Yet another school shooting.

[flere-imsaho]

Because it's not a poll tax?

It's a poll tax.

Florida is following what the voters approved

Not everything that voters approve is constitutional.


Personally think that every US citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of criminal status.

Agreed.

[RainMaker]

The problem with that analogy is that there is no constitutional prohibition to just banning tobacco.

A better analogy would be to taxes on newspapers, cost of permits for holding public demonstrations, etc.

The answer (and please understand this is outside of my area of expertise) is that you could do small but not punitive taxes.

There are taxes on constitutionally protected acts and the court have been OK with it.

High Court Approves "Pole Tax" on Strip Clubs | The Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/26/high-court-approves-pole-tax-strip-clubs/)

I don't agree with using taxes as a way to legislate something constitutionally protected away. But lets be honest, the courts are not going to be consistent on it. Those in the adult industry do not receive the same constitutional protections afforded to gun shops and manufacturers.

[flere-imsaho]

Clickbait headline, but the statistics indicate that something is very seriously wrong with policing in the U.S.: Why Are Police So Bad at Their Jobs? - The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/justice/why-are-police-so-bad-at-their-jobs/)


"Clearance Rate" (the rate at which cases are solved) are way down
Police budgets are way up (often making up a majority of municipal budgets
Frequency with which police kill civilians also way up

[JPhillips]

There's really no need to debate what is or isn't constitutional. At least five of the GOP justices will overrule anything they don't like and that would include taxes on guns and ammo. In the next few weeks they're going to release a decision making it easier to carry guns in states with gun restrictions. The reality is there's really no way currently to do anything about guns because the GOP controls everything.

[BYU 14]

And when GOP officials do support something

Republican Congressman Quits Race After Backlash Over His Gun Stance (https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-congressman-quits-race-backlash-211606615.html)

[Brian Swartz]

Good for Jacobs on both fronts.

[Brian Swartz]

Clickbait headline, but the statistics indicate that something is very seriously wrong with policing in the U.S

Quite so. I would say it goes way beyond policing itself to general societal attitudes about authority, the law, and so on. But there's no question we have a big and growing problem.

[RainMaker]

Clickbait headline, but the statistics indicate that something is very seriously wrong with policing in the U.S.: Why Are Police So Bad at Their Jobs? - The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/justice/why-are-police-so-bad-at-their-jobs/)

"Clearance Rate" (the rate at which cases are solved) are way down
Police budgets are way up (often making up a majority of municipal budgets
Frequency with which police kill civilians also way up

There's a weird, long history to policing in this country. After prohibition, there was huge overhauls to police departments. They were mostly blamed for its failure and the subsequent rise in crime.

So the police became more professional in the aftermath. Military style chain of command, specialized departments, and focus on investigation tactics. By the 50's and 60's, they had advanced immensely and a lot of the investigative tactics/tools we see today came from that era.

As the 80's rolled in, a lot of that started to change. Community policing became the in-thing, and eventually the broken windows stuff. The focus turned to patrols and less investigative policing.

And that's kind of where we're at today as older generations from the more professional era have retired. Police departments, especially in small towns, are largely just adult day care services. A place for guys with no discernible skills to play dress-up, write some tickets, harass the local homeless, and collect a paycheck. There is no effort to investigative crimes or defend the public from actual threats (as we saw in Uvalde). There is even motivation to increase crime as it leads to more money for their departments.

It does need a massive overhaul, but reforms are nearly impossible today. Police account for some of the worst ROI of our tax dollars.

[RainMaker]

One idea that has been thrown around for years is to split the community policing and investigative divisions up.

Currently, there is little incentive for police to solve crimes that have taken place. Media rarely focuses on that stuff outside of the high profile crimes. It's expensive. And rounding up real criminals is not particularly good for business.

So splitting that up would create an incentive to investigate and solve crimes. Maybe you see higher clearance rates, rape kits tested, etc. There would be overlap, just as there is with a prosecutor and police. But you would eliminate that incentive to ignore investigative work.

[RainMaker]

The lady who was cuffed and then ran in to save her kid spoke out. She was threatened with a probation violation for speaking to the media.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The mom that ran in and saved her kids after being handcuffed in Uvalde finally spoke out. <a href="https://t.co/wHNouRkCY7">pic.twitter.com/wHNouRkCY7</a></p>&mdash; barbarism critic (luxury gay space communist arc) (@SxarletRed) <a href="https://twitter.com/SxarletRed/status/1532853860737372161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[flere-imsaho]

Quite so. I would say it goes way beyond policing itself to general societal attitudes about authority, the law, and so on. But there's no question we have a big and growing problem.

Kind of a chicken and the egg problem there, though, IMO. I know my interactions with police officers have changed considerably since I was a kid growing up in the 80s, and they have not changed for the better (nothing dramatic, I've never had even so much as a moving violation).

[flere-imsaho]

I respectfully disagree.

But getting back to Lathum's post and my response (immediately above) we may be talking about related but 2 different things. I am talking about overall gun deaths and not just specific mass shootings.

If talking about overall gun deaths, its pretty clear to me its both criminal elements and availability of guns (and for suicides, mental health).

You disagree that the presence of a gun makes the negative action (armed robbery, mass shooting, suicide) more potent? The type of weapon, or even the availability of a weapon, is immaterial to you in these cases?

[BishopMVP]

The lady who was cuffed and then ran in to save her kid spoke out. She was threatened with a probation violation for speaking to the media.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The mom that ran in and saved her kids after being handcuffed in Uvalde finally spoke out. <a href="https://t.co/wHNouRkCY7">pic.twitter.com/wHNouRkCY7</a></p>&mdash; barbarism critic (luxury gay space communist arc) (@SxarletRed) <a href="https://twitter.com/SxarletRed/status/1532853860737372161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>
I'm still so confused on the ground hierarchy. We've heard Uvalde (ISD?) police had control of the scene and chose not to go in, but they had Texas Marshals securing the perimeter and were also the ones saying to let the local woman go after she was cuffed? Idk, it shouldn't be THE focal point, but I really hope there is a full and honest breakdown of what broke down and it can be used as a case study for future events when multiple law enforcement agencies end up at a situation like this.

(PS is there a reason an active construction site was the best place to have this interview? Weird choice.)

[RainMaker]

(PS is there a reason an active construction site was the best place to have this interview? Weird choice.)

I did see this. It's apparently a farm and where she works. The police had been threatening her about speaking out so maybe she felt more comfortable doing it in a public space.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">She said she took the interview in the fields where she is a farm worker so that people could see how hard she works. She also evacuated her child’s class by giving them the okay to leave, saving lives. We keep each other safe. <a href="https://t.co/kUZBBovdb1">https://t.co/kUZBBovdb1</a></p>&mdash; muna (@Muna_Mire) <a href="https://twitter.com/Muna_Mire/status/1533162351725273088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 4, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[GrantDawg]

Active shooter at hospital in Goldboro, NC tonight. Third active shooting incident at a hospital this week. I guess too many schools out for aummer.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[CrimsonFox]

...and another...and another...and another...

[CrimsonFox]

I'm still so confused on the ground hierarchy. We've heard Uvalde (ISD?) police had control of the scene and chose not to go in, but they had Texas Marshals securing the perimeter and were also the ones saying to let the local woman go after she was cuffed? Idk, it shouldn't be THE focal point, but I really hope there is a full and honest breakdown of what broke down and it can be used as a case study for future events when multiple law enforcement agencies end up at a situation like this.

(PS is there a reason an active construction site was the best place to have this interview? Weird choice.)

bahahahahaha
they're just covering their ass at this point

[Ksyrup]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">But why can't we just... <a href="https://t.co/3HgW7LI4NJ">pic.twitter.com/3HgW7LI4NJ</a></p>&mdash; The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1533901671415300099?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 6, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[RainMaker]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is gut-wrenching —<br><br>Wounded Uvalde teacher spoke to ABC News: <br><br>&quot;One of the students from the next-door classroom was saying, 'Officer, we're in here. We're in here,'&quot; Reyes said. &quot;But they had already left.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/fTPycssEgr">https://t.co/fTPycssEgr</a></p>&mdash; Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1533970597822320640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Edward64]

You disagree that the presence of a gun makes the negative action (armed robbery, mass shooting, suicide) more potent? The type of weapon, or even the availability of a weapon, is immaterial to you in these cases?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The part I disagree with is highlighted below. It is both guns and criminal elements (and mental health) when talking about gun deaths overall.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho View Post
The point of my rhetorical questions was that the guns are the problem, not the criminal elements. You literally do any of the things my questions suggest (and indeed other countries have done so) and the potentcy of the actions completed by the criminal elements (including mass shooters) is reduced. It's literally that simple.

[Edward64]

It's because the AWB was a federal law affecting all states and the Snopes article (which is really a re-printed article from The Conversation) addresses state laws.

The weakness with state laws is that they only affect that state. Illinois & Chicago, for instance, can restrict guns all they want, but it's trivially easy to go over the border to Wisconsin or Indiana to get guns if you really need them.

All of which to say, again, is that it's the guns, and specifically the widespread availability of guns, which is the problem. The root problem.

TBH I'm not following your logic. My post #2230 references 2 articles (which I generally consider reputable sources). How does your federal vs state law response invalidate the articles' findings?

Specifically, we examined the effects of four different types of gun control legislation: background checks; assault weapons bans; high-capacity magazine bans; and “extreme risk protection order” or “red flag laws” that let a court determine whether to confiscate the guns of someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.

We found that background check requirements, assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans each reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States – but only by a small amount. For instance, enacting a statewide assault weapons ban decreases the number of mass shootings in the state by one shooting every six years. And none of the four types of gun control legislation correlate with fewer total mass shooting deaths.

And laws that remove an individual’s right to own firearms if that individual poses a risk to the community do not affect the number of mass shooting events.
Several studies find that mass shooting deaths fell slightly in the decade of the federal assault weapon ban, and then rose dramatically in the decade that followed.

New research suggests that limits on large-capacity magazines play a key role.

No strong evidence shows that the ban’s presence or its end caused the change in mass shooting deaths, but many studies find a correlation.

[Edward64]

FWIW, in my travels in Malaysia and Thailand, I've spoken to 2 separate friends that worry about living and sending kids to the US because of all the gun violence (& racism). One made the decision to send her kid to UK instead of US and gun violence was one key reason.

I told them US is messed up and it's true how easy it is to buy guns. But told her I'd still send my kid to US vs UK any day.

[BYU 14]

I told them US is messed up and it's true how easy it is to buy guns. But told her I'd still send my kid to US vs UK any day.

Curious what your reasoning is for that? I ask because I have dual citizenship (England) and the UK is a very real consideration for retirement in 2-3 years if thing continue to get worse here.

[flere-imsaho]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The part I disagree with is highlighted below. It is both guns and criminal elements (and mental health) when talking about gun deaths overall.

A gun makes a criminal act more deadly, or a mental health issue more deadly. That is the entirety of my point.

As others are fond of pointing out, in other countries where availability of guns is very limited, you don't have mass shooters, you have, say, mass stabbers. But the kill counts are lower because a knife is not as potent as a gun.

When we ask: "why do we have a problem with so many gun deaths in the United States?" the issue is not mental health, because other countries have mental health issues. It is not "criminal elements" because other countries have that too. It's the guns.

Now, on a separate argumentative slant, you could argue (and many have) that if we just fixed the mental health issues and the crime issues, then we'd solve that part of the equation and don't need to ban guns. But crime & mental health are multi-faceted issues with many variables in play and have not been solved convincingly anywhere that I'm aware of. Guns are physical items. Like any other physical item, their availability can (political considerations aside) be restricted or even almost eradicated.

TBH I'm not following your logic. My post #2230 references 2 articles (which I generally consider reputable sources). How does your federal vs state law response invalidate the articles' findings?

Again, the article that Snopes re-posted is flawed in its premise in that it is looking at the impact of individual states' laws, which we know have limited utility in the United States because you can just typically go to the next state and buy all the guns you want.

Or, put another way, individual states are not closed systems. If the problem is the overall availability of guns, you have to look at that in the context of the country as a whole, since there are not border checkpoints between states to control the flow of firearms.

The other article you posted was on the effect of the AWB which a) others have addressed with better analysis/data and b) the article itself states that mass shootings rose dramatically following its expiry.

