited amount more of them. Wants them to be insanely powerful. And wants this more than the safety of kids in school, people at public events, the safety of police and first responders, or we should say the safety of everyone. All over guns. I can think of about an even crazier number though, and that's the infinite number of things truly more important than owning or shooting a gun.
They simply travel to the next state over, Indiana to purchase firearms and guns are brought into Chicago from Indiana and other states where gun laws are lax.
36K illegal guns taken off Chicago streets in recent years; trafficking remains a perplexing problem
This is why state laws and city laws alone will never address this problem.
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
This has been my experience as well. Was visiting my brother in NM, he was checking stuff out and I was chatting up the guy manning the register. He put on his salesman's hat and started working on me until I told him I was from out of state (California). He went right back to talking about the weather, local stuff to check out.
Chicago's gun laws are among the most strict in the nation.
I read a while ago that Chicago is kinda unique because it's within spitting distance of places where it's extremely easy to get whatever firearm you want (Indiana?). IMO, I thought the article was dumb because it was essentially whining about criminals not following laws... but it is an interesting conversation about extremely restrictive laws in the city but you can just walk a couple blocks and it's the Wild West.
So essentially the surrounding red states are feeding the problem while pissing and moaning about it. Imagine that.
well, if criminals would follow the law we wouldn't have any issues.
We had a shooting in our neighborhood last year. The dude was arrested, charged with felon in possession and the let walk. It was his 8th time charged with felon in possession. The laws are there, enforce them. Quit pandering to the nonsense that cash bail is racist, that incarnation of violent offenders is racist. Harm others, go rot.
So if you ever shoot at somebody or shoot somebody, we should lock you up forever? Am I getting this correct? And I thought the far left was harsh.
You supposed to be better than silly spin. It is quite obvious I was referring to criminal violence not self defense. And yes, I am harsh, I am tired of it.
They simply travel to the next state over, Indiana to purchase firearms and guns are brought into Chicago from Indiana and other states where gun laws are lax.
36K illegal guns taken off Chicago streets in recent years; trafficking remains a perplexing problem
This is why state laws and city laws alone will never address this problem.
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
But since we are talking criminals, stealing an AR in Indiana or having some dupe buy and supply you with them illegally probably isn't an issue. They have enough money to make it happen, and intimidation factor or violence if it doesn't. So the higher gun laws fail when surrounding areas don't follow suit. BUT if the guns were not available anywhere, only the existing 400 Million would be available to move around. Hmm...
What a crazy number of guns 400 million is. That's more than one gun per person in the US! And one side wants an unlimited amount more of them. Wants them to be insanely powerful. And wants this more than the safety of kids in school, people at public events, the safety of police and first responders, or we should say the safety of everyone. All over guns. I can think of about an even crazier number though, and that's the infinite number of things truly more important than owning or shooting a gun.
We need stricter laws so criminals will not get guns but they won't follow the stricter laws so we should have even stricter laws.... and you think gun owners are crazy?
Consider for a moment, how much would you pay for a gun in the instant you realize without it you are going to die? Hopefully you will never have to find out. I'd rather be prepared than not. And no one else should tell me what tool is "ok" for the job. For someone that "fights fascists" daily one would think you would want to be prepared as well.
They simply travel to the next state over, Indiana to purchase firearms and guns are brought into Chicago from Indiana and other states where gun laws are lax.
36K illegal guns taken off Chicago streets in recent years; trafficking remains a perplexing problem
This is why state laws and city laws alone will never address this problem.
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
Yet Chicago has documented evidence that this has happened thousands of times. So much by one gun store they are suing.
'Eye-popping numbers': Chicago sues Indiana gun store tied to 850 firearms recovered from crime scenes
That gun store should be (in the legal sense) worked over so bad they won't be able to continue existing. I'm 90% sure there are laws already on the books that would have them criminally liable, if what you're linking is true (no reason to believe it's not). If they are somehow able to be let off the hook, those laws should be fixed.
I'm not sure what federal laws are actually in place to prevent this. I would say on a state to state level it would be impossible for one state to create a state law that could be enforceable in yet a another state.
If there are actually laws in place at the federal level to make this a crime, obviously the feds have not enforced it or brought charges forward.
The gun was also from the same manufacturer as the guns used in the Las Vegas massacre, but gun manufacturers and retailers are protected because their products work exactly as they were designed to work. They don't malfunction and ammosexuals use this reasoning to claim it's operator error. So why are certain drugs regulated? Oh yea, drugs don't have a special, misinterpreted amendment. So, the bottom line is these kids were slaughtered by a "well regulated militia".
I'm not sure. Frank Z claims you can't sell a gun to someone in a different state if having that gun where they live is illegal.
Quote
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
In the law suit Chicago is claiming it's illegal to do so. From my link....
Quote
Westforth Sports, Inc. in Gary, Indiana, has "engaged in a pattern of illegal sales that has resulted in the flow of hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal firearms into the City of Chicago," according to the lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
I will say the entire thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How can a gun shop owner be expected to know the laws in every state and city in the United states?
I'm not sure. Frank Z claims you can't sell a gun to someone in a different state if having that gun where they live is illegal.
Quote
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
In the law suit Chicago is claiming it's illegal to do so. From my link....
Quote
Westforth Sports, Inc. in Gary, Indiana, has "engaged in a pattern of illegal sales that has resulted in the flow of hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal firearms into the City of Chicago," according to the lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
I will say the entire thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How can a gun shop owner be expected to know the laws in every state and city in the United states?
Gun store owners (and their employees) should know the patchwork laws, that is part of being a FFL and a professional at what you do. I do think the patchwork of laws is a mine field and frankly nothing I would want to have to deal with to feed my family. That said, any store even close to IL should know about the FOID (of course I disagree with the requirement but that is a different discussion) and require one for any IL resident they sell to. I would suspect that in this is not a case of just a missing FOID, I would suspect that this is an organized criminal activity. BAFTE doesn't inspect FFL holders routinely so those sales can fly under the radar for a long time, there was a store just south of us that did this for years. When the state caught on they got crushed (jail time, fines, etc).
While I am not happy with the current rules, and I do think changes towards more freedom and less infringements are needed, the current law is the current law and needs to be followed until the laws can be changed.
Tulsa shooting: Everything we know about hospital attack that killed four people
Josh Marcus Wed, June 1, 2022, 8:36 PM·5 min read link
Another deadly shooting has struck America, following tragic incidents this month in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.
Three people were killed in a deadly gun attack at a medical building in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Wednesday, 1 June. The gunman also died at the scene, according to police.
Here’s what we know so far:
Shooting in a hospital building
Tulsa police were called on Wednesday afternoon on reports of a man armed with a rifle at the Natalie Medical Building within the city’s Saint Francis Hospital.
The call came in at 4.52pm, according to Tulsa deputy police chief Eric Dalgleish, who address the press on Wednesday.
Officers arrived at the scene and made contact with the suspected shooter and victims by 5.01, he added.
The officers that did arrive were hearing shots in the building,” Mr Dalgleish said. “That’s what directed them to the second floor.”
The floor of the building is at least partially taken up by an orthopedic medicine centre.
Tulsa police captain Richard Muelenberg told reporters the scene inside the hospital was tragic.
“It’s a catastrophic scene in there right now,” he said.
The gunfire occured on the building’s second floor, NBC News reports.
Four victims dead in shooting, plus gunman
The gunman killed three people, Tulsa police said on Wednesday.
The shooter is also deceased, though it’s unclear if he shot himself or was taken down by police.
Deputy chief Dalgleish said he was fairly “certain” the shooter killed himself.
“Right now we believe that is self-inflicted,” he said.
The victims were on a lower floor and were dressed like medical personnel, the police official added.
Tulsa Police @TulsaPolice ACTIVE SHOOTER UPDATE: We can confirm 4 people are deceased, including the shooter, in the active shooting situation at St. Francis hospital campus. Officers are still clearing the building. More info to follow. 7:22 PM · Jun 1, 2022
No names released
The identities of the victims and the shooter have not been disclosed publicly.
Police described the gunman as a Black male, aged 35 to 40, and said they were “getting close” to discovering his identity.
Rifle and pistol used in shooting
The individual was wielding a rifle and a pistol, both of which appeared to have been used in the shooting, according to police.
An active investigation
Police were moving through each room of the Natalie Building, verifying there were no other threats within the facility.
Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are on the scene to assist with the investigation.
Detectives are now interviewing witnesses from inside the hospital building.
ATF Dallas @ATFDallas .@ATFDallas Tulsa office personnel are on scene at St. Francis Hospital to provide assistance in the active shooter incident. Tulsa Police Department is the point of contact and will release more information as it becomes available.
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol is also assisting with the law enforcement response.
The White House has briefed the president about the shooting, according to officials.
Family reunification ongoing
Families waiting to learn about the status of their loved ones are being directed to Tulsa’s Memorial High School for reunification and information updates.
Shocked witnesses
Bystanders and officials said they were shocked by the shooting at a bustling hospital complex in Tulsa.
“There are over 10,000 people that are part of the Saint Francis health system that every day commit their lives to taking care or people in need, taking care of everyone in need,” said Dr Cliff Robertson, president and CEO of the Saint Francis Health System, during a press conference on Wednesday. “This sensless, horrible, incomprehensible act is not going to change that.”
“Tulsa is a safe, nice community to start a family in. It’s kind of shocking to me it’s happening in our own backyard,” a man named Sal told Fox 23.
Debra Proctor was in another building at the hospital for a doctor’s appointment when the “shocking” shooting began.
“Police were everywhere in the parking lot, up and down the surrounding blocks,” she told CNN. “They were still arriving when I was leaving.”
US Representative Kevin Hern said he was in touch with Tulsa police about the “terrible situation” at the hospital.
“There’s still a lot we don’t know about what happened tonight in the Natalie Building, but what we do know is this: multiple lives were taken from us, and many more changed forever,” he wrote in a statement. “My prayers are with those who lost loved ones tonight.”
Two mass shootings in one week
The shooting follows another attack earlier in the week, when one died and seven were injured at a Memorial Day festival in Taft, Oklahoma, about 45 miles outside of Tulsa.
The Tulsa police department trained new recruits on active shooter tactics as recently as 27 May, according to the department.
Tulsa Police @TulsaPolice ACTIVE SHOOTER TRAINING Today, 29 Apprentice Police Officers (APOs) in Tulsa Police Academy Class 2022-122 are going through Active Shooter Training at a local Tulsa school. MORE INFO: https://facebook.com/tulsapolice/posts/372773734885591
A time for grief
Tulsa mayor GT Bynum said on Wednesday he didn’t want to discuss politics or policy around access to guns at this stage, given the grief families are experiencing right.
“If we want to have policy discussions, that is something to be had in the future, but not tonight,” he said at a press conference.
This is a developing story and will be updated with new information.
They simply travel to the next state over, Indiana to purchase firearms and guns are brought into Chicago from Indiana and other states where gun laws are lax.
36K illegal guns taken off Chicago streets in recent years; trafficking remains a perplexing problem
This is why state laws and city laws alone will never address this problem.
Federal law allows you to travel to a different state to purchase a firearm, however, the purchase has to be legal in both states for you.
For instance, I cannot go to PA and purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 as it is banned, by name, here in MD. If a FFL sells it to me they are in violation and can lose their license. I can go purchase a Mossberg 500 though, as that is a legal, cash and carry item in both states. I cannot purchase a handgun out of state either since MD requires a permit to do so that I do not have.
But since we are talking criminals, stealing an AR in Indiana or having some dupe buy and supply you with them illegally probably isn't an issue. They have enough money to make it happen, and intimidation factor or violence if it doesn't. So the higher gun laws fail when surrounding areas don't follow suit. BUT if the guns were not available anywhere, only the existing 400 Million would be available to move around. Hmm...
What a crazy number of guns 400 million is. That's more than one gun per person in the US! And one side wants an unlimited amount more of them. Wants them to be insanely powerful. And wants this more than the safety of kids in school, people at public events, the safety of police and first responders, or we should say the safety of everyone. All over guns. I can think of about an even crazier number though, and that's the infinite number of things truly more important than owning or shooting a gun.
We need stricter laws so criminals will not get guns but they won't follow the stricter laws so we should have even stricter laws.... and you think gun owners are crazy?
Consider for a moment, how much would you pay for a gun in the instant you realize without it you are going to die? Hopefully you will never have to find out. I'd rather be prepared than not. And no one else should tell me what tool is "ok" for the job. For someone that "fights fascists" daily one would think you would want to be prepared as well.
Hey FrankZ, don't take these posts in the wrong way, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate and spitballing solutions while trying to process how what everyone is calling for in one form or other might play out if we could get along long enough and do the right thing to protect these kids. Personally, I believe in gun ownership for hunting and self-defense. I'm just not big on public open carry or concealed carry and think we should all agree on reasonable abilities for guns, that would limit how much death and destruction could be brought to a crime in seconds or minutes. Surely we don't need military-grade power like an M2 50 Cal, and in my opinion, that's the direction that AR and other high-powered rapid-fire weapons bring. But a lot of gun enthusiasts enjoy those on the range and very much want to own one just in case the ish hit's the fan. I get that, but there has to be some way to limit access to these weapons in a responsible manner that we can all agree to and live with. And I'm not talking outright bans.
One way would be a system similar to licensing animals. For a common dog that can bite somebody, you can be sued over what they do, and most have that covered in their insurance, but they still have to buy a dog license and meet the minimum requirements of rabies shots. Not a big deal if you are a responsible gun owner, but if you get caught without, you could lose your dog, face legal issues, or both. However, you can't buy a dog license for a pure Wolfe. Wild animals require a special license and have different rules and requirements, a couple of which I'm sure are liability insurance and a safe confinement/handling environment.
Any gun can kill, just like any dog can bite. But if we set a bar, below which are common guns like single shots, small cal revolvers, pump loading shotguns, Winchester style lever rifles, etc. are the dogs, and weapons that are rapid-fire, high capacity, use more destructive rounds or generally make you feel like Rambo on the range are the wolves. Make owning those guns tougher, but legal, and anyone caught committing a crime with them gets a gun terrorism-style charge. Also, make public carry of them subject to licensing, training, insurance, and permit OR just ban them from open public carry and make owners keep them in locked cases for home storage or transport to and from places designated for their use, like Ranges. If somebody wants to hunt with them, let each state determine how that happens, but don't just any idiot possess them without all the checks and balances.
Gun laws like this would cost gun owners a bit more but might go a long way to stopping these shootings. Another thing too, would be to make the purchaser legally co-responsible for the gun use, regardless of who is firing. And make anything short of malicious, violent theft of the gun used a co-criminal charge. If you leave it unlocked and your kid gets it and shoots up a school and then kills themselves, you go to prison for allowing that gun to be used like this. This part might not save lives, but it would damn sure mean storage, security, ownership transfers would be taken very seriously. This is one way we could try to tighten up gun laws without taking guns away.
I agree with this post. IMO, if we are going to start looking at restricting types of guns, we should be looking at caliber of bullet instead of features on a gun. Govt laws on gun features have just been one swing-and-miss after another.
Earlier on, a couple posters responded to one of my posts about how many things we do in our lives, jobs, tasks, etc require permitting/fees, etc. They said all the things I listed are privileges and not rights specific in the Constitution (which gun ownership is). They definitely got me there, but I'll still reiterate my point. Rights cannot and should not exist without responsibilities. The right to bear arms does not extend to doing so irresponsibly because, as we've seen, that leads to infringing on others right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. If we can't agree on this (exercising a right implies accepting the appropriate responsibility), then IMO we shouldn't be entitled to that right. Gun owners should be on the hook for keeping their weapons secured, the manner in which their guns are used, and keeping their guns in good working order. I also think that there should be conversations around gun owners that have dangerous/unstable people in their home (children/family), and what they should and shouldn't do with their firearms.
I agree with this post. IMO, if we are going to start looking at restricting types of guns, we should be looking at caliber of bullet instead of features on a gun.
I totally disagree. Caliber is probably the least important of the factors involved in these recent mass killings. Magazine capacity is the biggest factor IMO.
Caliber is nothing more than the size of the bullet. The most common weapon used in these mass shootings is AR15 type semi auto rifles, and by far the most common round in AR15's is a .223 caliber bullet. It is a very small round compared to everything else out there. BUT, it is attached to a large shell casing which holds a lot of powder making it an explosive round that can do a lot of damage. Even the .17HMR, which is a tiny bullet, can cause a lot of damage. Limiting the caliber won't do much to help the situation. Also, as pointed out here, the type of bullet also plays a big role in the lethality of the round. Full metal jacket rounds go thru or embed with minimal expansion while hollow points create shock damage and a greatly exaggerated wound channel.
Chicago's gun laws are among the most strict in the nation.
I read a while ago that Chicago is kinda unique because it's within spitting distance of places where it's extremely easy to get whatever firearm you want (Indiana?). IMO, I thought the article was dumb because it was essentially whining about criminals not following laws... but it is an interesting conversation about extremely restrictive laws in the city but you can just walk a couple blocks and it's the Wild West.
So essentially the surrounding red states are feeding the problem while pissing and moaning about it. Imagine that.
well, if criminals would follow the law we wouldn't have any issues.
That kid that shot up Robb Elementary School followed the law.... So, that tells me the law ain't worth spit..
That argument is so old and wrong it's disgusting.
Super, if you don't like it, or in fact HATE it when mass shooting occur, then lobby the NRA to develop MEANINGFUL solutions to the problem.
MEANINGFUL is the key word there.
That would be a better use of NRA money then to plow it into the campaigns of loser do nothing politicians
Caveat, I know almost nothing about guns/gun differences. But I would think an important aspect would be the time being discharge of bullets.
A small caliber and big caliber bullet will kill just the same. But it seems there is a big difference between 1 bullet discharge every 5 seconds vs 10 every 5 seconds in regards to kill capacity
AR-15's isn't close to being the highest caliber rifle on the open market. it's not even a high powered rifle. its a low power rifle. about as basic as one can get.
The army just dropped a new rifle for the soldiers called the XM5, that comes out in 2024.
here's the problem: the civilian version of that rifle is already on the market.
and this brings up the posters who pointed out regulating bullets. the bullets used in AR's have less mass than the new rifle; .223 vs .277, and you better believe the amount of damage it can cause is significant.
the gun lovers won't admit that the AR-15 is a status symbol in their culture. it's like having that big ass lifted truck in the driveway, despite the fact that you don't even do truck things with it; it's just a road queen. but it looks like the rifle the army has, which is why it's the most popular rifle in the country.
right now, i can walk into a gun store and by an M1A or a MCX-SPEAR that would destroy somebody with an AR in a gunfight. all legally and readily available.
which also means the SPEAR is about to be the new status symbol for the gun nuts, because they want the toys the Army has. so yall think we have mass shooting problems now, wait til the new ones get popularized. the damage done by those will make the AR-15 shootings look like practice runs.
and this has to be stated: we all know in a couple years max, we're gonna have dudes on this board talking about they need an SPEAR to - lmfao - protect their home and fight the government.