[flere-imsaho]

Curious what your reasoning is for that? I ask because I have dual citizenship (England) and the UK is a very real consideration for retirement in 2-3 years if thing continue to get worse here.

Same. Our timeline is a few years further out, but we're actively considering. The fact that we lived there for ~5 years back in the day and still have plenty of friends there is of course part of the equation.

It's not just the shootings. I'm not sure I want to live in a country where Alito controls SCOTUS, DeSantis controls the Executive, and McCarthy & Cruz control Congress.

I'm not saying the UK is a panacea or that it doesn't have its problems, but we asked ourselves this question 20 years ago before we had kids and decided the US was the better place to settle and raise a family. In the intervening years (and especially the last 10) the U.S. has zoomed past the UK in a race to become a dystopian hellhole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale).

[Edward64]

Curious what your reasoning is for that? I ask because I have dual citizenship (England) and the UK is a very real consideration for retirement in 2-3 years if thing continue to get worse here.

There are definitely different considerations for retirement vs college & future opportunities. This was in context of her kid going to college and immigrating after.

I told my friend, there are definitely more shootings in US than in the western world. But the odds are very low that your kid will be involved assuming he doesn't become a criminal.

Brexit has likely limited/hurt economic growth and there's no longer that carrot of EU membership, ease of working & travel where ever in the EU.

The gun issue does not outweigh the endless potential & opportunities for her kid in US. I told her I believe that most legal immigrants, with hard work, education, staying out of trouble, and some luck can rise above their parents level and onto the next rung. (Still the land of opportunity baby)

Regarding racism & bigotry, it exists everywhere and told her that her Thai son will not bear near the brunt of it in the US (especially since he is going into engineering field and presumably will have a stable job). The bigotry here is (fair or not) the perception that someone is different & not assimilating, getting handouts and not carrying their own weight.

And finally, food. She's been to the UK and US, and agrees UK food is not as good as what is available in the US. It was funny, she said her favorite US restaurant was Cracker Barrel, go figure. We talked about the catfish plate, pot roast, the biscuits etc.

[Edward64]

Same. Our timeline is a few years further out, but we're actively considering. The fact that we lived there for ~5 years back in the day and still have plenty of friends there is of course part of the equation.

It's not just the shootings. I'm not sure I want to live in a country where Alito controls SCOTUS, DeSantis controls the Executive, and McCarthy & Cruz control Congress.

I'm not saying the UK is a panacea or that it doesn't have its problems, but we asked ourselves this question 20 years ago before we had kids and decided the US was the better place to settle and raise a family. In the intervening years (and especially the last 10) the U.S. has zoomed past the UK in a race to become a dystopian hellhole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale).

TBH we talked about guns & racism. The other politics really didn't come into the discussion.

In Thailand, they experience coups (had 13 successful and nine unsuccessful coups in just over a century. The most recent being in 2014), current King who was a playboy and lived in Europe before dad died and openly has a "consort" (so not a lot of respect), bigotry against dark skin Thais (not sure if it rises to racism though) exists everywhere, questionable & corrupt justice system, supposedly X families that own or can influence most of the economy etc. you get the idea.

This isn't to explain why US is better than UK. It's to explain why some things we find a big deal in the US is really not top of mind for Thais ... because they experience them also (and more, except for the gun violence).

[Edward64]

A gun makes a criminal act more deadly, or a mental health issue more deadly. That is the entirety of my point.

As others are fond of pointing out, in other countries where availability of guns is very limited, you don't have mass shooters, you have, say, mass stabbers. But the kill counts are lower because a knife is not as potent as a gun.

When we ask: "why do we have a problem with so many gun deaths in the United States?" the issue is not mental health, because other countries have mental health issues. It is not "criminal elements" because other countries have that too. It's the guns.

This is where we obviously differ. To me guns are a tool and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Get rid of (or significantly reduce) the people element (e.g. criminals and mentally unstable) and the problem is reduced significantly.

Yes, there will be law abiding citizens that becomes non-law abiding (same with mental health) so it won't ever be perfect.

What is the % of gun deaths that are done by suicide? In 2020, 54%

What is the % of gun deaths that are caused by criminals? In 2020, murders were 43%. However, not able to find % were done felons vs law abiding citizens so the 43% is overstated ... but my guess is murders caused by criminals far exceed murders caused by law abiding citizens.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)

Now, on a separate argumentative slant, you could argue (and many have) that if we just fixed the mental health issues and the crime issues, then we'd solve that part of the equation and don't need to ban guns. But crime & mental health are multi-faceted issues with many variables in play and have not been solved convincingly anywhere that I'm aware of. Guns are physical items. Like any other physical item, their availability can (political considerations aside) be restricted or even almost eradicated.

Gun ownership is multi-faceted also with many variables. I'm all for restricting (devils in the details of course but more can be done) but eradicating?

Why penalize the vast majority of law abiding gun owners? If you tell me the vast number of gun deaths are caused by law abiding guns owners (not criminal elements or mentally unstable) or their guns are stolen and the cause for large majority of murders, then I see your point. But that is not the case.

Go ahead and get rid of guns from criminals and mentally unstable first, let see how that works, and then let's have the discussion re: law abiding gun owners. Why unarm law abiding citizens first?

Again, the article that Snopes re-posted is flawed in its premise in that it is looking at the impact of individual states' laws, which we know have limited utility in the United States because you can just typically go to the next state and buy all the guns you want.

Or, put another way, individual states are not closed systems. If the problem is the overall availability of guns, you have to look at that in the context of the country as a whole, since there are not border checkpoints between states to control the flow of firearms.

The other article you posted was on the effect of the AWB which a) others have addressed with better analysis/data and b) the article itself states that mass shootings rose dramatically following its expiry.

Honestly don't really see how this invalidates both studies. The ease of gun availability from one state to another does not IMO invalidate the ultimate findings. If you have a link with the rebuttal, please post it. Re: the second article, it says there was correlation but not necessarily causation.

We'll agree to disagree.

[Lathum]

A gun makes a criminal act more deadly, or a mental health issue more deadly. That is the entirety of my point.

As others are fond of pointing out, in other countries where availability of guns is very limited, you don't have mass shooters, you have, say, mass stabbers. But the kill counts are lower because a knife is not as potent as a gun.


.

This literally just happened in Germany. Guy drove his car in to a crowd. 1 dead, 8 injured. Give the same guy an AR-15 and it is Mandalay Bay all over again.

[Lathum]

Why penalize the vast majority of law abiding gun owners? .

Because we exist in a society where there are literally hundreds of laws designed to protect people by limiting others freedoms.

[Lathum]

This is where we obviously differ. To me guns are a tool and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Get rid of (or significantly reduce) the people element (e.g. criminals and mentally unstable) and the problem is reduced significantly.



So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

Not to mention do you honestly think those on the right have any interest at all in actually reducing the number of guns in circulation?

[Edward64]

Because we exist in a society where there are literally hundreds of laws designed to protect people by limiting others freedoms.

If your argument is have more gun control, I'm all for it. Flere's post hinted at "eradicating" and Brian said "all".

So you are okay with essentially removing all guns from law abiding citizens?

(Simple & direct question, not a trick one. Answer however you want with whatever caveats)

[Lathum]

If your argument is have more gun control, I'm all for it. Flere's post hinted at "eradicating" and Brian said "all".

So you are okay with essentially removing all guns from law abiding citizens?

(Simple & direct question, not a trick one. Answer however you want with whatever caveats)

lets be honest, there will never be more gun control so given the choice between status quo and removing all guns I'll take the later.

[Lathum]

Regarding the UK. My wifes sister and her family live there and love it. Would never move back. If wife and I peace out together my kids get shipped to the UK to live with them and I am totally good with that. It really isn't hard to read the writing on the wall where the US is headed, now as an upper middle class white guy I will be fine, but I still don't like it.

[Edward64]

So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

Not to mention do you honestly think those on the right have any interest at all in actually reducing the number of guns in circulation?

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

You are clumping all the "right" together. I assume you are talking about politicians on the right. If so, you are correct, there is not enough GOP will to make it happen.

[Edward64]

lets be honest, there will never be more gun control so given the choice between status quo and removing all guns I'll take the later.

Er? The scenarios in order of likelihood are (1) current status quo (2) more gun control and way way down the list is (3) removing all guns.

[flere-imsaho]

So you are okay with essentially removing all guns from law abiding citizens?

I'm OK with single shot firearms that require a manual reload for hunting purposes. Where you likely need multiple shots (e.g. hunting moose in my home state of Maine), adjust the licensing so that there's a primary license holder but multiple people can contribute to the kill simultaneously, again with single shot, manual reload weapons.

I'm also OK with a wide variety of firearms being available for fun/sport purposes as long as they are restricted to designated locations (e.g. shooting ranges) and are locked up by licensed professionals at that location when not in use.

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

Again, no one's saying it's the sole cause of gun crime. What we're saying is that it is overwhelmingly the reason that gun-related crime racks up so many deaths. You simply can't kill as many people, as fast, with a knife as you can with a gun. Because the gun is purpose-designed to kill things quickly.

[Edward64]

Again, no one's saying it's the sole cause of gun crime. What we're saying is that it is overwhelmingly the reason that gun-related crime racks up so many deaths. You simply can't kill as many people, as fast, with a knife as you can with a gun. Because the gun is purpose-designed to kill things quickly.

I may have misunderstood your post below then. It seemed to me you were saying that guns are "the" problem and did not concede there were other contributing factors.

There is no doubt guns enable you to kill more people with a semi-automatic than with a knife.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho View Post
The point of my rhetorical questions was that the guns are the problem, not the criminal elements. You literally do any of the things my questions suggest (and indeed other countries have done so) and the potentcy of the actions completed by the criminal elements (including mass shooters) is reduced. It's literally that simple.

[Edward64]

I'm OK with single shot firearms that require a manual reload for hunting purposes. Where you likely need multiple shots (e.g. hunting moose in my home state of Maine), adjust the licensing so that there's a primary license holder but multiple people can contribute to the kill simultaneously, again with single shot, manual reload weapons.

I'm also OK with a wide variety of firearms being available for fun/sport purposes as long as they are restricted to designated locations (e.g. shooting ranges) and are locked up by licensed professionals at that location when not in use.

(You are missing self defense aspect in your list above. Single shot may work but I would like more than 1 bullet)

Just for some context on where I'm at, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is eliminate all guns and 1 is no gun laws ... I think status quo is probably a 4. Close those loopholes on background checks and gun sales, limit magazine size, compulsory training, have better mental health checks during background checks (and all the things I think most non-politicians can agree to) and we go to a 7.

What you are proposing for single shot takes it up to a 9 and I would be opposed to it.

Why not start with non-law abiding citizens first or mentally unstable? Why restrict my ability to own a weapon (to the extent of just single-shot). The only justification I can see is (1) if you think there is a bunch of law abiding citizens that become non-law abiding murderers just like that or (2) criminal elements steal a lot of weapons from law abiding citizens for their crimes.

[NobodyHere]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/armed-man-arrested-outside-brett-kavanaughs-home-after-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html

[Kodos]

To put it simply, if the choice is maintain the status quo or ban all guns, it's an easy choice for me. Ban them all if those are the only two options.

That, of course, will never happen. But if I were the benevolent dictator and those were the only two options available...

[GrantDawg]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/armed-man-arrested-outside-brett-kavanaughs-home-after-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html
I'm surprised this hasn't happened more often.

[flere-imsaho]

I may have misunderstood your post below then. It seemed to me you were saying that guns are "the" problem and did not concede there were other contributing factors.

When it comes to why gun crime happens, there are many contributing factors.

When it comes to the frequency of gun crime, there are other contributing factors, but availability of guns is the primary factor. The word "gun" is in the phrase "gun crime", after all.

When it comes to the potency of gun crime (i.e. casualties), guns are the problem.

(You are missing self defense aspect in your list above. Single shot may work but I would like more than 1 bullet)

The statistics around successful self-defense with a gun are so low as to be immaterial to the debate (see page 12) (https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf).

[Lathum]

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

You are clumping all the "right" together. I assume you are talking about politicians on the right. If so, you are correct, there is not enough GOP will to make it happen.

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

[kingfc22]

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

They don't play video games, obviously

[RainMaker]

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

You're not getting an answer to that one.

[Lathum]

You're not getting an answer to that one.

you never do....