Hey FrankZ, don't take these posts in the wrong way, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate and spitballing solutions while trying to process how what everyone is calling for in one form or other might play out if we could get along long enough and do the right thing to protect these kids. Personally, I believe in gun ownership for hunting and self-defense. I'm just not big on public open carry or concealed carry and think we should all agree on reasonable abilities for guns, that would limit how much death and destruction could be brought to a crime in seconds or minutes. Surely we don't need military-grade power like an M2 50 Cal, and in my opinion, that's the direction that AR and other high-powered rapid-fire weapons bring. But a lot of gun enthusiasts enjoy those on the range and very much want to own one just in case the ish hit's the fan. I get that, but there has to be some way to limit access to these weapons in a responsible manner that we can all agree to and live with. And I'm not talking outright bans.
One way would be a system similar to licensing animals. For a common dog that can bite somebody, you can be sued over what they do, and most have that covered in their insurance, but they still have to buy a dog license and meet the minimum requirements of rabies shots. Not a big deal if you are a responsible gun owner, but if you get caught without, you could lose your dog, face legal issues, or both. However, you can't buy a dog license for a pure Wolfe. Wild animals require a special license and have different rules and requirements, a couple of which I'm sure are liability insurance and a safe confinement/handling environment.
Any gun can kill, just like any dog can bite. But if we set a bar, below which are common guns like single shots, small cal revolvers, pump loading shotguns, Winchester style lever rifles, etc. are the dogs, and weapons that are rapid-fire, high capacity, use more destructive rounds or generally make you feel like Rambo on the range are the wolves. Make owning those guns tougher, but legal, and anyone caught committing a crime with them gets a gun terrorism-style charge. Also, make public carry of them subject to licensing, training, insurance, and permit OR just ban them from open public carry and make owners keep them in locked cases for home storage or transport to and from places designated for their use, like Ranges. If somebody wants to hunt with them, let each state determine how that happens, but don't just any idiot possess them without all the checks and balances.
Gun laws like this would cost gun owners a bit more but might go a long way to stopping these shootings. Another thing too, would be to make the purchaser legally co-responsible for the gun use, regardless of who is firing. And make anything short of malicious, violent theft of the gun used a co-criminal charge. If you leave it unlocked and your kid gets it and shoots up a school and then kills themselves, you go to prison for allowing that gun to be used like this. This part might not save lives, but it would damn sure mean storage, security, ownership transfers would be taken very seriously. This is one way we could try to tighten up gun laws without taking guns away.
A couple of points from what you said:
1) You conflate the AR-15 and the M2 as "powerful military" weapons. A .223 round has a muzzle energy of about 1175ft-lb while a .50BMG is about 13,350ft-lb. These are not even close in terms of ballistics. The purpose of the two weapons is also different in a military aspect, one being anti-personnel and one being anti-material in mission. I've never shot a M2 but they look fun, but likely would get to be way too spendy too quickly at $10 a round or such.
When we talk about rate of fire (ROF) we need to understand first the weapon we are discussing mostly (the AR-15 pattern rifle) only goes as fast as you can pull the trigger. Yes you can bump fire them, most people don't. The AR-15 has a theoretical ROF that is close to an M16/M4 in full auto, however there is some reduction due to differing internal function. But let's put the number for the ROF for a AR-15 at 900rounds/minute (near the upper end of the rated ROF for the M16). That is theoretical mind you. You would need a magazine capable of holding enough ammunition to make that a reality. You would also need to be able to control it. Full auto doesn't behave like the movies, you don't just drop 100 rounds through a small hole in microseconds. Discounting world class shooters, most people the faster the pull the trigger the more inaccurate they get, from recoil (the rifle moving backwards), muzzle jerk (the muzzle moving up and away and frantically trying to squeeze the trigger faster causes you to jerk around. Inaccurate rounds are not as concerning in these situations, the accurate ones are. So in the end someone who has worked at it can probably empty a standard 30 round magazine accurately in 45 seconds, someone who hasn't worked at it will take double or triple that for accuracy.
In the TX shooting the timeline shows the shooter was in the building unopposed for 30 minutes I believe. What gun do you think would have been less deadly in a situation where you are fighting 3rd graders and no one is opposing you? He could have done just as much damage with a 6 shot revolver in that time frame. A pump shotgun is easy to have continuous ammo feed for if you practice loading while shooting. The LV shooting was a different animal, accuracy was not really required as the shooter there only needed to hit the mass of crowd and ROF became more important.
As far as licensing animals, this is sold as ways to track dogs that bite people, but why does the city expect me to license my cats that never leave the house except to go to the vet? They get $10/year per animal is why. Most licensing and regulation is a way of generating income so politicians can spread the money to their friends and stay in office and get rich off the public. Illinois has a FOID (Firearms Owners ID) that is required to buy and own firearms in the state. You may need to show it to buy ammo as well, but I am not certain on that. the city of Chicago is a great example of how licensing fixes things. It doesn't, it burdens people who are responsible. In MD you have to show "good and substantial reason" for a carry permit. Self-defense is not good enough. Basically the state wants to know you are protecting business money (seriously the best way to get a permit is to operate a business and claim to have business cash with you). Even if you get a permit it can be restricted to time and place (only to and from work, only while carrying your prescription pad, etc). Baltimore shows that carry permit restrictions are ineffective, lots of guns getting carried in the city, and they aren't by permitted people.
As I have also pointed out previously, permitting and licensing is a way to ban something without banning it. Every state and DC are required to offer a carry permit (Wrenn vs DC sorted that). The scheme is left to the jurisdiction. HI is a "may issue" state, which means when you apply they can decide if you meet whatever arbitrary criteria they set and then they may issue you a permit. They haven't issued one in over 20 years, which is a de facto ban.
it has been shown time and again laws do not stop people from commiting crimes, if they did we would fix murder rates by making murder illegal. Gun laws only affect people who follow them. Guns are not the issue, even scary looking military style guns. People are the issue, but solving the people problem is far more difficult. The easy ineffective solution is more laws limiting/banning guns. We really need to fix the people problem.
As far as owning common guns, the AR-15 pattern rifle is the most popularly owned long gun in America, which makes it the most common amongst your common. I don't know a lot of people that have lever action rifles any more (we have an heirloom 30-30) unless they are lever action collectors.
Lastly when I am at the range shooting I don't feel like Rambo. I take pride in being an accurate shooter. I challenge myself in distance as best I can with indoor ranges being the norm here and speed on target. I like to know when I shoot I get better at it. it is fun to shoot whatever we take to the range that day, handguns, AR pattern, shotguns, etc. I like zombie targets mostly, they make me laugh.
I'm certainly glad that the type of ammo you use has nothing to do with the damage it causes. That the load has no impact on damage. You know it does.
And speaking in terms of how "you" use and see these weapons doesn't mean anything in the big picture, grand scheme of things. It's purely anecdotal.
But I agree with you more than I disagree with you. Here are a couple of examples being bantered around that concern me.
Red Flag Laws.
On the surface these are presented as good things. But are they? What evidence is needed to show proof that you "made a threat to kill someone" before they take your guns? Could any vindictive person simply make that up? An ex, spurned girlfriend or angry family member? How hard would it be to get your guns back and would it be a part of your permanent record? Would it prevent you from legally buying firearms in the future?
In theory it's a good idea but as with most things the devil is in the details.
Mental background checks.
Once again something that sounds great in theory. Something that would seem like an idea everyone should support. But exactly what does that mean?
I'll use this mass shooting in Texas for a possible scenario. I'm sure at least some of the parents of these victims own guns. Can you imagine how hard it would be to move forward with your life in a normal manner had this have happened to one of your children? So let's say that some of these parents will need mental help to move forward with their life. That due to this mass shooting and the death of one of their own children that need mental help. They get diagnosed with depression and or major anxiety. They undergo treatment for a year or even maybe two. This is now a part of their mental health record. They were both diagnosed and treated.
Does that mean they can never purchase a firearm again?
I'm not saying these laws couldn't be written with qualifiers to prevent these type of things from happening. I'm asking if we as Americans can depend on our politicians to do so? I for one do not. It's not the principals these laws try and address that I object to. It's the very real possibility of the actual ramifications they pose that concern me.
That's fair. My point was more a comparison to what we're currently doing in many states (features on a rifle).
As you mention, certain caliber bullets are more suited to certain activities than others. To me, it makes far more sense to look at crafting legislation around that than (as an example) the length of the barrel or if it has a pistol grip.
I'm certainly glad that the type of ammo you use has nothing to do with the damage it causes. That the load has no impact on damage. You know it does.
And speaking in terms of how "you" use and see these weapons doesn't mean anything in the big picture, grand scheme of things. It's purely anecdotal.
But I agree with you more than I disagree with you. Here are a couple of examples being bantered around that concern me.
Red Flag Laws.
On the surface these are presented as good things. But are they? What evidence is needed to show proof that you "made a threat to kill someone" before they take your guns? Could any vindictive person simply make that up? An ex, spurned girlfriend or angry family member? How hard would it be to get your guns back and would it be a part of your permanent record? Would it prevent you from legally buying firearms in the future?
In theory it's a good idea but as with most things the devil is in the details.
Mental background checks.
Once again something that sounds great in theory. Something that would seem like an idea everyone should support. But exactly what does that mean?
I'll use this mass shooting in Texas for a possible scenario. I'm sure at least some of the parents of these victims own guns. Can you imagine how hard it would be to move forward with your life in a normal manner had this have happened to one of your children? So let's say that some of these parents will need mental help to move forward with their life. That due to this mass shooting and the death of one of their own children that need mental help. They get diagnosed with depression and or major anxiety. They undergo treatment for a year or even maybe two. This is now a part of their mental health record. They were both diagnosed and treated.
Does that mean they can never purchase a firearm again?
I'm not saying these laws couldn't be written with qualifiers to prevent these type of things from happening. I'm asking if we as Americans can depend on our politicians to do so? I for one do not. It's not the principals these laws try and address that I object to. It's the very real possibility of the actual ramifications they pose that concern me.
I'm certainly glad you continue to put words in other people's mouth. I mean, I didn't say the " type of ammo you use has nothing to do with the damage it causes". But of course you PitDAWG because you just can't help yourself. Take your pedantic arguments and yell at a mirror.
Hey FrankZ, don't take these posts in the wrong way, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate and spitballing solutions while trying to process how what everyone is calling for in one form or other might play out if we could get along long enough and do the right thing to protect these kids. Personally, I believe in gun ownership for hunting and self-defense. I'm just not big on public open carry or concealed carry and think we should all agree on reasonable abilities for guns, that would limit how much death and destruction could be brought to a crime in seconds or minutes. Surely we don't need military-grade power like an M2 50 Cal, and in my opinion, that's the direction that AR and other high-powered rapid-fire weapons bring. But a lot of gun enthusiasts enjoy those on the range and very much want to own one just in case the ish hit's the fan. I get that, but there has to be some way to limit access to these weapons in a responsible manner that we can all agree to and live with. And I'm not talking outright bans.
One way would be a system similar to licensing animals. For a common dog that can bite somebody, you can be sued over what they do, and most have that covered in their insurance, but they still have to buy a dog license and meet the minimum requirements of rabies shots. Not a big deal if you are a responsible gun owner, but if you get caught without, you could lose your dog, face legal issues, or both. However, you can't buy a dog license for a pure Wolfe. Wild animals require a special license and have different rules and requirements, a couple of which I'm sure are liability insurance and a safe confinement/handling environment.
Any gun can kill, just like any dog can bite. But if we set a bar, below which are common guns like single shots, small cal revolvers, pump loading shotguns, Winchester style lever rifles, etc. are the dogs, and weapons that are rapid-fire, high capacity, use more destructive rounds or generally make you feel like Rambo on the range are the wolves. Make owning those guns tougher, but legal, and anyone caught committing a crime with them gets a gun terrorism-style charge. Also, make public carry of them subject to licensing, training, insurance, and permit OR just ban them from open public carry and make owners keep them in locked cases for home storage or transport to and from places designated for their use, like Ranges. If somebody wants to hunt with them, let each state determine how that happens, but don't just any idiot possess them without all the checks and balances.
Gun laws like this would cost gun owners a bit more but might go a long way to stopping these shootings. Another thing too, would be to make the purchaser legally co-responsible for the gun use, regardless of who is firing. And make anything short of malicious, violent theft of the gun used a co-criminal charge. If you leave it unlocked and your kid gets it and shoots up a school and then kills themselves, you go to prison for allowing that gun to be used like this. This part might not save lives, but it would damn sure mean storage, security, ownership transfers would be taken very seriously. This is one way we could try to tighten up gun laws without taking guns away.
This is the kind of conversation we should expect from our "leaders". Leaders that should be expected to work together to find solutions to complex problems.
Instead we get the polar opposite with narrow-minded rhetoric coming from their mouths... and their media mouthpieces. Sad.
No, you certainly didn't say that. You have just avoided addressing it like the plague and have tried to minimize the damage these rifles can do by focusing on the caliber at every turn. You aren't fooling anyone.
Once again something that sounds great in theory. Something that would seem like an idea everyone should support. But exactly what does that mean?
I'll use this mass shooting in Texas for a possible scenario. I'm sure at least some of the parents of these victims own guns. Can you imagine how hard it would be to move forward with your life in a normal manner had this have happened to one of your children? So let's say that some of these parents will need mental help to move forward with their life. That due to this mass shooting and the death of one of their own children that need mental help. They get diagnosed with depression and or major anxiety. They undergo treatment for a year or even maybe two. This is now a part of their mental health record. They were both diagnosed and treated.
Does that mean they can never purchase a firearm again?
To my understanding, no, it does not mean they can't own a gun/s. I BELIEVE the law states something along the lines of "anyone that was INVOLUNTARILY referred to a mental health institute....." If you realize you need/want help, and seek treatment, I do not believe it prevents you from owning a gun.
I agree that it doesn't as of now. What I was referring to is people suggesting we should strengthen mental health background checks. What is it that they mean by that? What changes are they suggesting should be made?
I agree that it doesn't as of now. What I was referring to is people suggesting we should strengthen mental health background checks. What is it that they mean by that? What changes are they suggesting should be made?
I have no idea. Ask the people promoting it. I was simply answering your previous question, to the best of my ability and recollection.
IMO, the starting point for that line of thinking is that in just about all of these shootings we hear about, there always seems to be something they do or say that you can point to and say "that was the red flag that was missed". IIRC, the Uvalde shooter pretty much spelled it out to whoever was listening at the time.
No, you certainly didn't say that. You have just avoided addressing it like the plague and have tried to minimize the damage these rifles can do by focusing on the caliber at every turn. You aren't fooling anyone.
No I didn't discuss it because I had written enough already, I was discussing other things and there are books written on ballistics.
Take your snark "debate" style to facebook where it belongs, adults are discussing things here.
The people of this world, would have you focus on mass shootings, and focus on death, (those who hate God love death) and they'd pipe it into your home by broadcast, hour after hour day after day.
But God says, whatever is pure, whatever is Holy, whatever is of good report, on these things focus.
Anyone who understands the Words of God, who understands what was told to Noah after the ark landed on dry land, how God would require the life of man, at the hands of every mans brother he would require it. Anyone who worships God and not man or others, Anyone who has not turned their back on their first love, they get it. The people of this world, they do not get it, the scribes and the Pharisees, and the atheiests who have done such, as to deny God, who loves them so, they do not get it. Halelujah. Gods' kingdom is not of this world.
Hey FrankZ, don't take these posts in the wrong way, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate and spitballing solutions while trying to process how what everyone is calling for in one form or other might play out if we could get along long enough and do the right thing to protect these kids. Personally, I believe in gun ownership for hunting and self-defense. I'm just not big on public open carry or concealed carry and think we should all agree on reasonable abilities for guns, that would limit how much death and destruction could be brought to a crime in seconds or minutes. Surely we don't need military-grade power like an M2 50 Cal, and in my opinion, that's the direction that AR and other high-powered rapid-fire weapons bring. But a lot of gun enthusiasts enjoy those on the range and very much want to own one just in case the ish hit's the fan. I get that, but there has to be some way to limit access to these weapons in a responsible manner that we can all agree to and live with. And I'm not talking outright bans.
One way would be a system similar to licensing animals. For a common dog that can bite somebody, you can be sued over what they do, and most have that covered in their insurance, but they still have to buy a dog license and meet the minimum requirements of rabies shots. Not a big deal if you are a responsible gun owner, but if you get caught without, you could lose your dog, face legal issues, or both. However, you can't buy a dog license for a pure Wolfe. Wild animals require a special license and have different rules and requirements, a couple of which I'm sure are liability insurance and a safe confinement/handling environment.
Any gun can kill, just like any dog can bite. But if we set a bar, below which are common guns like single shots, small cal revolvers, pump loading shotguns, Winchester style lever rifles, etc. are the dogs, and weapons that are rapid-fire, high capacity, use more destructive rounds or generally make you feel like Rambo on the range are the wolves. Make owning those guns tougher, but legal, and anyone caught committing a crime with them gets a gun terrorism-style charge. Also, make public carry of them subject to licensing, training, insurance, and permit OR just ban them from open public carry and make owners keep them in locked cases for home storage or transport to and from places designated for their use, like Ranges. If somebody wants to hunt with them, let each state determine how that happens, but don't just any idiot possess them without all the checks and balances.
Gun laws like this would cost gun owners a bit more but might go a long way to stopping these shootings. Another thing too, would be to make the purchaser legally co-responsible for the gun use, regardless of who is firing. And make anything short of malicious, violent theft of the gun used a co-criminal charge. If you leave it unlocked and your kid gets it and shoots up a school and then kills themselves, you go to prison for allowing that gun to be used like this. This part might not save lives, but it would damn sure mean storage, security, ownership transfers would be taken very seriously. This is one way we could try to tighten up gun laws without taking guns away.
This is the kind of conversation we should expect from our "leaders". Leaders that should be expected to work together to find solutions to complex problems.
Instead we get the polar opposite with narrow-minded rhetoric coming from their mouths... and their media mouthpieces. Sad.
The people of this world, would have you focus on mass shootings, and focus on death, (those who hate God love death) and they'd pipe it into your home by broadcast, hour after hour day after day.
But God says, whatever is pure, whatever is Holy, whatever is of good report, on these things focus.
Anyone who understands the Words of God, who understands what was told to Noah after the ark landed on dry land, how God would require the life of man, at the hands of every mans brother he would require it. Anyone who worships God and not man or others, Anyone who has not turned their back on their first love, they get it. The people of this world, they do not get it, the scribes and the Pharisees, and the atheiests who have done such, as to deny God, who loves them so, they do not get it. Halelujah. Gods' kingdom is not of this world.
That's all well and good - but what of the word of Allah? or Buddha? what of El Shaddai ? What of Brahman or Wahaguru or Jah ??? Don't they get a say too?
simply giving a 24 hour waiting period before purchase during the background check would've prevented it, which is part of the measures being brought up.
like honestly i can make a pro-gun argument better than you pro-gun guys can. that singular point right there answered your question, and that's not even close to being the only answer as to why this could've been prevented.
the 2nd amendment does not give us a right to accessories nor ammunition. which means congress has full authority to restrict the crap out of that, and they need to get on it ASAP. restrict how many different kinds of ammunition can be created and purchased depending on style/class of weapon. restrict the kinds of accessories that can be put on specific styles of weapons.
if congress decided to try and restrict the kinds of body armor available on the market, i won't lose any sleep over that, either.
i get that republican voters are desperate for the end times to come so they can finally live out their Mad Max fantasies in a failed state and limited resources, but the rest of us actually look forward to what the future can bring to our society.
unlike republican voters, i can no longer justify my right to own guns if the price for that right is innocent lives, especially children.
if you think your right to a tool is more important than the lives of these children and innocent adults, then don't ever claim to be pro-life. because you just told people like me that if my kid dies in a school shooting, you don't ACTUALLY give a damn. because your answer to do something that will prevent other kids from losing their lives is to do absolutely nothing.
cause right now it seems like you republican voters just pretend to be christians. like seriously, i wonder how that plays out if God is real....
"hey god"
"yo, so your country was pretty crazy, right?"
"yea, but i've been a good christian at least"
"oh, word?"
"yes, father"
"so what did you personally do to try and keep these children in your country from dying?"
"uh..well..nothing"
"did you use your tool to save children?"
"no"
"did you use your tool to prevent a shooting?"
"no"
".....so what do you have it for?"
"well to fight the government, my lord! plus i need to protect myself and my family"
"and did you do any of that?"
"well....no"
"so, you had a tool to prevent my children from being sensely slaughtered, but not only did you NOT use it to protect them, you didn't use your tool to do any good overall, and you argued in defense of the ability to get said tools, allowing even more of my children to lose their lives"
"....."
"yea what makes you think you're getting past these gates, bro? you're not actually a christian, you just like to market yourself as one. well, maybe try your luck with satan"
simply giving a 24 hour waiting period before purchase during the background check would've prevented it, which is part of the measures being brought up.
like honestly i can make a pro-gun argument better than you pro-gun guys can. that singular point right there answered your question, and that's not even close to being the only answer as to why this could've been prevented.
the 2nd amendment does not give us a right to accessories nor ammunition. which means congress has full authority to restrict the crap out of that, and they need to get on it ASAP. restrict how many different kinds of ammunition can be created and purchased depending on style/class of weapon. restrict the kinds of accessories that can be put on specific styles of weapons.
if congress decided to try and restrict the kinds of body armor available on the market, i won't lose any sleep over that, either.
i get that republican voters are desperate for the end times to come so they can finally live out their Mad Max fantasies in a failed state and limited resources, but the rest of us actually look forward to what the future can bring to our society.
unlike republican voters, i can no longer justify my right to own guns if the price for that right is innocent lives, especially children.
if you think your right to a tool is more important than the lives of these children and innocent adults, then don't ever claim to be pro-life. because you just told people like me that if my kid dies in a school shooting, you don't ACTUALLY give a damn. because your answer to do something that will prevent other kids from losing their lives is to do absolutely nothing.
cause right now it seems like you republican voters just pretend to be christians. like seriously, i wonder how that plays out if God is real....
"hey god"
"yo, so your country was pretty crazy, right?"
"yea, but i've been a good christian at least"
"oh, word?"
"yes, father"
"so what did you personally do to try and keep these children in your country from dying?"
"uh..well..nothing"
"did you use your tool to save children?"
"no"
"did you use your tool to prevent a shooting?"
"no"
".....so what do you have it for?"
"well to fight the government, my lord! plus i need to protect myself and my family"
"and did you do any of that?"
"well....no"
"so, you had a tool to prevent my children from being sensely slaughtered, but not only did you NOT use it to protect them, you didn't use your tool to do any good overall, and you argued in defense of the ability to get said tools, allowing even more of my children to lose their lives"
"....."
"yea what makes you think you're getting past these gates, bro? you're not actually a christian, you just like to market yourself as one. well, maybe try your luck with satan"
Stop.....it's for the children.
A few thoughts.
On the Tulsa deal...I don't mind a wait period, but I don't think that would have prevented this. It might have delayed it a day or two. That guy did that because he felt the Dr. botched up his back surgery. I don't think it had to happen that day.
As for my thoughts on measures to take:
I agree with a waiting period for any weapon to at least allow a person in a rage of passion to cool down a bit. I don't think that works all that much, but it might help, so caution is always good. If a person needs that gun now, it is probably for the wrong reasons.
I agree with background checks.
I agree with red flag laws. Florida has some of the best in the country.
I agree with raising the age to 21 on purchasing all weapons with the exception of shotguns and various hunting rifles. The AR isn't much more powerful than many hunting rifles, but hey, if it makes people feel better, go for it.
I can agree with limiting magazine size, but the size will be a sticking point. It might not need to be 30 rounds, but it doesn't need to be 5 either.
I agree that gun show laws need to be stiffened.
Things I don't agree with:
The outright banning of weapons beyond what is already in place. If anything I might be open to banning semi auto rifles and limit those to pump, lever, or bolt action.
Holding gun manufactures responsible for illegal use of their product. That is absurd. You might as well hold the manufactures of hypodermic needles responsible for OD complications. The President brought up big tobacco. That was entirely different. Tobacco had decades of deceit and cover up on information that their product was deadly. Even then I disagreed with the awards against them because in the end, any moron knew that smoking was bad for your health. But, they knew it was addictive and deadly and went on with the lies, maybe even making their product more addictive. That just isn't the case with Colt or Smith & Wesson, or whoever. They are responsible if their weapon fails and blows back on somebody with a critical failure. They aren't responsible for where some idiot points the thing.
I don't agree with the President's failure to talk about school security, but I concede that may not have been the time or place, but it does need to be a big part of the discussion.
I think we all know how this is going to go down. The Dems will push forward a bill with everything in it and leave no room for the Senate to pass the bill. I hope not. That will be a purely political bill to give them something to point their fingers at headed in to the next elections. Something they really need
If people are really serious about gun reform, they need to be serious about it and push a bill that can be passed and not try to push through components that are dead before they start.
Let's demand a bill that can be passed and do some good rather than a bill designed to be a political football.
I will be happy to discuss further if people are willing to have a discussion.
On the Tulsa deal...I don't mind a wait period, but I don't think that would have prevented this. It might have delayed it a day or two. That guy did that because he felt the Dr. botched up his back surgery. I don't think it had to happen that day.
People are not near as "consistent" in their desire to take extreme action as everybody believes. Cooling off periods are exactly that - time for people to cool down and think more rationally. How many times have you been in a fight with somebody (partner/friend), wanted to do something drastic - and then the next day cooled down and thought that it was the dumbest fight you've ever had.
This is true even for extremely drastic choices (like killing somebody). There is a famous study of the Ellington Street Bridge in Washington D.C., after a politician's daughter jumped off the bridge, they put up anti-suicide nets there. This was widely mocked, because the Taft Bridge is like 200 yards away, and they did not put up netting there. "Everybody will just walk over to the bridge that doesn't have netting and jump." However, after the netting went up, the nobody else jumped from the Ellington Street Bridge, and there was no increase in suicides from the Taft Street Bridge.
People making drastic decisions are not usually consistent even on a minute to minute basis, much less day to day or over a week. Are we 100% sure that a waiting period wouldn't have stopped this shooting -- No. But It's an important way to decrease the rate at which people make bad drastic decisions:
No, you certainly didn't say that. You have just avoided addressing it like the plague and have tried to minimize the damage these rifles can do by focusing on the caliber at every turn. You aren't fooling anyone.
No I didn't discuss it because I had written enough already, I was discussing other things and there are books written on ballistics.
No, you avoided discussing it because it was the opposite side of the debate you focused on and didn't further your agenda. People can read.
Quote
Take your snark "debate" style to facebook where it belongs, adults are discussing things here.
No, you avoided discussing it because it was the opposite side of the debate you focused on and didn't further your agenda. People can read.
This is you, again, telling me what I am thinking. You are wrong. Period and full stop.
You had three choices: 1) Move along and say nothing. 2) counter a discussion with what you think are valid points and actually make a point. 3) drop yet another snark bomb to show everyone how clever you are.
You chose to be snarky, likely because you can't actually make a valid point that can stand up to critical thinking. Your arguments tend to be emotion driven and backed by confirmation biased sources.
If you think there is a point that is missed, try discussing it instead jumping up and down yelling "gotcha!" and laughing.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Quote
Take your snark "debate" style to facebook where it belongs, adults are discussing things here.
It sure doesn't sound like it.
You are correct, only some of us are adults and discussing actual debate points. You are here to fight, and you keep proving that point.
See, this is why I say people willing to take common sense measures are on both sides. I'm far more moderate and in favor of 2nd amendment rights than many people that would be labeled as liberals. But you and I agree almost 100% on common sense measures to help lessen these senseless killings. No, it won't stop all of them. But body counts matter and if we can stop some of them, we should.
On the Tulsa deal...I don't mind a wait period, but I don't think that would have prevented this. It might have delayed it a day or two. That guy did that because he felt the Dr. botched up his back surgery. I don't think it had to happen that day.
People are not near as "consistent" in their desire to take extreme action as everybody believes. Cooling off periods are exactly that - time for people to cool down and think more rationally. How many times have you been in a fight with somebody (partner/friend), wanted to do something drastic - and then the next day cooled down and thought that it was the dumbest fight you've ever had.
This is true even for extremely drastic choices (like killing somebody). There is a famous study of the Ellington Street Bridge in Washington D.C., after a politician's daughter jumped off the bridge, they put up anti-suicide nets there. This was widely mocked, because the Taft Bridge is like 200 yards away, and they did not put up netting there. "Everybody will just walk over to the bridge that doesn't have netting and jump." However, after the netting went up, the nobody else jumped from the Ellington Street Bridge, and there was no increase in suicides from the Taft Street Bridge.
People making drastic decisions are not usually consistent even on a minute to minute basis, much less day to day or over a week. Are we 100% sure that a waiting period wouldn't have stopped this shooting -- No. But It's an important way to decrease the rate at which people make bad drastic decisions:
The shooter in Tulsa already owned a gun. If he had to wait for a new one I wonder if already having a gun would nullify your "cooling off" period.
And for the record, I have never been in an argument where I thought killing someone would be a desirable outcome. If you cannot handle your emotions it might be a good idea to self-prohibit gun ownership.
Self prohibiting has worked as well as thoughts and prayers have at this point. I guess continuing on the path of what's not working seems like the best solution for some.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
I think we should go a step further and just ask people to self-prohibit themselves from committing mass shootings.
Like, if a shooter charges into a school - the teachers can just be trained to say "Hey, could you please not do this?"
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
Sorry but factual data from around the world does not support these broad brush strokes and massive claims/statements. It doesn't even have to apply to guns... seeing you talk about "self prohibiting" makes me think of the war on drugs and "just say no" ... makes me think of teen pregnancies and the idea of "abstinence" instead of education and contraception.
The US is a very special and unique situation. But ignoring all data - refusing to discuss it - making incorrect statements ... none of that helps in meaningful dialogue.
People are part of the problem - so are guns. Both should be looked at and discussed.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
I think we should go a step further and just ask people to self-prohibit themselves from committing mass shootings.
Like, if a shooter charges into a school - the teachers can just be trained to say "Hey, could you please not do this?"
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
That in no way changes the fact that people aren't and won't do that. I'm not for banning any weapons. But claiming that people will be responsible in any way addresses the issue is false.
You are promoting something that has not and will not work. No different than the thoughts and prayers crowd. The same old same old hasn't helped anything. We're trying to address a problem not continuing it.
Many of these mass shootings are being committed by people between the age of 18-20. Many are being committed in schools where the security is poor or lax.
Those are simple, easily seen and recognized as problems.
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Why would anyone promote this idea? School boards around this country claim teachers shouldn't teach some of the things they teach. They claim teachers must be controlled on what they are allowed to say. That they can not be trusted on which books they allow their children to read. But now suddenly they say they should be carrying guns? Teachers do not get paid to carry guns. If you plan to have them do that you better include one huge pay increase.
The smart thing to do is have retired police officers and retired military take on that responsibility. People that have actual experience in these real life situations.
Quote
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
I know you keep echoing this like the Ricola man, but how many on this board actually advocate banning any weapons?
That in no way changes the fact that people aren't and won't do that. I'm not for banning any weapons. But claiming that people will be responsible in any way addresses the issue is false.
You are promoting something that has not and will not work. No different than the thoughts and prayers crowd. The same old same old hasn't helped anything. We're trying to address a problem not continuing it.
Many of these mass shootings are being committed by people between the age of 18-20. Many are being committed in schools where the security is poor or lax.
Those are simple, easily seen and recognized as problems.
Most mass shootings occur in a "gun free" zone where a shooter knows they will not meet resistance, or will only see minimal resistance. Quit making it a sure thing for them.
Also there are people who want to leave an indelible mark on society and hurt as many as they can "Some men just want to watch the world burn". I would suspect they specifically attack schools, especially elementary schools, as they will see no resistance and the hurt factor is amplified.
Do you believe responsible adults should be allowed to buy machine guns?
I don't think it is more dangerous, but I do think that we should try to limit voter fraud.
Every verified case of voter fraud I've seen has been a republican. Maybe we shouldn't let them vote.
But they sure talk about all the fraud on the left with zero proof. I'd love to see actual proof of mass voting fraud in any election. That's Trumpian for we need to restrict voting for certain people.
That's a great turn of a phrase to use, but as we saw in Texas, that school had a resource officer in place. They had safety guidelines in place to keep the school locked down during the day. The problem is those protocols were not being followed. "Gun Fee zones" are not for people designed to protect the buildings. Gun free zones often include courthouses that have both metal detectors and armed officers inside.
As I said, it's a great catch phrase used by the right but it doesn't mean what they claim it to mean. Shootings just as of late have also included grocery stores and a Walmart.
Yes, I actually believe fully automatic weapons should be illegal. But that's not a hill I would stand on to try and pass sensible gun legislation. That's just my opinion.
That's a great turn of a phrase to use, but as we saw in Texas, that school had a resource officer in place. They had safety guidelines in place to keep the school locked down during the day. The problem is those protocols were not being followed. "Gun Fee zones" are not for people designed to protect the buildings. Gun free zones often include courthouses that have both metal detectors and armed officers inside.
As I said, it's a great catch phrase used by the right but it doesn't mean what they claim it to mean. Shootings just as of late have also included grocery stores and a Walmart.
Yes, I actually believe fully automatic weapons should be illegal. But that's not a hill I would stand on to try and pass sensible gun legislation. That's just my opinion.
I do, actually, understand what a gun free zone is, but thank you for being typical.
The school had one RSO, who was not on campus. In critical systems when you have one you have none.
BTW, thinking machine guns should be illegal is the same as saying you are for banning certain guns.
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
LOL.
400 million guns and the answer is "MORE GUNS" .... MURICA !!!!
I've seen a lot of posts from you claiming others aren't engaging in a conversation. I gotta say you are doing a pretty good job of that here.
I've mentioned this before - think of every teacher you've ever known - how many would you want armed and have your kid/family depend on them?
Who said more guns, you wouldn't need to actually create more guns to arm teachers. Not that I am against more guns, but your "MORE GUNS.... MURICA" is misleading.
If there is a bad guy with a gun and police aren't there, and won't be for some time, would you rather someone try to stop the bad guy or would you rather everyone throw their hands up in the air and because there's nothing they can do in the moment? I mean, c'mon man, stopping the bad guy seems to be reasonable. And if the bad guy thinks he will meet resistance, he may not try to start with. Active shooters like no resistance.
At which point am I not engaging in conversation? The point where I don't agree with you? Now yer sounding like someone else.
We can certainly re-distribute the guns already in circulation. But reality is that's not really that likely.
Arming the 3-3.5 million teachers as a "solution" is escalation. It's arming people currently unarmed.
And my comment was very much in response to and intended in the same vein as "Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay" ....
OH - and to "At which point am I not engaging in conversation? The point where I don't agree with you? "
Nope - I never said anything about agreeing with me. I was going back to you going to that troupe about the only message is Gun Bad. that's not conversation. That's you spewing rhetoric and responding to something no-one on this board has engaged you on a conversation about.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
I think we should go a step further and just ask people to self-prohibit themselves from committing mass shootings.
Like, if a shooter charges into a school - the teachers can just be trained to say "Hey, could you please not do this?"
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
Why would we need teachers to be armed if we already asked bad people to "self-prohibit" themselves from buying guns?
again, we're talking about arming teachers, in america, in 2022.
sounding more like afghanistan than afghanistan. the fact that some of yall honestly think having armed teachers in schools is gonna solve anything is really sad, because somehow, someway, you guys just can't understand how ass backwards that sounds from a supposedly 1st world country. somehow, someway, the idea of having a gun inside the same classroom the kids are in somehow makes them MORE safe is absolutely insane.
i guess with these recent shootings, yall can't use the "good guy with a gun" rhetoric anymore. and yall responses says there are no good guys with guns; just guys with guns. yall out here more defiant over your "tool" than you are outraged that these shootings are happening and that our fellow americans are losing their children to senseless gun violence.
and then on top of that, all you dudes who supposedly have guns won't step up and patrol/secure your local districts. so really you only own guns because it either makes you feel like a man, or you delusionally think you're gonna have the balls to stand up to the government. hell, probably both.
so the situation is really that most gun owners are a bunch of cowards, and only care about their status symbol, not actually using it for any "good". dont want to limit anybody from walking in and out of a gun store to shoot up a public area, or anything noble.
y'all will go storm the government over some BS lie about election fraud, but won't go storm the city gang hideout or biker gangs selling drugs in your own neighborhoods. but yall patriots though! yall bleed red white and blue though! well...maybe just white. the same colors of those who surrendered. cause you don't give a flying crap about the red bleeding out of our american children.
people on this board have proven time and time again to lack empathy toward anything or anyone that doesn't personally affect them.
but let your kids get shot, and watch how quickly yall tunes change. then all of a sudden, you're gonna be outraged over the same tool you defended the entire time. pathetic.