[JPhillips]

We know how to stop shootings, ban guns and make buybacks mandatory. That won't happen, though, because the GOP position is now that no gun control laws can be passed because someday they may want to start killing people and overthrow the government.

It's madness.

[Edward64]

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

Funny, I was waiting for you to answer my question first. Your answer below was based on a weird assumption that we can never get anymore gun control and therefore you were okay with banning all guns. That assumption seemed invalid to me so didn't take you seriously.

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
If your argument is have more gun control, I'm all for it. Flere's post hinted at "eradicating" and Brian said "all".

So you are okay with essentially removing all guns from law abiding citizens?

(Simple & direct question, not a trick one. Answer however you want with whatever caveats)

lets be honest, there will never be more gun control so given the choice between status quo and removing all guns I'll take the later.

I thought my answer was similar to yours in kind.

Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

Not to mention do you honestly think those on the right have any interest at all in actually reducing the number of guns in circulation?

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

But I'll take that as a trick question to put me on the defensive ...

So my counter trick question is how does a gun fire by itself?

[Edward64]

you never do....

That's what I was thinking about why start with law abiding citizens first.

[Edward64]

When it comes to why gun crime happens, there are many contributing factors.

Let's change that to gun deaths as that's what we've been talking about. Yes, I agree.

When it comes to the frequency of gun crime, there are other contributing factors, but availability of guns is the primary factor. The word "gun" is in the phrase "gun crime", after all.

Yes, I agree

When it comes to the potency of gun crime (i.e. casualties), guns are the problem.

Yes, I agree

I'll add ...

When it comes to who is doing the pulling of the trigger, it is primarily criminals and mentally unstable. So why start with law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens first?

The statistics around successful self-defense with a gun are so low as to be immaterial to the debate (see page 12) (https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf).

So .9% is not relevant to debate? I actually think it is. So < 1% of abortions take place after 24st week. No need to talk about that?

[thesloppy]

I think the common suggestion that gun-control proponents have to improvise acceptable gun control legislation on the spot is fucking stupid. The only thing you or I can do is vote, and as long as one party is lock-step in favor of absolutely no gun-control, then the entirely obvious solution is to not vote for that party. Everything/anything else is just noise.

[GrantDawg]

That's what I was thinking about why start with law abiding citizens first.
Because that is where the vast majority of the guns used to commit crimes come from. It is more likely your legal gun is going to a) accidentally kill a member of your family, b) be stolen and used in a crime or c) be used by you in a crime, then it is ever going to be used in self defense.
I know of many people that have had guns stolen, and I know of several that have been accidentally killed by legal guns. I don't know anyone that has successfully used a gun in self defense.

[Edward64]

Because that is where the vast majority of the guns used to commit crimes come from. It is more likely your legal gun is going to a) accidentally kill a member of your family, b) be stolen and used in a crime or c) be used by you in a crime, then it is ever going to be used in self defense.
I know of many people that have had guns stolen, and I know of several that have been accidentally killed by legal guns. I don't know anyone that has successfully used a gun in self defense.

I have been trying to find metrics on similar questions on gun deaths (not just crimes) and was not successful. Admittedly a central tenant to my beliefs is that law abiding citizens (and not mentally unstable) and their guns do not cause a lot of gun deaths compared to criminals and suicides (mentally unstable). Can you provide a link to a, b & c?

[RainMaker]

A gun doesn't fire itself. It requires a person to do so. People live throughout the Western world and yet we are the only country with this problem.

[RainMaker]

Both the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters were law-abiding citizens with no criminal records up until they slaughtered people. Same with many mass shooters.

[Edward64]

A gun doesn't fire itself. It requires a person to do so. People live throughout the Western world and yet we are the only country with this problem.

Waiting on link above that may result in not needing this question answered. But in the meantime …

So why not start with the criminal elements and mentally unstable first?

Come back in 3-5 years and let’s see where we’re at and we’ll talk about the law abiding folks.

[Edward64]

Both the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters were law-abiding citizens with no criminal records up until they slaughtered people. Same with many mass shooters.


I’ve been pretty consistent about start with criminal elements and mentally unstable. I’m pretty sure those were mentally unstable but feel free to propose otherwise.

[Lathum]

That's what I was thinking about why start with law abiding citizens first.

Still not an answer, and I most certainly did answer your question. I would be fine with a total gun ban like Australia, the UK, etc...you know all these other countries that once they removed guns stopped having mass shootings, you know, that you can't or won't explain the reason for that.

[flere-imsaho]

When it comes to who is doing the pulling of the trigger, it is primarily criminals and mentally unstable. So why start with law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens first?

Because, again, it's about the widespread availability of guns.

So .9% is not relevant to debate? I actually think it is. So < 1% of abortions take place after 24st week. No need to talk about that?

Sure, works for me. (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1860337&postcount=59)

I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

I'm 100% OK with a ban on 3rd trimester abortions with exceptions only where the life of the mother is threatened. Not even rape or incest because IMO you've still got the first two trimesters to deal with that.

[flere-imsaho]

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

[Edward64]

Still not an answer, and I most certainly did answer your question. I would be fine with a total gun ban like Australia, the UK, etc...you know all these other countries that once they removed guns stopped having mass shootings, you know, that you can't or won't explain the reason for that.

Your answer to me was conditioned on ‘There will never be anymore gun control’ and therefore a choice between status quo or full ban. Again, I did not see this as a real assumption or answer.

If you want me to answer your questions directly, it’s only fair to answer mine directly. If you answer with weird caveats, don’t complain if I don’t answer clearly myself.

[flere-imsaho]

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
firearm during their offense. Among these, more than
half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street
or from the underground market (43%). Most of
the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer.

Source. (https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf)

[Edward64]

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

Have to pee first. If you counted Lathums answer go ahead and subtract -1

[Lathum]

So my counter trick question is how does a gun fire by itself?

Give me a break with that nonsense. A car doesn't drive itself yet we have a myriad of laws when it comes to driving them and in some cases total restrictions.

The reality is you can't explain why every other nation doesn't have the same problem because you know the answer and it would blow a hole in your argument. Pun intended.

So instead you'll deflect, make bad faith arguments, half asses solutions that won't solve shit, and ask silly questions, because at the end of the day a classroom full of kids, a nightclub full of gays, or a church full of parishioners is a price you're willing to pay for your toy.

[Lathum]

Have to pee first. If you counted Lathums answer go ahead and subtract -1

caveats aside ban them all. There is your answer. They cause FAR more harm than good and there is no way our forefathers could have anticipated this nor can I imagine they would have approved of how it is being used to excuse mass shootings so people can keep their arsenal.

[Edward64]

Because I'm doing Q&A with 4 folks here, let me summarize my core assumptions, beliefs and questions first just to level set and make sure we are clear on what I believe in.

1) I assume that law abiding citizens and their guns do not contribute significantly to gun deaths vs criminal elements and mentally unstable. This is gun deaths, not gun crime as was posted somewhere else. It could be basically the same thing but haven't had time to digest that yet.

2) I am okay with increased gun control (e.g. see prior post which I described going from 4 to a 7). I am not okay with a total or near total ban as has been proposed by Brian, Lathum (I think but that was based on a weird assumption he made) and Flere (bolt action guns only).

Therefore 3 questions I've asked throughout. And would appreciate clear answers to. Caveat if you wish but if you don't answer my questions clearly, don't expect me to answer yours clearly.

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

For no. 4, I believe Grantdawg has some metrics and I've asked for a link. Flere has provided a source but on a cursory note, I don't think it makes a distinction between law abiding vs criminal elements vs mentally unstable. But I'll look more.

..... okay, now to read and address Flere's question

[Edward64]

caveats aside ban them all. There is your answer. They cause FAR more harm than good and there is no way our forefathers could have anticipated this nor can I imagine they would have approved of how it is being used to excuse mass shootings so people can keep their arsenal.

Thanks. Simple enough question and simple enough answer. I'll answer your question shortly now that you've answered mine.

[Ksyrup]

When it comes to who is doing the pulling of the trigger, it is primarily criminals and mentally unstable. So why start with law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens first?



This goes back to what was discussed a few pages ago - there are the "typical" gun deaths, and then there are mass shootings.

I've noticed a thing going around the GOP talking points when a mass shooting occurs that essentially equates the fact of committing such a crime to being mentally unstable. "Someone who would murder 19 children must be mentally ill."

Except, that's not usually the case.

Here's a study that found that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness.

Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/psychotic-symptoms-in-mass-shootings-v-mass-murders-not-involving-firearms-findings-from-the-columbia-mass-murder-database/50514607ADF1AC2ECEB43369B6153E34)

How many times have we seen histories on these people where they had a few relatively minor run-ins with the law, or were underage when some underlying activity occurred, but were otherwise, up until the moment they decided to try to slaughter people in a school/church/grocery store/public building, "a good guy with a gun"?

The angry loner or hot-headed guy who always got pissed at work but has a clean record is still a "good guy," right? Until he's not. Then he goes directly from good guy to the deranged/sick/mentally ill pile, and we need to do something about these deranged people who shoot their families, or target workplaces, or indiscriminately shoot up a public place. Forget that he was the "good guy" yesterday.

[Edward64]

This goes back to what was discussed a few pages ago - there are the "typical" gun deaths, and then there are mass shootings.

I've noticed a thing going around the GOP talking points when a mass shooting occurs that essentially equates the fact of committing such a crime to being mentally unstable. "Someone who would murder 19 children must be mentally ill."

Except, that's not usually the case.

Here's a study that found that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness.

Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/psychotic-symptoms-in-mass-shootings-v-mass-murders-not-involving-firearms-findings-from-the-columbia-mass-murder-database/50514607ADF1AC2ECEB43369B6153E34)

How many times have we seen histories on these people where they had a few relatively minor run-ins with the law, or were underage when some underlying activity occurred, but were otherwise, up until the moment they decided to try to slaughter people in a school/church/grocery store/public building, "a good guy with a gun"?

The angry loner or hot-headed guy who always got pissed at work but has a clean record is still a "good guy," right? Until he's not. Then he goes directly from good guy to the deranged/sick/mentally ill pile, and we need to do something about these deranged people who shoot their families, or target workplaces, or indiscriminately shoot up a public place. Forget that he was the "good guy" yesterday.

Not to be a smartass but I've been accused of not being responsive. Hard to do when responding to 4 other people and watching Obi-Wan. It'll take me some time to get back to you. Appreciate your understanding :)

[RainMaker]

I’ve been pretty consistent about start with criminal elements and mentally unstable. I’m pretty sure those were mentally unstable but feel free to propose otherwise.

There are mentally unstable people in all the other countries where this doesn't happen on a regular basis.

There is also no evidence the Buffalo shooter was mentally ill. His manifesto is incredibly coherent for a person his age. It reads eerily similar to a major political party platform in this country. He simply chose to act out his beliefs.

[Lathum]

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?



Because it is the availability of the guns. It's like having a no pissing section in the pool. Great, someone is identified as a criminal or unstable, can't have a gun, but grandpa can, dad can, brother can, etc...as for stats, I am sure they are out there, and likely ones that reinforce the arguments for both sides. What we do have is undeniable proof that this works in every other country, so yes, ban all the guns.

[Edward64]

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

Just doublechecked and Lathum's version is the same as yours.

So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

To answer your question ...

I am not saying banning all guns will not solve the problem of no more gun killings. Logically it will. Other developed nations have significant gun restrictions and bans and therefore gun deaths have declined significantly.

Just like for me, logically removing criminal elements and mentally unstable will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths. (This is apparently a point of debate from Grantdawg and Flere, I've not had a chance to look through their sources yet. But until then, this is my default assumption)

Do we want law abiding citizens to give up their privilege & constitutional right to own any guns because criminal elements and mentally unstable are the cause of the majority of gun deaths? The other developed nations used as examples never had a constitutional right to own guns.

Where we differ is

1) I'm not willing to give up my privilege & constitutional right to own guns with significant controls (e.g. my previous example of 7 of 10) as a law abiding citizen with no significant mental health challenges.

It seems many of you are willing to abandon this privilege at this point in time. We'll agree to disagree.

2) For me to even consider this, I want the authorities to ban & remove all/most guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first. Then let's see where we are in 3-5 years. The gun death rates may be so significantly lowered that it's not as pressing of an issue anymore.

[Edward64]

Because it is the availability of the guns. It's like having a no pissing section in the pool. Great, someone is identified as a criminal or unstable, can't have a gun, but grandpa can, dad can, brother can, etc...as for stats, I am sure they are out there, and likely ones that reinforce the arguments for both sides. What we do have is undeniable proof that this works in every other country, so yes, ban all the guns.

Some are willing to give up their constitutional right to own guns so easily. Not me.

No problem with more controls. But total ban for law abiding citizens is ... weird to me.

[RainMaker]

Some are willing to give up their constitutional right to own guns so easily. Not me.

No problem with more controls. But total ban for law abiding citizens is ... weird to me.

It shouldn't be weird. Mostly countries do it and are considerably safer than the United States.

You don't have to argue it anymore. Many people, like yourself, find a few classrooms full of dead kids an acceptable price to pay to have their toys. It's a popular stance, just be man enough to own it.

[Edward64]

It shouldn't be weird. Mostly countries do it and are considerably safer than the United States.

You don't have to argue it anymore. Many people, like yourself, find a few classrooms full of dead kids an acceptable price to pay to have their toys. It's a popular stance, just be man enough to own it.

You are putting me on the defensive. Please stop.

And don't forget to ignore me and not reply to any of my posts. The Nordics are only an immigration application away

Oh, I heard a rumor that Kaepernick was already there.

[Edward64]

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

Just because we are keeping count. My 3 questions are:

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

Lathum answered
Flere answered but I need to respond (responded)

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

Grantdawg answered but waiting on source
Flere provide source but had to read more. On initial review, it does not seem to delineate between law abiding, non-law abiding and mental health ... but will do more due diligence later (responded)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

Lathum answered (finally) :)
Kodos answered but used same invalid (IMO) assumption as Lathum first did
Flere answered

[Edward64]

Sure, works for me. (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1860337&postcount=59)

I'm 100% OK with a ban on 3rd trimester abortions with exceptions only where the life of the mother is threatened. Not even rape or incest because IMO you've still got the first two trimesters to deal with that.

You got me here on your stance. But will suggest there is a significant group that won't ignore that 1%. And I agree with them.

[Edward64]

Because, again, it's about the widespread availability of guns.

My stance is "widespread availability of guns in the hands of criminal elements and mentally unstable" is the cause of majority of gun deaths. Not in the hands of law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens.

This seems to be a point of contention.

My question to you is - if it can be shown that majority of guns deaths are caused by criminal elements and mentally unstable, and NOT by law abiding citizens or their guns (e.g. stolen), will that change your mind?

If the answer is yes, I'll dig around more and try to back up my assumption.

If the answer is no, then we're pretty far apart and don't see how we can reconcile so won't bother.

[Edward64]

Source. (https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf)

I read through the study. I believe this study was your response to my question below ...

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

The study did not have a "was there a prior record?" which would have indicated non-law abiding. It also talks about gun crimes and gun deaths/homicides were not broken out (see below for an example). The only section that provided some data on that was

. Among those who had possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source

This indicates 7-8% were "law abiding" enough to pass the background check. But this 7-8% does not break down into how many of those were involved in gun deaths/homicides.

I understand the level of detail I'm asking about (law abiding, non-law abiding, mentally unstable) may not exist. FWIW, it is the crux of my belief - if law abiding citizens and their guns do not contribute to the majority of gun deaths (vs criminal elements and mentally unstable), why start with them first?

[thesloppy]

So let's hear your immediate solution for reducing the availability of guns to the criminal element and the mentally unstable then.

[Edward64]

So let's hear your immediate solution for reducing the availability of guns to the criminal element and the mentally unstable then.

You are #6 right now. I rather wait to make sure I've answered the questions that #1-#4 wanted first. Then I have to answer #5 Kodos' question and then will get to you #6.

But in the meantime, can you answer my 3 questions?

Therefore 3 questions I've asked throughout. And would appreciate clear answers to. Caveat if you wish but if you don't answer my questions clearly, don't expect me to answer yours clearly.

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

[NobodyHere]

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

[Edward64]

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

You are #7. Wait in line.

I'm sensitive to Flere's comment (IMO unfair) about not being responsive enough to his and Lathum's question. So I am limiting my responses until #1-#4 come to some sort of natural conclusion.

In the meantime, just like I asked thesloppy

Therefore 3 questions I've asked throughout. And would appreciate clear answers to. Caveat if you wish but if you don't answer my questions clearly, don't expect me to answer yours clearly.

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

[NobodyHere]

You are #7. Wait in line.



My question was directed at the board in general.

[Edward64]

My question was directed at the board in general.

Oh sorry. Been typing alot.

[RainMaker]

You are putting me on the defensive. Please stop.

And don't forget to ignore me and not reply to any of my posts. The Nordics are only an immigration application away

Oh, I heard a rumor that Kaepernick was already there.

Not sure what the Nords or Kaepernick have to do with this conversation unless it's one of our routine racial jabs.

[NobodyHere]

Oh sorry. Been typing alot.

Dare I say take a breather?

[Edward64]

Dare I say take a breather?

I will. Have to watch Obi-Wan ep 4 and rest of Stranger Things.

[Edward64]

Not sure what the Nords or Kaepernick have to do with this conversation unless it's one of our routine racial jabs.

One pouty statement meaning to put one of the defensive and followed by a pithy response shouldn't surprise you.

[flere-imsaho]

My question to you is - if it can be shown that majority of guns deaths are caused by criminal elements and mentally unstable, and NOT by law abiding citizens or their guns (e.g. stolen), will that change your mind?

No, because, again, the issue isn't who commits crimes with guns, it's about the widespread availability of guns with which to commit deadly & potently deadly crimes.

If the answer is no, then we're pretty far apart and don't see how we can reconcile so won't bother.

Agreed. If you can't even logically understand the above contention then we're operating on different planes of rhetorical existence right now.

The study did not have a "was there a prior record?" which would have indicated non-law abiding. It also talks about gun crimes and gun deaths/homicides were not broken out (see below for an example).

This indicates 7-8% were "law abiding" enough to pass the background check. But this 7-8% does not break down into how many of those were involved in gun deaths/homicides.

You missed the point. The point was that over 50% of the crimes were committed with guns that were either stolen directly by the criminal, or obtained in a likely illegal manner (e.g. black market) by the criminal.

I mean, think of gang shootings. Do know think those young men buy their guns legitimately? No, they steal them or they get them from someone who steals them.

[CrimsonFox]

Dare I say take a breather?

you DO know who you are talking to right?

[Lathum]

To answer your question ...

I am not saying banning all guns will not solve the problem of no more gun killings. Logically it will. Other developed nations have significant gun restrictions and bans and therefore gun deaths have declined significantly.

Just like for me, logically removing criminal elements and mentally unstable will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths. (This is apparently a point of debate from Grantdawg and Flere, I've not had a chance to look through their sources yet. But until then, this is my default assumption)

Do we want law abiding citizens to give up their privilege & constitutional right to own any guns because criminal elements and mentally unstable are the cause of the majority of gun deaths? The other developed nations used as examples never had a constitutional right to own guns.

Where we differ is

1) I'm not willing to give up my privilege & constitutional right to own guns with significant controls (e.g. my previous example of 7 of 10) as a law abiding citizen with no significant mental health challenges.

It seems many of you are willing to abandon this privilege at this point in time. We'll agree to disagree.

2) For me to even consider this, I want the authorities to ban & remove all/most guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first. Then let's see where we are in 3-5 years. The gun death rates may be so significantly lowered that it's not as pressing of an issue anymore.

This doesn't answer the question at all except to admit that indeed removing guns would reduce the number of gun deaths significantly. Apparently though your constitutional rights are more important to you than the safety of school children.

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

[PilotMan]

I really wish digamma was here for this discussion.

[Lathum]

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

Not sure if your angle is that if we ban guns only the criminals will be armed. That is a common right wing scare tactic.

If you look at gun homicide rates per 100K the US is at 4.46 per year. The UK is .06 and Australia is .18. It just follows all the other data that shows removing guns is an overwhelmingly positive move for a developed nation.

[kingfc22]

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

EXACTLY. If you’re good with a musket have at it. If we’re going with what the founders had in mind because that would be the literal interpretation at the time.

[NobodyHere]

Not sure if your angle is that if we ban guns only the criminals will be armed. That is a common right wing scare tactic.

If you look at gun homicide rates per 100K the US is at 4.46 per year. The UK is .06 and Australia is .18. It just follows all the other data that shows removing guns is an overwhelmingly positive move for a developed nation.

That doesn't answer the question.

[Lathum]

That doesn't answer the question.

I guess I don't really understand your question then. You are never going to eliminate crime, but if you remove the violent tools used to commit those crimes as other countries have you see a drastic difference in homicide rates with guns.

[NobodyHere]

How feasible do you think it is to remove all guns (or even a vast majority of them). People that already possess an illegal weapon aren't going to give them up. And currently law-abiding citizens generally aren't too keen on their property getting taken away because of the actions of criminals.

[NobodyHere]

Also just a side note I do have trouble seeing this as a "number of guns" issue because shouldn't we be a higher gun homicide rate in rural areas than urban areas if this was true?

[Lathum]

How feasible do you think it is to remove all guns (or even a vast majority of them). People that already possess an illegal weapon aren't going to give them up. And currently law-abiding citizens generally aren't too keen on their property getting taken away because of the actions of criminals.

No one is suggesting this is an overnight solution....plus if you pass laws making gun ownership illegal these "law abiding citizens" would surely give them up since following the rule of law is so important to them.

[NobodyHere]

No one is suggesting this is an overnight solution....plus if you pass laws making gun ownership illegal these "law abiding citizens" would surely give them up since following the rule of law is so important to them.

And then there's that darn pesky 2nd Amendment. Good luck with getting that changed.

[Lathum]

And then there's that darn pesky 2nd Amendment. Good luck with getting that changed.

This entire discussion is predicated on changing the 2A.

I wonder how many people said the same thing when women were fighting to vote?

[Lathum]

dola- I took an edible about an hour ago and its kicking in. Future replies will probably even more nonsensical than usual.

[NobodyHere]

When then this discussion is simply fantasy then. Like the Lions winning a playoff game.

[Lathum]

When then this discussion is simply fantasy then. Like the Lions winning a playoff game.

I think we all know that and thats the issue. They are called amendments for a reason, and a large portion of the population is fine sacrificing some innocents on a daily basis to keep it from changing.

[GrantDawg]

My former brother-in-law posted on Facebook he had renewed his carry license. He was immediately jumped on by his gun-owning friends. "You don't need that anymore" posted over and over again (Georgia no longer requires them). He pointed out that he kept he travels to states that do require them, and he can use it as a background check when buying a gun. This just angered the posters further. " Buy private. You never need a background check."
Ugh.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

This doesn't answer the question at all except to admit that indeed removing guns would reduce the number of gun deaths significantly. Apparently though your constitutional rights are more important to you than the safety of school children.

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

Huh?

Your question is

Quote:
So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

And I answered

To answer your question ...

I am not saying banning all guns will not solve the problem of no more gun killings. Logically it will. Other developed nations have significant gun restrictions and bans and therefore gun deaths have declined significantly.

This does not answer your question that I agree with you that other countries ban on guns have prevented significant mass shootings?

Be very clear with me. What is it in your question above that I did not answer? Maybe it was a trick question and I missed the nuance?

The remaining sections explain why I still believe what I believe.

Just like for me, logically removing criminal elements and mentally unstable will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths. (This is apparently a point of debate from Grantdawg and Flere, I've not had a chance to look through their sources yet. But until then, this is my default assumption)

Do we want law abiding citizens to give up their privilege & constitutional right to own any guns because criminal elements and mentally unstable are the cause of the majority of gun deaths? The other developed nations used as examples never had a constitutional right to own guns.

Where we differ is

1) I'm not willing to give up my privilege & constitutional right to own guns with significant controls (e.g. my previous example of 7 of 10) as a law abiding citizen with no significant mental health challenges.

It seems many of you are willing to abandon this privilege at this point in time. We'll agree to disagree.

2) For me to even consider this, I want the authorities to ban & remove all/most guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first. Then let's see where we are in 3-5 years. The gun death rates may be so significantly lowered that it's not as pressing of an issue anymore.