In another recent example of the out-of-control proliferation of firearms in America, a shopper was robbed of his assault-style rifle — at gunpoint — outside a food store in the St. Louis area.
The shopper then retrieved a second gun from his parked vehicle and opened fire on the robber last week in Wellston, Missouri, according to a police statement. The robber was shot multiple times, and two bystanders were injured in the shootout.
The unidentified shopper had been carrying an AR-15 assault-style weapon in a gun sleeve beneath an article of clothing, Maj. Ron Martin of the North County Police Cooperative told WSDK-TV in St. Louis. Openly carrying firearms is legal in the state.
As the gun owner stepped outside after his purchases, a man held a pistol to the back of his head and demanded the rifle, according to police.
After giving up his weapon, the victim went to his vehicle to grab another gun and then opened fire.
The robber, who was seen using both the rifle and his handgun, was initially listed in critical condition last week. Two bystanders, both women, who had just pulled up to the market, were also shot, according to a police statement. Their injuries were not life-threatening, police said.
The owner of the rifle fled.
Police account of a multiple-firearm shooting outside food store. (Photo: North Count Police Cooperative, Missouri)
A 31-year-old man accused of stealing the rifle has since been charged with armed criminal action, first-degree robbery and two counts each of unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm, KSDK reported. His cash-only bond was set at $500,000.
The food market was also the scene of a fatal shooting of a police officer in 2019.
____________
so the guy is legally carrying a rifle, gets robbed at gunpoint, goes and gets his other gun in the car, starts blasting at the thief, hits two innocent bystanders, then takes off.
We talk about banning assault rifles. What is an assault rifle?
as it relates to America? any style of weapon that appears like a military weapon. the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M4, the rifle the military currently uses (and old M-16's).
see all those rifles? get rid of them. lets remember: there are more powerful rifles on the market. hell, in urban environments, there are pistols and shotguns that are more effective than military style rifles. even more specific, get rid of any military style rifle that shoots .223(5.56) rounds.
current police armor is rated to stop smaller caliber rounds from pistols. so i can even make a "blue lives matter" argument for banning assault rifles, since most law enforcement and beat cops don't have the armor that's rated to resist .223 rounds.
edit: copy and paste the link and you'll see the list of rifles.
Hey, will y'all take a moment and read this article? It's kind of what I have been trying to talk about. I would love to have a discussion about it. All the other stuff has been said ad nauseam.
Quote
Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?
Mass shooters overwhelmingly fit a certain profile, say Jillian Peterson and James Densley, which means it’s possible to ID and treat them before they commit violence.
Crosses with the names of Tuesday's shooting victims are placed outside Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. | Jae C. Hong/AP Photo
By MELANIE WARNER
05/27/2022 02:54 PM EDT
Melanie Warner is a writer in Honolulu and author, most recently, of The Magic Feather Effect: The Science of Alternative Medicine and the Surprising Power of Belief.
Each time a high-profile mass shooting happens in America, a grieving and incredulous nation scrambles for answers. Who was this criminal and how could he (usually) have committed such a horrendous and inhumane act? A few details emerge about the individual’s troubled life and then everyone moves on.
Three years ago, Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, decided to take a different approach. In their view, the failure to gain a more meaningful and evidence-based understanding of why mass shooters do what they do seemed a lost opportunity to stop the next one from happening. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, their research constructed a database of every mass shooter since 1966 who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces and places of worship since 1999.
Peterson and Densley also compiled detailed life histories on 180 shooters, speaking to their spouses, parents, siblings, childhood friends, work colleagues and teachers. As for the gunmen themselves, most don’t survive their carnage, but five who did talked to Peterson and Densely from prison, where they were serving life sentences. The researchers also found several people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.
Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic, reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions. POLITICO talked to Peterson and Densely from their offices in St. Paul, Minn., about how our national understanding about mass shooters has to evolve, why using terms like “monster” is counterproductive, and why political talking points about mental health need to be followed up with concrete action.
POLITICO: Since you both spend much of your time studying mass shootings, I wonder if you had the same stunned and horrified reaction as the rest of us to the Uvalde elementary school shooting. Or were you somehow expecting this?
Jillian Peterson: On some level, we were waiting because mass shootings are socially contagious and when one really big one happens and gets a lot of media attention, we tend to see others follow. But this one was particularly gutting. I have three elementary school kids, one of which is in 4th grade.
James Densley: I’m also a parent of two boys, a 5-year-old and a 12-year-old. My 12-year-old knows what I do for a living and he’s looking to me for reassurance and I didn’t have the words for him. How do I say, “This happened at a school, but now it’s OK for you to go to your school and live your life.” It’s heartbreaking.
POLITICO: Are you saying there’s a link between the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings?
Peterson: We don’t know for sure at this point, but our research would say that it’s likely. You had an 18-year-old commit a horrific mass shooting. His name is everywhere and we all spend days talking about “replacement theory.” That shooter was able to get our attention. So, if you have another 18-year-old who is on the edge and watching everything, that could be enough to embolden him to follow. We have seen this happen before.
Densley: Mass shooters study other mass shooters. They often find a way of relating to them, like, “There are other people out there who feel like me.”
POLITICO: Can you take us through the profile of mass shooters that emerged from your research?
Peterson: There’s this really consistent pathway. Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.
What’s different from traditional suicide is that the self-hate turns against a group. They start asking themselves, “Whose fault is this?” Is it a racial group or women or a religious group, or is it my classmates? The hate turns outward. There’s also this quest for fame and notoriety.
POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings?
Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed.
It’s hard to focus on the suicide because these are horrific homicides. But it’s a critical piece because we know so much from the suicide prevention world that can translate here.
POLITICO: I’ve heard many references over the last few weeks to “monsters” and “pure evil.” You’ve said this kind of language actually makes things worse. Why?
Densley: If we explain this problem as pure evil or other labels like terrorist attack or hate crime, we feel better because it makes it seem like we’ve found the motive and solved the puzzle. But we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just explained the problem away. What this really problematic terminology does is prevent us from recognizing that mass shooters are us. This is hard for people to relate to because these individuals have done horrific, monstrous things. But three days earlier, that school shooter was somebody’s son, grandson, neighbor, colleague or classmate. We have to recognize them as the troubled human being earlier if we want to intervene before they become the monster.
Peterson: The Buffalo shooter told his teacher that he was going to commit a murder-suicide after he graduated. People aren’t used to thinking that this kind of thing could be real because the people who do mass shootings are evil, psychopathic monsters and this is a kid in my class. There’s a disconnect.
POLITICO: Do you get criticism about being too sympathetic toward mass shooters?
Peterson: We’re not trying to create excuses or say they shouldn’t be held responsible. This is really about, what is the pathway to violence for these people, where does this come from? Only then can we start building data-driven solutions that work. If we’re unwilling to understand the pathway, we’re never going to solve this.
POLITICO: So, what are the solutions?
Densley: There are things we can do right now as individuals, like safe storage of firearms or something as simple as checking in with your kid.
Peterson: Then we really need resources at institutions like schools. We need to build teams to investigate when kids are in crisis and then link those kids to mental health services. The problem is that in a lot of places, those services are not there. There’s no community mental health and no school-based mental health. Schools are the ideal setting because it doesn’t require a parent to take you there. A lot of perpetrators are from families where the parents are not particularly proactive about mental health appointments.
POLITICO: In your book, you say that in an ideal world, 500,000 psychologists would be employed in schools around the country. If you assume a modest salary of $70,000 a year, that amounts to over $35 billion in funding. Are you seeing any national or state-level political momentum for even a sliver of these kind of mental health resources?
Densley: Every time these tragedies happen, you always ask yourself, “Is this the one that’s going to finally move the needle?” The Republican narrative is that we’re not going to touch guns because this is all about mental health. Well then, we need to ask the follow-up question of what’s the plan to fix that mental health problem. Nobody’s saying, “Let’s fund this, let’s do it, we’ll get the votes.” That’s the political piece that’s missing here.
POLITICO: Are Democrats talking about mental health?
Densley: Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.
Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.
Densley: In Uvalde, there was an army of good guys with guns in the parking lot. The hard approach doesn’t seem to be getting the job done.
POLITICO: Do you support red flag laws?
Peterson: Our research certainly supports them, because so many perpetrators are actively showing warning signs. They are talking about doing this and telling people they’re suicidal. But what Buffalo showed us is that just because you have a red flag law on the books doesn’t mean people are trained in how it works and how they should be implementing it.
POLITICO: What has to change to make the laws more effective?
Densley: There are two pieces. One is training and awareness. People need to know that the law exists, how it works and who has a duty to report an individual. The second piece is the practical component of law enforcement. What is the mechanism to safely remove those firearms? Especially if you have a small law enforcement presence, maybe one or two officers, and you’re asking them to go into somebody’s rural home and take care of their entire arsenal of weapons.
POLITICO: What should have happened in Buffalo, given that the state of New York has a red flag law?
Peterson: From what we know, it sounds like there should have been more education with the police, the mental health facility and the school. If any one of those three had initiated the red flag process, it should have prevented the shooter from making the purchase.
It really shows the limitations of our current systems. Law enforcement investigated, but the shooter had no guns at that moment, so it was not an immediate threat. The mental health facility concluded it was not an immediate crisis, so he goes back to school. If it’s not a red-hot situation in that moment, nobody can do anything. It was none of these people’s jobs to make sure that he got connected with somebody in the community who could help him long term.
Densley: Also, something happens to put people on the radar. Even if they’re not the next shooter, something’s not right. How can we help these individuals reintegrate in a way that’s going to try and turn their lives around? That gets lost if we fixate just on the word “threat.”
POLITICO: I was struck by a detail in your book about one of the perpetrators you investigated. Minutes before he opened fire, you report that he called a behavior health facility. Is there always some form of reaching out or communication of intent before it happens?
Peterson: You don’t see it as often with older shooters who often go into their workplaces. But for young shooters, it’s almost every case. We have to view this “leakage” as a cry for help. If you’re saying, “I want to shoot the school tomorrow,” you are also saying, “I don’t care if I live or die.” You’re also saying, “I’m completely hopeless,” and you’re putting it out there for people to see because part of you wants to be stopped.
We have to listen because pushing people out intensifies their grievance and makes them angrier. The Parkland shooter had just been expelled from school and then came back. This is not a problem we can punish our way out of.
The above is fascinating and we need more studies like this in order to help reduce the mass shootings. I don't believe we are going to stop them, but profiling is a great tool in stopping the criminal mind.
We can certainly re-distribute the guns already in circulation. But reality is that's not really that likely.
Arming the 3-3.5 million teachers as a "solution" is escalation. It's arming people currently unarmed.
And my comment was very much in response to and intended in the same vein as "Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay" ....
OH - and to "At which point am I not engaging in conversation? The point where I don't agree with you? "
Nope - I never said anything about agreeing with me. I was going back to you going to that troupe about the only message is Gun Bad. that's not conversation. That's you spewing rhetoric and responding to something no-one on this board has engaged you on a conversation about.
In districts that allow teachers to carry the usual way it is done is the principle of the school approves who can be armed, and only those armed or the principle should know who is carrying.. This should take care of the real flakes that might be better hiding in the broom closet. The pool is volunteer, and they aren't issued a gun it is BYOG. There are also training requirements for this.
I don't think it really would take many teachers, percentage wise, in a school. A good plan on who can be armed, with good placement and you have coverage. If the SRO can respond that should be the first line, but let's face it, if a teacher needs to respond that means things are bad already.
One line is "spewing rhetoric"? You have a really low tolerance, or no, it is only rhetoric you don't like. Did
Quote
400 million guns and the answer is "MORE GUNS" .... MURICA !!!!
make you feel dirty with spewing rhetoric? Yeah, didn't think so.
Peterson: There’s this really consistent pathway. Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.
1. we are not the only country that has kids with these issues.
2. sounds like a bunch of crap parenting and broken homes.
3. sounds like a perfect reason to fund mental health institutions and on-site counselors. which should've been funded anyway, but Reagan gutted it. Carter signed legislation called Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 to help fund exactly that. Reagan came in, and in 1981, most of that legislation was repealed.
you see Vers, the Dems aren't perfect, but they've been calling for this funding for years. overall increased funding in healthcare that would be used to also fund mental health institutions.
but that's increasing government spending. remember, Vers: republicans call that communism and woke policies. to fund mental health is to inherently increase government spending on healthcare, and we know how republican and republican voters feel about that. they've made it loud and clear....
Quote
Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.
again, right now we have people on this board talking about arming teachers.....
Quote
POLITICO: Do you support red flag laws?
Peterson: Our research certainly supports them, because so many perpetrators are actively showing warning signs. They are talking about doing this and telling people they’re suicidal. But what Buffalo showed us is that just because you have a red flag law on the books doesn’t mean people are trained in how it works and how they should be implementing it.
POLITICO: What has to change to make the laws more effective?
Densley: There are two pieces. One is training and awareness. People need to know that the law exists, how it works and who has a duty to report an individual. The second piece is the practical component of law enforcement. What is the mechanism to safely remove those firearms? Especially if you have a small law enforcement presence, maybe one or two officers, and you’re asking them to go into somebody’s rural home and take care of their entire arsenal of weapons.
this right here is where we start getting into the weeds. the country has seen enough cases of law enforcement being absolute cowards when it comes to these sort of situations. law enforcement always want funding, but i can promise you they don't want it to be on the condition that they train for situations like this. they want the funding without being told how to use the funds.
i dunno how to even solve that issue without firing everybody and starting over.
Quote
POLITICO: I was struck by a detail in your book about one of the perpetrators you investigated. Minutes before he opened fire, you report that he called a behavior health facility. Is there always some form of reaching out or communication of intent before it happens?
Peterson: You don’t see it as often with older shooters who often go into their workplaces. But for young shooters, it’s almost every case. We have to view this “leakage” as a cry for help. If you’re saying, “I want to shoot the school tomorrow,” you are also saying, “I don’t care if I live or die.” You’re also saying, “I’m completely hopeless,” and you’re putting it out there for people to see because part of you wants to be stopped.
this is a part of the situation that no amount of legislation can fix: American culture. the competition aspect of our economy has disastrously leaked into our overall society. too many aspects of american culture promotes isolation and go it alone attitudes.
i'm trying my hardest to post some logical answers right now, but it has to be restated that with all their flaws, the Dems have pushed for more education, more healthcare spending, and more funding for mental health institutions since before i was alive.
ever since Reagan, the republicans have been against that, doing their best to do the exact opposite. as i said in my previous post, we have too many people who believe and vote for politicians who care more about access to a gun than they do access to healthcare or safety of our children.
and so now i have a question for you Vers, and i asked this in another thread and nobody who votes GOP on this board responded:
what can the government do right now on this issue that isn't gonna be labeled marxist-socialist-woke-communist policies that will be blocked by the republicans and their voters?
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
I think we should go a step further and just ask people to self-prohibit themselves from committing mass shootings.
Like, if a shooter charges into a school - the teachers can just be trained to say "Hey, could you please not do this?"
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
Why would we need teachers to be armed if we already asked bad people to "self-prohibit" themselves from buying guns?
I was specifically asking you to self-prohibit if you feel you have issues that would cause you to harm others while angry.
The suicide angle I think is highly relevant. I was doing some reading earlier and it indicated 40% of shootings are ended by the shooter, either with a bullet or rarely by walking away. If you factor in the idea of suicide by cop that number likely shoots up significantly.
I remember back to the mall shooting in OR a few year ago. There was someone else armed in the mall and when he brought his handgun to bear the shooter committed suicide. I would guess he was trying to take as many people with him before he went.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Swish. I really respect you for the man you have become. Very thoughtful. I'm not going to debate one single point you made and I agree w/most of what you said. I will just say that I was not looking at this from either a Dem or Republican eye. I'm neither. They both disgust me. Like you, I just want for things to get better. I feel so bad for folks like you w/young children. We'll never stop these crimes, but understanding why they occur is important. I am hoping we take a holistic approach, including gun legislation, and try to at least contain this horror on society.
The suicide angle I think is highly relevant. I was doing some reading earlier and it indicated 40% of shootings are ended by the shooter, either with a bullet or rarely by walking away. If you factor in the idea of suicide by cop that number likely shoots up significantly.
I remember back to the mall shooting in OR a few year ago. There was someone else armed in the mall and when he brought his handgun to bear the shooter committed suicide. I would guess he was trying to take as many people with him before he went.
This is still a people issue and not a gun issue.
I think you are right on the suicide angle being highly relevant. I was thinking about that throughout the process and even while I was reading the article. My high school alma mater endured several suicides in a short period of time about 3 years ago or so. I think social media bullying and labeling is huge in our schools. Some kids can't cope. Some kill others. More choose to end their own lives.
People...................this is something that needs to be studied further. Why are so many young people choosing to end their own lives or the lives of others?
Peterson: There’s this really consistent pathway. Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.
1. we are not the only country that has kids with these issues.
2. sounds like a bunch of crap parenting and broken homes.
3. sounds like a perfect reason to fund mental health institutions and on-site counselors. which should've been funded anyway, but Reagan gutted it. Carter signed legislation called Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 to help fund exactly that. Reagan came in, and in 1981, most of that legislation was repealed.
you see Vers, the Dems aren't perfect, but they've been calling for this funding for years. overall increased funding in healthcare that would be used to also fund mental health institutions.
but that's increasing government spending. remember, Vers: republicans call that communism and woke policies. to fund mental health is to inherently increase government spending on healthcare, and we know how republican and republican voters feel about that. they've made it loud and clear....
Quote
Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.
again, right now we have people on this board talking about arming teachers.....
Quote
POLITICO: Do you support red flag laws?
Peterson: Our research certainly supports them, because so many perpetrators are actively showing warning signs. They are talking about doing this and telling people they’re suicidal. But what Buffalo showed us is that just because you have a red flag law on the books doesn’t mean people are trained in how it works and how they should be implementing it.
POLITICO: What has to change to make the laws more effective?