[Edward64]

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.
EXACTLY. If you’re good with a musket have at it. If we’re going with what the founders had in mind because that would be the literal interpretation at the time.

Sure it was written way back when. It was reaffirmed in 2008. Is that recent enough for you?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any U.S. state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.[3] This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

[tarcone]

You expect me to protect your children with my life and even carry a gun in school, yet you do not trust me to teach a curriculum.

[Edward64]

My former brother-in-law posted on Facebook he had renewed his carry license. He was immediately jumped on by his gun-owning friends. "You don't need that anymore" posted over and over again (Georgia no longer requires them). He pointed out that he kept he travels to states that do require them, and he can use it as a background check when buying a gun. This just angered the posters further. " Buy private. You never need a background check."
Ugh.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Thank your former BIL for being reasonable and moderate.

With that said, my carry license has expired. I have not renewed it because I didn't see the point and was lazy. But he is right, I should renew it if for anything, to be compliant in states that require it.

[Edward64]

dola- I took an edible about an hour ago and its kicking in. Future replies will probably even more nonsensical than usual.

Acknowledged

[Edward64]

Agreed. If you can't even logically understand the above contention then we're operating on different planes of rhetorical existence right now.

Agree. Appreciate us keeping this civil

[Brian Swartz]

Kind of a chicken and the egg problem there, though, IMO. I know my interactions with police officers have changed considerably since I was a kid growing up in the 80s, and they have not changed for the better (nothing dramatic, I've never had even so much as a moving violation).

I would say it's not one or the other, but both. I can tell you there has been a big change in the communities I'm familiar with just on the fundamentals of society level. There is definitely the police side of things but even apart from that, there has been a big shift whether you look at it in polling, anecdotally, or whatever, away from even the idea of supporting the rule of law as a foundational concept or something that's good. There's a lot more anarchism and similar around, a lot more disrespect for laws and authorities themselves as a concept.

[Brian Swartz]

On the comparisons to other countries bit ... I think that gets taken too far. No doubt we could reduce gun violence by banning guns, but again American culture is different. Demographics are different from other countries. The same laws put in place in significantly different societies with significantly different starting points are not going to end up with identical results, or even results that are necessarily all that similar.

I think the world has simply changed since the days when having guns for self-defense & resistance to tyranny was a viable way to approach life, just as economic policy, immigration policy etc. that made sense 250 years ago doesn't make sense now. To that degree the second amendment is simply obsolete, but that doesn't mean the constitutional argument based on it is nonsense. It means that amendment should be revoked. Unfortunately that pesky 'will of the people' thing will get in the way as there are still far too many who don't want that to happen.

[Edward64]

FWIW, in a May 2022 Gallup poll but survey conducted late last year to Jan. So it missed the latest series of shootings.

It looks like those who want a total ban are the outliers.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/393092/americans-recent-attitudes-toward-guns.aspx
Gallup has measured public support for a complete ban on handguns in the U.S. for all but the police and other authorized persons since 1980. Over that period, support has not exceeded 43% and has been below 30% since 2008. The latest reading found 19% favoring such a ban in October, down six points from 2020 and the all-time lowest on record.

And regarding more gun control, blame the independents for it falling 5% but still a majority at 52%.

In October 2021, Americans' support for stricter gun control fell five percentage points from October 2020 to 52%, the lowest since 2014.

The decline in support for stricter gun laws was owing mostly to a 15-point plunge among independents. Democrats' desire for more restrictive gun laws ticked up six points to 91% and Republicans' was essentially unchanged, at 24%, after dropping 14 points in 2020.

[PilotMan]

You expect me to protect your children with my life and even carry a gun in school, yet you do not trust me to teach a curriculum.

this

[Edward64]

This goes back to what was discussed a few pages ago - there are the "typical" gun deaths, and then there are mass shootings.

I've noticed a thing going around the GOP talking points when a mass shooting occurs that essentially equates the fact of committing such a crime to being mentally unstable. "Someone who would murder 19 children must be mentally ill."

Except, that's not usually the case.

I think this is a fair topic of discussion. I'm obviously not a psychiatrist or as well read in this area but TBH I do believe majority of mass shootings are cause by people that are mentally unstable. I have been using the phrase "mentally unstable" and can concede this term is not precise enough. Willing to alter terms if better.

Here's a study that found that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness.

Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/psychotic-symptoms-in-mass-shootings-v-mass-murders-not-involving-firearms-findings-from-the-columbia-mass-murder-database/50514607ADF1AC2ECEB43369B6153E34)

I'm thinking its fair to say the jury is still out on this. I've found other current research which indicates otherwise or is less definite it their conclusions.

Behind a paywall but who's kidding, I'm not qualified to read it all and thoroughly digest so happy for the synopsis.

APA PsycNet (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-13575-001)
Prior research suggests that approximately two-thirds of public mass shooters exhibit signs of mental illness. This study analyzed whether that means there are 2 psychological types of perpetrators (some mentally ill, some mentally healthy), or whether almost all perpetrators are likely to have mental health problems.

Using a database of 171 public mass shooters who attacked in the United States from 1966 to 2019, we tested for statistically significant differences between perpetrators with and without diagnoses or signs of mental illness.

We also closely examined the most lethal perpetrators since 2012, and the most “mentally healthy” perpetrators according to prior coding. Correlates of mental illness were approximately equally common among perpetrators, whether they were believed to be mentally ill or not.

Of the variables we examined, data availability provided the best explanation for coding of mental illness, not any trait or life experience. Further evidence suggested that even the most “mentally healthy” perpetrators could be recoded as having signs of mental illness or suicidality, or were clear outliers, or may not qualify as public mass shooters.

The most lethal perpetrators exhibited signs of mental illness or suicidal intent (or both) in all cases. When people engage in concerning behaviors that suggest a mass shooting risk, their mental health should be carefully assessed alongside other warning signs. However, it is important to avoid treating people with mental illness like criminals, because social stigma reduces the likelihood that they will ask for, and receive, the psychological help they need. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Another article

The Facts on Mental Illness and Mass Shootings - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/the-facts-on-mental-illness-and-mass-shootings/)
Relatively little is known about mental illness and mass shootings or other acts of mass violence because their infrequency makes them hard to study in a rigorous way.

“While they happen far too often, mass shootings are statistically rare events,” said Beth McGinty, a mental health and substance abuse policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, in a phone interview. “When you don’t have many shootings, it’s very difficult to disentangle patterns in what the individual cause of those shootings are.”
Unfortunately, the type of detailed epidemiological information that the ECA study and others provide about mental health disorders and general violence isn’t available in cases of mass murder. “[G]iven how infrequent an occurrence it is,” said Columbia University forensic psychiatrist Paul Appelbaum in an email, “I am not aware of any serious studies looking at the contribution of mental illness.”

Instead, most of the data about mental illness and mass shootings remain anecdotal or based on statistics assembled from various reports, some of which rely on secondhand information.
:
Researchers say these types of studies, which are suggestive but also at times contradictory, should be treated with caution.

How many times have we seen histories on these people where they had a few relatively minor run-ins with the law, or were underage when some underlying activity occurred, but were otherwise, up until the moment they decided to try to slaughter people in a school/church/grocery store/public building, "a good guy with a gun"?

Often times anecdotal as the 2nd article I linked said, but I'm thinking vast majority of them had history of mental instability e.g. I cannot fathom how someone can kill young kids seemingly without remorse. For those mass shootings that are racially motivated, I would still ask if they had past history of mental instability.

The angry loner or hot-headed guy who always got pissed at work but has a clean record is still a "good guy," right? Until he's not. Then he goes directly from good guy to the deranged/sick/mentally ill pile, and we need to do something about these deranged people who shoot their families, or target workplaces, or indiscriminately shoot up a public place. Forget that he was the "good guy" yesterday.

I will concede there are likely examples of people that seem mentally stable, law abiding that goes off their rocker and commits homicide. This gets back to 1 of my 3 questions below but I don't think we have stats for this. If it can be shown that law abiding citizens (up to the point of the homicide) and/or their weapons (e.g. stolen) are the cause of the majority of gun killings (vs criminal elements and mentally unstable), I will rethink my current position.

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

[Edward64]

So let's hear your immediate solution for reducing the availability of guns to the criminal element and the mentally unstable then.

There's reality and there's blue sky. I'll go with blue sky so we don't have to talk legalese and constitutional rights.

Overall

1) Have a law that says 2 strikes and you're out if guns are in use. For the most egregious, let's just have 1 strike. And when I say you're out, I mean "with extreme prejudice" and quickly (yeah, get them out of the gene pool)

2) Upgrade our gun control laws from (how I categorized level 4 to 7, see post Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Yet another school shooting. (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=3369198&postcount=2290))

For criminal elements

3) Pull a Duterte and use what means necessary to raid any criminal elements. Do a sustained series of round up, toss the guns, toss the criminal elements. Obviously a legal hurdle but is there anything a President can do and damn the political consequences. Do we really need to have an undercover cop in the Mongols for 2 years to build a case?

Pull up the database of all criminals (prioritize the biggies first). Then raid them and look for guns. Rinse and repeat.

BTW to do this, need to have a massive change campaign to inform the law abiding public on why, what, how etc. and the benefits they get. Need to be sure to tell them law abiding citizens won't have their guns tossed.

4) Need more police, more judges, and prob national guard for this. Better stop the defund the police. Instead, actually fund more and give them more training etc.

For mentally unstable (primarily for suicides), I'll concede there are more ideas out there that likely better than mine, but without having to do a lot of googling, top of mind include ...

5) In addition to #2 above, a good step is to remove all loopholes to background checks and make sure all mental history is in the background check database (this includes < 18 history which I think is currently not the case).

6) Get serious about catching mental health situations early. Maybe start a change management campaign to remove stigma and create the necessary infrastructure & staff up to really support. Maybe take some of the $230B est cost for the $10k loan forgiveness for this? Or use the loot (drugs, guns, cars, gold chains etc.) from #2 above to help fund it? Or maybe ask the Pharma's to contribute some from their ED ad budget?

I personally like #3 as the main driver. Just my 2 cents.

(BTW - let me head off the series of "oh, this is all BS and so unrealistic" commentary that is likely from some on this board. Let me say there have been plenty of unrealistic thoughts discussed in the past 3 pages so why not some more).

[GrantDawg]

Multiple fatalities in a plant outside Baltimore. At least three dead, 4 more shot. We have to restrict doors to businesses now. Those f-ing doors killing all these people.

[BYU 14]

Jesus, we can't even go a week anymore

[PilotMan]

The next argument will be that these are all communists and socialists and nazis trying to kill enough people so that they can pass legislation to take your guns. It's literally anything they want it to be. It doesn't need to make sense.

[thesloppy]

I personally like #3 as the main driver. Just my 2 cents.


As a non-gun owner, the suggestion that we should further militarize the police and begin raiding anyone with a criminal record sounds doesn't exactly sound like a great compromise.

[Edward64]

As a non-gun owner, the suggestion that we should further militarize the police and begin raiding anyone with a criminal record sounds doesn't exactly sound like a great compromise.

Reality (vs my blue sky musing) means this will never happen in the US with all the legal ramification. But I'd think there is a fair % who will be okay with more aggressive action against criminals and guns. Start with criminals with multiple priors and have used guns before and go down the list. Definitely start with street gang members also.

The original premise was instead of taking all/most guns from law abiding citizens, why not start with criminals (and mentally unstable) first. Definitely a great alternative IMO if the choice was only between take guns away from law abiding citizens or take guns away from criminals.

[thesloppy]

Sliding into a fascist state is definitely a great alternative to being the "Land of the Free".

[Edward64]

Sliding into a fascist state is definitely a great alternative to being the "Land of the Free".

Call that fascist state level 4. Taking away all guns from law abiding citizens as fascist state level 9

[JPhillips]

You do realize that under these rules most of the developed world is fascist state levels 7-9.

[Lathum]

You do realize that under these rules most of the developed world is fascist state levels 7-9.

And the irony is we are far closer to a fascist state then many of those other nations.

[NobodyHere]

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...

[BYU 14]

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...

I am on board with both of these, but there is no way in hell the gun lobby would allow either to pass, and the second one still gives a lot of wiggle room. Such as having a trigger lock is considered secure, put if you leave that gun in an unlocked car and it is stolen, the lock can obviously be compromised.

So to me, the best bet here is to somehow get universal background checks through, and the argument against them is feeble. Why a gun store owner needs to do a background check, but he can take some of his wares to a gun show and sell them without it as a vendor is ridiculous.

But I digress, with universal background checks you can then lay the hammer down on anyone that sells a gun without doing one. (And if we issued "gun licenses" to people, simply swiping their card, or entering the ID into an online database would make this manageable)

[flere-imsaho]

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

The law of supply and demand. They will demand guns to commit crimes, but since there is no supply, they will have to resort to less lethal methods.

When then this discussion is simply fantasy then. Like the Lions winning a playoff game.

Are you new here? :p

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...

No tearing apart, I agree with all of these. They're very common sense.

[GrantDawg]

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...
Those are suggestions I made a good while back in this thread. The party that always cries about accountability doesn't want any gun owner to ever be accountable for anything.

I have said this before as well, I am in and out of peoples homes on a regular basis. It amazes me how many people keep loaded guns out in the open on their bed-side table and loaded rifles and shotguns sitting next to their windows. WITH KIDS IN THE HOUSE!

[RainMaker]

And then there's that darn pesky 2nd Amendment. Good luck with getting that changed.

You don't need to change it. While the constitution grants access to guns, it also grants broad powers over the militia. Congress would be well within its right to require all gun owners who are part of the militia (any male between 17 and 44 years in age if we're being a good originallist), to attend a month-long training session.

So just make the month-long training part of militia duties.

[RainMaker]

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/im-ready-uvalde-victims-texted-love-buried/story?id=85208670

[Lathum]

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/im-ready-uvalde-victims-texted-love-buried/story?id=85208670

This really hits home. My daughter is going in to fourth grade and has a friend who is a bit that she has loved since kindergarten. We have become best friends with the parents because of it.

[Atocep]

You don't need to change it. While the constitution grants access to guns, it also grants broad powers over the militia. Congress would be well within its right to require all gun owners who are part of the militia (any male between 17 and 44 years in age if we're being a good originallist), to attend a month-long training session.

So just make the month-long training part of militia duties.

Yeah the well regulated militia thing has become the twisted part of the 2nd amendment. There's absolutely no way of arguing that a random guy with guns in his home for "protection" that goes to the gun range once a week or so is part of a well regulated militia. The closest thing we have to a well regulated militia nowadays would be the National Guard.

[Brian Swartz]

There's absolutely no way of arguing that a random guy with guns in his home for "protection" that goes to the gun range once a week or so is part of a well regulated militia.

Sure there is. The 'militia', as understood in the context of the time, was literally everyone. The entire population. The world regulated did not mean what we mean by it today. Survival skills, including the use of guns, had a much more prominent role in society than they do now. You can't look at our modern concept of what words like 'militia' and 'regulated' mean in the 21st century and backport those to the understanding of the people who wrote the Constitution and end up with something that makes sense.

[Brian Swartz]

3) Pull a Duterte and use what means necessary to raid any criminal elements. Do a sustained series of round up, toss the guns, toss the criminal elements. Obviously a legal hurdle but is there anything a President can do and damn the political consequences. Do we really need to have an undercover cop in the Mongols for 2 years to build a case?

Pull up the database of all criminals (prioritize the biggies first). Then raid them and look for guns. Rinse and repeat.

BTW to do this, need to have a massive change campaign to inform the law abiding public on why, what, how etc. and the benefits they get. Need to be sure to tell them law abiding citizens won't have their guns tossed.

I'll just say that I think this is the proposal - definitely respect and approve of the spirit in which it was offered - that you've made on my entire time on this forum that I disagree with most stringently.

The President needs funding for federal agencies to take a major boost to make this happen, and for that he needs Congress. For good reason. This absolutely should not be in executive order territory.

But that's a minor point. As messy as our legal system can be, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing was a pretty good idea IMO - unless you're not being as literal with the Duterte comparison as it appears? The 4th Amendment has a few things to say about the idea of just raiding all known criminals, to say nothing of the number of people who would not easily be classified into either 'criminal element' or 'law-abiding citizen' categories.

[Brian Swartz]

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.


Hard no from me. Culpable for selling a gun without adhering to all relevant laws requiring them to do their due diligence on the sale itself? Yes. Strict and severe penalties for failing to do so? Yes.

The slightest bit liable for what someone else does with the gun after you sold it? No way.

[Edward64]

I'll just say that I think this is the proposal - definitely respect and approve of the spirit in which it was offered - that you've made on my entire time on this forum that I disagree with most stringently.
:
But that's a minor point. As messy as our legal system can be, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing was a pretty good idea IMO - unless you're not being as literal with the Duterte comparison as it appears? The 4th Amendment has a few things to say about the idea of just raiding all known criminals, to say nothing of the number of people who would not easily be classified into either 'criminal element' or 'law-abiding citizen' categories.

I did preface by saying and added

There's reality and there's blue sky. I'll go with blue sky so we don't have to talk legalese and constitutional rights.
The original premise was instead of taking all/most guns from law abiding citizens, why not start with criminals (and mentally unstable) first. Definitely a great alternative IMO if the choice was only between take guns away from law abiding citizens or take guns away from criminals.

I understand there are significant hurdles and this won't happen.

But if given the only choices between (1) take away all guns from law abiding citizens and (2) going Duterte and taking away all guns from criminal elements ... yeah, I'd pick #2.

[Brian Swartz]

That's fair, and I did forget the preface you put in there so that's on me.

I do think it does end up not making a difference though since it ends up at pretty much the same place. I don't see any useful way to take away guns from 'criminal elements' without that ultimately hitting all of society anyway. It might start with a different motivation but it'd end up the same.

[Edward64]

I have said this before as well, I am in and out of peoples homes on a regular basis. It amazes me how many people keep loaded guns out in the open on their bed-side table and loaded rifles and shotguns sitting next to their windows. WITH KIDS IN THE HOUSE!

In college, I went home with a roommate. He lived out in the country with his mom, just the 2 of them. They had loaded .22 rifles in many rooms. He was probably 19-20 at that time so not a "kid" but I'm sure it was that way when he was growing up. But yeah, I can see the need for the mother to secure all weapons in a gun safe.

On a side note, I remembered we went into his room and crawled out on the roof. OMG the stars you can see away from city lights. It was glorious.

[GrantDawg]

In college, I went home with a roommate. He lived out in the country with his mom, just the 2 of them. They had loaded .22 rifles in many rooms. He was probably 19-20 at that time so not a "kid" but I'm sure it was that way when he was growing up. But yeah, I can see the need for the mother to secure all weapons in a gun safe.

On a side note, I remembered we went into his room and crawled out on the roof. OMG the stars you can see away from city lights. It was glorious.
There really isn't anything like the night sky without absent of light pollution. It is glorious.

[Atocep]

Sure there is. The 'militia', as understood in the context of the time, was literally everyone. The entire population. The world regulated did not mean what we mean by it today. Survival skills, including the use of guns, had a much more prominent role in society than they do now. You can't look at our modern concept of what words like 'militia' and 'regulated' mean in the 21st century and backport those to the understanding of the people who wrote the Constitution and end up with something that makes sense.

Yet in those days everyone couldn't own a gun, most states/colonies regulated gun ownership, some states/colonies required registration of guns, and some states/colonies even went to homes to inspect registered guns. Public transport or carry of guns wasn't allowed.

Also, post revolutionary war the colonies confiscated guns from those that supported the British government and those that refused to be fight in the militias that were stood up to act as our army in the revolutionary war.

The reality is in many ways we have less gun laws now than we did in 1791.

[NobodyHere]

https://static.explosm.net/2022/06/11022918/bringaparent.png

[RainMaker]

Sure there is. The 'militia', as understood in the context of the time, was literally everyone. The entire population. The world regulated did not mean what we mean by it today. Survival skills, including the use of guns, had a much more prominent role in society than they do now. You can't look at our modern concept of what words like 'militia' and 'regulated' mean in the 21st century and backport those to the understanding of the people who wrote the Constitution and end up with something that makes sense.

There is no "at the time". It is plainly written and we've had recent rulings that have confirmed that it still means the same thing.

All able-bodied men are part of the unorganized militia. Congress has the power to expand that too. And they have plenary authority to regulate and discipline the militia as they see fit. Technically, the Constitution gives Congress the power to require all gun owners in the militia to take on militia training.

Now that's an originalist interpretation, which most of the Supreme Court pretends to be. And I'm aware that those members are not consistent and do a lot of mental gymnastics when it comes to 2A. But if they were to be consistent, Congress could legally do that.

[tarcone]

There really isn't anything like the night sky without absent of light pollution. It is glorious.

One of the reasons I love the mountains.

[Thomkal]

Wasn't sure what thread to put this in, but this seemed the most appropriate.


There was a Pride Festival going on in Idaho, and thank god an alert citizen saw something suspicious about a U-Haul truck nearby and reported it to police. Police pulled it over and inside were 31 members on the Patriot Front white nationalist group were inside, all dressed in riot gear and with riot equipment, and on their way to the Festival. Don't know if there were guns or not.



Police: 31 members of Patriot Front group arrested in Coeur d'Alene - KXLY (https://www.kxly.com/several-people-detained-in-coeur-dalene-heavy-police-presence/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_kxly4news)

[Atocep]

Every single one of them wearing a mask when they were arrested but fought against wearing masks for Covid.

It's sad, I look at these guys and they're dads and/or uncles of kids somewhere and have this much hate in them.

[GrantDawg]

I read this was actually halted by an FBI operation following their communication. The FBI was actually directing the police on the scene.

[Thomkal]

yeah Grant that's what I first heard, but later reporting is saying it was a concerned citizen who called police-not sure what the actual story is.

[GrantDawg]

Officer on the scene said at 8:50 on this video it was an informant.
U-haul full of guys pulled over by law enforcement - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=7SlrREP6f5I&t=683s)

[BYU 14]

Officer on the scene said at 8:50 on this video it was an informant.
U-haul full of guys pulled over by law enforcement - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=7SlrREP6f5I&t=683s)

My gawd the comments on this feed, false flag, they are Feds, etc, etc. America is full of stupid, brainwashed idiots. Everything is now a false flag to the Q crew.

[CrimsonFox]

crazzy...where were they going?

[CrimsonFox]

this is really stupid the cops let other citizens get that close to them...what if they had a bomb and set it off

[CrimsonFox]

oh looks like Idaho

[CrimsonFox]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coeur-dalene-patriot-front-arrests-pride-u-haul/

[Ksyrup]

In the Year of Our Lord 2022, my mom forwarded to me an email that had been passed around her septuagenarian and octogenarian friends group that was was a clear urban legend.

It's one that you've probably seen as it's been around for like 25 years - the Rambo Granny. You know, 81 year old Australian grandma blows the testicles off a criminal she tracked down who had raped and robbed her granddaughter.

My response to my mom was simply "urban legend," to which she replied, "But it makes for a good story!"

What I really wanted to do was ask my mom why she thought this particular story, which has been making the internet rounds for as long as people have had AOL, was making the rounds at this point in time. It couldn't have anything to do with the current gun control debate and the "good guy with a gun" BS, could it? This story has everything! Grandma with a gun - who could be any more sympathetic a character as a responsible grandma whose granddaughter was raped? And she tracked down the bad guys! The bumbling cops suck at investigation, so grandma and her gun are the enforcers of choice! And of course the bad guy gets it good - he lost his testicles and his penis was mangled. REVENGE FACTOR 10.0!

It's all in there for the gun rights activists (BTW, my parents have never owned a gun or to my knowledge, ever even touched/fired one but by golly, the 2nd Amendment is as important to them as any issue!).

The fact that this was an old made-up story completely went over my mom's head, as was the reason it was passed around. Once I called it out for the BS is was, she fell back to it being a great story. Pulitzer Prize material, I'm sure.

*sigh*

We're going to be spending 12 days with my parents in Hawaii. It looks like the J6 hearings will end before the end of the month, which I am thankful for. It'll be a miracle if I don't end up attempting to swim back to the mainland after a week.

[flere-imsaho]

Props to the Coeur d'Alene police:

According to White, police were alerted about the U-Haul around 1:38 p.m. by a concerned citizen who said they saw members of the group getting into the back of the truck. The group was confronted by police about 10 minutes later, White said.

Who knows what the Uvalde cops would have done.