Densley: There are two pieces. One is training and awareness. People need to know that the law exists, how it works and who has a duty to report an individual. The second piece is the practical component of law enforcement. What is the mechanism to safely remove those firearms? Especially if you have a small law enforcement presence, maybe one or two officers, and you’re asking them to go into somebody’s rural home and take care of their entire arsenal of weapons.
this right here is where we start getting into the weeds. the country has seen enough cases of law enforcement being absolute cowards when it comes to these sort of situations. law enforcement always want funding, but i can promise you they don't want it to be on the condition that they train for situations like this. they want the funding without being told how to use the funds.
i dunno how to even solve that issue without firing everybody and starting over.
Quote
POLITICO: I was struck by a detail in your book about one of the perpetrators you investigated. Minutes before he opened fire, you report that he called a behavior health facility. Is there always some form of reaching out or communication of intent before it happens?
Peterson: You don’t see it as often with older shooters who often go into their workplaces. But for young shooters, it’s almost every case. We have to view this “leakage” as a cry for help. If you’re saying, “I want to shoot the school tomorrow,” you are also saying, “I don’t care if I live or die.” You’re also saying, “I’m completely hopeless,” and you’re putting it out there for people to see because part of you wants to be stopped.
this is a part of the situation that no amount of legislation can fix: American culture. the competition aspect of our economy has disastrously leaked into our overall society. too many aspects of american culture promotes isolation and go it alone attitudes.
i'm trying my hardest to post some logical answers right now, but it has to be restated that with all their flaws, the Dems have pushed for more education, more healthcare spending, and more funding for mental health institutions since before i was alive.
ever since Reagan, the republicans have been against that, doing their best to do the exact opposite. as i said in my previous post, we have too many people who believe and vote for politicians who care more about access to a gun than they do access to healthcare or safety of our children.
and so now i have a question for you Vers, and i asked this in another thread and nobody who votes GOP on this board responded:
what can the government do right now on this issue that isn't gonna be labeled marxist-socialist-woke-communist policies that will be blocked by the republicans and their voters?
Yep, it's all about nasty republicans....lol
My feeling isn't to arm a teacher so he or she can storm the hallway. It is to provide a last deterrent for when the person storms the classroom door. Call me old fashioned, but I think about it in terms of how I would want things. If someone breaks in to my house, I am not going to start roaming all over the house to find the person. I am going to let them come to me where I have a defensive advantage.
That is the final step in the problem, but the easiest to put in to play. Sometimes you have to work a problem from both ends of the wick to attain the fastest results.
No doubt these freaks have mental issues that can be traced to any number of problems. Seeking ways to identify these people and treat them is the long term goal, but it is also the one that might take decades to solve. How many of these people are already in the pipeline, so to speak?
Also, concerning red flag laws, who decides? Does anybody else see where that could be a big problem in and of itself? I can see how that could be abused in a big way.
Heck my friend, the way you talk, I could see a kid being red flagged because his parents are republicans. I only say that to exaggerate how red flagging could be used as a weapon. Just look at how in other forms we weaponize even whole institutions like the FBI and IRS to deaminize political opponents.
The above is fascinating and we need more studies like this in order to help reduce the mass shootings. I don't believe we are going to stop them, but profiling is a great tool in stopping the criminal mind.
Studies of this were effectively banned from Federal Funding up until 2019 -- that's why we're just starting to see them now.
The above is fascinating and we need more studies like this in order to help reduce the mass shootings. I don't believe we are going to stop them, but profiling is a great tool in stopping the criminal mind.
Studies of this were effectively banned from Federal Funding up until 2019 -- that's why we're just starting to see them now.
Vers - Agree we need to study these things and and come up with interventions that are likely to be effective. As of now, all our suggestions are coming from the prospective of 'I feel this would work". The question is, will people actually listen if the results vary from a persons preconceived notions.
In regards to getting teachers to carry guns, I don't think we have thought about the teacher's perspective. Do you want to be the one responsible for shooting one of your own students? 1st if the situation arose, could you actually pull the trigger? 2nd, After you killed one of your students, could you live with yourself? Most teachers are going to stuggle with both of those things. And those that wouldn't? Not sure that is the type of person I want carrying a loaded gun around my kids. Vers, you were a teacher. What are your thoughts? How would you have felt being tasked to carry a loaded gun at work? What about your fellow teachers?
Not related to you Vers. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Blah blah blah. Just a way to twist the argument by only using half the information. Yes, a gun will not go on a mass shooting spree without a person. I will give you that. True statement. How about the corollary to that statement. A person cannot go on a mass shooting spree without a gun. The person and the gun are mutually dependent upon each other. Without one or the other a mass shooting won't happen. If we were to get rid of all the people there would never be another mass shooting. Obviously not a good solution. If we got rid of all the guns there would never be another mass shooting. Unfortunately that is an impossibility. Which leads me to my next point...
When we talk about stopping these mass shootings, we have a tendency to talk with the goal of preventing all mass shootings. Someone comes up with an idea and people come back with but in this one case... so it doesn't work. But as long as there are people and there are guns this will never completely go away. We need to look at ways to make mass shootings as difficult as possible to minimize the frequency AND we need to look at ways to make the ones that do occur as least lethal as possible. Many (most?) of the comments are looking for one intervention to address this issue. I believe that we will need a multi pronged approach. But this complicates things and people want a simple fix.
I agree you are never going to stop mass murders, be it by a gun or some other means. All we can do is as you say, make it more difficult.
On the teacher deal, I think in nearly 100% of the cases the teacher would no longer be thinking about a student. They would be thinking about themself and a room full of students and whould have no hesitation at all if all the chips were on the line.
Now I agree, all teachers might not be very good in that role, and the reality is you would probably never have all teachers armed. I don't think one could or should make something like that a required duty. That said, I still think having more chances to stop someone before they enter a classroom is a worthy cause. The best bet is to keep them from even being able to enter the school except through a door that is under watch. That is something that can be done in a large majority of cases.
I totally disagree with your blah, blah, blah, comment...I say the same thing. It's foolish to think that it is anything other than people who kill other people in these situations.
Jester, I think we need a multi-dimensional approach or a holistic thought process, as I mentioned earlier. I have been wondering why we haven't explored some other avenues before now, but Luke's information about funding not being available until 2019 makes a lot of sense as to why we are behind. Truthfully, I don't think anything is really going to work because some hard decisions would have to made that the public and press are not ready for. But, perhaps we can reduce the number of mass murders?
I have thought about the teachers w/guns thing before. I personally know how to handle a firearm, but most teachers probably do not. I also think that the potential "accidents" would be great. I've mentioned before how many times I saw other teachers prop a door open so they could take a short-cut. Do we want these people in charge of having a gun in the classroom? I say no.
When I was teaching, my number one priority was to keep my children safe. I expected that from my own children's teachers and I vowed to do everything in my power to prioritize safety for my students. I played the "shooter on campus" scenario out in my head hundreds of time. I came to the conclusion that I would do everything in my power to slow down or stop the gunman that I could and the end result would almost assuredly end my life.
I think it is sad that our teachers and especially our children are living in this environment. I'll get behind some stricter gun laws to help slow down the problem, but I don't think that would be very effective because bad guys will get guns, just like others get illegal drugs and pay for sex. We can try newer measures such as profiling and funds for security, mental health resources, etc..........but, there is so much hate in our society. Every topic has a "side." We are divided as a whole and in my opinion, the seeds of hate will produce deep and devastating roots that will continue to produce more and more of these types of results.
The above is fascinating and we need more studies like this in order to help reduce the mass shootings. I don't believe we are going to stop them, but profiling is a great tool in stopping the criminal mind.
Studies of this were effectively banned from Federal Funding up until 2019 -- that's why we're just starting to see them now.
Along with that, we have to figure out the "why's".
My point is we have had guns in various forms for many years.
Do we have that many more people needing mental health treatment over what we may have needed 50 years ago? I know the numbers under treatment are higher today because in the past, that was a taboo subject. I wonder if the real number is higher or if people today are just more screwed up?
People have posted that there has been school shooting in the past, but nothing at the rate that they are today. Or were they and you just didn't have 24 hour news cycles where they report everything, and tend to twist things in to a political slant? Do some twisted minds see the "glory" in all of this and want their names plastered all over the news for a few weeks? Maybe we shouldn't even mention names to eliminate the "glory" factor some may imagine? maybe just post a picture and label them as national cowards? I am just kind of spit balling here.
Is it the number of casualties that shock us when 19 kids are killed where in the past if 3-4 were killed we just shrugged it off?
Is it possible that anti-gun folks are doing some of this much like that freak Rudolph was bombing abortion clinics because he was against abortion?
On the teacher deal, I think in nearly 100% of the cases the teacher would no longer be thinking about a student. They would be thinking about themself and a room full of students and whould have no hesitation at all if all the chips were on the line.
You take a person who has fired a gun maybe a dozen times in a training situation (I presume the teachers carrying guns would need to take a course but who knows), you then put them in a situation where they have to shoot someone that they know and you don't think there would be any hesitation?
It is easy to imagine in your mind (your being people in general not necessarily you in particular) that you would readily step up and act. But when the stressful situation arises how someone actually acts may be very different.
I was listening to a talk radio show about the mass shootings. The guest was a republican in the house of representatives whois on the committee to address this issue, and I think the head of that committee. He points out that he is very pro 2nd amendment.
He pointed out that what he was suggesting to address the issue was supported by 75-80% of the population. My immediate thought was: There are too many in congress who won't support his suggestion so it doesn't matter what the the vast majority of the population supports. He then pointed out that his committee has made several attempts to pass this measure highly supported by the vast majority of the population but that they couldn't get it past the senate.
I am purposely leaving his suggestion out of this post as it would most certainly distract from the point
so the guy is legally carrying a rifle, gets robbed at gunpoint, goes and gets his other gun in the car, starts blasting at the thief, hits two innocent bystanders, then takes off.
Well........time to go. I see friendly discussion time is over now that someone has clocked in. Thanks Luke and Jester for the honest discussion. Catch you guys later.
Are AR-15’s weapons of war? Here’s what a former Fort Benning commander had to say
1/2 Are AR-15’s weapons of war? Here’s what a former Fort Benning commander had to say Rich Pedroncelli/AP
2/2 Are AR-15’s weapons of war? Here’s what a former Fort Benning commander had to say Screenshot
Mona Moore Sat, June 4, 2022, 7:00 AM A former Fort Benning commander took a stand in the country’s ongoing debate on gun control with a thread of tweets posted Thursday evening.
“Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,” retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton wrote on Twitter.
The retired major general went on to write the AR-15 was the civilian version of the M16, a close relation to the M4 rifles currently used by the military.
“It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy,” Eaton wrote.
Eaton broke down the differences between the M16, M4 and AR-15 in the thread of seven tweets. He said those opposed to assault weapon bans were playing with semantics, when they claimed any meaningful difference existed between military weapons and AR-15 rifles.
“...The AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ … Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it,” he wrote. “They know it’s true. Now you do too.”
The tweets came on the heels of one of the country’s deadliest weeks in recent history. In the days since the Uvalde, Texas shooting, 20 mass shootings have claimed the lives of 17 people and injured 88 others, according to Gun Violence Archive. The researchers defined a mass shooting as any shooting with four or more victims shot, either injured or killed.
Your "friendly discussion" has already been addressed yet you refuse to respond to it.
You talk about social situations, disparity, isolation, mental illness and suicidal people. Those same situations exist in every nation around the world. Violent video games as well has been touched upon. They too exist everywhere around the world. The very same factors you suggest we focus on exist everywhere. Yet we are the country to have all of these mass shootings.
It's certainly a great idea to have a much better mental healthcare system. But you seem to indicate that we lay most of the blame on the exact same things that exist in Canada, Europe and in nations around the globe. We are no different than any of those other countries in regards to the issues you bring up.
The question should be what exists here that doesn't exist everywhere else? What makes us "different" that creates an environment that spawns so many mass shootings? Because the topics you seem to be focusing on exist everywhere and this doesn't happen there.
I do, actually, understand what a gun free zone is, but thank you for being typical.
That's not the way you made it sound. Nor does anyone else of your ilk.
Quote
The school had one RSO, who was not on campus. In critical systems when you have one you have none.
And whose fault would that be?
Quote
BTW, thinking machine guns should be illegal is the same as saying you are for banning certain guns.
That's my opinion on the subject. As I said it's not a hill I would stand on in terms of trying to negotiate common sense gun reform.
Again, I understand what gun free zone means. You need to find something to nitpick, typical. Most of these shootings take place in gun free zones. Without the worry of civilian access to arms, you limit the response to a very small handful that might be on site. As a shooter if you don't know who is armed, then you have to assume everyone is armed. When was the last mass shooting at a gun show?
I don't know who is at fault for the SRO not being there. He wasn't. He was the ONE person with the means to respond quickly. As I said before in a critical system, if you have one you have none. They had none because there was a failure in availability. You can run off and figure out was responsible, it really doesn't matter in the context. Having armed teachers that could have responded means you now have redundancy in a critical system.
Sure. All guns have the same basic function that troops use to kill the enemy. You discharge the ammunition and the projectile hits the target. You do this until the target is dead or stopped.
I'd like to know which battle the AR-15 has been used in as a primary arm. I know the military uses AR-15s for police work. The Navy yard shooting the first guard killed had one, which was then used in the rampage. BUt I am not aware of the AR-15 being a primary arm in any battle the military engages in.
And just because he is in the Army doesn't mean he doesn't have an agenda to sell.
And NY is pretty restrictive in regards to ownership and carry. TX is more permissive, but I don't know if either had "NO Guns" signs and what the legal enforcement of those might be at those locations.
Sure. All guns have the same basic function that troops use to kill the enemy. You discharge the ammunition and the projectile hits the target. You do this until the target is dead or stopped.
I'd like to know which battle the AR-15 has been used in as a primary arm. I know the military uses AR-15s for police work. The Navy yard shooting the first guard killed had one, which was then used in the rampage. BUt I am not aware of the AR-15 being a primary arm in any battle the military engages in.
And just because he is in the Army doesn't mean he doesn't have an agenda to sell.
damn dude i really wish you were this passionate about dead kids from gun violence as you are about the actual gun.
"yea, my wife died, but at least the driver hit her car and not mine."
I don't believe restricting a free people's means of self defense is going to be effective. I have, in the past, mention my partner works in a school, and was the intended second victim of a school shooter.
I have skin in the game, I have had ample time to consider this. More restrictions on gun owners won't change this. Some have estimated there are 150 million gun owners in this country, how many of them have shot someone?
A few bad guys get headlines and then people have to wring their hands and yell "CHANGE!". Go at the people, not the object.
Was the AR-15 used in battles or a main weapon by the military?
Yes, in fact it was the AR-15 was used in Vietnam which the military called the M-16.
Quote
The standard rifle used by the U.S. Army as American involvement in the Vietnam War grew was the M-14. In 1960, Colt introduced the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. This was later developed into the United States Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, the U.S. military's version of the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle. The M16 would eventually replace the M14 rifle in Vietnam as the standard weapon of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. General dissatisfaction with the M14 and numerous studies led the Army to the development of a light weight weapon capable of firing a burst of small caliber bullets with a controlled dispersion pattern. The M14 Rifle was designed primarily for semi-automatic fire. The magazine fed, gas operated M14 had an effective range of 500 yards, and used a standard NATO 7.62mm cartridge in a 20-round magazine.
In the early 1960's, U.S. Special Forces in Vietnam used the AR15 and it was given glowing reports. Although opposed by the Ordnance Corp, the Armalite AR-15 was adopted by the Secretary of Defense as the 5.56mm M16 rifle. In November 1965, the 1st Cavalry Division turned back North Vietnamese regulars in a savage battle in the Ia Drang Valley. LTC Harold G. Moore lauded the new M16 rifle his troops had used. "Brave soldiers and the M16 brought this victory," he declared.
Today, the M16 rifle and M4 carbine are ubiquitous among American troops. These lightweight rifles, which both fire the 5.56mm NATO round, have been around for decades and are mainstays. The civilian version, the AR-15, is owned by at least five million Americans. But the troops hauling it around almost got a similar rifle in the 1950s that fired the 7.62mm NATO round.
Quote
Armalite, though, wasn’t ready to give up on getting that juicy U.S. military contract, so they began work on scaling down the AR-10 for the 5.56mm cartridge. The Army tried the resulting rifle, the AR-15, out in 1958 and liked what the saw, pointing to a need for a lightweight infantry rifle. It was the Air Force, though, that was the first service to buy the rifle, calling it the M16, which serves American troops today.
I don't believe restricting a free people's means of self defense is going to be effective. I have, in the past, mention my partner works in a school, and was the intended second victim of a school shooter.
I have skin in the game, I have had ample time to consider this. More restrictions on gun owners won't change this. Some have estimated there are 150 million gun owners in this country, how many of them have shot someone?
A few bad guys get headlines and then people have to wring their hands and yell "CHANGE!". Go at the people, not the object.
i think we've crossed the threshold of "a few bad guys" looooong ago. and the object is what empowers the people to commit these acts. stop trying to separate the tool from the human. they have to go together for it to be effective. simply look at human history as an example of what men are willing to do to obtain and keep an "object".
Brady is infamous for lumping in suicide with other shootings as it inflates the numbers dramaticlly.
Should I show you NRA number? Would you think they were biased?
The people who commit suicide don't get shot?
It's not inflating the numbers -- they say what the number means.
It is inflating numbers.
Brady was the one one that had the message about "If you keep a gun for home defense you are more likely to have it used on your than use it on an intruder". The message is designed to make you think, erroneously that if you try to defend yourself in your home the intruder will simply take your gun and shoot you. They put suicides into the number.
People who suicide using a gun should not be in a conversation about homicide (which is what we have been having). It is a way to inflate a number but not quite tell you the real story, just the story they want you to tell yourself.
I will say this about all the shootings the list.
Every. Single. One. Of. Them. The. Gun. Did. NOT. Shoot. Itself. A. Person. Was. Responsible. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
Is that clear? This is, and always has been, a people issue. Guns are tools. They are as safe or dangerous as any other tool if handle correctly or not. It is easier to blame a gun then say people are at fault. It is easier to ban a gun then solve the people issue.
Every. Single. One. Of. Them. Was. Shot. By. A. Gun. Not. A. Single. Person. Was. Killed. By. A. Person. Without. A. Gun. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
On the teacher deal, I think in nearly 100% of the cases the teacher would no longer be thinking about a student. They would be thinking about themself and a room full of students and whould have no hesitation at all if all the chips were on the line.
You take a person who has fired a gun maybe a dozen times in a training situation (I presume the teachers carrying guns would need to take a course but who knows), you then put them in a situation where they have to shoot someone that they know and you don't think there would be any hesitation?