[CrimsonFox]

Props to the Coeur d'Alene police:



Who knows what the Uvalde cops would have done.

Held a press conference

[CrimsonFox]

Heh I'm sorry I'm do late to the party
I missed the original link

[RainMaker]

No federal charges against the fascist group? I remember the DOJ making a big stink about people crossing state lines to riot and how they are going after them. Have a feeling that was only for a certain demographic.

[stevew]

Props to the Coeur d'Alene police:



Who knows what the Uvalde cops would have done.

Locked up the person who reported it.

[albionmoonlight]

Apparently some right wing militia types online are now doxing the Coeur d'Alene police--posting their names, home addresses, etc.

[Galaril]

Reality (vs my blue sky musing) means this will never happen in the US with all the legal ramification. But I'd think there is a fair % who will be okay with more aggressive action against criminals and guns. Start with criminals with multiple priors and have used guns before and go down the list. Definitely start with street gang members also.

The original premise was instead of taking all/most guns from law abiding citizens, why not start with criminals (and mentally unstable) first. Definitely a great alternative IMO if the choice was only between take guns away from law abiding citizens or take guns away from criminals.

Lots of mass shooters don’t seem to have criminal records or not major ones.

[CrimsonFox]

Did you know that a group of mass shooters is ALSO called a murder?

[Edward64]

Lots of mass shooters don’t seem to have criminal records or not major ones.

I'm not sure your definition of "not major ones" but how I define criminal elements is anyone convicted of a crime that was above an infraction (e.g. misdemeanor, felony convictions). I acknowledge there are misdemeanors that are not that "major", but there are some misdemeanors that I consider serious especially if there were multiple incidents (simple assault, domestic violence). So unsure if that is precise enough but that's my default definition.

In the context of my discussion which you reference, note it is not just criminal elements but also mentally unstable. Get rid of guns or access to guns in those 2 groups first before removing all/most guns from law abiding citizens.

So to answer your question, for mass shootings demographics

Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories | National Institute of Justice (https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings)
Most individuals who perpetrated mass shootings had a prior criminal record (64.5%) and a history of violence (62.8%), including domestic violence (27.9%). And 28.5% had a military background. Most died on the scene of the public mass shooting, with 38.4% dying by their own hand and 20.3% killed by law enforcement officers.

When talking about homicides overall (not just mass shootings), I was not able to find relatively recent research but here's an older one.

Criminal Records of Homicide Offenders | Medical Education and Training | JAMA | JAMA Network (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201308)
For 1990-2000, 42.6% of 884 cases had at least 1 felony conviction compared with 3.9% of nearly 7.9 million controls, for a population-attributable risk of 40.3% (95% CI, 37.0%-43.8%); among cases, 71.6% had experienced any arrest from 1990-2000 compared with 18.2% of controls, for a population-attributable risk of 65.3% (95% CI, 61.6%-68.8%). For 1996-2000, the population-attributable risk among individuals with a felony conviction or any arrest was 31.0% (95% CI, 27.9%-34.2%) and 58.5% (95% CI, 54.9%-62.1%), respectively.

If you have more recent research, please share them.

[CrimsonFox]

Two white nationalists arrested in U-Haul have ties to a notorious right-wing lawmaker (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/two-white-nationalists-arrested-in-u-haul-have-ties-to-a-notorious-right-wing-lawmaker/ar-AAYsgyt?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=862d04a1fcea47d5811a6a9cd66c9507)

[Thomkal]

Of course they do

[Atocep]

I knew it would be Matt Shea before I opened the link.

[CrimsonFox]

I knew it would be Matt Shea before I opened the link.

Lol well played

[Atocep]

‘Pack Your Stuff and Get Out of My House,’ Says Patriot Front Member’s Mom (https://www.thedailybeast.com/pack-your-stuff-and-get-out-of-my-house-says-patriot-front-members-mom)

[BYU 14]

Surprised this didn't get a mention here, but this time staff and LEO's likely saved a lot of kids lives

Texas police shoot, kill armed man at youth summer camp – WFTV (https://www.wftv.com/news/trending/texas-police-shoot-kill-armed-man-youth-summer-camp/FCEWBPJUQFGDLG3IIRM5DUWEZU/)

[Lathum]

Sadly the pro gun folks will twist this into good guy with a gun instead of oh shit it almost happened again.

[BYU 14]

Well, it was a camp where the majority of the kids were black, as well as the shooter, so flip a coin on that I guess.

Heads - Fawn over the good guys and call out the potential shooters race, ala Blake Masters

Tails - Downplay it because the kids saved will grow up and vote for Dems anyway.

[BYU 14]

Dola - Forgot to mention this yesterday, but I asked my wife if she wanted to go to a Juneteenth event this weekend. Her response......

She gave me a firm no because she was worried that some lunatic may target one of the events here because of the large number of black people that would be present and she didn't want to be a target. :(

She also recently said she sometimes thought about us being targeted on one of our walks because we were an interracial couple and someone might not like her with me.

She is not a timid/scared person by any means and she totally understands the odds of being caught in one of these scenarios is incredibly small. But it is still significant enough to cause her to think about altering her/our life and that both saddens me and infuriates me. This is the fucking bullshit that now crosses peoples minds because of the preponderance of white nationalism that has been emboldened in this country.

[RainMaker]

I know a lot of people who aren't attending the Pride Parade in Chicago next week for the same reason. The stuff that almost happened in Idaho last week was a pretty big wakeup call.

[JPhillips]

Apparently, the TX leg held a secret hearing on Uvalde today.

I'm pretty sure now that the cops killed some of the students.

[JPhillips]

dola

The Uvalde police say they can't release any info because of the District Attorney's investigation,

but the DA says she isn't investigating.

The cops definitely killed some of the children.

[Edward64]

If true, shame on them.

If not true, I'll assume you'll issue a formal apology.

[JPhillips]

https://live.staticflickr.com/6092/6306528422_5c1b4f8742_b.jpg

[Edward64]

Oh no, don't issue that yet. You may well be right.

However, when I googled I did not see any indication that the LEOs killed any kids.

[Lathum]

Back to zero

https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-people-shot-alabama-church-shooter-custody/story?id=85451412&cid=social_twitter_abcn

[NobodyHere]

Back to zero

https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-people-shot-alabama-church-shooter-custody/story?id=85451412&cid=social_twitter_abcn

God works in mysterious ways and all that.

[Edward64]

God works in mysterious ways and all that.

Or freewill or the Devil.

[PilotMan]

Let's see what can I add.... hmm...

All part of God's plan in the end I guess. ��‍♂️

No point in going against that. He was probably using the gunman to punish the evil unbelievers. Or maybe the gunman remembered, before he got into the school, that all things are possible through God.

I mean....you had to know it was coming.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on the Uvalde massacre: “God has a plan� | Salon.com (https://www.salon.com/2022/06/14/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-on-the-uvalde-massacre-god-has-a-plan/)

I would just have to say, if I had the opportunity to talk to the people I'd have to say, look, there's always a plan. I believe God always has a plan. Life is short no matter what it is. And certainly, we're not going to make sense of, you know, a young child being shot and killed way before their life expectancy."

Parody is reality.

[JPhillips]

Somehow, God has a plan, doesn't apply when it's a transgender kid.

[Edward64]

Whew, good thing I read this article. From the sarcasm here against "God", it's good to know they are in the minority.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393737/belief-god-dips-new-low.aspx
The vast majority of U.S. adults believe in God, but the 81% who do so is down six percentage points from 2017 and is the lowest in Gallup's trend. Between 1944 and 2011, more than 90% of Americans believed in God.

Gallup's May 2-22 Values and Beliefs poll finds 17% of Americans saying they do not believe in God.

Gallup first asked this question in 1944, repeating it again in 1947 and twice each in the 1950s and 1960s. In those latter four surveys, a consistent 98% said they believed in God. When Gallup asked the question nearly five decades later, in 2011, 92% of Americans said they believed in God.

[I. J. Reilly]

Whew, good thing I read this article. From the sarcasm here against "God", it's good to know they are in the minority.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393737/belief-god-dips-new-low.aspx

Stop playing the pedantic dimwit. You know full well it’s not sarcasm towards Him, it’s towards those who selectively sight His omnipotence based on their selfish aims.

[Edward64]

Stop playing the pedantic dimwit. You know full well it’s not sarcasm towards Him, it’s towards those who selectively sight His omnipotence based on their selfish aims.

Actually no, didn't know that. Democrats are about 72% (vs Rep 92%) in believing in God. Liberal affiliation is 62% believe in God. So pretty easy to believe many here don't believe in God.

So, it would be nice if they said "organized religion" vs God then. But maybe let them answer for themselves.

[Flasch186]

smh

[NobodyHere]

Actually no, didn't know that. Democrats are about 72% (vs Rep 92%) in believing in God. Liberal affiliation is 62% believe in God. So pretty easy to believe many here don't believe in God.

So, it would be nice if they said "organized religion" vs God then. But maybe let them answer for themselves.

I believe that organized religion exists. Not so sure about God.

[Edward64]

I believe that organized religion exists. Not so sure about God.

It's just a leap of faith. If you are looking for proof, it'll be a while.

Come over from the darkside young padawan :)

[GrantDawg]

Stop playing the pedantic dimwit. You know full well it’s not sarcasm towards Him, it’s towards those who selectively sight His omnipotence based on their selfish aims.
My new band name is "Pedantic Dimwit."

[PilotMan]

Actually no, didn't know that. Democrats are about 72% (vs Rep 92%) in believing in God. Liberal affiliation is 62% believe in God. So pretty easy to believe many here don't believe in God.

So, it would be nice if they said "organized religion" vs God then. But maybe let them answer for themselves.

Don't spend much time around here do you? Or just don't pay much attention. Either way.

Nice threadjack. Just turn this into a discussion on religion itself and (your) faith, belief whatever and spin against those opposed to organized religion and the use of it in US culture. As opposed to, oh, I don't know. {checks thread title} oh yeah....gun culture in the US, and (my point) it's apparent goose step support from Christian Nationalists. You'd think Christians might have a bit more empathy and support for grieving families whose kids were murdered with a weapon of war. But all they can seem to manage is to throw up their hands and invoke the 'will' of God and say, "Nothing you can do about it, might as well accept it and move on". It's a rather ingenious way to avoid actually taking responsibility for anything they don't want to.

Pat Robertson and his ilk literally blame every bad thing that happens on godlessness and punishment, or the will of god for something. It's so much bullshit. It's hard to take over and over again.

But sure, how about you tell us all about your faith and how God leads you though the good times of your life.

[Edward64]

Don't spend much time around here do you? Or just don't pay much attention. Either way.

Nice threadjack. Just turn this into a discussion on religion itself and (your) faith, belief whatever and spin against those opposed to organized religion and the use of it in US culture. As opposed to, oh, I don't know. {checks thread title} oh yeah....gun culture in the US, and (my point) it's apparent goose step support from Christian Nationalists. You'd think Christians might have a bit more empathy and support for grieving families whose kids were murdered with a weapon of war. But all they can seem to manage is to throw up their hands and invoke the 'will' of God and say, "Nothing you can do about it, might as well accept it and move on". It's a rather ingenious way to avoid actually taking responsibility for anything they don't want to.

Pat Robertson and his ilk literally blame every bad thing that happens on godlessness and punishment, or the will of god for something. It's so much bullshit. It's hard to take over and over again.

But sure, how about you tell us all about your faith and how God leads you though the good times of your life.

FWIW, I'm a non-practicing Catholic but do believe in a God. Appreciate you clarifying stating Christian Nationalists vs believers in God in general.

You are right, this is off-topic and although tangents happen all the time, I can see this one getting out of hand. But happy to have a discussion in a more dedicated thread.

[RainMaker]

They must be hiding something pretty bad to go through all this trouble.

Uvalde Hires Private Law Firm to Argue It Doesn’t Have to Release School Shooting Public Records (https://www.vice.com/en/article/88q95p/uvalde-contracts-private-law-firm-to-argue-it-doesnt-have-to-release-school-shooting-public-records)

[GrantDawg]

Imagine the insult of the local taxpayers wanting answers, and their tax dollars paying for lawyers to keep it covered up.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

There is no way they’ll be able to keep it secret. The public pressure will crush them (as it should). I do wonder what they are trying to hide … surely it’s not just embarrassment at their incompetence

[RainMaker]

If they felt any semblance of embarrassment or shame, they would have done the honorable thing and killed themselves.

This is likely just to protect themselves financially.

[CrimsonFox]

Incidently why do gun nuts wake up and say....I'm gonnna open fire on a bunch of people and then I'll live the rest of my life happier.

Instead of...I think I"ll die today.

[JPhillips]

Don't think the gun bill is going to pass.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wow<br><br>A day after heavily booing US Sen John Cornyn on stage, the Republican Party of Texas just voted for this resolution rebuking him and the other Rs in US Senate working on the gun safety bill. <a href="https://t.co/aedCHVeMd8">pic.twitter.com/aedCHVeMd8</a></p>&mdash; Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremySWallace/status/1538271589254455301?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[PilotMan]

Show me in the Bible where it says guns are "God given Rights".

[NobodyHere]

Show me in the Bible where it says guns are "God given Rights".

Well Ezekial 23:20 talks about penis size.

[cuervo72]

Honestly, I never thought one would. Act like you are going to when the heat is on, then claim the other side is being unreasonable and back out when it's off. Absolutely no shock here.

[sterlingice]

Well Ezekial 23:20 talks about penis size.

The Old Testament has all sorts of fun stuff. There's the story about how a bunch of kids are making fun of Elisha for being bald so he curses them in God's name and bears show up and maul the kids (2 Kings 2:23-25)

SI

[Atocep]

Police never tried to open door to Uvalde classroom (https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Uvalde-classroom-doors-17251116.php)

The doors to the two classrooms the shooter was holed up in were likely unlocked the entire time. The cops never tried to open them, spent 40 minutes waiting on keys, then went to other doors trying the keys to try to find a master key without ever trying to open the classrooms he was in. Not only that, but they had access to a device that would have been able to open the classroom doors without a key.

They encountered the shooter 2 minutes after he entered the school and made no attempt to enter the classrooms he went into for over an hour.

After reading that article, I don't think they killed kids. Instead they stood in the hallway outside of unlocked doors for over an hour waiting for someone else to come do something while kids and teachers were dying.

[RainMaker]

At what point are you just accomplices?

[Atocep]

At what point are you just accomplices?

They had a tool to easily breach the door yet still waited 40 minutes on a key and then went to test the keys on other doors. It's obvious they had no intention of entering that classroom. They were using the locked door as an excuse to hold back, which bought them 40 minutes as they waited on keys. Then they went testing keys on other doors looking for a master key?

It seems like what happened is the excuse they planned on using fell apart on video when they discovered the door was unlocked the entire 1+ hours they sat doing nothing. So children were being killed and laying in a classroom dying while the cops sat outside trying to look busy until someone else came to bail them out.

[CrimsonFox]

Well Ezekial 23:20 talks about penis size.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

[CrimsonFox]

I just learned what a Log Cabin Repuiblican is. *facepalm*

[GrantDawg]

The Old Testament has all sorts of fun stuff. There's the story about how a bunch of kids are making fun of Elisha for being bald so he curses them in God's name and bears show up and maul the kids (2 Kings 2:23-25)

SI
That's why I am always amazed when you kids make fun of me.

[Thomkal]

I just learned what a Log Cabin Repuiblican is. *facepalm*


Yeah I'm actually surprised there are any Gay Republicans at all given their stance towards us.

[PilotMan]

Well Ezekial 23:20 talks about penis size.

Solid.

Ezekiel 23:20
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 11.5 6.5" width="11.5" height="6.5"></svg>



New International Version
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 11.5 6.5" width="11.5" height="6.5"></svg>








<sup class="versenum">20 </sup>There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

[CrimsonFox]

Mass Shooting Sees Seven Gunned Down During Family Barbecue: Police (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/mass-shooting-sees-seven-gunned-down-during-family-barbecue-police/ar-AAYDlXa?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=65a17e5d4f8b43418cb85c98866b739d)

[CrimsonFox]

Yeah I'm actually surprised there are any Gay Republicans at all given their stance towards us.

I really thought it had to do with how big their log was.

[CrimsonFox]

Mass Shooting Sees Seven Gunned Down During Family Barbecue: Police (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/mass-shooting-sees-seven-gunned-down-during-family-barbecue-police/ar-AAYDlXa?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=65a17e5d4f8b43418cb85c98866b739d)

I'm sorry...is this the right thread for this? I'm all confused since this isn't a school. Is there a diufferent mass shooting thread it should be in? Maybe a general mass shooting thread or even a family mass shooting thread and then a school shooting thread and then a business or place of work mass shooting thread? THen we could keep our mass shooting discussions straight.

[/SATIRE]

[Thomkal]

I really thought it had to do with how big their log was.


That's the secret club we don't tell anyone about :)

[NobodyHere]

I can't say I've thought of this angle before:

The next generation of school shooters grew up doing active-shooter drills — and know how to get around them, experts say (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-next-generation-of-school-shooters-grew-up-doing-active-shooter-drills-and-know-how-to-get-around-them-experts-say/ar-AAYEXHI?li=BBnba9O)

[RainMaker]

First real account of what happened according to video and not the cops lies.

Records show police in Uvalde were equipped to storm shooter | The Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/20/uvalde-police-shooting-response-records/)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't say I've thought of this angle before:

The next generation of school shooters grew up doing active-shooter drills — and know how to get around them, experts say (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-next-generation-of-school-shooters-grew-up-doing-active-shooter-drills-and-know-how-to-get-around-them-experts-say/ar-AAYEXHI?li=BBnba9O)

It's one my son mentioned to me somewhere around his junior (?) year of HS.

His working plan was basically to do the opposite of what the official "escape plan" was. Something to the effect "If they're from the school -- and that's the most likely source of a shooter here -- then they know exactly where we've been told to go and I'm not walking into that ambush"

[albionmoonlight]

First real account of what happened according to video and not the cops lies.

Records show police in Uvalde were equipped to storm shooter | The Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/20/uvalde-police-shooting-response-records/)

Each trickle of news only gets worse. And it keeps it in the news.

July 4th is a Monday this year. If I were the Uvalde Police, I'd just release all the footage on the Friday evening before that weekend. Just let the long weekend eat it.

[BYU 14]

I am watching a little bit of the hearings in Texas this morning and the Police (rightfully so) are getting eviscerated. It is hard to imagine there being anyway they could have screwed this up worse, the utter cowardice and incompetence is despicable, and you guys know I support police as a rule, but man.

And their SWAT team, taking pictures in their bass ass poses, then literally going AWOL when the exact reason they were formed occurs. No words..

[CrimsonFox]

I am watching a little bit of the hearings in Texas this morning and the Police (rightfully so) are getting eviscerated. It is hard to imagine there being anyway they could have screwed this up worse, the utter cowardice and incompetence is despicable, and you guys know I support police as a rule, but man.

And their SWAT team, taking pictures in their bass ass poses, then literally going AWOL when the exact reason they were formed occurs. No words..

That's fans of guns in a nutshell. They worship guns, pose with guns, jack off with their guns, act like a badass, but they are sissy cowards all.

[RainMaker]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">OMFG. Slain Uvalde teacher Eva Mireles called her husband — a police officer on the scene — and told him that “she had been shot &amp; was dying.”<br><br>When he tried to go help her, “he was detained &amp; they took his gun away from him &amp; escorted him off the scene.”<a href="https://t.co/3A0VDQWAjR">https://t.co/3A0VDQWAjR</a></p>&mdash; Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) <a href="https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1539400898853625856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 22, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Edward64]

I am watching a little bit of the hearings in Texas this morning and the Police (rightfully so) are getting eviscerated. It is hard to imagine there being anyway they could have screwed this up worse, the utter cowardice and incompetence is despicable, and you guys know I support police as a rule, but man.

And their SWAT team, taking pictures in their bass ass poses, then literally going AWOL when the exact reason they were formed occurs. No words..

There's definitely a major screwup here. I'm willing to give it more time for the full story to come out vs the seemingly daily finger pointing, leaks and overall lack of cooperation in providing all the details. But the volume of (seemingly) incompetence is pretty overwhelming right now.

Can the FBI be called in to be the grown up in the room and have them conduct the official investigation?

[BYU 14]

There's definitely a major screwup here. I'm willing to give it more time for the full story to come out vs the seemingly daily finger pointing, leaks and overall lack of cooperation in providing all the details. But the volume of (seemingly) incompetence is pretty overwhelming right now.

Can the FBI be called in to be the grown up in the room and have them conduct the official investigation?

I don't see how the FBI does not get involved eventually. At this point it is easy to see that their inaction cost lives and there needs to be accountability. The lawsuit that comes out of this is going to be massive.

[GrantDawg]

My understanding is the DOJ is already apart of the investigation.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

You know, it never would have happened if there'd been a good guy with a gun to stop him. We know if dufus was still in charge that's what the official line would have been, after he very publicly would have tossed the entire Uvalde police force under the bus.

[RainMaker]

Can any of the good cops in Texas arrest these fucking criminals for obstructing justice?

[Edward64]

Good news on the gun bill. Could be better but a nice compromise.

I really don't see the big deal on having everyone getting a background check (gun shows, private sales, family transfers etc.). But I would want the background check to be all inclusive, even < 18 individual records.

[RainMaker]

Any of those good apples I hear about around to handle this?

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The mother who rescued her two boys from the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Uvalde?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Uvalde</a> gunman says she’s being harassed by cops at her own home<br><br>Angeli Rose Gomez said she had to separate from her boys &quot;just so my sons don't feel like they have to watch cops passing by, stopping” <a href="https://t.co/v25mLGzeaa">https://t.co/v25mLGzeaa</a> <a href="https://t.co/VHwwQUEYTq">pic.twitter.com/VHwwQUEYTq</a></p>&mdash; philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) <a href="https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1541189482539634688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[Edward64]

I'll be glad to share many stories of good apples/cops doing good things. But then I'll be accused of derailing the thread. Let me know if you really want me to and glad to do it.

[RainMaker]

See if you can reach out to them and have them stop the bad apples from harassing the woman who made the crime of trying to save her kids. Also if you can have them arrest these cops for obstruction it would be good too.

[Edward64]

Is that a yes? If you are in agreement, I'm sure the rest of the board will be okay with it because this is really your "defund the police" thread anyway.

[sterlingice]

I'll be glad to share many stories of good apples/cops doing good things. But then I'll be accused of derailing the thread. Let me know if you really want me to and glad to do it.

"I know cops who do their job and don't abuse their power" reminds me of what a great philosopher once said: "What do you want, a cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!"

SI

[Edward64]

"I know cops who do their job and don't abuse their power" reminds me of what a great philosopher once said: "What do you want, a cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!"

SI

Just returning sarcasm in kind.

Fun quote. Googled on it. Wouldn't call Chris Rock a philosopher though.

[BYU 14]

Is that a yes? If you are in agreement, I'm sure the rest of the board will be okay with it because this is really your "defund the police" thread anyway.

Let's be clear, nobody with a fucking shred of common sense should be phrasing police reform in that manner.

[Edward64]

Let's be clear, nobody with a fucking shred of common sense should be phrasing police reform in that manner.

I agree.

Have to do some google-fu later but I think he is really a closeted defund (or seriously defund) the police. If I'm wrong, my bad.

[RainMaker]

Yeah I think they should defend the Uvalde Police. They seem pretty terrible at their jobs and actively making the community worse.

[BYU 14]

Yeah I think they should defend the Uvalde Police. They seem pretty terrible at their jobs and actively making the community worse.

Biggest Freudian slip ever :lol:

[RainMaker]

My brother and his girlfriend is at the parade in Highland Park. Says they ran for like a mile. Multiple dead but it literally just happened an hour ago. Wtf

[RainMaker]

Everyone is being told to stay inside. Lot of confusion but doesn't sound like they have the shooter.

[BYU 14]

Sadly I was talking with my wife earlier and mentioned we could probably expect at least 2-3 of these on the holiday :(

[CrimsonFox]

Happy 4th of July Mass shooting

[kingfc22]

Who left the door open?

[Qwikshot]

Just how Republicans want it, the exercising of 2nd amendment rights and those who died were probably libs anyway.

[RainMaker]

My brother and others who were sheltering at a store eventually got escorted to their car to go home.

[GrantDawg]

Glad he got out ok. Scary stuff.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[BYU 14]

Appears to be another under 21 male, SMH