It is easy to imagine in your mind (your being people in general not necessarily you in particular) that you would readily step up and act. But when the stressful situation arises how someone actually acts may be very different.
I can't say that wouldn't happen, but I also feel that if it comes to that moment of shoot or die, most people are going to shoot. But yeah, I can't imagine myself sitting there like a dummy waiting to be shot.
And without the car, the drunk wouldn't have killed anybody
Originally Posted by FrankZ
The tool helps the person. The tool does not cause it. The tool helps the person.
This is my point point. The tool facilitates the killing.
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Tell you what, if guns are bad don't own em.
I don't
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Don't tell me as a free citizen what I should own, or what I need.
We do that all the time. You can't own a tank, you can't own a dirty bomb, you can't own cocaine. Do you really believe anybody shoud be able to own those things?
And without the car, the drunk wouldn't have killed anybody
Originally Posted by FrankZ
The tool helps the person. The tool does not cause it. The tool helps the person.
This is my point point. The tool facilitates the killing.
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Tell you what, if guns are bad don't own em.
I don't
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Don't tell me as a free citizen what I should own, or what I need.
We do that all the time. You can't own a tank, you can't own a dirty bomb, you can't own cocaine. Do you really believe anybody shoud be able to own those things?
i agree with you, but i have to be an ass and point out that drug use shouldn't be illegal. someone burying their face in a bag of blow doesn't violate anyone's rights. that's why im not against banning guns, just the specific style of guns, since that tends to be the driving force behind our toxic gun culture.
actually, i'm surprised the pro-gun guys haven't used that argument. there are plenty of pistols, shotguns, and other rifles that can inflict the same amount of carnage, if not more. the issue is that the pro-gun guys think they are entitled to owning anything they want, and that's why people get fed up and just want to ban guns entirely. the gun nuts can't admit the simple fact that these mass shootings are committed with AR-15 because of the perception it brings not only to the shooter, but the victims as well. because AR-15's are a status symbol in the gun community. there are far more effective guns for what they claim to need it for, yet they are adamant about protecting a specific style of rifle for no other reason than "because i can".
Jester, most of these gun guys who post their guns all over social media rarely post pictures of them with the shotty, or a 1911. it's damn near always military style rifles. why? because it makes them look and feel like a badass. again, the perception of owning a badass weapon is the toxicity that pro-gun guys are defending, which is why they end up finding themselves on the wrong side of policies and outrage.
these shootings hardly come from a bolt action or single shot weapons. they come from semi-auto's or gas piston rifles. why? because these guys aren't looking for mass carnage; they want the fear it generates to come with it.
these losers you see around the country with their AR's in chipotle or freaking walmart? yea, if it was just a pistol, no one would care. if it was a hunting style rifle - ya know, the ones people swear up and down were in every pick up truck "back in my day" - no one would care. and that's exactly why those weapons arent used by these psychopaths to commit terror.
now imma need my man Frank to explain to the board why he and other americans need a weapon like this, capable of shooting the 7.62 armor piercing rounds.
i promise you, if you think you can justify owning this rifle because you need it for home defense, you just told everybody that you are a bigger threat to lives being lost than the criminal breaking into your house. cause we all know they're gonna hit everything BUT the guy they're trying to shoot at.
And without the car, the drunk wouldn't have killed anybody
Originally Posted by FrankZ
The tool helps the person. The tool does not cause it. The tool helps the person.
This is my point point. The tool facilitates the killing.
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Tell you what, if guns are bad don't own em.
I don't
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Don't tell me as a free citizen what I should own, or what I need.
We do that all the time. You can't own a tank, you can't own a dirty bomb, you can't own cocaine. Do you really believe anybody shoud be able to own those things?
So you are good with banning something you don't care to own. How gracious of you. I know people that decided to boycott the NFL when Kap took a knee, but what they really meant was they were willing to give up stuff they didn't use anyways as they didn't watch to start with.
You can own a tank.
a dirty bomb is not considered arms, it is consider a a weapon of mass destruction. But even if you could most people couldn't afford to buy the fissile material, that stuff ain't cheap.
Cocaine is not arms. And with the way drug laws are changing, who knows, it may happen.
i promise you, if you think you can justify owning this rifle because you need it for home defense, you just told everybody that you are a bigger threat to lives being lost than the criminal breaking into your house. cause we all know they're gonna hit everything BUT the guy they're trying to shoot at.
Do we all know it? Really?
It doesn't look like one I'd be overly interested in owning, but I don't see why someone that wants to own one shouldn't have one.
Not being an ass towards me. I can see the logic behind legalizing drugs. But I also see a role for protecting people from themselves. But then there is the question of, does it really not hurt anybody else? There is a lot of crime associated with the drug industry. Yet, someone could argue that legalizing it would remove some, most, or even all of the crime associated with it. A complex topic for discussion in another thread.
I said in another thread that I don't know much about guns. I also never said that I am for banning all guns. I do believe that you should have a gun license to own a gun and a special license to own the more aggressive guns - however we as a society decide to define that. I would use some combination of magazine capacity and firing rate. Maybe some other things that gun people would know that I wouldn't
To get a gun license you need to take a safety course and pass a background check. For a specialized license you would need to take an advanced course, undergo a note intensive background check , and provide a reason for why you need such a gun.
To get a gun license you need to take a safety course and pass a background check. For a specialized license you would need to take an advanced course, undergo a note intensive background check , and provide a reason for why you need such a gun.
Just to comment on your points that I can say I mostly agree.
License...that is fine, but it can't be cost prohibitive, not subject to yearly renewals.
Intensive background check...what does that mean? I think if you pass not having any felonies, outstanding warrants that need to be resolved, your age and legal status, you are good to go. I would also say voter status should be the same as it is for gun owners. Both are protected by the constitution, so both should have similar requirements attached if we now need requirements attached to rights.
Special permitting? I suppose that would depend upon what was proposed.
Safety course...I don't have a problem with that with the purchase of new weapons. I don't think people should be required to do anything if they already own a gun. They probably already know what they are doing. Even for them, a safety course would need to show up on their background check for a new purchase. I can concede all of that even though you are targeting the wrong people.
You folks need to concede that guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. Until we figure that one out, this shi....stuff is going to continue.
I will also say, maybe age stepping is what we need. At 18years old you can own maybe a .22 and maybe a few other traditional hunting rifles and or shotgun as well as a revolver. At 21 years old the rifles and sidearms can become semi-automatics. Maybe even have a 25 year old stepping stone for some of the "specialized" items you mention...whatever that means. Maybe it is semi sidearms at 21 and semi rifles at 25.
One item not being mentioned that even you folks down on guns should worry about is the right to privacy. While not specifically mentioned, the bill of Rights, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th all touch on the subject as well as various court rulings.
I don't know that maintaining a data base on people who own weapons isn't a infringement on those rights. I tend to think it is when you get down to it. Just something else to think about. What if the government wanted to keep track of the gay people in this country? The government doesn't need to know who those folks might be and where they live.
My point is we shouldn't be so eager to give our rights away and give up our privacy even if it is on issues with which you or I might not agree, no matter the issue.
Uvalde Cops HIDING From Investigators As More LIES Revealed |Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
the cops keep lying their asses off.
there are no good guys with guns. just guys with guns. what makes someone good or bad is how they use the gun in the incident.
I basically agree, but in the context Vers used, there are good guys with guns and bad guys. What they do with them is the determining factor. So using that logic, a gun is neither a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm kind of torn on the age requirement. If we can expect 18yo men to go to war to fight and die for our country using assault weapons, while making it illegal for them to own a semi-automatic rifle at home, just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe a military service exemption?
Uvalde Cops HIDING From Investigators As More LIES Revealed |Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
the cops keep lying their asses off.
there are no good guys with guns. just guys with guns. what makes someone good or bad is how they use the gun in the incident.
I basically agree, but in the context Vers used, there are good guys with guns and bad guys. What they do with them is the determining factor. So using that logic, a gun is neither a good thing or a bad thing.
but the gun was designed to do what? at minimum, neutralize the target. for defense, defend. for offense, destroy.
and this is what i'm talking about from my last post. the word is anthropomorphism. attributing human characteristics to non-humans — gods, animals, or inanimate objects.
and boy does our gun culture do that very thing when it comes to certain styles of weapons. it's no different than when we refer to our cars as 'she', or like "come ob, baby, start!! that a girl!!"
for a lot of people in this country, a gun isn't simply a gun. it's more than that. it gives these dudes confidence; in some cases arrogance. like alcohol giving people "liquid courage".
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
being a law-abiding citizen neither makes you good or bad; it just makes you normal. what you do in a situation with your gun determines whether or not you're good or bad.
This is an attempt to clarify my point about it not being smart to make it harder for good guys to get guns.
There are so many guns in circulation. Does anyone really believe that a person who wants to purchase a gun for bad intentions will not be able to get one? Seriously? On the other hand, there are people like my wife who shot a gun when she was younger, but in no way would she make time to go through all the things that Jester proposed. I used to go to Ohio every summer to help take care of my mother and tend to the home we still owned up there. We purchased a gun she could easily handle and provided her w/some home defense if an intruder entered the home while I was far, far away.
I'm okay w/some stricter laws, but we need to be very careful about how we proceed.
Furthermore, while I am okay w/stricter laws, I can see how many gun owners are apprehensive about changing the laws because of how once the ball gets rolling, where does it stop? To use an analogy of sorts. I supported removing the Chief Wahoo logo because I thought it was racist, but some argued that it would not stop there. Now, all of a sudden the name "Indians" is offensive and is replaced w/some dumb name. Once certain people get their way, they want to take more and more away.
Zealots on either side ruin things for those who want to cooperate and work in harmony rather than dictate their views on others.
Vers, the issue with that argument is that you can literally apply that logic to anything in this country.
we made murder illegal. doesn't stop anyone from murdering somebody. we made drunk driving illegal. doesn't stop anybody from driving drunk. by that argument, what's the point of any laws if people are gonna break them anyway? see the rabbit hole there?
when it comes to gun violence - whether its mass shootings, gang related, domestic violence, etc - all our laws are reactive. we have very little proactive laws that can help. no, it will not eliminate gun deaths. but if those proactive policies drop the death count by 20%, it's worth it.
the reason guns are talked about and not other "tools" is because all you have to do is point and shoot. yes, somebody can attack a bunch of people with a knife, but guess what? it's a hell of a lot less likely that everybody is gonna start running. i guarantee most of us dudes on this very board would try to stop some clown with a knife without hesitation.
the gun is instant. im not Neo in the matrix; i can't dodge bullets. that's why most suicides in this country are done by guns. just pull the trigger. every other method requires a real concerted effort to follow through with it. i can't do a drive by with a knife. I'm not mongolian so i can't do a drive by using a bow and arrow, either.
I agree w/you for the most part, Swish. I am not arguing against your points. I just don't think it's a good idea to make it hard for people to purchase a gun for home defense. Also, your points about drunk driving, domestic violence, etc are good ones. I would also add being able to purchase illegal drugs like Meth, Horse, etc. They are illegal, but there are plenty to go around. Guns fall into the same category when it comes to availability. Criminals will have an easier time getting a gun than those who just want to protect their homes.
There are no easy answers here and I don't believe there are many right or wrong answers. One thing we can both agree on is that we have a lot of messed-up mother......... running around loose.
come on bro. you and i and peen and others are having a dope convo. we're here to debate and argue, as long as it doesn't go overboard. we're all good here.
the issue with the gun laws is that if you're a law abiding citizen, the restrictive gun laws won't have much effect on you anyway. does a 24 hour wait time until purchasing really hurt anyone? it's more of an inconvenience, but it's not that restrictive. most of the restrictions would affect young "adults"; basically kids who just made the legal adult age. as you well know, someone turning 18 doesn't make them close to being an "adult" in real life, just legally. 24 hour wait period would help prevent young men for acting out on raw emotion in the heat of their internal conflicts. will it stop every shooting? no. but it will lower the rate at which these shootings occur.
i also think a ban on military style weapons helps reduce the toxicity around guns in this country. pistols are still available, as well as shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc. remember, the style of weapon is what these crazies want, because they want the perception of fear and terror that comes with it. there are plenty of guns on the market that are effective for home defense that doesn't require it looking like you're gonna invade Ukraine.
the big restriction i want to see is a complete ban on this ghost guns. the fact that people can legally 3D print a gun in their house without any oversight is pathetic.
the thing that will absolutely reduce gun violence in this country is addressing poverty, mental health, and police follow through on domestic violence cases.
but since we have too many people who don't want to increase government spending on those issues, placing restrictions on the gun itself is the only path we have left to try and reduce gun violence.
it's like abortions, right? sure, we'd love to live in a society where women aren't getting abortions, but if we addressed the structural and societal issues in this country, the rate of abortions literally reduces itself without direct action. but we don't want to do any of that. we are obsessed with combating the symptoms instead of the root causes in american society, because we care more about the perception of reality instead of actual reality.
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
The corollary to this is "Everyone is a criminal, some just have not committed a crime yet". That is not what freedom is.
I've been doing some data research with data from the Gun Violence Archive. I have heard in the past and the numbers I have been able to pull suggests that AR pattern rifles are used in just 2.5% of mass shootings. They get a lot of press, but the media has portrayed this idea they are the only weapon used in mass shootings and that does not bear out.
So the AR-15 as we know it now was not used in battle. Once Colt bought the rights to it, it became the M16 for the military version.
The civilian semiautomatic version is not a battle rifle.
You are hilarious. What has been said and is true no matter how much you twist it, is that this rifle was designed for military use. It was designed strictly for the purpose of killing people. It was only changed to semi auto to make it a legal weapon for civilians to purchase.
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
The corollary to this is "Everyone is a criminal, some just have not committed a crime yet". That is not what freedom is.
thank you for posting this. proactive gun laws address my statement and yours. by having proactive laws, we reduce the amount of both law abiding and criminals from committing violent acts with guns. thanks for supporting my argument, bro.
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
The corollary to this is "Everyone is a criminal, some just have not committed a crime yet". That is not what freedom is.
thank you for posting this. proactive gun laws address my statement and yours. by having proactive laws, we reduce the amount of both law abiding and criminals from committing violent acts with guns. thanks for supporting my argument, bro.
So the AR-15 as we know it now was not used in battle. Once Colt bought the rights to it, it became the M16 for the military version.
The civilian semiautomatic version is not a battle rifle.
You are hilarious. What has been said and is true no matter how much you twist it, is that this rifle was designed for military use. It was designed strictly for the purpose of killing people. It was only changed to semi auto to make it a legal weapon for civilians to purchase.
Which gun was designed for planting petunias? Of course guns are designed to kill things, not just people. That's why they are a useful tool for defense. So a military weapon was changed for civilian use but you still contend it is a military weapon?
I bet you think when someone paints number on the side of their car they suddenly are driving a NASCAR car should only be on a track too.
I am not sure making it really hard for the good guys to get a gun while the bad guys will always have access to guns is a great idea.
How is anyone trying to make it "really hard" for good guys to get guns? Does requiring someone to take a safety course to insure they know how to properly handle a firearm make it "really hard"? Does extended background checks make it "really hard"? I mean if they are "good guys" that shouldn't make it "Really hard", right?
I'm not sure what it is that you think is being proposed that makes it "really hard".
I'm kind of torn on the age requirement. If we can expect 18yo men to go to war to fight and die for our country using assault weapons, while making it illegal for them to own a semi-automatic rifle at home, just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe a military service exemption?
If someone does a three year enlistment they are 21 when they get out of the military. But I guess if there's a two year enlistment as of now the point about a military service exemption makes perfect sense to me for any former military. Based on an honorable discharge.
But actually the point you made about 18 being the age a person can serve in the military is valid. But I would like to point out that the conditions in the private sector and the military are totally different. In the military these troops are trained in carrying, firing, safe handling, cleaning and all aspects of those weapons before they go into active duty. In the private sector, as of now an 18 year old can walk into a gun store, buy the rifle and ammo, load it and fire with no training. Those are two very different things.
I mean if you wish to draw the stark contrast in the difference between the military and the private sector, in the private sector a person isn't even deemed responsible enough to buy alcohol until they're 21, much less carry a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in a minute or two.
does a 24 hour wait time until purchasing really hurt anyone? it's more of an inconvenience, but it's not that restrictive.
I'm a firm 2A believer, but there are 3 areas of control I can get behind.
1.) A limit on magazine capacity. No one should be able to fire off 30 rounds, flip the taped mag over and fire 30 more.
2.) Improving background checks. As it stands, anyone that's been "pink slipped" (admitted inoluntarily) to a psychiatric unit is unable to purchase a firearm. But this doesn't always show up on a background check. I know for a fact that certain psych facilities do not report all of them, and the vehicle for reporting is difficult and cumbersome. This can be greatly improved for efficiency. Same goes for criminal past. I do NOT think that everyone with a psychiatric diagnosis should be prevented from owning firearms. I do think that a psychiatric professional should be able to report a concern for those that haven't been committed, but I also think there should be a system where the individual can contest it.
3.) And as what Swish mentioned above, a short waiting period to assure the thorough background check was complete and to deter impulsive acts. There was a Simpsons episode that bore this out:
Homer: "I'd like to buy this gun!"
Gunshop owner: "Ok. You can pay now, and there's a 5 day waiting period to get your gun."
They are illegal, but there are plenty to go around. Guns fall into the same category when it comes to availability. Criminals will have an easier time getting a gun than those who just want to protect their homes.
And that makes sense. IF most of these mass shooters were criminals before they acted. But for the most part they are not. Most of them buy their guns legally or take them from their homes because their parents are not responsible gun owners and these young people have easy access to them. These are often times suburban kids who would have no idea how to purchase such a weapon on the black market.
As has been mentioned, we can make up excuses to do nothing. We can say it will not solve all murders. And it certainly won't. But how many mass shootings need to be prevented by some common sense gun reform to make it worth it?
I'm just curious. What are these laws you speak of that made it so hard for your wife to have one for home protection? Unless you plan to carry a gun all you need to purchase one for home protection is a simple background check at the time of purchase. No other requirements are needed to purchase a gun and keep it on your home. You never were required to do anything more than basic safety course to carry one. But then carrying one isn't for "home protection". None of that is hard or difficult.
Just to be clear, I'm not for banning the sales of any of these weapons. I'm for making our schools more secure by having state of the art metal detectors at the entrances and having trained former military and former police officers in our schools. I'm for raising the age of those allowed to be such weapons to 21. Many of these shootings are committed by people between the ages of 18-20.
I am however tired of hearing the excuses why we should do nothing because "criminals can still get guns". Yeah, well like I said, most of these shooters are suburban kids who have no idea how to buy guns on the black market.
Or shrugging it off by blaming conditions that exist all over the globe like mental health and violent video games for the problem. Every nation deals with those same problems but we are the only nation enduring such a plague of mass shootings anywhere close to this level.
They're just on the list of excuses why we should do nothing and not even attempt to slow down this slaughter of our children............
A Disturbing New Pattern in Mass Shootings: Young Assailants
Six of the nine deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 2018 were by people who were 21 or younger, a shift from earlier decades.
I am not sure making it really hard for the good guys to get a gun while the bad guys will always have access to guns is a great idea.
How is anyone trying to make it "really hard" for good guys to get guns? Does requiring someone to take a safety course to insure they know how to properly handle a firearm make it "really hard"? Does extended background checks make it "really hard"? I mean if they are "good guys" that shouldn't make it "Really hard", right?
I'm not sure what it is that you think is being proposed that makes it "really hard".
I'll tell you what.
Take the "safety" courses you must take in HI to get a carry permit and when you get your permit there you can tell us how it is not infringement.
Obstacles to ownership (keep) or carry (bear) are infringements. When governments can say no to a right it is a privilege. We've covered this, many times. Licensing/registration and fees are way to ban or restrict without outright banning or restricting. I understand you believe the government has your best interests at heart, I don't.
As I said, your excuses and rationalizations are hilarious.
As you have said thus it must be, as you are the arbitrator of all.
You have a pedantic point that is really meaningless in this whole debate to start with.
You have not shown that: 1) Any military uses an AR-15 over any other battle rifle in combat as a first choice. 2) That military arms are not protected arms from a second amendment perspective.
Your insistence on this point is equivalent to thinking we should regulate the color of guns to keep them from being deadly ala Bloomberg.
At the end of the day no military chooses a semi automatic arm for combat, especially a small caliber like 5.56mm, even if semi automatic is the usual mode of fire in combat. Pretty much all semi automatic arms are specialty arms, sniper rifles, door breaching, anti material arms. But you will continue to argue a meaningless point because you have nothing better to offer the discussion.
As I said, your excuses and rationalizations are hilarious.
As you have said thus it must be, as you are the arbitrator of all.
You have a pedantic point that is really meaningless in this whole debate to start with.
You have not shown that: 1) Any military uses an AR-15 over any other battle rifle in combat as a first choice. 2) That military arms are not protected arms from a second amendment perspective.
Your insistence on this point is equivalent to thinking we should regulate the color of guns to keep them from being deadly ala Bloomberg.
At the end of the day no military chooses a semi automatic arm for combat, especially a small caliber like 5.56mm, even if semi automatic is the usual mode of fire in combat. Pretty much all semi automatic arms are specialty arms, sniper rifles, door breaching, anti material arms. But you will continue to argue a meaningless point because you have nothing better to offer the discussion.
bro what the hell are you talking about? i was active duty for 8 years and deployed multiple times. throughout my career, we were explicitly taught not to put our rifles on 3 round burst unless we are being ambushed because semi-auto allows for a more ACCURATE shot. not only did we use semi-auto almost exclusively, we used the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm NATO rounds. if and WHEN we got caught in a fire fight, if you're running convoys, we aren't using our individual rifles.
were using the big boy weapons. .50 cals, M240B's, and M249's. those last two are all squad-based machine guns that we mounted on top of the gun truck, or one dude would carry mainly for suppressive fire. we not using rifles unless it's in an urban environment, and that specific environment we never used 3 round burst.
now i'm annoyed. you've gone from making some illogical arguments to straight up not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
were using the big boy weapons. .50 cals, M240B's, and M249's.
I've posted here that I cannot think of one sound, logical reason for legally owning a 50. Cal sniper riffle that can literally cut a man in half at a mile.... And the answer I got was "No-one is committing mass homicides with those, why should they be banned". But then when we are talking about the guns that are overwhelmingly used in mass shootings - the argument changes to something else.
Again you miss a point. Licensing and registration infringe the right.
I do hope that was very simple enough for you.
Originally Posted by Swish
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
As I said, your excuses and rationalizations are hilarious.
As you have said thus it must be, as you are the arbitrator of all.
You have a pedantic point that is really meaningless in this whole debate to start with.
You have not shown that: 1) Any military uses an AR-15 over any other battle rifle in combat as a first choice. 2) That military arms are not protected arms from a second amendment perspective.
Your insistence on this point is equivalent to thinking we should regulate the color of guns to keep them from being deadly ala Bloomberg.
At the end of the day no military chooses a semi automatic arm for combat, especially a small caliber like 5.56mm, even if semi automatic is the usual mode of fire in combat. Pretty much all semi automatic arms are specialty arms, sniper rifles, door breaching, anti material arms. But you will continue to argue a meaningless point because you have nothing better to offer the discussion.
bro what the hell are you talking about? i was active duty for 8 years and deployed multiple times. throughout my career, we were explicitly taught not to put our rifles on 3 round burst unless we are being ambushed because semi-auto allows for a more ACCURATE shot. not only did we use semi-auto almost exclusively, we used the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm NATO rounds. if and WHEN we got caught in a fire fight, if you're running convoys, we aren't using our individual rifles.
were using the big boy weapons. .50 cals, M240B's, and M249's. those last two are all squad-based machine guns that we mounted on top of the gun truck, or one dude would carry mainly for suppressive fire. we not using rifles unless it's in an urban environment, and that specific environment we never used 3 round burst.
now i'm annoyed. you've gone from making some illogical arguments to straight up not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
So you used your automatic rifle as a semi automatic like I said but you want to know what I was talking about? Maybe you posted before reading.
Shall not be infringed was written in an AMENDMENT. perhaps you should do your research and find out what an amendment is.
The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to own ANY style of weapon, it does not protect you from owning any kind of ammo, and it damn sure doesn’t give you the right to accessories.
Like honestly dude just say you care more about your gun than actual lives. You certainly aren’t protecting anyone except you. Hell you not even protecting your immediate neighborhood.
Every right has restrictions on it. By your own ridiculous logic, even a background check before purchase is unconstitutional. Notice how you don’t come in any other thread and go hard in the paint in defense of any other amendment but the 2nd? You do realize there is no one amendment more important than the other, right? You do realize the entire constitution must be protected for you to even care this much about a single amendment, right?
You know what. This is a waste of time. You’ve clearly sent the message that if the cost to own your precious guns is the blood of children, you won’t lose any sleep over it.
Frank just told every parent who lost their child to gun violence “F those kids, I love muh guns!!!!”
13 mass shootings took place over this weekend alone, leaving 18 dead and 72 injured
mloh@businessinsider.com (Matthew Loh) - 4h ago link
At least 13 mass shootings occurred in the US between Friday evening and Sunday evening. So far, 18 victims have died and another 72 have been injured in incidents across the US. Among the victims were children as young as 12, including a 14-year-old girl who died. At least 18 people were killed, and 72 more were injured this weekend in mass shootings across the US.
The 13 incidents come in the wake of several high-profile shootings over the last two weeks that have reignited the national debate around gun rights and safety.
Insider has based its tallies on data from the Gun Violence Archive non-profit group and multiple media reports. The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four victims were shot, excluding any shooters.
At least five of the shootings this weekend took place in a public area, while at least three were carried out at graduation parties. Of all 13 incidents, the youngest reported injured victim is 12 years old, while the youngest fatality was a 14-year-old girl.
Here's what we know about the 13 mass shootings over the weekend.
Victims were run over by fleeing cars in Chattanooga, Tennessee Fourteen people were hit by gunfire at a nightclub early Sunday, and three more were struck by vehicles as people fled the scene, according to Celeste Murphy, Chattanooga's police chief, per The Associated Press.
Murphy said that two people died from gunshot wounds, and another died after being hit by a vehicle.
According to Murphy, 16 of the victims were adults, and one was a juvenile; several of them are still in critical condition.
Authorities said that multiple shooters were involved in the incident and that an investigation into the shooting is ongoing, per the AP.
It's not yet clear what the motive for the shooting was, but police believe it was an isolated incident "in which one or more of the victims were targeted," according to CNN.
Panic on a public street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Multiple shooters opened fire at a popular entertainment district in the South Street area of Philadelphia on Saturday evening, authorities said, according to multiple reports.
"At this point, we don't know whether or not the altercation that took place was between a group of individuals, or if this was tied to another group or affiliation," said Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, per the outlet.
Five guns were used in the incident, Outlaw said. One of the shooters was wounded by police and escaped, while another is thought to be one of the persons killed, the commissioner added, per CNN.
The deceased victims were identified as a 34-year-old Gregory Jackson, 27-year-old Alexis Quinn, and an unnamed 22-year-old man, NBC10 Philadelphia reported.
Among the surviving victims are two 17-year-old girls and one 17-year-old boy, according to NBC10 Philadelphia, citing Outlaw.
Teenage girl dies at a strip mall in Phoenix, Arizona A 14-year-old girl was fatally wounded at a strip mall in Phoenix, Arizona, where 100 people had gathered for a party before fighting broke out early Saturday morning, police said, per USA Today.
The fight eventually turned into a series of shootings in the building and spilled out onto the parking lot and street, the outlet reported, citing local police.
"Many rounds were shot into this crowd of people as everyone fled the area," police said, per USA Today.
Apart from the teenage girl — who died of her wounds in the hospital — two women, five men, and a teenage boy were shot and injured, USA Today reported. The two women are currently in critical condition, per the outlet.
The shooter has not been caught, according to Fox10 Phoenix.
Six children shot in Summerton, South Carolina An outdoor graduation party on Saturday evening was interrupted by shooters in two cars who pulled up to the venue and opened fire on attendees, according to a statement from the Clarendon County Sheriff's Office.
Authorities said that a total of 60 to 70 rounds were fired before the shooters left and drove south on St. Paul Highway. The statement added that it is unclear if anyone in the crowd returned fire at the shooters.
The sheriff's office said a 32-year-old woman died of gunshot wounds, and another seven people were injured. Among those hurt were a 12-year-old, a 13-year-old, a 14-year-old, two 15-year-olds, and a 17-year-old.
"It is not sure whether shots were fired at specific persons or just randomly into the crowd," the statement read.
Police believe this was a gang-related incident stemming from previous drive-bys in the county.
50 shots fired at graduation party in Chester, Virginia Another graduation party on Friday night ended in violence, leaving a 20-year-old man fatally shot and seven others injured, police said, per The AP.
Authorities said two separate fights had happened at the mostly-outdoor party before police received calls about the gunfire, The AP reported.
Chesterfield County Police Maj. Brad Badgerow said at a news conference that police found 50 casings fired by four different calibers, the outlet reported.
"Whether that means it was four people shooting — I can't tell you that," Badgerow said, per The AP. "But it looks like there were at least four different weapons that were fired."
Two of those injured were struck by a car as the crowd fled the shooting, and the victims' ages range from 16 to 21, the AP reported.
Teens injured at a graduation party in El Paso, Texas Five teenagers were hospitalized, and two are in critical condition following a shooting at a high school graduation party early Saturday in Socorro, a town near El Paso, Texas.
Those at the party said fighting had broken out between two groups, police said, per the AP.
Gunfire in downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan A man was killed, and three other adult males were injured, after gunfire erupted in downtown Grand Rapids early Sunday.
According to local outlet MLive, police have not released the identities or ages of the victims.
An MLive reporter heard 10 shots being fired, the outlet reported.
Nightclub shooting in Mesa, Arizona Two people were found dead in a parking lot and two others were injured after a shooting at a nightclub early Sunday morning, police said, per CBS affiliate AZ Family.
Authorities are still working out the events that led up to the shooting, although officers said they saw someone speeding away from the venue as they arrived at the scene, per the outlet.
One of the injured persons is a security guard, police said, per AZ Family.
Five shootings in residential areas; 21 victims in total On Saturday evening, 19-year-old Cleveland Raines was killed in a shooting at an abandoned house in Macon, Georgia, according to the Bibb County Sheriff's Office. Three other victims, 19-year-old Ralph Hughes, 23-year-old Jarvis Devon Hill, and 22-year-old Alizya Sinclair, were injured, authorities said.
Police have not said why the victims were at the abandoned house, and an investigation is still ongoing.
In Omaha, Nebraska, 31-year-old Pierre R. Hightower was found dead at the scene of a shooting on Friday night, while three other victims were sent to hospital, ABC affiliate KETV Omaha reported.
Nassau County Police are also investigating a Saturday night shooting in Hempstead, New York, where a 19-year-old male was killed and three other men, aged 23, 31, and 35, were hospitalized with gunshot wounds to the ankle and thigh, NBC News reported.
Meanwhile, in Ecorse, Michigan, four people were shot early Saturday in an incident reportedly involving a party bus, per the Gun Violence Archive, which cited a Facebook account that monitors dispatch radio. There have been no reported deaths so far.
In Saginaw, Michigan, two men were pronounced dead at the scene of a shooting and one woman died of her wounds at the hospital, the AP reported. Police responded to the shooting on early Sunday, the outlet wrote.
Another two men arrived at the hospital in personal vehicles and are being treated for injuries, per the AP.
I really thought we were on some Iraq:Afghanistan nonsense.
Nah, it’s way worse.
We’re an active war zone because this country is bored out of its mind, and has nothing else better to do than be up all in their feelings like some daytime talk show and lash out violently.
33 mass shootings in a week and 1/2. .. 246 so far this year. China and Russia are winning their war against the USA without firing a single shot. We’re killing ourselves with guns and fentanyl.
Answering the original question: Why can't anything be done.
It seems pretty obvious now. Most people's idea of debate is ridicule and mocking if they disagree with you.
I have cited statistics that show AR pattern weapons are used in very few actual mass shootings, I have cited SCOTUS rulings on militia and scope of the second amendment, and someone else has posted about mental state of mass shooters, but in the end the reason the counter arguments come down to:
"mah rights" like someone how anyone that thinks this is a people issue and not a tool issue is a backwoods hick. The very idea is condescending and insulting. They tell you that you want people dead and don't care how many die just so you can has your guns.
Until people stop wanting to yelling emotional rhetoric and start looking at fact based solutions nothing will happen.
So enjoy your little echo chamber of insults and emotional rhetoric, I won't read this thread again. I certainly will not spend time digging into statistics and actually reading SCOTUS opinions (ok, I will continue to do that as being an educated person learning more is important).
Most people's idea of debate is ridicule and mocking if they disagree with you.
I would not say "most" people, but there is a group of posters on here that resort to that tactic on a constant basis and they usually do so together, like a gang or mob. It happens in this forum and the so-called Pure Football forum all the damn time.
I would not say "most" people, but there is a group of posters on here that resort to that tactic on a constant basis and they usually do so together, like a gang or mob. It happens in this forum and the so-called Pure Football forum all the damn time.
Like this gem from you in Pure Football?
Quote
This is pure opinion, but I feel that if Watson had been traded to Atlanta or New Orleans, their respective local media and fan base would never have made as much stink as our dumb-ass fans and local media has about the situation. Our own people are actually lobbying for a stiff suspension. Sometimes, I think Browns fans are the dumbest fans in the league and local media is right there w/them. Look at this board. We actually have people working very hard to get others to trash Watson and the team. Absurd. And I can't wait for the next "Analytics, Had Enough Yet" thread.
And there are no "people working very hard to get others to trash Watson and the team". That's just a flat out lie you can't stop telling. As long as you include yourself in the group you describe, that's fine. If you don't, there's a a name for that.
I get his concerns as a black activist. This definition gives the right ammo to point fingers at the black community, which by this definition would become the biggest contributor to mass shooting statistics. The last thing the black community or America needs is the rightwing pointing fingers at the black community, instead of addressing the hate and fear-based gun movement in their ranks that has contributed to many of the most horrific of these events. However, we shouldn't overlook this violence in the black community just because it makes people like him uncomfortable with facts as they have been defined. Murder is murder, and the last I checked it didn't matter what color the trigger puller's skin was to determine it was murder. Political and Hate influenced mass shootings are however somehow worse, considering the general population's reactions. I'm not sure if that is so much an overlooking of murder in black communities or the shocking regularity that we are seeing the AR-15 armed right-wing leaning mass murders. It should also be pointed out that the right-wing doesn't have a monopoly on those, the Steve Scalise shooting can attest to that.
Imagine if our "leaders" could make as much sense. Absolutely love this guy and wish he would throw his hat in the ring in Texas. This is what truth and leadership looks like.
I get his concerns as a black activist. This definition gives the right ammo to point fingers at the black community, which by this definition would become the biggest contributor to mass shooting statistics. The last thing the black community or America needs is the rightwing pointing fingers at the black community, instead of addressing the hate and fear-based gun movement in their ranks that has contributed to many of the most horrific of these events. However, we shouldn't overlook this violence in the black community just because it makes people like him uncomfortable with facts as they have been defined. Murder is murder, and the last I checked it didn't matter what color the trigger puller's skin was to determine it was murder. Political and Hate influenced mass shootings are however somehow worse, considering the general population's reactions. I'm not sure if that is so much an overlooking of murder in black communities or the shocking regularity that we are seeing the AR-15 armed right-wing leaning mass murders. It should also be pointed out that the right-wing doesn't have a monopoly on those, the Steve Scalise shooting can attest to that.
Except that the NRA and conservative policies are responsible for providing these acts of violence with weapons in the high poverty areas within these cities. Hawaii has a high level of poverty, a low level of gun violence and is an island in the middle of the Pacific. So called "democrat run cities" are islands of gun control policies surrounded by oceans of access to weaponry.
So... are people going to start calling for black gang members to be illegal like they do for guns?
Our community calls them out all the time. The fact that you aren’t aware of this shows how ignorant you are of the activism that goes on in these communities in your own country.
So... are people going to start calling for black gang members to be illegal like they do for guns?
Our community calls them out all the time. The fact that you aren’t aware of this shows how ignorant you are of the activism that goes on in these communities in your own country.
What community? People in the country don't have gangs.
But I guess people don’t create guns either. God does.
no no.. don't twist my words.
I said, "People in the country don't have gangs."
Oh I know exactly what you’re saying. It’s just about as ridiculous and illogical as a trump tweet.
It’s about as ridiculous as saying “people in the country don’t have mafias”. You’re trying to make a point that just makes you look worse and worse the more you try it.
It’s like the old “guns don’t kill people. People kill people”. As if you can separate one from the other.
But I guess people don’t create guns either. God does.
no no.. don't twist my words.
I said, "People in the country don't have gangs."
Oh I know exactly what you’re saying. It’s just about as ridiculous and illogical as a trump tweet.
It’s about as ridiculous as saying “people in the country don’t have mafias”. You’re trying to make a point that just makes you look worse and worse the more you try it.
It’s like the old “guns don’t kill people. People kill people”. As if you can separate one from the other.
But I expect nothing less from you.
First and foremost, trump is a fricking moron and I would never vote for him.
Also, it's important to understand that in the country/rural areas, a gun is a tool used for protection from wildlife, for hunting, and that requires a lot of practice to stay sharp.
Secondly, the point is that people are stupid and crying to eliminate guns when the vast majority of shootings are coming from gangs in urban areas. So.... let's just throw every gang member in jail for life and mass shootings will drop by 80%.
In fact, 90+ of shootings happen in urban areas. so... How about we make discharging guns in urban areas illegal? oh wait... it already is already illegal in every city and major metro in the USA. hunh... so... that law didn't work? OMG!!!! I'M SO SHOCKED! How can that be Swish!?!? It must be because... criminals don't follow laws and evil causes people to do these horrible things.
So yes...... getting rid of guns, ropes, knives, various poisons, hydrogen peroxide, or any other household chemical that can be turned into a bomb. will not solve anything. Doing that could be the nail in the coffin that may cause a civil war again and could split the country into pieces. Ironically, everyone will be using guns at that point.
I don't know what the proper answer is on how we improve things. I do think we need to get rid of evil, educate more, and I personally, don't know how we can do that as a country.
Notice how far away you got from your “people in the country don’t have gangs”?
Then you just said a whole lot of nothing.
Your illogical comment with that says you never heard of RICO charges. They’ve been arresting street gangs for years now with that at a rapid pace. Used to be the mafia. RICO has effectively made street gang activity illegal. Like come bro this is common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was…
You’ve also made it clear you don’t pay attention to anything I’ve posted. If you did, you know I don’t want a complete ban on guns and never advocates for an all out ban.
But that’s what happens when you don’t pay attention and make illogical arguments. You get post just like the one you posted.
I get his concerns as a black activist. This definition gives the right ammo to point fingers at the black community, which by this definition would become the biggest contributor to mass shooting statistics. The last thing the black community or America needs is the rightwing pointing fingers at the black community, instead of addressing the hate and fear-based gun movement in their ranks that has contributed to many of the most horrific of these events. However, we shouldn't overlook this violence in the black community just because it makes people like him uncomfortable with facts as they have been defined. Murder is murder, and the last I checked it didn't matter what color the trigger puller's skin was to determine it was murder. Political and Hate influenced mass shootings are however somehow worse, considering the general population's reactions. I'm not sure if that is so much an overlooking of murder in black communities or the shocking regularity that we are seeing the AR-15 armed right-wing leaning mass murders. It should also be pointed out that the right-wing doesn't have a monopoly on those, the Steve Scalise shooting can attest to that.
Mass shootings are mass shootings no matter who is doing the shooting.
When you get down to it, shootings of one person outnumber the totals of people shot in mass shootings, no matter the definition.
I don't see the justification in hiding who is doing the shooting. It is what it is.
RICO has effectively made street gang activity illegal.
Interesting.
So... why does illegal gang actiiity still exist in every major city in America?
We've had this convo on this board a thousand times already. That’s like asking why does the mafia still exist. Why do I have a feeling you’re gonna respond with the old “well why make it illegal when criminals don’t follow laws” rhetoric.
RICO has effectively made street gang activity illegal.
Interesting.
So... why does illegal gang actiiity still exist in every major city in America?
We've had this convo on this board a thousand times already. That’s like asking why does the mafia still exist. Why do I have a feeling you’re gonna respond with the old “well why make it illegal when criminals don’t follow laws” rhetoric.
Always a different version of the same crap.
moreso, we should enforce the laws that exist?
To your point... If "RICO charges" are so effective... we should be able to throw all of the gang members in jail and "mass shootings" will be reduced by 90%
yet here we are... people still blaming a fork for making people fat. We should make silverware illegal - it will solve our country's obesity problem.
Well when you have an entire culture of gun owners who refuse to even acknowledge a problem, this is what happens.
Don’t be surprised that this happens if the pro-gun guys answer to everything is to either do nothing or give everyone MORE guns.
The pro-gun community had plenty of time, power, money, and influence to get some sort of proactive measures in place to prevent gun deaths. Not eliminate it all, but drop the overall rate of gun violence in this country.
But since the pro gun guys didn’t do anything, and continue to not do anything, here we are.
Seriously purp. All these guns, all this money, all this power and influence, all these resources, and for what? When it matters most, pro gun guys still won’t use any of it to help make the community safer.
Well, since they won’t use anything to protect anyone, why bother allowing this crap to continue?
Now all the Karen’s in this country went from CRT to gun control. Have fun with that.
Sorry you don't live in America. Because if you live in America your country has gangs. You just don't care enough to find out that their community leaders, religious leaders, many community groups as well as their elected politicians speak out and fight against those gangs and gun violence. You would rather spout rhetoric that makes you feel good.
Mass shootings are mass shootings no matter who is doing the shooting.
When you get down to it, shootings of one person outnumber the totals of people shot in mass shootings, no matter the definition.
I don't see the justification in hiding who is doing the shooting. It is what it is.
All true. But forgive me for not understanding how that helps protect the most innocent among us. Our children. Diverting the attention away from that seems to be trying to avoid that children should be able to go to school and feel safe. You see, mass shootings will not be solved. There isn't some magic bullet, pardon the pun, to make them all go away.
That however doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to focus on taking measures to protect the most innocent among us. It doesn't mean that just because you can't totally stop a problem, making it better doersn't actually means something.
I've never advocated to make AR-15's illegal. I am for raising the age to buy one, any semi auto in fact to the age of 21. Why? Because our society has determined that a person isn't even responsible enough to buy a beer until they're 21. Yet we think it's okay to put a weapon in their hands that can kill dozens of people in less than a minute? Many of these mass school shootings are done by people between the ages of 18-20. That doesn't make any sense. I'm for mandatory metal detectors at school entrances so that nobody can enter a school without passing through a metal detector. I'm for placing retired military and police in our schools for security. I'm for holding gun owners responsible for securing their weapons. I'll give you an example.......
‘It is shocking’: Metro police say more than 60% of stolen guns taken from vehicles
Most of these guns were stolen from UNLOCKED vehicles. Leaving a gun in an unlocked vehicle, leaving your guns unsecured in your home where your child can get to them easily is just plain stupid and irresponsible. Their stupidity is leading to more gun crimes. They are putting guns in the hands of criminals and people who are not stable. Until we address these issues we will accomplish nothing.
Not everyone who thinks common sense measures to help lessen the body count want to "take your guns". That's why you see right wingers do nothing to help. Because that's the agenda people such as yourself keep pushing. "That wanna take mah guns!"
I've never advocated to make AR-15's illegal. I am for raising the age to buy one, any semi auto in fact to the age of 21. Why? Because our society has determined that a person isn't even responsible enough to buy a beer until they're 21. Yet we think it's okay to put a weapon in their hands that can kill dozens of people in less than a minute? Many of these mass school shootings are done by people between the ages of 18-20. That doesn't make any sense. I'm for mandatory metal detectors at school entrances so that nobody can enter a school without passing through a metal detector. I'm for placing retired military and police in our schools for security. I'm for holding gun owners responsible for securing their weapons. I'll give you an example.......
‘It is shocking’: Metro police say more than 60% of stolen guns taken from vehicles
Most of these guns were stolen from UNLOCKED vehicles. Leaving a gun in an unlocked vehicle, leaving your guns unsecured in your home where your child can get to them easily is just plain stupid and irresponsible. Their stupidity is leading to more gun crimes. They are putting guns in the hands of criminals and people who are not stable. Until we address these issues we will accomplish nothing.
Not everyone who thinks common sense measures to help lessen the body count want to "take your guns". That's why you see right wingers do nothing to help. Because that's the agenda people such as yourself keep pushing. "That wanna take mah guns!"
how many "school shootings" are the guns actually registered to the person who committed the crime?
to my point earlier... we would have an 80-90% reduction in "mass shootings" and theft significant reduction if we just make gangs illegal. Plus, they would stop stealing guns from cars.
Also, don't get me started on the BS "school shooting" data they have been floating around either. The information is so misleading it's disgusting.
last thought... there are 131,000 schools in the USA. It is highly unlikely that we do not have enough former military/police who would be either mentally competent, wouldn't interact with school kids in improper ways, or would be interested in that job.
I don't know how that actually addresses my points other than some wild speculation on your part. You have local, state and county police in every part of our nation. We have veterans of all ages in our society. Your answer seems to be "do nothing" which is exactly what's gotten us to where we are now.
According to the 2018 census there are 17 million veterans in our nation. Sure some are too old to do this job. some have issues and criminal records which would preclude them.
Which shooters under 21 bought their guns legally? How many do you think it needs to take before it would help prevent some?
UVALDE, TEXAS: MAY 24, 2022. 21 DEAD.
Salvador Ramos legally purchased two guns in the days before the attack that killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School — an AR-style rifle from a federally licensed gun dealer in the Uvalde area on May 17 and a second rifle on May 20. Ramos made the purchases just days after turning 18, the minimum age under federal law for buying a rifle. He also purchased several hundred rounds of ammunition. At least one of the rifles was a DDM4, made by Daniel Defense and modeled after the U.S. military’s M4 carbine rifle, though without the M4′s ability to switch to fully automatic or fire a three-round burst. “The idea that an 18-year-old kid can walk into a gun store and buy two assault weapons is just wrong,” Biden said hours after the shooting Tuesday. “What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for except to kill someone?” Ramos was killed at the school by a Border Patrol team.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK: MAY 14, 2022. 10 DEAD.
Payton Gendron legally purchased the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S used in the attack on Tops Friendly Market from a federally licensed gun dealer near his home in Conklin, New York, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Buffalo. In a personal, online diary that surfaced after the attack, Gendron said he bought the AR-15-style weapon in January, bought a shotgun in December and received a rifle as a Christmas present from his dad when he was 16. Last year, Gendron was taken to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation under a state mental health law after writing “murder-suicide” in response to a teacher’s question. New York is one of 19 states with red flag laws that allow courts to take guns from people posing immediate danger, but that didn’t happen with Gendron, who was 17 at the time. State police described his threat as “general in nature” and said it didn’t “specifically mention shooting or firearms.” After the shooting, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order underscoring the need for red flag interventions and said she would seek to bar people under 21 from buying some semi-automatic weapons in the state. A similar law in California was ruled unconstitutional. Gendron is charged with murder.
PARKLAND, FLORIDA: FEB. 14, 2018. 17 DEAD.
Nikolas Cruz legally purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle in February 2017 from a licensed dealer a few miles from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, authorities said. He’d been treated at a mental health clinic but hadn’t been there in more than a year. Federal law prohibits gun purchases if a court declares a person a “mental defective” or commits that person to an institution, but not if the person seeks treatment voluntarily. Cruz was 19 at the time of the shooting. He pleaded guilty in October. A four-month penalty trial is scheduled to begin this summer that will determine if he is sentenced to death or life without parole. ___
I mean it's fine just to throw out opinions that the facts do not support. But that won't help the problem. There are a lot more. But maybe if you looked for the answers at how we can at least slow doen these MASS CASUALTY school shootings rather than make up excuses why we can't do anything about them you may understand this.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center Wed, June 8, 2022, 3:31 PM·5 min read
The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons ushered in a period of fewer mass shooting deaths. AP Photo/Dennis Cook A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows: Before the 1994 ban:
From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.
Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun. During the 1994-2004 ban:
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception. From 2004 onward:
The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2005 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.
Saving hundreds of lives
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.
Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.
And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: the Los Angeles Times, Stanford University, and Mother Jones magazine.
Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons. Cause or correlation?
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.
Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.
As the U.S. looks toward a solution to the country’s epidemic of mass shootings, it is difficult to say conclusively that reinstating the assault weapons ban would have a profound impact, especially given the growth in sales in the 18 years in which Americans have been allowed to purchase and stockpile such weapons. But given that many of the high-profile mass shooters in recent years purchased their weapons less than one year before committing their acts, the evidence suggests that it might.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center Wed, June 8, 2022, 3:31 PM·5 min read
The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons ushered in a period of fewer mass shooting deaths. AP Photo/Dennis Cook A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows: Before the 1994 ban:
From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.
Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun. During the 1994-2004 ban:
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception. From 2004 onward:
The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2005 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.
Saving hundreds of lives
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.
Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.
And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: the Los Angeles Times, Stanford University, and Mother Jones magazine.
Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons. Cause or correlation?
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.
Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.
As the U.S. looks toward a solution to the country’s epidemic of mass shootings, it is difficult to say conclusively that reinstating the assault weapons ban would have a profound impact, especially given the growth in sales in the 18 years in which Americans have been allowed to purchase and stockpile such weapons. But given that many of the high-profile mass shooters in recent years purchased their weapons less than one year before committing their acts, the evidence suggests that it might.
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.
Personally, I am leaning towards a 3-day waiting period enacted on all semi-automatic weapons.
so heartbreaking. just like arguing with pro gun guys here. they showed more aggression toward the people wanting their kids safe than actually saving the kids.
and just like some people on this board: more aggression toward defending their right to any kind of weapon than actually keeping our kids safe and healthy.
but they'll tell us they're pro-life. and they us all their about christian/family values.
all these people with all these types of guns. and do they use them to actually protect children?
nope. they buy them to make themselves feel like a badass. too bad few of these pro gun nuts are ACTUALLY bad ass. just a bunch of frauds like their lord and savior Trump.
when you die, and god ask you "what did you do to save my children?"
since the answer will be an obvious "nothing", what makes yall think you're going to heaven? cause you prayed really hard? lmao, pathetic.
imagine having to explain to jesus and god that you loved all these big ass guns but did nothing useful to protect god's children.
if god is real, i'm going to hell. at least i can own it. so many "conservatives" will already be there, and won't admit it. make sure to save me a seat in the front.
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
RICO has effectively made street gang activity illegal.
Interesting.
So... why does illegal gang actiiity still exist in every major city in America?
The same reason drugs do. We've spent decades with a war on drugs and they're still everywhere. Why is that?
We keep asking that "Why is that?" question on many fronts. The answer is simple: We have a county full of law breakers who don't care, just to boil it down in to a nutshell.
Passing laws doesn't do a damn thing to stop people intent on breaking the law.
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
yea but only one party doesn't want to lift a finger to do anything to prevent this crap from happening.
you have to remember, back in your day, the Republican party actually had the balls to impeach a president and force him to resign from office. that level of character does not exist in that party anymore.
Partially true, just as with Trump and Company, but in the case of these young shooters, they are either traumatized or they are just broken. They are not born criminals who do not care.
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
yea but only one party doesn't want to lift a finger to do anything to prevent this crap from happening.
you have to remember, back in your day, the Republican party actually had the balls to impeach a president and force him to resign from office. that level of character does not exist in that party anymore.
I think a lot of republican 'people' want something done. It's their leadership and media getting paid by the gun lobby fighting tooth and nail to create "OTHERS" as the boogeyman.
I don't know how that actually addresses my points other than some wild speculation on your part.
You have local, state and county police in every part of our nation. We have veterans of all ages in our society. Your answer seems to be "do nothing" which is exactly what's gotten us to where we are now.
According to the 2018 census there are 17 million veterans in our nation. Sure some are too old to do this job. some have issues and criminal records which would preclude them.
I mean it's fine just to throw out opinions that the facts do not support. But that won't help the problem. There are a lot more. But maybe if you looked for the answers at how we can at least slow doen these MASS CASUALTY school shootings rather than make up excuses why we can't do anything about them you may understand this.
Actually, I can back up everything I am saying with actual data.
There are about 4-5 million vets who would be between 18-54 and of those... 1 million would not be "mentally fit" to guard a school. So, personally, I wouldn't want a vet watching my child's school unless they went through rigorous mental exams.This is why I said I don't think there are enough vets who are fit or would want to do it as a job that would pay around 18/hr to 20/hour and risk their life.
It looks like you found 3 instances (not sure if you can find or if that was all you could find) where they purchased their guns legally and 2 of those had severe mental issues (who probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun in the first place).
I personally went through and found the info on school shootings and the far majority were either gang-related or after school hours when school was not actually in session.
plus.... (see the tweet on the last page) 75% of all mass shootings are gang-related shootings (and the data below thanks to snopes).
Here is more factual data that is not skewed by the media
Education Week (EW) had recorded 27 school shootings in 2022
what people are conveniently leaving out The criteria for the shootings was incidents:
where a firearm was discharged where any individual, other than the suspect or perpetrator, has a bullet wound resulting from the incident that happen on K-12 school property or on a school bus that occur while school is in session or during a school-sponsored event
Everytown noted that mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook (and more recently at Robb Elementary in Texas), represent less than 1% of overall school gun-violence incidents
They added that common incidents of gun violence involved “specific individuals, arguments that escalated, acts of domestic violence, parking lot altercations, and robberies where the school was an unfortunate backdrop .”
In 2022, the center tracked two instances of an active-shooter situation, and 136 instances with a non-active shooter. We should note that an “active shooter,” according to the FBI, is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.”
This isn't a right vs. left problem, this is an American problem. Screw anybody who denies or tries to slide shuffle dance around that. I don't want guns taken away, I want the killings to stop. The government is not going to do a damn thing, and if they somehow manage to pass anything under the gun-toting Yaliban NRA, it will most certainly be insufficient. If people want this to stop, they are going to have to look in the mirror for the person that is going to have to make it happen. Nobody is coming to your rescue. Hell Kristen Senima is too worried about crypto not getting taxed properly to be worried about your babies. smh, we are so freaking broken as a country, it's just unbelievable. If this had happened when I was a child, Ds&Rs alike would have come out to drive this crap back into the darkness.
yea but only one party doesn't want to lift a finger to do anything to prevent this crap from happening.
you have to remember, back in your day, the Republican party actually had the balls to impeach a president and force him to resign from office. that level of character does not exist in that party anymore.
I think a lot of republican 'people' want something done. It's their leadership and media getting paid by the gun lobby fighting tooth and nail to create "OTHERS" as the boogeyman. "It's the dem lies and their agenda", I heard today from a sitting Republican Rep. Also heard other GOPer leaders pleading for some sort of action this week. This time, it's not a one-size-fits-all moment, and that's the only difference from all the other 'Thoughts and Prayers' moments.
![[Linked Image from pbs.twimg.com]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1290796436095995908/PQmZBHDk_bigger.jpg)
![[Linked Image from upload.wikimedia.org]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg)