Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.
America yawns. The majority of the country couldn't care less about mass killings with yet another AK-47.
If people really did, they would be pounding on Congress for solutions.
what workable "solutions" are you proposing? Give detail. Be specific.
(and take note of the "workable" in the previous question.)
And BTW... since you don't actually know the difference between an AK and an AR I doubt you have ANY solution at all other than posting some nonsense that makes you fffffffeeeeeellllll ggggooooodddd but has no relationship to reality, reasoning, rationality, or facts.
Relax. I've given them many times in the past including to you. But extremists would rather argue and foam at the mouth than solve problems. Possible solutions include:
1. Close the gun show loophole.
2. Improve the tracking databases for people with violent tendencies / mental health issues.
3. Increase spending on crime prevention in a country that doesn't spend enough.
4. Restrict access to the Colt AR-15 and Kalashnikov assault rifle and other weapons designed for killing people
5. Most importantly, ban the NRA.
"1. Close the gun show loophole."
What is a "loophole". (Not what a "gun show loophole" is, but what is a "loophole."?
"2. Improve the tracking databases for people with violent tendencies / mental health issues."
"tendencies"? So much for that "innocent until proven guilty" part of the Consitution, eh.
"3. Increase spending on crime prevention in a country that doesn't spend enough."
So how much do we spend on crime prevention and how much do you want us to spend?
"4. Restrict access to the Colt AR-15 and Kalashnikov assault rifle and other weapons designed for killing people"
As noted, you people sound like a five year old kid on his first tricycle attempting to solve the traffic problems around Chicago when it comes to firearms.
"5. Most importantly, ban the NRA."
Again, as noted, you people have a inbred hatred for all parts of the Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment.
No, I just have contempt for bloodthirsty gun nuts.
and that is the best she can do, eh. And then whines about why we can't have "dialogue"
Not at all. It's just that some people are beneath me. And some are way beneath me.
Let me translate that for the Dear Readers...
Daum... Burton has got me so trapped in a corner that the only option I have is to ignore him and his ability to destroy every attempt I make to sound reasonable.
still looking for your definition of a "loophole".
What's the holdup?
loop·hole - (ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/) an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show within their state. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders and FFLs are not issued to persons that only sell firearms at gun shows.[n 1]"
When Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 they had the full ability at that time to include ALL PRIVATE sales of used firearms under the necessity of going thru a federal firearm license. They debated the issue and choose not to,
The law fully and complete provides for -- and willfully and deliberately allows -- private sales between individuals. Saying that a private sale is a "loophole" is no different than saying that stopping at a red light and then going on green is okay, but stopping at a stop sign and then moving forward when safe is a "traffic loophole."
If Congress passes a law that bans "red cars" that doesn't mean that someone buying a "blue car" has now completed a "car loophole."
Those that complain about a "gun show loophole" is either showing their ignorance or willfully distorting the truth on the issue. This cannot be emphasized enough. Congress willingly, deliberately, and knowingly included private sales of used firearms as being fully, completely, and thoroughly legal to do.
Now just where is the "ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or set of rules" in that?
You may not like that... but you have to completely distort the meaning of "loophole" to complain about a "gun show loophole."
You asked for a definition. You got a definition. Moving the goalpost doesn't change the "loophole" being exploited. The definition explains what a loophole is. The "gun show loophole" fits it's parameters.
No one had to "completely distort" anything. People buying guns at a gun shows, skirt the background check required when buying a gun from a registered retailer.
You may feel that a "distortion" is necessary, but it's clearly not. People that complain about those "misunderstanding" are clearly ignorant to what the definition of a "loophole" is.
The fact remains...if you want to get around a background check required to purchase a firearm...buy a gun at a gun show. Full stop. That...is a "loophole". You can feel free to interpret what you think the lawmakers thought that day. Hell, you can expound on how their lunches influenced their decision. No one is arguing what they were thinking, your interpretation or what wasn't included in the law.
They are in fact arguing that you...can purchase a gun...without a background check...at a gun show. That's it.
Feel free to muddy the waters all you like. That point. The one above this sentence...is clear. Fix that, and a whole lot of problems (not all) go away.
It's hard to argue with stupidity and ignorance this deep.
1) ALL federally licensed gun dealers MUST do a "background check" when they sell a gun, whether it is in the gun store, in a parking lot somewhere, or sitting behind a table in a gun show. That is black letter law. Period. If ANYONE buys a firearm at a gun show from a licensed dealer they MUST have a background check (with a few exceptions for people who have had a prior background check that is still effective in the federal government eyes).
There are NO "unlicensed dealers" at gun shows. The law as passed by Congress 100 percent allows private individuals who are "not in the business of selling guns" to sell privately a limited number of guns each year. Most of these you see at guns shows behind a table are people who are clearing out a collection that they inherited or no longer need/want.
I have sold guns and bought guns from both dealers and private sales in gun shows. I would like to know the expertise of the poster and his personal experience in buy guns from a dealer without a "background check". It should be interesting to see if he admits to a felony in a public forum.
And, as noted in my post, if it is absolutely, 100 percent, willfully and deliberately, within the desire and actions of Congress to legally allow "private sales" then how in the hell does a "private sale" become part of a "loophole"?
Ouch. Went right to the "stupidity and ignorance" cliche. Nice. Not original, but I can clearly see you're tapped out on that front, with all the "pro-gun" talking points. Do they hand you guys pamphlets or is there a sing-a-long at the rallies to remember them all?
You keep saying..."licensed dealer". Sure, there are no "unlicensed dealers", but "...more than 4,000 gun shows are held in the U.S. annually.:1 Also, between 50 and 75 percent of gun show vendors hold a Federal Firearms License, and the "majority of vendors who attend shows sell firearms, associated accessories, and other paraphernalia.":4...although most sellers at gun shows are upstanding people, a few corrupt sellers could move a large quantity of firearms into high-risk hands.:17 They stated that there were gaps in current law and recommended "extending the Brady Law to 'close the gun show loophole.' "
There are private gun sales, among private citizens at gun shows. I might not "deal" guns, but as you said...you can sell them to someone else...privately.
"Private citizens...are not obligated to perform background checks. "Private parties are not legally required by federal law to: ask for identification, complete any forms, or keep any sales records, [[[as long as the sale does not cross state lines and does not fall under purview of the National Firearms Act.]]]
"The GCA mandated Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) for those "engaged in the business" of selling firearms, but [[[not for private individuals who sold firearms infrequently.]]]"
"An unlicensed person is prohibited by federal law from transferring, selling, trading, giving, transporting, or delivering a firearm to any other unlicensed person...[[[only if they know or have reasonable cause to believe the buyer does not reside in the same State or is prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms.]]]"
Hence, going to a gun show...where guns are being sold...and buying one from a "private" citizen...is...the...loop...hole.
"Specifically, FOPA made it legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was [[[transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an FFL holder, no background check or Form 4473 is required by federal law.]]]"
So, guns in the dealer's "private collection" can be sold without a background check.
My great uncle has been a dealer for over 40 years.
"In 2009 the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report citing that many firearms trafficked to Mexico may be purchased through these types of private transactions, by individuals who may want to avoid background checks and records of their firearms purchases.[n 4] Proposals put forth by United States Attorneys, which were never enacted, include::17
Allowing only FFL holders to sell guns at gun shows, so a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction
Strengthening the definition of "engaged in the business" by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for "hobbyists," and lowering the intent requirement
Limiting the number of individual private sales to a specified number per year
Requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the record-keeping requirements applicable to Federal Firearms License holders
Requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through a Federal Firearms License holder
Establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFL holders who surrender their license
Requiring registration of non-licensed persons who sell guns
Increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check, as required by the Brady Act
Requiring gun show promoters to be licensed, maintaining an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFL holders and non-licensed sellers at gun shows
Requiring one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show
Insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form"
Because "private sales" are conducted at gun shows...where there are a large abundance of firearms, from licensed dealers with "private collections", shady dealers with "private collections" , as well as "private sellers" looking to off load...and a lot can be had without a background check.
"Ouch. Went right to the "stupidity and ignorance" cliche."
yes... because you are both stupid and ignorant.
"You keep saying..."licensed dealer". Sure, there are no "unlicensed dealers", but "...more than 4,000 gun shows are held in the U.S. annually.:1 Also, between 50 and 75 percent of gun show vendors hold a Federal Firearms License, and the "majority of vendors who attend shows sell firearms, associated accessories, and other paraphernalia."
You do know that there are very few federal laws concerning associated accessories, and other paraphernalia, don't you? And none of them have anything to do with "loopholes."
For those who have never been to a gun show here is how it normally breaks down. Yes, about 50 to 75 percent of the tables are full of license dealers. About 20 percent of the tables are used by those who sell stuff such as gun cases, holsters, ammo, knives, books, and non-lethal supplies such as pepper spray and stun guns. I've seen hearing aid businesses, ADT dealers, custom T-shirt dealers, satellite TV dealers, and many other odd stuff there. Many shows are even named "knife and gun show" since there are so many knife dealers. There are usually at least three to four tables that sell food oriented stuff such as jerky, BBQ sauce, dehydrators, and other prepper supplies. A typical show might have 300 tables (with many vendors having up to eight to ten tables by themselves) and about three or four of them are used by non-licnsed dealers selling their guns. I exhibit/sell at about 15 guns shows a year, with about a 100 mile radius from home.
"...although most sellers at gun shows are upstanding people, a few corrupt sellers could move a large quantity of firearms into high-risk hands."
Again, for those who are not accustomed to gun shows let me share with you how much nonsense this is. When you go into any gun show there are cops everywhere. Cops manning the doors, cops buying merchandise for themselves, cops in the booths selling stuff as a part time job. Cops no matter where you look. Look at that sentence and note well the "could". Lightning "could" come down and create a superhero by melting a dozen guns to someone's body but it is unlikely it is going to happen. With all the cops standing around how well do you think that "corrupt sellers" are going to sell to "corrupt buyers" who know darn well the cops are there.
"There are private gun sales, among private citizens at gun shows. I might not "deal" guns, but as you said...you can sell them to someone else...privately."
Yes, EXACTLY in accordance with what the law allows. The same type of law that allows you to move your car forward when the light turns to green without it being a "stoplight loophole."
"Private citizens...are not obligated to perform background checks. "Private parties are not legally required by federal law to: ask for identification, complete any forms, or keep any sales records, [[[as long as the sale does not cross state lines and does not fall under purview of the National Firearms Act.]]]"
Wait... what did you just post? "are not legally required".
"The GCA mandated Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) for those "engaged in the business" of selling firearms, but [[[not for private individuals who sold firearms infrequently.]]]"
Wait... what did you just post? "but not for private individuals who sold firearms infrequently".
"Hence, going to a gun show...where guns are being sold...and buying one from a "private" citizen...is...the...loop...hole. "
So... again... two people acting legally in full according with the law, (the law passed knowingly, willingly, and deliberately by Congress) are somehow, someway, in some magical process, actually in a "loophole." And he wonders why I call him stupid and ignorant.
"My great uncle has been a dealer for over 40 years. "
My grandfather was a brain surgeon for over 30 years. If you want a trepanation done to you I am your man since I sat on his lap many times as a child.
the rest is just more nonsense, unviable and unprovable wishes expressed as magical laws
"You do know that there are very few federal laws concerning associated accessories, and other paraphernalia, don't you? And none of them have anything to do with "loopholes."
You're right, that has absolutely nothing to do with the purchase of a firearm at a gun show. The fact that a vendor sells Cheetos, is meaningless. I simply finished the quote from the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice. Good observation. I'd give you a cookie, but the drooling it would create would...just be a mess no one wants.
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/doc … 9/download
"Yes, about 50 to 75 percent of the tables are full of license dealers."
And the other 25% to 50%? Private sellers or unscrupulous dealers, perhaps? The rest of that word soup was, what can best be described, as drivel. An inventory of a vendors non-weaponry offerings? It had nothing to do with the purchase of a firearm without a background check, nor addressed the "loophole". The 50 to 75%, portion was taken from the same report, found at the ATF website.
"and about three or four of them are used by non-licnsed dealers selling their guns."
Wait? What? Hmmm...
"There are NO "unlicensed dealers" at gun shows." ~ Jack Burton.
"When you go into any gun show there are cops everywhere."
When you walk outside, there are cops "everywhere". Crimes are still committed. What's your point? A cop being present doesn't magically make a vendor who frequents gun shows, who's notoriously lax on I.D. checks, suddenly check more I.D.'s, nor would it suddenly make a one of the other 25 to 50% who aren't playing by the rules, suddenly pack up and leave or that criminals haven't evaded the police before. Illegal things...still happen when a cop is around. Sometimes, and not all the time, it has been known to happen that...the cop might be doing the illegal thing. Profound.
"With all the cops standing around how well do you think that "corrupt sellers" are going to sell to "corrupt buyers" who know darn well the cops are there. " I'd imagine the same way...that normal criminals conduct business with police around. How exactly would an illegal transaction look any different from a regular one? All they have to do is exchange cash and gun. Are you imagining a lot of guys in trenchcoats in the shadows, whispering "Psst, come ova' heh. You lookin' fer a nice gun widout a backgroun' check?". What kind of comic book world do you live in?
Are you saying that anyone standing around can say they're a cop and demand to investigate a random transaction? Yeah, I'm sure that would go over well at a gun show, with the privacy loving, 'Merica, freedom crowd.
Besides, "state and local police departments are not legally obligated to enforce federal gun law as per the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Printz v. United States."
"So... again... two people acting legally in full according with the law, (the law passed knowingly, willingly, and deliberately by Congress) are somehow, someway, in some magical process, actually in a "loophole." And he wonders why I call him stupid and ignorant."
(sigh) So...again: loop·hole - (ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/) an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
As you're demonstrating a knack for both pretty regularly, I don't think you understand what "stupid and ignorant" actually mean.
Because a law was "passed knowingly, willingly and deliberately by Congress." doesn't make it infallible and without loopholes. However, if you want to stick with your "knowingly, willingly..." stuff, they did "knowingly" and "willingly" propose the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009. Meaning...the all knowing, all willing, all deliberate Congress understands there's a loophole...and proposed a law to try and close it.
"Yes, EXACTLY in accordance with what the law allows. The same type of law that allows you to move your car forward when the light turns to green without it being a "stoplight loophole."
That is not...wow...remotely the same thing. Since your into stoplights and car analogies. Here: It's as though everyone has to stop at a stoplight or get pulled over by the police...except those drivers that bought their car from a certain car dealer...they don't have to stop. Then, people specifically buying their cars from that car dealer, just so they don't have to stop. That would be a "stoplight loophole".
"Wait... what did you just post? "are not legally required"."
That's the "loophole". (smh)
loop·hole - (ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/) an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
It's why the United States Attorneys suggested, "Strengthening the definition of "engaged in the business" by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for "hobbyists," and lowering the intent requirement"
"Wait... what did you just post? "but not for private individuals who sold firearms infrequently". "
That's the loophole...again. One can claim that they sell firearms infrequently...and is not required to perform a background check...hence selling his weapon...at a gunshow...and not performing a background check.
loop·hole - (ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/) an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
It's an inadequacy and ambiguity in the law that leads to guns being sold without a background check...and needs to be addressed. A background check for all firearm sales, regardless of party definition would "close the loophole".
As stated in a 1999 report from the ATF, "...there were gaps in current law and recommended "extending the Brady Law to 'close the gun show loophole.'"
The ATF calls the ability to buy a gun, at a gun show, without a background check a loophole in the law.
Now, given your distinctive ability to purchase things and identify BBQ sauce on a vendor's table aside, I'd defer to law makers, law enforcement, and their respective investigative bodies to recognize the loophole in question.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report citing that "many firearms trafficked to Mexico may be purchased through these types of private transactions, by individuals who may want to avoid background checks and records of their firearms purchases."
The executive vice president of the NRA seemed to understand there was a loophole too. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime "We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."
See how he said...every sale. Every...sale. Seems reasonable.
"My grandfather was a brain surgeon for over 30 years. If you want a trepanation done to you I am your man since I sat on his lap many times as a child."
T.M.I., sir. Though, it is a shame his brain power didn't rub off on you. Tragic. Though...laps, I guess. That's something, right?
"the rest is just more nonsense, unviable and unprovable wishes expressed as magical laws"
The rest were actually suggestions made by the United States Attorneys (aka chief federal prosecutors) or historically United States District Attorneys. Folks far more learned, versed and knowledgeable of the law (and laws) than, say...yourself.
Though, I'd reckon, if they need some t-shirts, a satellite dealer or a lead on some table top beef jerky at the gun show, you'd be the guy to talk to. (smh)
Still looking for your response as to which post I said to arm all teachers with assault rifles. YOU made the claim... should be easy for you to back it up, eh.
I of course never made that claim. You seem to have a problem with reality. I would be very worried being in the vicinity of someone who is obsessed with guns and thinks that way.
I hope you don't live in Las Vegas.
Well, SOMEONE posted, "I'm sure if all of the teachers at the Parkland High School carried their own AR-15s, no one would have died except for the shooter."
and then followed it up with "Really? I don't see any other post about giving every teacher an assault rifle."
Oh... that was YOU. YOU said you saw a "post about giving every teacher an assault rifle." when you were referencing my post.
You've been asked to specifically note which post you claimed to "see". You can't. Because you made it up completely from thin air, eh. Fake News, in other words. But typical.
BTW, what is your definition of a "loophole."
Then you should be delightful with this "solution" proposed by a Republican representative...
H.R.34 - Safe Students Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … 4/text?r=1
The ak47 is the weapon used often by government controlled armies that kill poor people in weaker countries that refuse to be cheap labor while they loot their resources. Apparently they are not grateful for the cheeseburgers, cola, Marlboroughs, diabetes and 24% APR that their benefactors provide. The World Yawns. My solution is to lock up Hillary, but no one listens.
when you get around to figuring out how to make people perfect then you can get back to us. But right now, all you have to offer is to try to take away the guns from the people who didn't do any harm and leave them defenseless in the face of people who do do others harm. That's it. Your sole drum you beat.
It’s not about “making people perfect.” This isn’t an issue in any other developed nation (and none of those are filled with perfect people, either.) This is a problem pretty specific to the United States so it’s your country’s job to figure out how to fix it. But you don’t and you won’t. It seems you’re all content to shrug and say “thoughts and prayers, this should never happen, blah blah blah.” Doesn’t mean shit unless you’re gonna do shit. Apparently Making America Great Again doesn’t include finding a solution to American children getting murdered in school. As a mother I cannot imagine sending my child to school everyday having good reason to fear for her safety there, that absolutely breaks my heart.
I think part of the problem is the disingenuous politicization. Personally I think there is too much violence on TV and films. Too many violent video games and a culture that has fallen into that type of entertainment as opposed to ya know, real life. But, sadly or unfortunately, there is no political angle there, so...
I think a HUGE part of this - maybe ALL of this - is what kids are exposed to on television, films and video games. Coming from a previous generation I can see - and have lived through - the transition from healthy childhoods spent outdoors, riding bicycles, skateboards, roller skates and anything else that had wheels on it, eating un-modified food, much of which came from the family garden, being given and EXPECTED TO DO chores, being given and EXPECTED TO FOLLOW boundaries, rules and accepted social mores - to this generation of listless, bored, unhealthy, poorly parented, rude, aggressive, profane, over-indulged, narcissistic brats who have been brought up to believe that self-esteem is something they are owed, not something that they have to develop in themselves by becoming a contributing member of society. Video games are the scourge of the earth. It wasn't children who developed these "games" - it was adults who damn well should know better than to teach a 7 year old that gunning down the most pixelated entities grants him another life span, projects him to a new "level". Technology held such promise in the beginning - and it's become our undoing as a society. And then, for a child to have the added misfortune to have been born in the USA where God is spelled G-U-N, and parents worship their "right to bear arms", then the only thing that's shocking about mass murdering school shooters is that they didn't start long before they did. And sending "prayers and condolences" to the victims' families is a hollow sentiment, a cheap, patronizing slap in the face when it comes from people who have never said a genuine prayer in their lives and probably can't even define the word "prayer".
"And sending "prayers and condolences" to the victims' families is a hollow sentiment, a cheap, patronizing slap in the face when it comes from people who have never said a genuine prayer in their lives and probably can't even define the word "prayer"."
You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump in 2020.
Blaming school shootings on rock music and violent videos is an old, tired, lazy excuse which never was right.
I lived while Ozzy Ozborne got blamed for violence. If you listen, most of his words are about being anti war.
Marilyn Manson grew up with a conservative Christian family who were sexual perverts in private, and attended a private Christian school.. His Grandfather had secret stashes of bestiality (a topic Christian fanatics know a lot about). They are always the ones worried that they may be forced to marry goats if Human Rights laws get passed. Manson's performance art is mostly against the bigotry of religion. He's very intelligent. He goes a bit far, but is excellent in interviews. He believes most shooters are people who have been teased, taunted and threatened, while their parents, teachers, or pastors ignore it and try to blame it on the lame excuses above.
Somebody should listen to these disturbed individuals, and maybe they would feel less hopeless and violent.
"It’s not about “making people perfect."
Then just what is it about? You want people to stop doing evil things? What is YOUR proposal then other than hoping and wishing for unicorns to come and save the world?
"This isn’t an issue in any other developed nation"
You just might want to check with Norway, France, and many other countries before you make a fool of yourself again.
"so it’s your country’s job to figure out how to fix it"
How about we immediately shut down all media coverage of such incidents so that no disturbed person will consider being a "copy cat killer"? You up for that?
"But you don’t and you won’t."
I know... I know... we can make murder against the law. That should work well, eh.
"" Doesn’t mean shit unless you’re gonna do shit. "
Okay... step up to the plate. Specifically, with detail, and within the constraints of the Constitution, tell us what we need to do. Don't be shy.
Be sure that your recommendations or laws fit the criteria of guaranteeing to work for social deviants who, by nature, will reject and not obey any of your recommendations or laws. Also be sure that they don't impact the freedom and liberty of those 99.999 percent of gun owners who do no harm to anyone.
" Again doesn’t include finding a solution to American children getting murdered in school."
You keep mentioning "solutions" but I don't think you really know what that word actually means as you have not offered any of those magically "solutions" that you seem to think are just hanging about, being ignored like unicorns.
"As a mother I cannot imagine sending my child to school everyday having good reason to fear for her safety there, that absolutely breaks my heart."
As a mother, you are an emotional thinker who refuses to use logic, reason, rationality, or facts to everyday living. We don't base laws on what makes you ffffffeeeeeellllll ggggggoooooddddd.
First of all, the patronizing arse schtick isn’t cute.
My proposal is that you make it harder for people to walk into a school and kill 17 people like it’s nothing.
Please link me to the stories about people shooting up schools every few weeks in “Norway and France and many other countries” as I seem to be missing them and Google seems to not be posting those articles. But clearly you’re a guy in-the-know so I’ll wait patiently for your very special information.
I am totally and completely up for not publishing the names of mass murderers and sensationalizing their every action leading up to the point that they killed a bunch of people. Yes. You should do that too.
As far as mass shootings are concerned, gun control does make a difference in other countries. I know people are gonna jump at me with overall murder statistics but I believe mass shootings should be treated as a separate issue.
"First of all, the patronizing arse schtick isn’t cute."
It makes you look foolish to the readers. That is sufficient in itself.
"My proposal is that you make it harder for people to walk into a school and kill 17 people like it’s nothing. "
Guess you missed the "give detail and be specific" in my request for your proposals. (Oh, sorry... was that patronizing?) But since you DIDN'T actually give any details or specifics it pretty much tells the Dear Readers that you are intellectually bankrupt on the real concept of "doing something."
"Please link me to the stories about people shooting up schools every few weeks in “Norway and France"
Never said that shootings occur every few weeks. But surely you are aware of the number of terrorist attacks in France over the past few years? And the Workers' Youth League shooting in Norway?
" am totally and completely up for not publishing the names of mass murderers and sensationalizing their every action leading up to the point that they killed a bunch of people. Yes. You should do that too."
There ya go Dear Readers. Not only against the 2nd Amendment but against the 1st also. Very typical.
"As far as mass shootings are concerned, gun control does make a difference in other countries."
Yes, we have a problem with disturbed people who are taking advantage of our freedoms here to harm others. No, you cannot claim that "gun control" is the difference maker.
Nah, it makes you look like a patronizing arse.
Tell you what, how about I come back to this on March 1st when I’m no longer on vacation and have the time to actually delve into a lengthy conversation. I wasn’t planning on having a full-blown gun control discussion but I wanted to address your post given the tone.
To finish addressing what we’ve already started: I’m honestly not sure why you’re comparing one mass shooting 7 years ago in Norway to the current situation in the US. And I’m not against the 1st amendment, I’m for listening to experts who say it’s a bad idea to give mass murderers so much media attention. You’re kind of dramatic, you know that?
"Nah, it makes you look like a patronizing arse"
I am always happy to leave it to the Dear Readers to judge how I "look." But you do have to note that you can't really ever answer any of my points. How does that make you look?
"Tell you what, how about I come back to this on March 1st when I’m no longer on vacation and have the time to actually delve into a lengthy conversation."
Enjoy your vacation. I just got back from three weeks of laying on the beach in the Philippines. Beats the 24 inches of snow they got here in Chicago while we were gone.
""I wasn’t planning on having a full-blown gun control discussion but I wanted to address your post given the tone. "
We will be waiting with bated breath to read your specifics and details.
"To finish addressing what we’ve already started: I’m honestly not sure why you’re comparing one mass shooting 7 years ago in Norway to the current situation in the US."
You were the one who declared that mass shootings didn't happen in other countries.
"And I’m not against the 1st amendment, I’m for listening to experts who say it’s a bad idea to give mass murderers so much media attention. "
If you want to tell the media what stories they should or should not cover then, yes, by definition, you are against the 1st Amendment. But let's think about that for a moment, eh. If it the media giving the mass murderers so much media attention that is the problem... then the problem really isn't the firearm they are using. It is the desire to be a copycat killer and get noted in the history books.
" You’re kind of dramatic, you know that?"
I prefer to consider myself as a bulwark against misinformation and the desire to control other lives based upon what makes people such as you fffffeeeeelllll gggggooooddddd.
"As far as mass shootings are concerned, gun control does make a difference in other countries."
Which ones? The only one that can positively say one way or the other is Australia (that and the countries where govt. slaughtered millions of unarmed citizens),and the gun grab was a dismal failure there. Of course if the goal is to prevent shootings rather than preventing killings...
What are your specific solutions to the problem of mass shootings?
Less "helpless little lambsies" would be a start
In other words, no solutions. Just let a lot more people die.
Eh... YOU are the one with the "helpless little lambsie" method of self defense. Not I.
Ah, memes. So...all of those things have been shot at. Just recently, congressmen were shot at during a baseball game, so that knocks two off the list at the same time. Not seeing a lot of guns solving those problems either.
guess you missed the part where the security guard shot back at the shooter at the Congressional baseball game and stopped him, eh.
BTW, when did you buy a gun from a licensed dealer at a gunshow without a background check. As long as we are discussing illegal acts we might as well get yours out in the open.
My solution is to follow Israel's example. We have to increase armed security in our schools. It works there. For more please see my hub on this issue. Thanks
As I sat in the parking lot, picking up my grandchildren from their school the day after Sandy Hook, I looked around and thought just how easy it would be to smash a car into that crowd of kids exiting the school. Or an 18 wheeler or other large vehicle into a school bus. Or lob a grenade/bomb through a window. A canister of Zyklon, Sarin or even just chlorine opened upwind of the playground during lunch recess. No guard is going to stop any of these from happening, and killers will find a way to kill.
Not to put down the Israeli solution - it has very definite merit - but their circumstances are not ours. Guards cannot be anything but a temporary protective measure - a bandaid on the wound - as they do absolutely nothing to "cure" the underlying "disease" of why so many of our people decide to go on a killing rampage.
Your response is troubling. Whether a gunman tries to assault children in Israel or the US please explain how there is a difference. You really wouldn't want a professionally trained guard/policeman/soldier to protect your grandchildren? You don't think they could? Don't you think that at least there would be a chance that the guard could intervene and stop a killer or at least reduce the amount of life taken? Is your solution to just do nothing? Please explain your rationale, sir, because the evidence is not on your side. Gunmen do not attack armed targets. That's why you never hear about attacks on police stations. Gunmen want gun free/guard free zones so that they are the only ones with weapons. If your grandchild was saved by one of the guards I think you'd think differently. Also, if you feel that guards will make no difference should we then eliminate security at sporting events? Concerts? Where do you think security makes a difference. Wherever it is that's where we should send our kids to school.
Aimee, I usually agree with you, but please don't put all Americans in the same basket as Jack Burton.
We unfortunately have a horribly written Second Amendment to the Constitution that is open to vastly different interpretations. It blocks many efforts at more effective gun control.
The National Rifle Association is extremely wealthy and makes gun control efforts even more difficult because of its vast campaign contributions.
Yes, we have a shameful problem. But a large part of the country wants it solved. We just have some big barriers that make solutions difficult.
"This isn’t an issue in any other developed nation"
Perhaps you need to expand your horizons a little...
Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compa … nd-europe/
Jack Burton: You sound like a selfish person who has no empathy and who only thinks about your own well being and could care less about others. What would you do if your kid was killed in a school shooting?
As far as workable solutions go, we could march on Washington for starters and get them to stop taking massive campaign funds from the NRA and block their very powerful lobby groups. That is the root cause of all of this. It's all about money and you and your kind have bought into the fear factor of protecting yourself with assault weapons. I will not argue with you as to the definition of assault weapons. That is an exercise in futility.
"You sound like a selfish person who has no empathy "
It's true I don't let my emotion dominate my thinking and don't base my decisions on what is best for the country on what makes me fffffffeeeeelllll gggggooooodddd or what unicorns may or may not like.
"What would you do if your kid was killed in a school shooting?"
I would be sad. And if your kid was killed in an auto accident from a drunk driver you would blame Ford Motor Company? If your kid was killed by a bolt of lightening on his way to school you would blame Ben Franklin? If someone evil fed your kid rat poison you would blame the Pied Piper?
"As far as workable solutions go, we could march on Washington for starters and get them to stop taking massive campaign funds from the NRA and block their very powerful lobby groups. '
We've always known that those who hate the 2nd Amendment almost always hate the 1st Amendment also. This is graphic proof of that concept.
" It's all about money"
And selling autos that cause tens of thousands of deaths a year is also "all about money" eh.
"and you and your kind have bought into the fear factor of protecting yourself with assault weapons"
1) We've already established that you have no clue as to what a supposed "assault weapon" is, eh
2) You'll have a lot more credibility if you agree that when you hear someone breaking into your home late at night you'll insist to the 911 operator that the cops leave their firearms at the stationhouse before they come to investigate.
" I will not argue with you as to the definition of assault weapons. That is an exercise in futility.""
Yes it is. Because you've already shown your ignorance on the subject. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is pretty much forever. So which side are you going to fall on?
Mr. Jack Burton, I support you. As a result of reading this thread, I've renewed my membership to the NRA for an additional two years. I believe it is an organization that protects me from individuals who are ignorant of guns and gun safety as seek to punish law abiding gun owners for the actions of others.
All the laws in the world won't stop mass killings in the United States. Those who believe such things are ignorant of the real problem. I grew up in a world where everyone had a gun and we had no mass shootings. My neighbor had over 20 hand guns and we never had a problem. Trust me, it was also a rough neighborhood.
These types of shootings didn't start becoming common until the 1980s. Laws won't cure this situation. It just make people who like to play on others emotions feel good and that is all it does.
The government makes too many mistakes. The FBI failed in the Florida shooting. Here is another example of where the government failed. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … s-shooting
The reality is we have a cultural problem. One of the things that has changed significantly are the prescription of psychotropic drugs. Many mass shooters used such drugs. I believe we have a significant mental health problem and these drugs do more harm than good. Here is a good article to prove my point.
http://markets.businessinsider.com/news … 1002085657
Also, our culture no longer values religion. The idea that we will some day have to answer to a higher power is slowly being eliminated from our society. If you don't think you're going to be held accountable for your actions in this world, what does it matter what you do?
Video games glorify violence. Some of them are so graphic, kids struggle to understand fantasy from reality. Saw a documentary on kids who had killed other kids and showed no remorse. Many of them went home and went to bed. These same kids in prison were made to watch a play about the crime they had committed. They saw the lifeless body, crying parents and friends, the body being put in a bag. After seeing this, they then realized what they had done.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people and that's were we have to start. The mental health industry has failed us all. Quit blaming the NRA, trying to ban guns and start working on people valuing life. I think people believing there is a power greater than themselves at work in our lives is a good start.
Fascinating. The NRA and guns are the cause of killings. You really, really, need to think about that long and hard - that the NRA caused this "troubled" (read: mentally ill) kid to go on a killing spree.
A lack of empathy and any desire for solutions is common among gun extremists.
as noted, I don't make my decisions on what makes me ffffffeeeellll ggoooooddd and has no chance of working at all. When you bring me something based on reason, rationality, facts, and logic then we can talk about your "solutions".
Pretty bold statement, isn't it? And an extremely stupid and obnoxious one to boot.
"Empathy" has done a lot to solve murders hasn't it? We cry and we cry and we talk about taking the least harmful guns, the most common guns in the country, because we can make a "good" cause for it...while the murders go on and on and on. Guess "empathy" doesn't extend to actually finding solutions that might work - they require change in ourselves and our lives and we don't want to go there, now do we?
Not at all. Extremely stupid and obnoxious is blindly defending guns without offering any solutions.
I see the cranky version has returned.
Not at all. Extremely stupid and obnoxious is blindly blaming guns without offering any solutions.
That is, solutions that are based in reality, facts, reasoning and rationality. If you really want to claim that "Ban the NRA" fits those criteria then go for it. Should be entertaining to read.
BTW...what is your definition of a "loophole."
80,000 people in America die from alcohol related incidents every year.
Yes, and an 18-year-old can't legally purchase beer, but can legally purchase a rapid fire killing machine.
Crazy world we live in.
Not so much "rapid fire", but an 18 year old can purchase a car. Or diesel fuel and fertilizer. Or matches and gasoline. Lots of "killing machines" out there that even a 10 year old can buy quite legally - pretending that only guns can be used by a madman set on killing is foolish in the extreme and is exactly why we still have dead kids and people.
Pretending that only guns can be used by a madman? Who is doing that? Certainly not me or anyone else on these forums that I've seen.
Really? They why no suggestions on reducing the carnage except by removing the 2nd amendment guarantees from people? If you're not pretending that guns are the only tool that can be used why is that the only solution ever offered?
Regulating certain types of guns and restricting who can have them is not removing 2nd Amendment guarantees.
Just because we're talking about gun-telated solutions does not mean we're excluding other solutions. Maybe you should start another thread on that.
"Regulating certain types of guns and restricting who can have them is not removing 2nd Amendment guarantees."
Then you mean that anyone, anyone at all, can get that gun without restriction. Either that or you are removing those guarantees from certain people. Not that I'm necessarily against some restrictions (the insane should not own a gun, and no one should have a cannon in their front yard) but those "restrictions" you and others propose never seem to end and have been shown over and over to be completely ineffective.
Oh, those other thoughts are here already; https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/336 … ost3984059
It's just that none of the gun control crowd will discuss anything but taking guns away. Apparently even the thought of changing who we are is abhorrent; to discuss the actual causes of the carnage is not something that appeals. Only finding bandaids that appease the emotions and present the appearance of doing something even if it's ineffective.
And demanding that people have their speech approved in advance by the government, or that they wear muzzles "just in case", or that they are limited to only reading one newspaper a week is not restricting 1st Amendment guarantees, eh.
And an 18 year old can give his life for our country while serving in the Armed Forces, eh.
Yes, it's a crazy world we've made for ourselves.
yep... because the country is not worth defending, eh.
That's right, Jack! Bring on the personal nukes so we can protect ourselves properly! Why draw a line on what we can own?
You do realize that if Democrats stopped shooting people, gun violence would drop by 90%
Your foolish posts are tiresome. This should not be a partisan issue.
Apparently you missed the shooter wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap in his online rants, oo! So much for your comment!
If there's a silver-lining (and that's a big IF) it's that the students are outraged and the parents are outraged like I've never seen before. There's been way too much apathy on this issue . People die while politicians try to brush off the issue or search for cliched talking points to justify no action on the matter. I, myself, am tired of hearing all the mental gymnastics and manipulation of the term "common-sense" to justify policies that don't make any sense at all.
Yes, it is time for all good citizens to rise and demand the end to "free killing zones" that surround schools. The notion that posting a "sign" is going to protect the innocents inside is incomprehensible, and those who actually believe in it have blood on their hands.
Just wondering if you think mass shooters care whether they die from a teacher's bullet, or a police officer's bullet, or a self-inflicted bullet? Most seem resigned to dying from a bullet.
Just wondering if you think a school shooter will continue to shoot and kill after being shot dead by a teacher on the spot instead of waiting for the cops to show up? Last I heard the Florida shooter was in the school for only 7 minutes.
But mostly I posted that in response to the "free killing zones"; there are none in that school district. Perhaps it will help, perhaps not, but for absolutely sure it can do no less than making fake "assault rifles" illegal to own. It is thus a reasonable solution to try, right? Or is protection by anyone not a cop, whether teacher, individual or otherwise, verboten?
It's not the "dying from a bullet" that counts. It is WHEN they die from that bullet, eh.
I teach at a school and I've never seen those signs.And my school is not exactly located in a posh wel-to-do neighborhood. So, I don't know what point you're trying to make.
I'm assuming that a "gun free zone" sign is the same as a "free killing zone" sign. Perhaps Jack will verify that.
of course it is. And taylor knew that quite well.
It's traylor, jack...and if youre thinking of getting into the mind-reading business...let that thought go...
if you feel more comfortable having an extra and unnecessary r in your name that is fine with me.
and I am always happy to leave it to the Dear Readers as to how well I can read minds.
The Dear Readers already know how bad you are at reading minds, Jack. No surprise there!
Well, then the dear readers will agree with me on this. Years ago, I had journalism instructor who marked students down a grade for misspelling someone's name. If you do that, he reasoned, its either a sign of contempt or a lack of an ability to look at details that can affect a story. I think he was right on that one. So, of you're going to come up with some made-up term to fit your ideological need, then you've essentially the argument.
"So, of you're going to come up with some made-up term to fit your ideological need, then you've essentially the argument."
How coincidental... I had a journalism professor who marked down students who wrote nonsensical sentences. Perhaps we had the same professor?
(I get that you blame your phone... but I also understand that you never assume that other people also use their phones in responding to posts... and the auto-correct chooses what names it corrects by itself. )
And if you want to defend "gun free zone" signs as the ultimate in school protection go for it.
Yep that phone has a way of turning "if" into "of"....who knew? Btw, i stated I never seen any so-called gun free zone signs or even heard of a "free kill zone" around schools. What I know is that local gangstas deemed the campus as a unofficial neutral zone. So, where did I mentioned I was defending it? I guess your professor didnt teach you the art of objective reporting. Maybe that's why you assume too much (or get stuck on your confirmation bias).
"I never seen any so-called gun free zone signs or even heard of a "free kill zone" around schools. "
Shirley, you're kidding. Those signs are as ubiquitous as white on rice. When someone makes a statement such as this that cannot be based upon reality I question their commitment to a reasonable dialogue.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to have your sense of reality questioned a lot in this thread.
Yes, I have.
Questioned, that is, by people who have no clue as to the difference between an AR or an AK
Questioned,that is, by people who think the solution to school shootings is to ban the NRA.
Questioned, that is, by people who state they have never, ever, not once, seen a "No guns allowed" sign at schools.
Questioned, that is, by people who's sole solution to the problem is to "make it harder for people to walk into a school and kill 17 people" with no details, no specifics, no anything but emotions.
Questioned that is, by people who have no idea what a "loophole" is but wants to ban it because it makes them fffffeeeelllll gggggoooodddd.
Do you really, really, deep in your heart, think that being "questioned" by folk such as this have any possible meaning to me? Do you really think that these people represent the side of those who are honestly searching for solutions?
It is a badge of honor to be "questioned" by these folk. It signifies that they realize that they really have no answers... no clues....nothing but knee jerk, ignorant reactions.
If a five year old on his first tricycle "questions" my ability to navigate Chicago rush hour traffic safely, do you actually think I give heed to his advice on how best to get from here to the Loop?
Cnn is reporting that Russians are promoting pro gun messages on social media. Apparently its just a coincidence that anything the left does not like is directly connected to the Kremlin.
I own guns and have fired many types, including the ones you mentioned and various others. You have no credentials to prove anything you claim and do not know me or anything about me. Your comments are those of the right who have no leg to stand on wanting assault rifles to be sold to anyone who wants them. I hope your comments make you feeeeeeeeeel gooooooooood since you like saying this so much.
wow...trigger easily? Calm down, drink a little wine, and it will be better in the morning.
Oh... and thank you for admiring my excellent style of posting. Trying to copy me really doesn't work, though, as there can be only one Master. I will be happy to take you on as my padawan but you must realize that it is lots of years of hard work to get as good as I am.
But again... thanks for the big upvote.
It’s possible that I’ve had too many adult beverages but Jack’s silliness is kind of growing on me.
Hi, Aime F, I am following the thread. Be calm, don't let Jack upset you...........I know that there are SOME who are quite unnerving( I am being very nice here) to say the least. Word association Jack-IGNORE, Jack-IGNORE. It is an exercise in futility to argue w/him.......
Met all kinds in the forums. There are some people make you want to verbally slap them into intelligence!
You single out Jack because you disagree with him, however there are plenty of liberals on this sight who are far worse.
It isn't an issue of agreement or disagreement. I was defending another poster in the forums.
Wow Talk about reaching.
In other words, you didn't like that comment. Gee, maybe you should think about what you say when question my reality. Unbelievable I'm there see and hear things and you're hiding in the middle of the country trying to tell me I don't have a sense of reality
Jack, as Dirty Harry once said, "You're a legend in your own mind."
Oh BTW, I was once an NRA member. It took a trip to a gun show to realize how nuts they are (You know, a little observation?)
And which comment didn't I like? You made a number of nonsensical ones. Give me a clue as to what you are referencing.
And yes, any one who tries to post that they have never seen a "no guns allowed" sign in front of a school deserves to have their reality questioned. Even the most ardent gun control supporter recognizes that these signs exist.
Most people would refer to it as "living." Or perhaps having a "residence." Or, "being a resident of a Midwestern state."
But you? Noooo... I am "hiding." :-)
Of course you were a member of the NRA. One of the oldest sayings on the 'net is that no one knows you're really a dog on the other side. Once in a while, though, as in your case, we can see that tail wagging furiously as you type.
I only made one pertinent statement and you went off the rail with some gibberish rant. Most people would simply say "oh yeah, I didn't know that" reassess what they believed and start looking at their sources a bit more closely. You? Nope. You decided to double-down and turn this into something different from what it was. And, in the process you let this thread get the best of you.
Seriously, did you read your last posting? My word! Talk about Gish Gallop! You're getting worked up over the word "hiding" ... and dogs? ..and signs that don't exist in front of MY school (something you keep misinterpreting )?
Knowledge is learning...and it also means taking in different perspectives. You obviously didn't do that. You still, like to play that "reality" card (I'm still shaking my head as I'm writing this) . And then try to pretend you know more about THE SCHOOL I TEACH AT. Really?
It's time you start realizing something: I can see through your facade. I see the attempt to poison my arguments with nonsensical statements (I guess that's your M.O.) about the "reality" thing. You can't win an argument like that. And you can't win it through name-calling and vilification (Which I've noticed you've done throughout this thread, might I add).
The more you do it, the more you sound unhinged. And over what? Because I stated that parents and students were getting restless over this matter? Is that a big problem for you? You believe that parents and students should just shut-up and sit down while bullets fly above their heads? And then --after that sudden shift you, yourself, created -- that I stated there's no gun free zones signs in front of my school? Why was this important? So you can slip in that free killing zone BS so you can feel good (or is it FEEEEL GOOOOOD?) about yourself for using a talking point that probably came from a right-wing organization or NRA lobbyist?
I think you came here looking for a fight and you thought you can pick one with me (I know what you were trying do with that response to the taylor/traylor thing). You may have thought that all you have to do is dish it out and win some hollow victory for your ideological side. Well, I guess the truth is out; you dished it out, but you couldn't handle it when it was thrown back in your face.
And don't worry about the tail wagging. if you want to keep going, do so. You'll just make a fool of yourself.
"I only made one pertinent statement"
I still havn't found any "pertinent statement" from you. Perhaps you can reference it better?
"And, in the process you let this thread get the best of you. "
I am always willing to let the Dear Readers decided who got the best of whom.
"You're getting worked up over the word "hiding""
Errrr... no... I was merely pointing out the absurdity of your wording. I must admit, it was the first time I have ever seen someone use "hide" instead of "live." Perhaps the novelety of it caused me to focus on it a little longer than I normally would.
"and signs that don't exist in front of MY school (something you keep misinterpreting )?"
Ohhhh... suddenly the story changes... now it is not the "signs don't exist" but the "signs don't exist in front of my school.
"And then try to pretend you know more about THE SCHOOL I TEACH AT. Really? "
Perhaps because you never, ever, not once, limited your inexpereince and lack of knowledge to only the "school you teach at" eh.
"It's time you start realizing something: I can see through your facade. "
And people can easily scroll back and see that you are changing your story from "never seeing the signs" to "never seeing the signs at my school."
"I see the attempt to poison my arguments with nonsensical statements (I guess that's your M.O.) about the "reality" thing."
YOU were the one to make the nonsensical statement that you've never seen such as sign as "no guns allowed" in front of schools.
" You can't win an argument like that. And you can't win it through name-calling and vilification "
I don't have to "win an argument." I only have to point out your inconsistencies and nonsense statements to the Dear Readers and let them ponder them as they will.
"The more you do it, the more you sound unhinged."
As always, I'll leave it up to the Dear Readers to decide how hinged I sound.
"You believe that parents and students should just shut-up and sit down while bullets fly above their heads? "
Remember what I just posted about nonsense statements? And there you are.
"that I stated there's no gun free zones signs in front of my school?"
IIRC, you never, ever stated this. Perhaps you can quote yourself. But I do understand that when you go in everyday using the back door for your job as lunchroom staff you probably don't see the sign at the front door where the students and other important people come in.
"So you can slip in that free killing zone "
Errrr... I brought that up before you responded to it. That is the way it works.
"BS so you can feel good (or is it FEEEEL GOOOOOD?)"
Thanks for acknowledging again that you have to copy my schtick as a better poster so you can gain points with the Readers. But you really don't have to do that. Just be yourself... more authentic that way.
"using a talking point that probably came from a right-wing organization or NRA lobbyist?
Yep, I never, ever, not once would have figured out that shooters tend to go into places to shoot people who can't shoot them back. Why, if no one had ever told me that I would have assumed that most of the mass shootings took place at police stations, gun ranges, and the NRA headquarters.
"I think you came here looking for a fight and you thought you can pick one with me"
Sorry, kid, but you don't even know what a "fight" is over the 'net. I certainly wouldn't "pick one" with such a weak opponent. I want those who can give me a challenge.
"You may have thought that all you have to do is dish it out and win some hollow victory for your ideological side. Well, I guess the truth is out; you dished it out, but you couldn't handle it when it was thrown back in your face. "
Stop... please stop... I am begging you. My wife is calling down wondering why I am rolling on the floor in laughter. I am making her worried that I am going to have a heart attack with all the guffawing I am doing.
"And don't worry about the tail wagging. if you want to keep going, do so. You'll just make a fool of yourself."
There ya go again. Trying to steal the schtick from a better poster. :-)
Who exactly are your "Dear Readers," Jack? I know I'm not one of them.
I am sure, being a Hubber, that you understand that this platform is provided for us with the understanding that some people will actually "read" the contents. It's going to be a big disappointment to the company if they think you're right and they have no readers at all.
We'll all have to find something new with our time after they shut down. I'd would advise you to leave the subject alone as to not possibly ruin it for everyone else.
Jack: I'm sure you realize that name calling and derogatory comments are in violation of HP policies for forums.? You can make your masterful and what you think are authoritative comments, but for your own sake there is no need for name calling.
and I am sure you'll leave a similar post to all those who have been calling me names and saying derogatory things about me?
I am actually positive that you are going to do so. Because now, if you don't, people will assume that you fall under the "h" word.
"You can say what you want about Jack because I don't like his posts but he can't say anything back to you because I like your posts."
So... what about it? You going to take everyone to task, or just the select few?
And not to mention that I am actually vain enough to believe that someone reads Hubpages once in a while.
Apparently they don't read your stuff very much according to the views on your profile page. Nine years and not yet a million views so far? I'll be at 4 million shortly so apparently they read my junk more than yours, Dear Reader.
Being condescending and patronizing and downright rude will not change the fact that you've lost this argument with me. I think it's time you give it up. You're just one more person who thought they could challenge me. And, once again, I found a weak opponent.
This last posting is proof of that. You really had to reach down deep in that empty soul of yours to make a rebuttal that's nothing more than a few pointless jabs. I guess you thought you were the big man on the Internet (look up Rationalwiki.org for a complete definition). Instead, you came off as boorish and immature. You may call me "kid" but you're the one that came of as a toddler with a temper tantrum.
So tell me: what took you so long to respond? Did you need to look up a good talking point from a right-wing reference book on talking points? Or your tactic of parsing my words just didn't work?
Oh why bother. It's obvious you are a walking,talking personification of the dunning-krugar effect. I'll let you stew in your "reality" in FEEEEL GOOOD (by the way, is that one of those towns in Wales?) so you can prance around the place singing..."eh!" all night long.
As for me? Well, being the best poster between the two of us, I sit here and watch you unravel. And, possibly write a Hub or two.
Students have announced a march on Washington on March 24.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … 349263002/
Trump has offered to speak to the marchers and blame all gun violence on Hillary and the FBI.
It's terrible what happened. When will all this stop? My prayers are with the friends and families of the victims.
I respectfully suggest another way of responding in addition to prayers is a contribution to an organization such as Everytown for Gun Safety, founded by Michael Bloomberg.
It's a small step in responding to the massive campaign contributions by the NRA that block so many attempts at better gun control.
Well, my family is from the Ukraine. They don't have mass shooting like this and guns are not difficult to get. They have a national law that covers people owning guns. Also, religion is a huge part of Ukrainian life. In the small villages it's common to hear people great one another before they speak and say "Glory to Jesus Christ" and the Replay is "Glory forever" and then they start their conversation. I think this belief has led to a deep respect for human life. There is a level of respect for one another we in the United States don't have. Would this work in the United States? I don't think so. They are a small country with only 42 million people who is constantly threatened by Russia, one of the most powerful militaries in the world who have previously committed a genocide on the Ukrainian people. The United States and our citizens fear no other country and don't know how this changes daily life.
Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings is a true statement, but the sentiment is appropriate at the time of a tragedy. It is longstandingly appropriate whether anyone likes it or not.
That said, the thought that senseless killings can simply be stopped is something laws throughout history have proved futile in their attempts to do. The discussions on the availability of all kinds of firearms are important and with rational thinking reason can prevail, but to attack the current administration over the latest homegrown terrorist attack is laughable.
Impassioned requests, proclamations, and even demands from people are acceptable, and useful for initiating change. Using the tragedy to spew more hate is to be no better than the criminals who commit the crimes.
But there's no mistaking that passivity is not the answer. Starting with compassion for the victims, their families, and our country, then moving the discussion forward in useful ways is a good beginning. For instance, consider swift and severe penalties for known criminals of vicious crimes rather than promoting the idea that guns have behaviors so criminals have excuses.
Another made-up story by the lamestream media to try to take our guns away.
Just like Sandy Hook, this story is a fake! This did not actually happen. Truthful web sites all over are exposing this fraud for what it is.
Every liberal politician wants to use this fabricated story as a lesson about how we need to take guns away from lawful citizens.
Hi there promisem. Let's see if we can discuss this - and - keep it from becoming just another "gun control" thread. You know, those AKs and ARs aren't needed type of threads.
A quick look found that although the U.S. is the leader in guns per citizens ratio, there are more than a few countries that also have a high ratio of gun ownership. Granted, it is usually only half of our rate, but it is still enough for a point. Why aren't these other countries also seeing mass shootings?
If our ratio is around 88 per 100 citizens, then a country with around 48 per hundred certainly should at least be in the ballpark with us - regarding mass shootings. But they aren't. So, doesn't that point to something other than gun ownership as a cause?
That wasn't a rhetorical or leading question. It was a serious one for discussion.
By the same logic that produced that question, I think we can address another point. I have seen it proposed that the instant notoriety, (24 hr news channels/instant on camera reports), is a motivating factor, yet several of the countries that have about half our rate of gun ownership also have "instant news" like we do. So, can that be a realistic motivator? Culturally, do we handle the notoriety differently than other countries?
" Why aren't these other countries also seeing mass shootings?"
Lots of questions could be asked here. Amoung them...
Why has there been a dramatic increase in the number of mass shootings. (and I am not talking about the phony stats that orgs such as VPC gin up.) I am talking about legitimate, horrendous incidents.
Is there any common background of being on psychiatric drugs found amoung the shooters?
Hi Jack Burton. I am sure you are right, that there are many other questions, (besides gun ownership), that could prove insightful. Yours, about psychiatric drugs may be one of them.
A first thought from me would be to ponder why it might be a cultural thing, (other than the culture of gun ownership) - which would fit in with you "why the dramatic increase" question.. Unfortunately I don't have a "second thought" to help with what that cultural thing might be.
Remember in the 70s when we had a rash of bombings? Maybe this is a "trend" like that was a trend. I don't know why things like this run in cycles, but that seems to be the case.
No, limiting access to guns won't cure the problem, but making it hard to obtain a high-powered killing machine might deter some potential shooters. Obviously, it won't deter all, but if we deter one or two out of every ten that would save many lives for a relatively small cost.
When you use phases such as "high powered killing machines" it so notes to every experienced gun owner that you really don't know what you are talking about.
For your education, the AR and AK rifles chambered in their most common round, the .223, is considered by shooters to be a medium-powered rifle. There are many standard hunting rifles that are quite more powerful with a much longer range.
And there are about 15,000,000 ARs in citizens hands right now. In the past year, about 14,999,990 of them were not used to harm anyone. Perhaps you can justify a logical, reasonable, rational argument as to why those 14,999,990 people have to have their liberty and freedom limited because of the actions of about 10 people. Do you consider taking away those rights of those millions of people because of the actions of just a few handful a "minor cost"?
Do you also consider taking away the rights of all Muslims to practice their religion based upon the actions of a few who use that same religion to slaughter thousands in terrorists acts? After all, if we deter one or two terrorists out of every ten that would save many lives for a relatively small cost.
Hi PrettyPanther. I don't think it is a trend. I don't have any support for this opinion, other than it seems right and logical to me, and it is what I think also - but check out wilderness' comment earlier in this thread: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/336 … ost3984059
That is, I think where we should be looking for the cause(s) of these mass shootings, particularly the school shootings.
I can't agree with your thought about "... if we deter one or two out of every ten that would save many lives for a relatively small cost." I do not see it as a relatively small cost. And following the context of this response - it also does nothing to address the problem.
Geez, GA, supporting and complimenting a gun extremist starts to push you into his camp. Is that really where you want to be?
Well promisem, I will try to be polite here, but....
It appears that you are more concerned with addressing posters than their posts. Tsk! Tsk! Isn't that a trait I have seen you accuse others of?
Other than being from Jack Burton, what did you see that was extremist about his comment that I responded to?
If, in your mind, considering a thought, rather than its source puts me in a "camp," then you probably don't have enough labels to cover my travels.
But... (yes, I always have a but), in this case you are almost right. I usually end up where I want to be, and on this issue, I can see Jack's campfire from where I sit.
When attacked, I defend myself. When attacked personally, I fight back.
When someone posts something reasonable for the first time, what I don't do is attack the person rather than the post. You fail to see the difference.
If you clear your emotions and actually read my earlier posts to opponents like you and ReadMikeNow, you will see that I was polite and trying to meet you halfway.
You shouldn't be surprised at aggressive behavior when you take part in it and support people who think the same way as you. Denial is an obvious case of double standards.
Geesh promisem, you sure make me work for it. But, since I wanted to make sure my responses weren't emotionally clouded, I figured it was worth the effort.
First, I didn't attack you, so I am guessing that is your explanation for being fired-up after exchanging comments with Jack Burton.
Anyway, here is the exchange you refereed to:
JACK BURTON WROTE:
" Why aren't these other countries also seeing mass shootings?"
Lots of questions could be asked here. Amoung them...
Why has there been a dramatic increase in the number of mass shootings. (and I am not talking about the phony stats that orgs such as VPC gin up.) I am talking about legitimate, horrendous incidents.
Is there any common background of being on psychiatric drugs found amoung the shooters?
Hi Jack Burton. I am sure you are right, that there are many other questions, (besides gun ownership), that could prove insightful. Yours, about psychiatric drugs may be one of them.
A first thought from me would be to ponder why it might be a cultural thing, (other than the culture of gun ownership) - which would fit in with you "why the dramatic increase" question.. Unfortunately I don't have a "second thought" to help with what that cultural thing might be.
My response was concurring with Jack Burton that there were many questions that could be asked, and his "drug" question could well be one of them.
Now, that concurrence brought this response from you:
"Geez, GA, supporting and complimenting a gun extremist starts to push you into his camp. Is that really where you want to be?"
To my thinking, for you to take my response as "... supporting and complimenting a gun extremist..." and, that my response indicated I was "taking part in it, (the personal attacks between you and Jack?)," indicates it wasn't my response that was emotionally clouded.
Now, just to be sure I don't let my "emotions" get the best of me... I will wonder who you meant that "denial" crack for, otherwise, well, I'll tell Jack, that's what I will do. You'll be sorry then.
GA, I appreciate the serious attempt at a rational discussion. I think your overall point about cultural factors is important.
An article in Psychiatric Times about research into mass killings says, "particular attention should also be paid to a youngster’s access to or fascination with firearms and the presence of writings or drawings with violent themes, as well as dysfunctional peer relationships, including bullying."
It also says, "crimes due to narcissism or a wounded ego are directly relevant to mass shootings."
So a starting point is restricting access to guns for teens (i.e., close the gun show loophole), addressing the bullying problem and shifting cultural attitudes away from self obsessions.
This is what I've been saying for months and years; the problem isn't guns, it is psychological and cultural. We seem to be producing teens that are unable to cope with the stresses of daily life, that do not hold human life in any real regard, and that take lives in response to that inability to cope. We see teens on a killing rampage, teens taking their lives because of a slight on social pages, teens turning to drugs to temporarily leave reality and calm their feelings.
It is sad that the Times (and you) suggests that limiting access to guns or stopping bullying will eliminate the underlying causes of these killing sprees. These things do not even address the problem; just the symptoms that we see, and the result is that the teen grows into an adult with those problems and causes still intact.
Fifty years ago we didn't see teens grabbing a gun (although they were readily available and not locked in a safe) and killing either their "opponents" or random people. We didn't see them taking their own lives because someone said bad things about them. What has changed, what have we allowed to develop that has resulted in an almost total inability to control their own feelings and urges?
You suggest addressing the bullying problem, and we do...by trying to eliminate bullying and leave the child still unable to cope when it happens later in life. You suggest taking guns from them, leaving the child still unable to cope with life. Somehow we're to eliminate that "wounded ego", but it WILL happen during life and the child/adult is still unable to cope.
THAT'S the problem, the cause, of these incidents. It isn't that there is a gun available, it isn't that they are bullyed and it isn't that they have some dysfunctional relationships. It's that they can no longer handle these problems and resort to a display of violence.
Is it because kids have too much given to them and when they can't simply have whatever it is they wish they turn to violence?
Is it because kids have too much time and not enough responsibility/duty?
Is it because they have insufficient "people time" - not enough time with other kids - an instead communicate/interact only through digital media?
Is it because we don't allow kids to solve their own "people" problems, instead stepping in to solve it for them?
Is it because they've not been taught to respect authority, whether it is a parent, teacher, cop or anyone else? Do we need to re-introduce spankings?
I don't know, I don't have the answers - I'm neither psychologist nor social scientist enough to know - but I do know that addressing the symptoms, putting a bandaid on the hurt, doesn't solve the underlying disease. We either address the causes of these mass murders or they will keep right on happening whether we take guns or not, whether we stop bullying or not, whether we institute "zero tolerance" in our schools or not.
We agree that cultural and psychological factors are part of the problem. To your point about 50 years ago, the flood of violent programming in TV, movies and videw games doesn't help. We don't agree about easy access to guns.
I think we also agree that none of us have all of the answers. My frustration is with people who simply fight any attempts to try solutions.
For example, I don't understand why we as a country can't seem to come up with ways of tracking violent people with known mental illnesses who post death threats and buy assault rifles.
We need actual steps to solve the problem followed by facts and research showing whether the steps actually work. If they don't work, we move on to new ideas.
I think we should agree the government failed in Florida.
I would like to point out that according to our current gun laws, people with a history of violence and mental illness are not thought to be able to purchase a fire arm.
"Cruz lawfully bought the semiautomatic rifle last February, according to Peter Forcelli, special agent in charge of the Miami office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The gun, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 .223, was purchased at Sunrise Tactical Supply, according to the Associated Press.
Federal law allows people 18 and older to legally purchase long guns, including this kind of assault weapon. With no criminal record, Cruz cleared an instant background check via the FBI criminal database.
If somebody is adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 … 340606002/
Also, the FBI was informed about this man months before this incident.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/nikol … index.html
So, in the case of the Florida shooter, he had no record of mental problems, he had no criminal background. So, if a person has no record of committing crimes or mental illness...what can be done? Those who knew him informed the FBI, what more could they do in this case?
I still believe it is not wise to trust the government to be completely competent but to anticipate and be ready for their mistakes.
Mike, those are great questions. I just saw another headline saying that someone who knew the shooter called a law enforcement tipline about him only a month ago.
He apparently had mental health issues, told people he was a "school shooter" and took other actions that scared people. He was expelled from school and posted death threats on Instagram. Police visited his home dozens of times.
I can only hope the experts will review all of the facts about this case and come up with better ways to identifying these people going forward.
Frankly, sites like Instagram need to be part of the solution.
"My frustration is with people who simply fight any attempts to try solutions. "
No... your frustration is with people who simply fight any non-working, nonsensical approaches to solutions that you keep trotting out.
"For example, I don't understand why we as a country can't seem to come up with ways of tracking violent people with known mental illnesses who post death threats and buy assault rifles."
Ahhhh.... it's that old "known" that gets in the way, eh. Those that are adjudicated by the courts as being mentally ill are FORBIDDEN to buy or own guns. Did you know that?
"We need actual steps to solve the problem followed by facts and research showing whether the steps actually work. If they don't work, we move on to new ideas."
You remind me of the drunk who loses a $20 bill on Main Street and looks for it over on First Street "because the light is better there." Once he doesn't find it on First Street, him moving over to look on Lincoln Ave is not going to help him at all.
But you have inadvertently articulated the exact reason why the gun owning community doesn't trust. you all all. We KNOW it is "not going to work". And we KNOW that then, you want to "move on" to something even more freedom-hampering. And when THAT doesn't also "work" you want to "move on" to something even more. Since human nature is human nature, you will NEVER be satisfied until you think you can ban all guns for all times.
We don't agree on easy access to guns because you think that access is going to turn someone into a murderer. I don't. You think that preventing anyone from owning a gun that kills about 300 people per year is going to dramatically reduce the death toll of 8,000+...I don't and I base that on real world experience that says differently. You want an immediate, easy, cheap (to you) solution and I recognize there is no such thing.
I've thought about tracking crazy people, but so far I've not thought of anything that isn't worse than the disease. The FBI, in this case for instance, got a troubling report and checked it out, but there was insufficient reason to take the guy off the streets. To lock someone in a mental hospital, or even require a mental exam, because a third party thought they were unstable is not something I would agree to.
Finally, you're right - if a possible solution doesn't work, move on to something different! Much of the world has tried gun control, including the US, and not a single example has produced any results. Move on then!
You mention TV and game violence: here is an example of massive hypocrisy that we all accept and encourage with open arms (and wallets): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE . I don't know that TV violence is a significant cause to murders, but if it is we need to make some changes. Changes to our whole culture, to ourselves, to our children. But who wants to do that when it's so easy just to take someone's gun away and declare we are trying!
Well damn! Wilderness. We must be fellow choir members. That was well stated. But I must wonder if it is just a generational thing that I so strongly agree with those thoughts? You do remember that our parents thought our generation was soft and weak, and going to hell too don't you?
No Facebook and Fentanyl back in the horseless carriage days, for sure. You have to admit that you and Wilderness' generation was a simpler time.
Welllll... It wasn't quite the "horseless carriage" days PhoenixV, but yeah, it was pre-facebook and Fentanyl.
And yes, I do remember them as simpler days.
Maybe, GA. Maybe it's just generational thinking. But we didn't have school shootings when I went to school, kids weren't hanging themselves and unless it turned really physical and real physical harm was being done we took care of bullying without parental or school interference. And when parents did step into bullying problems it was likely to teach self-defense, not go after bullys themselves!
My God - we now have college children that require special counselling and "safe places" because somebody scrawled "Vote Trump" in sidewalk chalk! If there is a difference of opinion, it's off to the counselor for some "special time" there! Our schools, including colleges, are filled with counselors, but do they actually teach self control and self reliance or are they just there to comfort and say "There, there, it'll be all right - I'll see it doesn't happen again"?
I really don't think it's a generation gap, just a perception thing from the ancient crowd. Kids today really can't handle societies problems themselves - they need an adult to do it for them every step of the way. And those kids are growing up into adulthood (legal if not emotionally) and still can't control themselves, can't deal with life's problems.
I agree with your perspective Wilderness. We have both said as much before. I remember the "counselling" threads that followed Pres. Trump's election, and one or two that dealt with Conservative speaker's invitations to speak at certain campuses.
I think I recall that it was one of the college campus issues that brought "safe place": into our vocabulary in the manner it is thought of today..
I wonder if the decision to tear down the wing of the school where the shooting occurred, (heard in the news today), is an indicator of the truth of your perspective?
"I wonder if the decision to tear down the wing of the school where the shooting occurred, (heard in the news today), is an indicator of the truth of your perspective?"
I think it is. It's another attempt to cover it up, to remove any indication that it happened, instead of learning to deal with it on an emotional level. We talk and talk about our "feelings"...but never seem to do much to actually deal with them! Another indication; we used to all have a family doctor that we went to when we couldn't handle a physical injury/illness at home. Now we have the doctor and a psychiatrist, ready to drug us into "forgetting" the negative things we all go through. There are some 7,000 child/teen psychiatrists in the country and the projected "need" is double that by 2020. It's always the easy way out instead of actually dealing with our feelings, fears and stresses.
Instead of tearing down all the concentration camps, the people of Germany kept some...and required a visit by all school children. Deal with the emotions and distress caused by those awful places - don't hide it away and pretend it didn't happen!
I don't think there has been a final decision about tearing down the building, but I agree with you. I don't think that is a good way to deal with the trauma. I would be surprised if that idea is carried out.
I also hope they don't tear it down. It was just a news blurb I heard on the radio, so, hopefully I didn't hear the whole story and that might have been just a thought - but it did sound like the decision had been made.
I also agree with you that it would send the wrong message to those that must face dealing with their trauma.
Following that line of thought, I will repeat an anecdote posted previously that I think offers support for your perception.
A Family Feud question was, "We asked 100 people, What would you do if someone insulted you?"
A 30 year-old male answered; "Call the authorities!" Note that the question said "insult" not "assault." Do you think that would have been the first thought of a 30 year-old male thirty years ago? I sure don't.
That is where we are. College students need safe places, and 30 year-old males think of calling the cops because he was insulted. Geesh! Certainly makes that lady that called 911 because Burger King didn't make her sandwich right seem a little more understandable.
"close the gun show loophole"
Interesting.... just what is your definition of a "loophole"? If you want to "close one" then surely you have some meaning of what it is that you are "closing."
Specifically... with detail... what is a "loophole"? (not a "gun show loophole)... just a "loophole".
I'm surprised you don't know anything about basic gun laws.
Private parties can sell guns without a background check, recording the sale or even asking for an ID.
So a depressed teenager, convicted felon or mentally ill person can get their hands on their beloved assault rifles without worries.
I didn't ask for your definition of "gun show loophole" now did I?
Matter of fact, I specifically posted that I didn't want that, right.
So... let's try this again. Maybe it will work this time.
What is your definition of a "loophole."
That's not the only way they get them. This goes back to the point of how laws don't affect those who don't obey them and only punish those who do obey them.
"While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals."
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr … in-america
Come on promisem, lets leave that pet "gun show loop-hole" thought in its cradle.
Looking at your Psychiatric Times article points, let's go a step deeper. Regarding fascination with something, in this case guns, that is not a new thing. It would be a fascination with fire for future arsonists, with cruelty to animals for a developing psychopath. Is there a cultural motivator for these fascinations that we can address, or are they just a fact of humanity - there will always be bad or faulty people?
I can see the logic in all those report points, but none of them address the "why" it seems to be a magnified problem in the U.S. I would think that more than just a minority of young U.S. humans - say from 6 to 16 years old, experience bullying, peer relationship problems, and wounded egos, yet the truth is that only a super minority of those young humans progress to a point of horrendous acts. Surely those issues aren't proprietary to the U.S., why don't other developed countries have similar problems?
So why does it appear the U.S. generates a disproportionate, (if the research is valid), number of young humans with a negative fascination with guns? If gun access is the problem, and we have twice as many guns as some other nations, then why don't they have at least half as many mass killing events as we do - if guns are the problem?
Ease of access naturally comes to mind, yet, several of those "other" countries also have pretty easy access to guns. At least one, has at least one gun in every adult male occupied home. Shouldn't ease of access also indicate they would have similar problems?
Gun control isn't the problem - it just masks the problem.
So much for trying to find a middle ground. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you want to avoid the obvious problem of the gun show loophole. (As well as rejecting any discussion about the assault rifle problem.)
Can you please offer ideas or suggestions about solving the issue rather than raising only questions?
"So much for trying to find a middle ground."
"It's just that some people are beneath me. And some are way beneath me."
Hmmmm... would it be actually possible that these two sentences come from the same, identical poster? Why, yes, it is. Wonder what her definition of "middle ground" really is?
"the obvious problem of the gun show loophole. "
Again... what is your definition of a "loophole." Why are you so afraid of such a simple, little question? The Dear Readers are getting curious.
"rejecting any discussion about the assault rifle problem"
yeah, that is because any "discussion" about what you call assault rifles is about as fruitful as dicussing geography with a flat earth believer. YOu don't know what you don't know and what you think you know is based upon total ignorance. Please explain the potential for any possible communication under the circumstances .
"Can you please offer ideas or suggestions about solving the issue"
I posted a proposed law that was just filed in Congress. YOu ignored it.
It doesn't look like you are looking for a middle ground promisem, just more hooks for your pet gun control mantras.
Can it be that you think the sole problem is access to guns? Surely you don't think nuts that do mass shootings would just fade away if they couldn't easily get their hands on a gun?
How strong do you think your pet "gun show loophole" argument is regarding this mass shooting issue? How you checked to see how many mass shootings have been done with "gun show" weapons? I don't think you will find any mass shootings using "gun show loophole" guns.
I have already offered an "idea" in this thread; Let's look for cultural reasons for this issue, something more basic than just blaming the guns. But I haven't offered any solutions, because I don't have anything more than just some thoughts. But... judging from this, and past, exchanges, I think my "thoughts" offer more potential than your "gun show loophole-type" solutions do.
What other solution have you offered?
Finally, regarding your "disappointment" - relax, things will be okay. There will be others that find merit in your "gun show loophole" solution. Just hang in there.
"What other solution have you offered?"
She offered "banning the NRA"
LOL, I love the juvenile attempts to question my manhood.
I already offered solutions above. Please read my posts.
And please stop the habitual condescension. The environment here has already deteriorated enough thanks to the other gun extremists.
Either lead or throw more hand grenades.
Yes you did. Control access to guns and track those people that have known mental illnesses or make threats. You mentioned a belief that TV and game violence is relevant, but provided no backup studies or evidence.
Both of which depend on stopping a killer from killing without ever addressing what has changed in our society, and how to change it back, to reduce the cause rather than the symptom. Why did they decide to kill and what could we have done to remove that desire, rather than just look for it after it happens, is where the solution will be found.
Consider the terrorism threat: we are constantly looking for terrorist activity in the country, constantly trying to stop them from killing. We can't change their thinking for it originates outside our country and control. You're putting the rampages by our children (young or old) into the same category and we can do better if we will but try.
Understanding that opinions differ, I'd still like to see some discussion by psychology experts on the violence of our lives - TV, game, sports (thinking of hockey, maybe, or MMA) etc. - can it cause a person to decide to kill? Or is it a panacea, actually preventing violent behavior?
Okay bud, I admit those last two sentences of my response could be seen as condescending. I suppose that is the lesser evil between the two most probable choices to describe them.
I do try to read your comments promisem, and that is why I think the rest of my response to you is valid. You keep returning with the same "gun show loophole" mantra. That isn't supportable. That's what I said. What other solutions did you offer that weren't tied to that same point?
The killing of school children is a multi-faceted issue not limited to mental health, gun control, gun lobbyists, the NRA, congress, the president, and all entities associated with easy access to guns, ammunition, and ancillary equipment.
I have participated in and created many forums on this issue, and they all end up in the same place, nothing is done. The gun people argue about what is an assault rifle, more people are killed by other means, homicide statistics, and even banning of any instrument or device that can be used to inflict harm on others.
The speaker of the house, Paul Ryan just said, "now is not the time to talk about this issue." If now isn't the time, when is the time? What he is really saying is that we are going on a break, hopefully when we return, everybody will have forgotten about this issue...until the next shooting of innocent children!
Yes, more people may be killed by other means, but tell that to the families of those who have lost their loved ones as a result of these horrific acts. We all know it's not over. This isn't the last time mass shootings of innocent people will take place. When is enough, enough?
"When is enough, enough?"
You'll know when we finally decide to do something - something that has even a small chance of helping. But it isn't now - now, all we care about is taking guns from people, which does not solve the problem of school murders at all.
Wilderness: How do you know we never tried? Don't give me this B.S. that it doesn't work in other countries and therefore it won't work here. I don't know if you have children in school or grandchildren, but how would you feel if one of your young relatives was killed in a school shooting or any shooting and any relative for that matter?
My paternal grandfather was accidentally shot by his son, my uncle, and died a long, painful. lingering death. My maternal grandfather committed suicide with his hunting rifle.
My uncle was accidentally killed when he was four with a handgun brought home as a war trophy.
My brother in law attempted to kill my sister with his handgun, and when that failed, he committed suicide with it while she was listening over the phone.
In my teens I worked at a job where we were robbed so many times I knew the local detectives on a first name basis.
Is that enough trauma in my life to satisfy your blood lust?
The difference between me and you is that you fetishize the firearms, believe they have a mind of their own and a responsibility in what happened. I know they were a tool that was misused in various ways.
Read it again; I did not say we never tried. We did. We instituted hundreds of gun controls and hundreds of times it has failed to produce the desired result of fewer killings. It doesn't even result in a significant decline in the number of shootings.
So we'll do it again in the hopes that this time the results will be different. Isn't that the definition of insanity?
I picked my grandchildren up from their elementary school the day after Sandy Hook, and the emotional distress as I sat in the car waiting for them and watching that mass of small children pour out of the school was indescribably. But empathy, tears, distress - feelings - does not solve problems. Cold, hard, rational study does, but that's something we never hear. Crying over the carnage produces comments like "Don't give me this B.S. that it doesn't work in other countries and therefore it won't work here." - you studied it and came to the same conclusion I did, that taking guns does nothing at all for the death toll. But it feels good, doesn't it?
Hey there peoplepower73. I addressed a response to promisem, that I should have also addressed to you.
I hope you will check it out: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/336 … ost3983955
Is it possible your thread could be about something more than the usual gun control rants - both pro and con?
So, currently it's illegal to sell firearms to anyone deemed to be "a mental defective" or "has been committed to a mental institution"(1)
"A mental defective" in this context is anyone who has been determined by a court to be "a danger to himself or to others" or who "lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." It includes recipients of "[a] finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case" and those "found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility . . ."(2)
According to the Florida Department of Children and Families, the young person who committed the mass shooting in Florida (Cruz) was suffering from depression and ADHD, but he was not determined by a court to be a danger to himself or others, and did not lack the ability to consent etc.(3)
Their evaluation said "Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun". It also said the previous year he was going to be "Baker Acted" (involuntarily institutionalized and examined under the Florida Mental Health Act) but was subsequently not; and that "[Cruz] revealed he was cutting himself"(4)(5). However the evaluation concluded that "the initial level of risk to [Cruz's] safety is low since [he] has services already in place"(6).
This highlights the issue of how information flows (or doesn't) into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)(7). It raises difficult, and important questions around the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Even though the evaluation concluded a low risk implication; a safety risk was nevertheless identified. Should information about such risks be passed on by mental healthcare professionals to the NICS without a court order? If so, what are the constitutional implications (for both 2nd and 14th amendments)? If not, then how can that information ever be reliably captured?
The Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (2016) was an attempt to to partly address this issue. The rule was repealed. The rule made it a requirement for Federal agencies to pass information on to the NICS for anyone claiming Disability Insurance benefits or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), who was deemed unable to manage there affairs due to a mental impairment(8). The aim was to improve the flow and range of information being captured within the NICS. In the case of the Florida shooting though, the rule would not have prevented Cruz being able to legally buy and own a firearm, as he was deemed able to manage his own affairs.
The ACLU and other civil liberties organizations opposed the rule on the grounds that (among other reasons) "it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward
It's difficult not to conclude that the ACLU make a valid point, which further illustrates the difficulty of the issue. That point might lead some to conclude that a universal limitation would (ironically) be a better option than limiting the rights of groups of people, based on assumptions about "the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong".
(1) 18 U.S.C Title 18, Chapter 44, Firearms
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-20 … sec922.htm
(2) Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms, Meaning of terms
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016- … 478-11.xml
(3)(4)(5) https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Jud … 10303.html
(8) https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-con … -bill/2640
(9) https://samjohnson.house.gov/uploadedfi … res_40.pdf
Don W: I appreciate your research and analysis and how you tied it all together with the links. However, no matter what kind of information, these various entities have on a person who is suffering from some form of mental issues, it is difficult to know when they are going to commit one of these acts. The only real way to know is after the fact. It is like the perfect storm where all the forces come together. It is also like testing a match by lighting it, you can only tell if the match will light, after it has already been lit.
I think you're right. Protections that rely on essentially guessing who might commit this type of crime, based on whatever information can be pieced together about an individual, are not a great way of reducing the risk.
Even a "better" background check (within the limits of the Constitution) could not have resulted in the relevant information about Cruz being in the NICS. He would still have been able to legally buy and own the type of firearm he used. For a background check to have been effective in these types of situation, the level of information required about individual, and the way it would need to be gathered, would itself likely be unconstitutional.
In contrast, a blanket restriction on certain types of firearms would be less likely to fall foul of the same problem. SCOTUS has already ruled that "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”(1).
Indeed, the sale of all firearms is already restricted in many ways. Additional restrictions are more likely to avoid violating the Constitution than "better" background checks, and in some cases may be more effective at reducing risk. The difficulties that remain are the practical and economic implications of implementing such additional restrictions. Those difficulties are not trivial, but also not insurmountable.
(1) Supreme Court if the United States - District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008)
I agree with both of you about the difficulties in mental illness cases. I saw on the TV the other day that both the FBI and the psychiatric association (or something similar to that) both said that 1) we don't have nearly the resources needed to either care for the potentially violent cases or find them and 2) we cannot begin to predict well enough which cases are actually dangerous to make any real calls on them. All of this put together says, to me, that chasing after mentally ill people isn't the answer; if (IF) mental problems are as big as we seem to think the answer has to come in the form of preventing it in the first place. Somehow.
As far as further restrictions, I believe we've hit a dead end. We've gone as far as we can go and still expect, or even reasonably hope for, any further lowering of the death toll by restricting guns. We might be able, with massive restrictions, confiscations and rights violations, to reduce the number of bodies with bullet holes in them, but we won't cut the number of bodies. Not until we figure out that a piece of iron isn't the problem; the brain behind the trigger is.
Just to be clear, I do think some improvements can be made to background checks that can be useful, but I don't think that alone is the most effective solution.
Two facts cause me to think further restrictions on firearms, in addition to improved background checks, would be a more effective solution:
1.Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act (1934) and the Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)(1)
2. The number of mass shootings I could find where a fully automatic weapon was used is: (possibly) 1. (it's unclear whether the weapon(s) used in Las Vegas last year was/were manufactured to be fully automatic or had been modified).
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_i … ted_States
As far as I've heard the guns in Vegas were equipped with a bump stock but no other modifications. They were not fully automatic, even with that stock. The stock results in a faster firing rate, less dependability and far less accuracy than even an automatic weapon.
But to me the biggest problem with regulating bump stocks is that they are easy to make at home. We can pass all the laws in the world and it won't make any difference - an historical problem with both killers and mentally ill people. They don't care what the law is.
Nevertheless, if we want another failed law on the books, something else to charge a murderer with in the "justice" game, it doesn't seem a major problem to me. Those toys are enjoyed by only a few, and if those few must lose that fun to keep the populace happy until bump stocks flood the black market and our failure becomes apparent, so be it.
I suspected so, but hedged on the side of caution as I couldn't find a reliable source that explicitly said so (though I didn't search long). If that's the case it brings the number of mass shootings where the shooter has used a manufactured fully automatic weapons down to zero. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think it reflects the fact that access to those types of weapons is much more restricted.
And although I think you're right, someone who robs banks or sells drugs for a living will not necessarily be persuaded to find a new career as a result of new firearms legislation; it seems clear (from information available) that there is a difference in the typical profile of those who use guns to facilitate other types of crime (drugs, robbery etc.) and those who use guns to commit mass shootings.
So I think mass shootings represent a separate category of gun violence, and we need to acknowledge that measures targeted specifically at that type of gun crime, may not impact other types of gun crime. I'm sure a "professional" criminal could obtain a manufactured fully automatic weapon if they were determined to, but could an alienated person with mental health issues and hateful intentions do the same? Not easily (I'm assuming bump stocks will be prohibited also).
Again, the sale and ownership of fully automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since 1934. The number of mass shootings where the shooter used a manufactured fully automatic weapon is: 0 (as far as I'm aware).
A professional can import such a gun from Syria or China if he has to. He has the money and contacts to do so, while the psychotic wishing to kill someone does not.
But I see a third category of killer as well. We have the psychotic mass murderer and the criminal (professional or not) that is willing to kill during their crime, but there is also the gang member that isn't out to kill random, innocent people but is quite happy to participate in a gang rumble, with guns or without. And while I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gang member killed that way, there are all too often innocent bystanders that join the body count. Plus it turns the neighborhood into a slum of a war zone.
That could be the single largest group of killers in the country - inner city gangs. The only other one that might be bigger is the group of drug dealers. Personally I find something wrong in that we begin to scream about gun controls every time there is a mass shooting, but the death toll from those events (although growing) is minute compared to what is seen in inner cities. It seems that it is only an emotional uprising that brings out concern, that we are inured to the single deaths that occur far more often, every day. And emotions and honest, well carried out, thoughtful research are not good bedfellows. I've been watching this for years and arming teachers is the very first time that anything but gun control as ever been seriously considered by anyone with the power to make changes. Though it won't, of course, do anything at all for killings outside the schools - the vast majority of killings.
I think you're right to distinguish between different types of gun violence. A mass shooting is very different in nature to an armed robbery or a gang-related shooting. A control measure that reduces one type of gun violence, might not do the same for another. Which means there's no point rejecting additional legislation just because it can't fix all types of gun violence.
Restricting access to fully automatic weapons has clearly had a beneficial impact, in that no one has ever used one to commit a mass shooting. That hasn't stopped them being used to commit other types of gun crime, but that just indicates the issue needs to tackled from multiple angles.
You're right, gang-related violence shouldn't be of any less concern, but the solutions to that type of violence may well be different to other types of gun violence. There are lots of complex social issues at play there.
I also agree there needs to be thoughtful research on the issue. Part of the problem is that current legislation restricts government departments like the DHHS from carrying out that type of research. An amendment to a spending Bill in 1996 stated that: "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control"(1). The consequences have been that research institutions have avoided firearm studies, because it could place their federal funding at risk.
In 2016 Representative Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) introduced a Bill called the "Gun Violence Research Act" which sought to ". . . repeal the provision that in practice prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from sponsoring research on gun violence"(2). In terms of support for the Bill the Democrats supported it with around 120 co-sponsors. The number of Republican supporter was: 0.
That Bill is still on the table though, so you can contact your Representative and ask them to support the Bill, if you haven't already.
The problem with arming teachers with firearms, is that teachers don't exist in isolation from society. They're people too, and they can suffer from mental illness like anyone else. E.g. "A teacher arrested for firing a gun at school Wednesday had turned himself in previously, believing that he had caused the death of a person who might not exist . . ."(3)(4). Teachers with guns, just means more people in schools with guns. As people are the key risk factor when it comes to gun violence, more people with guns in schools, just means more risk.
(1) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104p … ubl208.pdf
(2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … /1478/text
(3) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … 384164002/
(4) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/us/g … index.html
I'm sure if all of the teachers at the Parkland High School carried their own AR-15s, no one would have died except for the shooter.
You might be right. Or not, but we'll never know will we? Because we won't try something new, something that might work; we're still tied up in disarming the public and the continued failure to save lives that way isn't something to talk about.
I was being sarcastic in response to a ridiculous cartoon. The idea that all of our teachers would carry assault rifles all day at school is absurd.
Yes it is absurd. And the Dear Readers note well that YOU are the only one who keeps bringing it up.
No one else. Just YOU.
Really? I don't see any other post about giving every teacher an assault rifle.
You don't see any other post about giving every teacher an assault rifle. None. At least from me.
If you do, please quote it. Completely. In detail. With specifics. Find the words, "every," "teacher," and "assault rifle."
Or you can just apologize for making stuff up.
So is an expelled student returning and killing 17 children and wounding 14 more. Which absurdity would you prefer?
Yeah, your "helpless little lambsie" theory of "how things should work" gave everyone a lot of satisfaction, eh.
Bless your heart but you must be relpying to some other poster. I never said, posted, or hinted anything about arming all teachers.
Keep searching, though. You might find the post you meant to reply to.
"Yet despite the fact that he was well known to local police, school and mental health officials, he legally purchased the AR-15 that he used to gun down his former classmates. Cruz slipped through the gaps in a dysfunctional mental health system and a gun background check setup not designed to stop mentally ill people who haven’t been incarcerated or court-ordered into treatment." The legislation that would have required those background checks (passed by President Obama near the end of his terms) was rescinded by Trump almost a year ago.
No... this is simply not true. The process that Congress repealed had nothing to do with this situation.
For a honest look at this read "No, the GOP Did Not Just Repeal the Background Check System or Give Guns to the Mentally Ill"
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 … ntally-ill
If you are too concrete in your thinking to actually read this then at least read this portion of it...
It is for this lattermost reason — not from any great fidelity to the Second Amendment — that so many organizations urged the GOP to act. As the House Ways and Means Committee was sure to make clear, letters of support were received from ADAPT, which “urged Congress to use the Congressional Rule Act to repeal this rule“; from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pressed Congress “to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA)”; from the ACLU, which pushed “members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration”; from The Arc of the United States, which asked “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule”; from the Association of Mature American Citizens, which exhorted “Congress to quickly pass this Joint Resolution and restore the basic Second Amendment rights this rule has abridged”; from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, which implored “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule and prevent the damage that it inflicts on the disability community”; and, in addition, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Association for Rural Mental Health, the National Council on Disability, the National Council of Independent Living, the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery, the National Disability Leadership Alliance, the National Disability Rights Network, the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, and Safari Club International.
All of them — every single one — urged that the rule be killed.
The stats for every other western nation concerning violence on TV, video games, etc. line up with ours. The only difference in America? The number of guns. There is a solution. Many Americans just don't like it. You have to ask yourself at some point: Whose freedom am I worried about infringing on? For me, it the freedom of students to live.
Perhaps it will do you good to read, "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?" at https://hubpages.com/politics/damage-society-guns
The only difference in America is the number of guns?
1. As a nation we're fat. Others aren't.
2. We are much more open, geographically, than other nations.
3. We are less socialistic than other nations, less of a "nanny state".
4. We are richer, monetarily, than most other nations.
5. We pride ourselves on our freedoms - freedoms that other nations don't have.
That's 5 differences, and I'm sure you can come up with 50 more if you try. Pretty obvious that the number of guns isn't the only difference, so the conclusion that it therefore has to be guns is totally false. Try again?
This is Jack Burton's link. I read it, but I did not verify the data in it.
Take a look and see if you think that it supports a statement that "It only happens here ... ... because of the guns..."
"Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compa … nd-europe/ "
I feel for the families, teachers, citizens and anyone involved. It's tragic. The shooter, such a young man, was PHD. Pain, Hypnosis and Drugs, psychotropic drugs. Every mass shooter is on psychotropic drugs. That's why they have black box warnings.
Every time we have a shooting in a gun free zone, the idea of disarming the citizens is raised. So you want to take away violate the rights of all of us to ensure that the only people with guns report to the government?
Remember, the government isn't going to disarm. There's no fantasy world you can imagine where the government gives up their weapons. So your plan only ensures that the direct power of the government increases exponentially relative to the citizens.
Let's consider our current President, Donald Trump. He's literally Hitler, right? And you want him and his henchmen to be the only ones armed? What happens if he decides to build that wall and deport every person of Hispanic descent? Maybe build some camps to expedite the process? Then declare martial law and make it illegal to gather and protest? You already believe he would do these things. If you've had all of us line up and turn in our guns, what's your plan when the new Emperor of North America is no longer responsive to polite letters and protest marches in pink hats?
For those who whine that gun owners never have any ideas to put forth...
7 Simple Steps to Eliminate School Shootings Overnight
https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmc … t-n2450380
BTW...there is no use debating these steps. According to many of the posters here, they simply don't exist at all. Can't debate what doesn't exist, eh.
Just one simple question: Will those 7 steps stop murderers from killing schoolkids or just stop the shootings? Which one, for instance, will stop a high speed car from plowing into the crowd of kids as they exit the school to go home? Which one will stop the release of poison gas during recess?
They are decent suggestions, but they won't stop a killer that want's to kill kids. They are a bandaid on the problem, but without any effort to correct whatever is causing those killers to kill.
I haven't been on this forum for a while because I'm trying to put all of the gun violence into perspective.
Can we agree that mental instability is the common denominator in mass shootings of both school children and others like the Las Vegas shooting?
Can we agree there has not been enough funding for mental institutions since the early 80s?
Can we agree that it is very difficult to determine when a mentally unstable person is going to commit these shootings until after the fact?
Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment is a poorly written document and is subject to much interpretation, even though the Supreme Court has ruled on what it means?
Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the 13 colonies from tyranny by a central government?
Can we agree that there are over 200 state gun laws on the books with a huge disparity in laws among states?
Can we agree that the states have the legal right to not enforce federal gun laws?
Can we agree thus far the federal government has done nothing to prevent mass shootings?
Can we agree thus far, the executive orders from presidents including Obama and Trump have been ineffectual on preventing mass shootings?
Can we agree that the gun industry and NRA and their lobby groups fund congressmen’s campaigns?
Can we agree that the weapons of choice for mass shootings are rapid fire, high capacity firearms?
Can we agree that said weapons can be obtained both legally and illegally with easy access?
Can we agree that there has been a huge cultural shift in the way people including children relate to each other?
Can we agree that some school children are bullied by their peers and will seek revenge in some form?
Can we agree that under the Obama administration there was a huge increase in buying of guns for fear of a tyrannous government takeover.
All of the questions I have posed contribute to the conditions in which mass shootings are created. They are almost like a perfect storm that falls into place for the typical mass shooter.
I have tried to put myself in the place of a mass shooter and determine the phases that the shooter goes through and how the conditions I described above contribute to those phases.
Phase 1. Motivation:
Something has triggered the psyche of a potential mass shooter. Some of the most common motivations include bullying, anger, revenge, copy cat syndrome, the need to kill more than the last shooter. Unfortunately, we just don’t know what motivates them, because most of them are killed while committing the act. However, it would be ideal to know ahead of time as to when they are going to commit these crimes. HIPPA laws and other state laws prevent the access to mental health patient’s information.
Phase 2 Preparation
The shooter may address their grievances on social media or document them in some form. School children may even talk to their peers about their feelings. It has been shown that children who have that information do not know what to do with it or how to act.
The shooter will then obtain the weapons either by legal or illegal means. At this phase, the gun industry, including the NRA have set the stage for easy access to weapons as a result of their lobbying efforts in congress. Congress is remiss in passing any laws because they are beholden to the gun industry for their campaign funding.
In addition, each state has their own set of laws that may usurp federal laws. I believe there should be no state gun laws and only have federal laws that provide uniform legislation across all states.
Phase 3 Planning
In this phase the shooter lays out how they are going to attack their targets. They decide how many guns they will use, what ammunition they need, who their targets are or whether they are just going to kill people with out any regard for who they are or single out specific individuals. They will also plan out their escape routes and how they will defend themselves.
Phase 4 Execution
This phase is always done as a surprise to their victims. They may use distraction such as pipe bombs and setting off alarms to create chaos while giving themselves the advantage.
Phase 5 Aftermath
After the shootings have taken place, there is an upheaval by the people who want something done to prevent any further shootings and those who think it is waste of time to have any type of gun control.
History has shown that the federal government is not going to do anything about it because they are beholden to the gun industry and the NRA for campaign funding.
Gun advocates stand behind the 2nd amendment and have their reasons ranging from “it is my right to bear arms to protecting myself from tyranny and I don’t trust law enforcement to protect me, and every reason in between.”
What can be done?
There are two schools of thought, one is the defensive and the other is pro-active. The defensive school is based on the 2nd amendment giving everybody the right to bear arms. Therefore, we might as well be armed to defend ourselves from these shooters. Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” But we know from experience, the element of surprise and the type of weaponry the shooter uses gives them the advantage in almost every case.
The pro-active school believes in legislating change to reduce the number of shootings. I believe the federal government should control the legislation instead of the states, thus providing uniform legislation across the fifty states.
In addition, there should be more funding for mental health issues, including facilities, research, and studies. The Trump administration has removed funding the CDC for prevention of gun violence and removed million of dollars of funding for background checks. Trump also removed a law that requires the mentally ill to be subject to background checks when buying firearms.
I believe all of the items I have outlined are contributing forces to gun violence in the United States. Feel free to add more or just comment.
"Can we agree that mental instability is the common denominator in mass shootings of both school children and others like the Las Vegas shooting?"
Somewhat. In many cases it is obvious. In other cases, not so much. For example, the Las Vegas case is still a total mystery. It is too easy to say, "only people who are mentally ill would do this, so therefore only people who are mentally ill do this."
"Can we agree there has not been enough funding for mental institutions since the early 80s?"
Nope. We might be able to agree upon the fact that it has been very difficult because of other issues to actually get people into mental health faculties. Dope 'em up, pat them on the back, and then send them back into the general population as a time bomb waiting to go off.
"Can we agree that it is very difficult to determine when a mentally unstable person is going to commit these shootings until after the fact?"
Yes, that we can agree upon.
"Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment is a poorly written document and is subject to much interpretation, even though the Supreme Court has ruled on what it means?"
No, it is clearly written. And it was clearly understood for the first 100 years of the country. Even the Dred Scott decision in the mid-1800s understood what the 2nd Amendment was clearly about...
Were blacks to be considered citizens — with all the rights a citizen should expect — the Court enumerated what those rights would include:
“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
"Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the 13 colonies from tyranny by a central government?"
One of a multitude of reasons.
"Can we agree that there are over 200 state gun laws on the books with a huge disparity in laws among states?"
There are far, far more than 200 state gun laws. I did a quick study on that issue here: https://hubpages.com/politics/20-000-gun-laws
"Can we agree that the states have the legal right to not enforce federal gun laws?"
The states have no obligation, responsibility, or duty to enforce any federal law. Basic Supreme Court rulings over decades. They may if they so choose.
"Can we agree thus far the federal government has done nothing to prevent mass shootings?"
Only if we can agree that there is actually nothing the federal government can do to prevent mass shootings.
"Can we agree thus far, the executive orders from presidents including Obama and Trump have been ineffectual on preventing mass shootings?"
I wasn't aware of any executives orders from any president that touched on the issue of mass shootings. Therefore, by their non-existence, I would agree they have been ineffectual.
"Can we agree that the gun industry and NRA and their lobby groups fund congressmen’s campaigns?"
Only if we agree that the NRA is one of the smallest of the lobbying groups, dwarfed by hundreds of millions of dollars by the unions, and other orgs such as Planned Parenthood.
"Can we agree that the weapons of choice for mass shootings are rapid fire, high capacity firearms?"
Nope. Not even close to being true. As described by the Washington Post...
Lost in the diatribes about banning assault weapons is this inconvenient fact: the vast majority of mass shooters use handguns, not assault rifles, in their attacks. That includes Seung-Hui Cho, who used two handguns, including a Glock 19, in 2007 to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech University, the previous worst mass shooting in American history.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/loc … shootings/
"Can we agree that said weapons can be obtained both legally and illegally with easy access?"
If you can consider going thru a federal/state background check or risking a jail term "easy access" then we might agree.
"Can we agree that there has been a huge cultural shift in the way people including children relate to each other?"
That, that is agreeable.
"Can we agree that some school children are bullied by their peers and will seek revenge in some form?"
Yes, that is agreeable.
"Can we agree that under the Obama administration there was a huge increase in buying of guns for fear of a tyrannous government takeover. "
Actually the increase in gun sales started several years previously in Bush's administration. It did increase more during Obama's presidency, but not for fear of a "tyrannous government takeover. " It was the reasonable fear that when the Democrats were in power they would exercise their dreams and attempt massive bans on many types of firearms.
"All of the questions I have posed contribute to the conditions in which mass shootings are created. They are almost like a perfect storm that falls into place for the typical mass shooter."
You forgot one of the most major of the conditions, and that is the role the media plays. By glorifying these shooters it creates a "perfect storm" for those disturbed people who want to see their name across the headlines and on everyone's lips. I would put "copycat" as probably the number one reason why we are seeing so many incidents in so short of a time.
"The shooter will then obtain the weapons either by legal or illegal means. At this phase, the gun industry, including the NRA have set the stage for easy access to weapons as a result of their lobbying efforts in congress. Congress is remiss in passing any laws because they are beholden to the gun industry for their campaign funding."
Approximately 80 MILLION gun owners in America.
If only TEN PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 8 MILLION gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.
Is there? Of course not.
If only ONE PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 800,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.
Is there? Of course not.
If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 80,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.
Is there? Of course not.
And if only ONE ONE HUNDRETH OF ONE PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 8,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.
And that’s about the right number.
Many think that because 0.001 percent of gun users misuse their gun to harm others the other 99.999 percent should be subjected to laws taking their freedom and liberties away.
"In addition, each state has their own set of laws that may usurp federal laws. I believe there should be no state gun laws and only have federal laws that provide uniform legislation across all states."
No state can legally "usurp" a federal law. A state can pass a law that is stricter than a federal law, but that is it. They cannot negate a federal law. That is basic civics. Many states also have their own state Constitutional protection built in for the right to keep and bear arms. The federal government cannot willy nilly "usurp" or negate those laws either.
"History has shown that the federal government is not going to do anything about it because they are beholden to the gun industry and the NRA for campaign funding. "
What is amazing is how you can swing from fairly logical to just repeating emotional talking points. Perhaps you can explain to us why the Democrats, who held the complete Congress with a super-majority with the Republicans powerless to stop them, didn't "do anything" while Obama was president.
"Gun advocates stand behind the 2nd amendment and have their reasons ranging from “it is my right to bear arms to protecting myself from tyranny and I don’t trust law enforcement to protect me, and every reason in between.”"
How about, "You just admitted that there are mentally ill people who are planning to kill others, and your solution is to disarm and make helpless the very people they are planning to kill" Does that also work for a reason to object to gun control?
"There are two schools of thought, one is the defensive and the other is pro-active. The defensive school is based on the 2nd amendment giving everybody the right to bear arms. Therefore, we might as well be armed to defend ourselves from these shooters. Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” But we know from experience, the element of surprise and the type of weaponry the shooter uses gives them the advantage in almost every case."
Advantage, yes. Overwhelming superiority, no. And who do we call where there is a shooter with a gun? Why, other people with guns to come and save us.
"The pro-active school believes in legislating change to reduce the number of shootings. I believe the federal government should control the legislation instead of the states, thus providing uniform legislation across the fifty states. "
You've already just admitted up above there there is no legislation that can stop an unknown shooter who is determined to hurt others. Now, you say there is "legislation"? Be specific. Give detail.
"In addition, there should be more funding for mental health issues, including facilities, research, and studies. The Trump administration has removed funding the CDC for prevention of gun violence and removed million of dollars of funding for background checks. "
This is simply not true. In the 1990s the CDC was prevented by Congress for using federal dollars for anti-gun and pro-gun-control propaganda. That was it.
You can read about it here by one of the prime participants in the issue:
http://www.haciendapub.com/articles/pub … hy-wheeler
"Trump also removed a law that requires the mentally ill to be subject to background checks when buying firearms."
This is as far removed from reality as belief in the green-cheese Moon and is indicative of why it is so hard to have these conversations. There is so much that -- even good hearted -- people "know" that is not true that getting them to face the facts becomes almost impossible. After reading the facts it should make any reasonable person question what else they think they "know' about firearms, and just how the media misleads them on a regular basis.
You can read the truth of the issue here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/cor … tally-ill/
I disagree with some of your "can we agree" comments, but not many.
The real disagreement comes when all you wish to talk about are mass shootings rather than mass killings. Implicit in this is the thought that if killers can't get a gun they won't be able to kill, and that simply is not true. Real world experience (Australia) shows us that and common sense tells us that. So go back to your stages and change "shooter" to "murderer" or maybe "killer" and start over there. And when you're all through you may have a better understanding of just why all the gun controls, up to and including confiscation of all legally owned guns, isn't worth a plugged nickel when it comes to saving lives. Get off the "shooter" kick and deal with the roots, the causes, of mass killings instead of trying for another bandaid over the wound while letting it fester and grow beneath that cosmetic, useless "solution".
Wilderness: You are talking about mass killings. I'm talking about mass shootings because that is how groups of people are killed in mass shootings, it is by guns. Mass shootings are a subset of mass killings. Why stop at mass killings, why not widen it to all deaths in the world?
You make the assumption that if guns were not available, the same people who commit mass shootings would use other means of killing those same people. Yes, terrorists use other means, but their motivation and goals are different than killing a group of school kids. There is no evidence that mass shooters would use other means, because the guns are so readily available. How do you prove otherwise?
Like it's as easy to get poison gas as an assault weapon! Reaching a bit, aren't you?
much easier for anyone knowing basic chemistry. Mixing bleach and ammonia together will kill people as quick as you want.
From the CDC (source linked below): When bleach is mixed with ammonia-containing compounds, monochloramine (NH2Cl) (and dichloramine (NHCl2) are formed, which may produce tearing, respiratory tract irritation, and nausea. These compounds decompose in water to hypochlorous acid and free ammonia gas; the former combines with moisture forming hydrochloric acid and toxic nascent oxygen; the latter is a respiratory and mucous membrane irritant and can cause pulmonary edema and pneumonia.
From the Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00015111.htm
How does one disperse this homemade poison gas without being poisoned themselves, Jack? Since you're the expert......
perhaps they don't have plastic jugs or glass jars where you live. Perhaps. Maybe.
I've included a pic here to help you in case you have never spotted on before... kinda like one of those "gun free signs" that some people find to hard to notice.
Yeah right, like no one would notice anyone carrying glass jugs full of chemicals, or wearing a gas mask for that matter. And how do you break a plastic jug?
Really trying to avoid answering now, eh?
Yeah, something like figuring out how to break a plastic bottle is just beyond the ability of the average person to figure out. You're right. It could never, ever, not once, be done.
So how would you do it, Jack. Give me an example of the perfect throw or smash if you can. Especially without getting a whiff of the vapors in the process.
Well, I would consider this a win in the Jack column. Randy here has gone from first totally disbelieving that someone could create poison gas to actually wondering about how it can be distributed.
A small victory, but around here it's almost a miracle. And it's proof that some people can acknowledge they were wrong if they are motivated enough.
and BTW, Randy, they do make hard plastic that cracks and shatters upon impact. You didn't know that? Bet you know are going to want to know the proper chemical formulation and brand name for such a plastic, eh.
Sure I do Jack, but you didn't give me an example of how you could do this effectively and not get poisoned yourself. Take your time explaining just how you'd go about it in your oh so professional manner.
This isn't a win in your column, Jack. It only shows why people prefer assault rifles rather than some homemade poison. Cowards they are for the most part and why they'd rather kill themselves in most cases than face the music.
Errrrr.... yes... that was the original point that you long ago lost sight of. IF they cannot get an AR or other firearm it will not stop them from using other methods.
And if you actually believe that " they'd rather kill themselves in most cases than face the music" then why were you so insistent that they would walk around with gas masks and your silly demands that I come up with a way to disperse the gas without killing them.
Give folk like you enough pixels and you eventually out yourself for the foolish thinkers you are.
And since you were forced to admit that you were wrong, yep, it is a win.
No win for you again, Jack. I didn't admit I was wrong and you didn't explain your "plastic bottle of poison" technique. You're really reaching now!
I am sure the Dear Readers notice that Randy wants to post about anything other than the subject of what to do about school shootings. We really don't wonder why that is.
So you've changed your mind again and think that only imaginary students can make imaginary poison gas, eh. And you expect me to take those two imaginary things and come up with a solution to your now problem?
Good luck with that.
I didn't think you had an answer, Jack. Just more hot air for your imaginary "Dear Readers."
Jack's right - chlorine is easy to make, and with a little more effort several war gases are possible. Just release them upwind from the target - the Germans did it in 1920.
Germans in 1920? After World War I? I wasn't aware they tested anything during that time...considering the condition the country and the military were in at the time. Just curious....
Oops! Got the dates wrong; it was in WWI. Watched a special on an area (in Poland, I think?) where it was used against the allies. Didn't work too well - the wind wouldn't cooperate, plus we had word of it and provided gas masks as well as tried to tunnel in and destroy the camp before they could deploy it) but it DID kill a good many allies. And was a part of why it eventually became illegal as a war weapon.
So you're okay with that because, Obama. Figures.
That's not an answer, onus. Try again!
Is that an AR-15 you're holding in your profile pic, Onus? If so, does it make you feel empowered or a big man? If not, just why do you choose a pic of you holding a weapon?
It's a pic of anti gun liberal goon Gabby Giffords at the range.
The lady who got shot by a gun nut? Why in the heck did you use that photo? Are you glad she got shot?
Do you think it's right that she takes guns away from everybody except criminals and her own bodyguards?
Did she take your guns, Onus? If so, it's probably something in your background check.
If not, that means you're either a criminal or a bodyguard. I hope it's the latter.
Are those the only two choices?
And why do you hope I'm a criminal?
I said the "latter," Onus. the latter being a "bodyguard." Where did you go to school, Utah?
Ah, I see. Your bad grammar confused me. I assumed you were speaking of the latter of the two choice groups you presented as you connected the second sentence to the first by beginning it with a preposition.
Also, why did you pick Utah? Do you think Mormons are uneducated?
I don't know, if they don't know the difference between the former or the latter, that speaks for itself.
Grammar warfare breaks out on HB. These topics get heated.
I don't know. If...
Also "that speaks for itself". What speaks for itself? Dangling participle.
Here is your claim, onus. I asked you if she took your guns away, and if not, you must be either a criminal or a bodyguard. Which is it?
Your claim, onus. Deny it if you wish....
In fact, don't address me anymore. Getting you to answer a question is worse than Jackclee. If I knew that was Gabby Gifford on your profile page I would already have ended my conversation with you. It's one thing to back a pro-gun agenda, but another to use a woman's pic who has been shot in the head by a gun nut. Not cool in the least, Dude!
ONUSONUS: This is what happens when you don't check your sources, but what you found fits your agenda.
According to your own source he was allowed to "plead guilty to one of the charges" even though they had him on 27 different charges of trafficking firearms.
WHO made that decision to allow him to plead on one charge and walk on the other 26? Oh.... the Obama Justice Department. Would the judge have reacted differently to a guilty verdict of 27 charges instead of noting that the Obama prosecuting attorney didn't take it seriously himself?
Jack: I have gone through all 175 of the posts on this forum and it looks like you have dominated the forum with your trite insults. You say you are not emotional about your replies, but after reading all of them, I say just the opposite. You get your emotional kicks by insulting others. What is your point for being on this forum? If it is to educate people, I think you are failing as a teacher. I certainly wouldn't want you as my teacher.
Let me translate that for our Dear Readers...
"Wahhhh... Jack points out our foolishness and weaknesses and we have no answer for him so we'll just claim victimhood and declare ourselves satisfied."
BTW... You really, really don't know my "point" about being on forums such as this, do you. Let me assure you it has little to nothing to do with "teaching" you anything except that which you are willing to learn. And that is why you get so frustrated and angry with me. You close your ears and eyes and shout to the world that your emotions trump logic, reason, rationality, and facts. When I point that out you then have no where else to go.
2nd BTW... if you don't think you have "emotional thinkers" on your side perhaps you can comment on the "solution" presented of "ban the NRA."
Jack: You get so emotional that you didn't read the whole story or you just love to put out misinformation, because it makes you seem like an authority... to yourself.. Here is what was said:
"According to the meme shown above, Mills’ plea bargain was negotiated by the Department of Justice (or in some versions, the Obama administration or President Obama himself). However, Mills’ sentence was seemingly light because he pleaded guilty to only one of the numerous charges against him, and the choice of giving Mills probation rather than jail time was not the result of instructions from the Justice Department (or higher) but rather the personal discretion of Judge Rudolph Randa (who was appointed as a federal district judge by President George H.W. Bush and has a history of making controversial decisions), based on his view of Mills’ contrition and likelihood of re-offending."
So it comes down to another Republican giving a light sentence to an illegal gun seller and not from Obama who is blamed for it on the right? Yeah, that sounds about par for the course.
Not all Republicans are created equal, you know. Some are pretty tragic in their willingness to appease something other than justice and righteousness.
I'd personally consider tar and feathers for the judge for even accepting the plea bargain.
With whom did Mills negotiate his "plea bargain" that allowed him to plead "guilty" to only one charge instead of 27?
Himself? His attorney? His momma?
No... the Obama Department of Justice was the other partner who negotiated with him and was satisfied with the plea bargain. Do you dispute this? It is in your own reference.
"and the choice of giving Mills probation rather than jail time was not the result of instructions from the Justice Department (or higher) but rather the personal discretion of Judge Rudolph Randa"
I never said otherwise, did I. What I said was the judge probably considered the Justice Department's not taking this seriously as a signal that he didn't have to take it seriously either.
But it is fascinating that I, as a strong pro-gun thinker, want to see people like this put away for life or longer. His 27 guns on the streets in the hands of social deviants can allow them to cause immense and tragic consequences to innocents for decades. Meanwhile all the gun control people such as you seem to be defending the situation as is and seem okay with it.
Conservatives are the only ones exposing these hoaxes for what they are: fake news.
Sandy Hook was just a made-up fake story designed to start a conversation to take away our 2nd amendment rights.
Similarly, who's to say that this latest "shooting" isn't just a Hollywood stunt? Liberals have been trying to take our guns away forever and these so-called "mass shootings" are just stunts to make us believe that we need gun control.
Here's a great article on Hubpages about how Sandy Hook was faked (it's not my article):
https://hubpages.com/politics/Sandy-Hoo … or-Fiction
Those of you who are buying into this liberal media hoax are just sheep being sent to the slaughter. Start doing your own research! Conservative media, the real media, is the only one exposing these hoaxes for what they are!
Sycho:Why don't you ask the parents who lost their children in the shooting, instead of believing and re-posting something that is fake? Please don't post this again on my forum. It is sickening to even think this way. What is the matter with you? Have you no common sense?
Yes, he does. He is using satire to make fun of the gun rights people.
promisem: Oh, thanks sorry about that. He caught me off guard. Usually I'm pretty good about detecting satire, but obviously not this time.
I'll take seriously a proposal for laws and regulations to prevent school shootings when the one proposing it isn't
1). utterly ignorant about how guns work and
2). pretending as if he's the only one who cares about school shootings.
How many assault rifles do you have, Jack? And what makes you an expert on firearms?
In case you're wondering, a certain someone cherry-picked a speech to police officers here's the article and much of the speech given
https://www.policeone.com/school-violen … is-denial/
Did you miss my last post, Jack? How many assault rifles do you own, and what makes you such an expert on firearms? I have two among my many other hunting rifles and shot guns and can field strip all of them if needed. No high capacity clips for the assault rifles though. So you see, I do know how firearms work and can handle them safely. What's your experience?
Well, I have been shooting for a long, long time. Including about 15 years with the Seabee Reserves where we were required to be regularly qualified on all small arms. Had a lot of fun there and spent many hours on ranges across Arkansas, Texas,Indiana, California,and Illinois being trained by the best.
I've tried to pay it back by helping to train many hundreds of people ranging from teens to women to minorities in how to safely and competently shoot firearms. Had a lot of fun doing that also. My two best students were brothers who went on to do several tours in Afghanistan as Army Rangers. Their mother never forgave me for introducing them how to shoot. :-)
Hush now, You've been exposed. So tell me: did you do it so people can come and visit your website and buy security products? Also, why did you use quotes from person that been accused of having liberal thought?
Are you posting drunk? Seriously.
What "website" and "products" are you posting about?
It was YOU who gave a link to a website that matched the info that I posted. Not me.
The one that links to your profile page, genius. Also, why did you post the first two or three paragraph and disregarded the rest? And why did you fail to mentioned that it came from a speech at a police convention 30 miles from San Fransisco?
Dry for more than a year. But with all the garbage you place on this thread, you sure make one want to drink.
call your AA buddy and tell him you jumped off the wagon.
Oh so I was a drinker? Wow I didn't know that. I usually dont drink much anyway. In fact I usually do that one time during the year. Then again, those who accuse me of such thing are usually raging alcholics...then what do I care? you're a plageriser and genuine BSer. Your words are nullified.
Well,sport, someone posted, "Dry for more than a year. "
Oh... that was you, eh.
But it is sad to see that you've given up any attempt to actually keep the thread on topic.
You got off topic bud....take some responsibility for your actions, for once.
The irony is that I actually agreed with Lt.Col. Grossman and several topics. And I can see that my school and district administrators must have listened to him. But, what I agreed to was in the article you excluded. And to top it off, you cried wolf one too many times for me to buy into your version of the post.
"your version of the post"
You mean my version where I quoted the good Col. word for word? That version?
And please feel free to share with the rest of us just what point that was left out that changes the thrust of what was quoted. Be specific. Give detail.
I'll let you share it....you're the one who has to redeem yourself. Not me.
Oh, by the way, because you posted portion of that article without giving the person who actually wrote it (especially the non-quoted sections) any credit, that's ground for plagiarism.
you might want to take another look at that post, sport. And I stand by my accusation that you are posting drunk.
I stand by my accusation about you. It sux being a fraud doesn't it?
There ya go, Dear Reader. A simple scroll back reveals the truth. Thank God Al Gore invented the concept along with the Internet.
What's Al Gore got to do with this...oh never mind, you're just making stuff up as you go along. By the way, I've noticed that some of those "Dear Readers" who follow on this site haven't been around for a while....hmmm I guess they got tired the trite comments and BS you keep posting.
Don't have to be an "expert". Just don't have to be utterly ignorant.
And while I don't discuss my personal firearms in a context such as this I can state with certainty that when the zombie apocalypse comes my home will be one of the safer ones on the block.
How about you... how much do you know about the Fighting Seabees without having to turn to Wikipeida?
My dad landed on Omaha Beach and was in the Battle of the Bulge. I actually knew some Seebees who served in WW2. No need to look them up. I seriously doubt you have any firearms at all.
And you do know zombies are not real, or do you?
Honors to your father. Mine was in the Pacific Theater.
And you can doubt what you wish. I have no control over that. Or interest in what you do or do not doubt.
But the really smart people will go to my Hubs and see where my interest is focused.
My dad's brother served in the Pacific and another in the Aleutians during the war. My personal protection weapon is a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. I'll take on an intruder wielding an assault rifle any time with my shotgun. While he's aiming I'll be blasting his butt to pieces.
never was much of a shotgun kind of guy outside the trap range. But I understand their appeal to some. Lots of trainers recommend them for home defense.
Years of dove hunting will teach you something about shotguns a clay pigeon never will. The average dove kill per box of 25 shells is 8 birds. A very humbling sport if you can't shoot well. Clay pigeons? A piece of cake compared to hitting a diving, speedy feathered missile such as the mourning dove. I once saw an Afghanistan veteran dove hunting with hardly any birds at all to show for his effort. He was shooting like hell though!
Never been a hunter. Haven't shot at an animal in over 55 years. But with the trouble I've had getting the clays into edible shape after knocking them down I am not sure that doves would be an improvement.
Everyone knows that guns are not an ideal weapon for the zombie apocalypse. Eventually you run out of ammo and the noise attracts more zombies. Maybe it’s time to start investing in crossbows.
Edged weapons are the best, which is why every time I come back from the Philippines I bring a couple of bolos back with me. These are not "tourist trade" items but from the back hills where the farmers depend upon a tough knife and blade that will stand up to years of hard work.
Makes chopping off those z-heads a piece of cake.
LTC Dave Grossman, US Army (retired)
“How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years? Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That’s right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century.
Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?”
Standing on the stage of a high school auditorium, Grossman walked to the side nearest a wall as he addressed the crowd.
"Look up at the ceiling! See all those sprinklers up there? They’re hard to spot — they’re painted black — but they’re there. While you’re looking, look at the material the ceiling is made of. You know that that stuff was selected because it’s fire-retardant. Now look over there above the door — you see that fire exit sign? That’s not just any fire exit sign — that’s a ‘battery-backup-when-the-world-ends-it-will-still-be-lit’ fire exit sign.
He walked to the other side, nearby a fire exit and exterior wall, Grossman slammed the palm of his hand against the wall and exclaimed, “Look at these wall boards! They were chosen because they’re what, fireproof or fire retardant? There is not one stinking thing in this room that will burn!”
Pointing around the room as he spoke, Grossman continued, “But you’ve still got those fire sprinklers, those fire exit signs, fire hydrants outside, and fire trucks nearby! Are these fire guys crazy? Are these fire guys paranoid? No! This fire guy is our A+ student! Because this fire guy has redundant, overlapping layers of protection, not a single kid has been killed by school fire in the last 50 years!"
“But you try to prepare for violence — the thing much more likely to kill our kids in schools, the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill our kids in schools, and people think you’re paranoid. They think you’re crazy. They’re in denial.”
I want you to stop for a moment and think about how much fucking money is spent on ways to put fires out and stop them from spreading. How much time is spent on training what to do if a fire burns and spreads? Now how much money and time is spent on stopping violence?
Very little because it makes YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.
The idea of trained staff and security with firearms in your children's schools shocks you. Well... reality check. The image of your child in a casket due to a murderer in school with a gun will be infinitely more shocking I guarantee you.
Passing laws restricting firearms would have the same effect as passing laws against fire. If changes in firearm laws are your answer as to how we can save children's lives, you are naive, uninformed about human conflict, and frankly have nothing better to fucking offer. You are grasping at straws in the darkness of ignorance. I do not hold it against you. Anyone asked to solve a problem they are not equipped to solve will make an effort to do so if they believe it to be necessary.
ACCEPT that evil walks the earth and you or your children may one day see it.
LEARN about how the human reacts in moments of danger and peril.
DEVELOP SKILLS to stay alive whatever they may be.
SHARE the mindset, knowledge and skills with your children and loved ones.
WATER puts out FIRE.
GUNS stop GUNS.
You all keep pissing in the wind and wringing your hands.
- Lt Col David Grossman
3 disturbing facts about mass school shootings that change everything
https://www.shaunconnell.com/mass-schoo … ing-facts/
I like the article, for there is much truth to it. But the conclusion, right at the end, I disagree with for the root of the problem is not how to protect schools from guns (that's easy - turn them into prisons every school day with barbed wire, impenetrable doors and lots of guards), it's the madness that is overtaking too many of our kids - kids that grow into adults with that sickness still festering inside.
Guarding schools is a good short term defense, but we need to be aware that it is not a long term answer. As soon as murderers discover they can't shoot their way to glory in a school they will turn their attention to either a different location (crowded theater or largish restaurant?) or turn to a weapon that can get by the guards. A dump truck through the wall, a bomb through the window or even poison in food/water supplies.
Those insane enough to want to kill innocent people, particularly small children, will not be stopped by a few guards in an otherwise defenseless building. Armor and protect it like a prison, maybe, to a larger degree, but it would still be vulnerable to the right tools.
When do we get to talk about the other reasons?
https://spectator.org/when-do-we-get-to … r-reasons/
I know a retired police officer who says the same thing, and had the experience of using a shotgun to save lives . . .his own and others.
A shotgun is all anyone needs to protect their homes, Rochelle. No need for assault rifles with 30 round clips. I'm all for doing away with common citizens owning military rifles with high capacity magazines. They are for attacking, not defending. Why do you think they're called "assault rifles."?
Most people want them because they look scary, unlike a mere hunting rifle. It scares heck out of me that some people can get them so easily.
"Why do you think they're called "assault rifles."?"
To instill fear into the listener and promote the disarming of America. Certainly not for any factual reason for the term refers to military grade automatic weapons. That it has become common to refer to common hunting rifles by that terminology does not make those tools "assault rifles" any more than calling Iron Pyrite "gold" makes it valuable.
"I'm all for doing away with common citizens owning military rifles with high capacity magazines."
You have to know that there are precious few "military rifles with high capacity magazines" in the hands of the citizenry. The question becomes "Why would you promote that lie when you know better", and the answer is likely the same: to instill fear into the listener and promote the disarming of America. Am I right? If not why would you say something so obviously untrue?
Good thing we have the "Bill of Rights" instead of the "Bill of What Randy Thinks People Need."
Not a good thing, Jack. Our forefathers never imagined the carnage which could be committed by one firearm. And the politicians on the Right simply do not care as long as they get contributions from the NRA. Trump got 3 million I understand. Blood money no doubt!
Not as droll as your meme, that's for sure!
As long as it causes a Dear Reader to go, "Hmmmm...." I am satisfied.
Apparently your satisfaction bar is very low.
Jack Burton: Why limit it to AR's why not ICBMs with nuclear warheads? If they could think about ARs, don't you think, they could envision ICBMs as well? See how your logic sucks!
I'm sorry, this meme just makes to point of the NRA. Nukes don't kill people, people DO kill people. People build the Nukes and fire the Nukes. They are only able to cause any harm when people make them harm others. If people who look at this and don't have an IQ that enables them to see the difference between an international threat and a debate on our Second Amendment rights as American citizens...you IQ doesn't make you able to engage in an intelligent debate.
Readmikenow: What is an ICBM? It is a firearm that shoots a projectile out of tube towards a target, to kill people just like the firearms they used when the 2nd amendment was drafted. As a matter of fact, it is more like a catapult that launches whatever they could project to knock down the walls of castles. If Wilderness says they could shoot chain shot out of cannon, and create carnage. Then what is the difference with an ICBM? The only difference is the scale of the carnage.
Now let's see if an ICBM meets the test of the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes a well regulated militia does fire the ICBM. It is necessary for a free state. And that militia is made up of people who have the right to bear arms. And its protecting our free state of the United States of America, so therefore, it is not being infringed upon by a foreign country.
Now let's see if the 2nd amendment fits the typical civilian gun owner. Do they belong to a well regulated militia? Not, unless they are in the military. Do civilians who are not part of that militia have the right to bear arms? No, not according to the 2nd amendment because they are not part of a well regulated militia. They could be a group of people like a gun club, but sorry, they are not members of a well regulated militia.
I'm sure the framers thought of improving the accuracy of their firearms in launching projectiles...So if the framers could think of AR15s, then an ICBM is just a projectile aimed at a target against some country that wants to breach our rights? Is that an intelligent debate?
Where does "logic" lead us?
Well, the first machine gun (the "gatling", patented in 1862) was invented only 70 years after the 2nd amendment (passed in 1791) - let's start with assuming that the writers of the document were too stupid to envision any such thing and therefore they didn't mean to include the idea that the citizenry could ever own a machine gun (not the "assault rifle" under attack today, but a real assault gun).
But the lever action Henry, the first repeating rifle, was also patented in 1860 and had the firepower of a dozen muzzle loaders - "logic" tells us that those writers could never have seen that one coming either. It is "logical" that they intended only single shot weapons to be owned by the citizenry.
But the first metal cartridge didn't come around until 1857 - it is again "logical" that the writers of the 2nd amendment never envisioned such a deadly evolution in arms technology. Those single shot weapons using metal cartridges were never intended for general ownership; just muzzle loaders (although they could use cloth or paper "cartridges" that were basically used to premeasure the power and make loading the gun quicker). Thus even the early Colt Sidehammer rifle should be banned because, although it used paper cartridges and had to be primed as any other muzzle loader, it was still a repeating rifle and not invented until 1855 - 64 years after the amendment and just 5 years before the first machine gun.
Bottom line - "logic" inexorably leads us to the "fact" that the writers were too stupid to think that weapons technology would improve and it is "obvious" that "arms" meant only muzzle loaders.
Wouldn't it be more honest to forego such convoluted "reasoning" in determining what the writers intended and just say "Those guns frighten me and therefore no one can own one"?
"Bottom line - "logic" inexorably leads us to the "fact" that the writers were too stupid to think that weapons technology would improve and it is "obvious" that "arms" meant only muzzle loaders."
Your example stops at machine guns, why not project it all the way to ICBMs? They are current and most advanced method of launching projectiles. You see it is a matter of scale. Do you believe the framers could envision the mass destruction of complete cities? Why not, it is just a matter of scale.
It's not guns that frighten me, it's how people use them to kill innocent people that does. As you guys say, "Guns don't kill, but people with guns do kill." I don't know if you read this reply that I wrote for Readmikenow , but it bears posting again.
What is an ICBM? It is a firearm that shoots a projectile out of tube towards a target, to kill people just like the firearms they used when the 2nd amendment was drafted. As a matter of fact, it is more like a catapult that launches whatever they could project to knock down the walls of castles. If Wilderness says they could shoot chain shot out of cannon, and create carnage. Then what is the difference with an ICBM? The only difference is the scale of the carnage.
Now let's see if an ICBM meets the test of the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes a well regulated militia does fire the ICBM. It is necessary for a free state. And that militia is made up of people who have the right to bear arms. And its protecting our free state of the United States of America, just like the 13 colonies were protected against a foreign enemy. so therefore, it is not being infringed upon by a foreign country.
Now let's see if the 2nd amendment fits the typical civilian gun owner. Do they belong to a well regulated militia? Not, unless they are in the military. Do civilians who are not part of that militia have the right to bear arms? No, not according to the 2nd amendment because they are not part of a well regulated militia. They could be a group of people like a gun club, but sorry, they are not members of a well regulated militia.
I'm sure the framers thought of improving the speed and accuracy of their firearms in launching projectiles...So if the framers could think of AR15s, then an ICBM is just a projectile aimed at a target against some country that wants to breach our rights? It is just a matter of scale.
I repeat: your "logic" can only lead to the "fact" that the framers intended that nothing but single shot muzzle loaders can be privately owned. That's utterly ridiculous and it is extremely obvious (at least to me) that they did not put limits on the law. The use of that "logical" train leading to the only conclusion possible is, therefore, a false trail. It is irrelevant as "logic" indicates just as well that the framers did not put limits on private ownership at all. After all, they didn't say a word about cannons...tools of death that, at the time, were far, far superior to a muzzle loader in killing capacity.
So again - how about we quit trying to re-form the words given and just be honest about it? Provide an emotional argument to justify putting limits where the framers didn't and let it go at that instead of using a trail of false logic to "prove" that the mediocre weaponry of today was not intended to be acceptable? The civilian ownership of a bazooka, an ICBM or even a bomb scares me, I don't want my neighbor to have one, and so I agree that it should be illegal to have.
(If you want to go into the militia thing, start with the idea that every white male was a part of the militia. Take it from there, then, and show that it didn't mean that - that it meant only those in the non-existent Armed Forces of the United States.)
You are right, that was the case, when they were trying to protect the 13 colonies from infringement from a central government and/or foreign powers.
I ask you, do we still need that militia of every white male? As you said, we now have the Armed Forces of the United States to protect us.
In your history of the improvements of firearms and ammunition, why did you stop your improvements just before the first machine guns? Why not take it all the way from where you stopped to today's modern weaponry?
That way we can see how the framers would have been able to come to the conclusion of what the 2nd amendment stands for today and the modern weaponry that is used today.
The best minds of today can't accurately predict what kind of weapons we will have in 227 years from now and whether the 2nd amendment will still apply. So how could the framers of the 2nd amendment, even if they were scientist and engineers predict 227 years into the future and know that their 2nd amendment would still apply? I know, they were very smart and learned people,.. but not that smart or that learned. You are a smart and learned person, could you do that?
Hi there peoplepower73, I hope you don't mind if I jump into this "framers and militia" part of your thread.
I think there a a couple things that you are misinterpreting, particularly regarding your militias and ICBMs thought.
Militias are not the same as a standing military. They are most accurately viewed as an augmenting or opposing force. So I don't think a militia member will be firing any ICBMs.
Regarding the weapons the 2nd Amendment was intended to apply to; there were none. The 2nd established a concept, not a rule book. Our judiciary has reaffirmed this throughout our history. The Right to bear arms may be regulated, as in no machine guns, (or ICBMs), but it cannot be infringed upon - as in barring arms.
It was your statement: "I ask you, do we still need that militia of every white male? As you said, we now have the Armed Forces of the United States to protect us." that prompted me to jump in. It was "our" government that we rebelled against, and it was "our" government's standing army that those militias were formed to combat. So, I do think the concept of militias is as valid today as it was then. Is it your thought that we, as a nation, have evolved beyond the possibility of such a scenario ever happening again? Do you think it is only those "less developed" nations that are in the news for their civil wars that need such protections in this age?
I think that if, my view of your interpretations is right, then your logic might not be as logical as you think.
Yo GA, are you suggesting our mostly volunteer branches of the military--Army, Air force, Navy, Marines--would kill their families or somehow take over the Govt. ? And if they did in some obscure scenario, how could we defend against their superior forces even if we had AR-15s and all the accoutrements that go with them?
I cannot see our soldiers arresting family and friends or even killing them to support a despot or tyrant. Please provide a reasonable example of how this could be accomplished.
Did you think I was suggesting that Randy?
The discussion is about the concept of the 2nd Amendment. First that I believe the concept is as valid now - as a protection - as it was then, and secondly, that the Right to bear arms can be regulated. A third point was that the militia concept of the 2nd Amendment, then, (even though we had no standing army), is the same as now - a civilian fighting force, separate from a standing force. (is this the point you got those questions from?) But also, I believe peoplepower73 misused the militia concept in his "ICBM" logic.
How about you? Did you disagree with my other points, (as it seems you disagree with the continued need for a civilian-drawn militia)? Is regulating the 2nd enough for you, or do you believe it has outlived its time too?
ps. as for your point about the military arresting their family members.... how far do you think the National Guardsmen of 1956 would have gone to protect the first black desegregation students? or the 1000 paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division and a federalized Arkansas National Guard in Little Rock in 1957? Or the National Guardsmen at Kent State? How far would these forces go to follow their orders? Wait, wait. Yes, I know those are an extreme stretch as a validation of the point. But even in their extremity, don't they at least show the concept is not completely invalid?
I think I failed to make my point. I'll try again.
The framers didn't need to look 227 years in the future to imagine the weapons that would exist. They only needed extend the then current progression of technology by 60 years to imagine the cartridge, which greatly increased the power of the gun. And another 5 years to imagine the repeating rifle, doubling or tripling the fire rate once more. And only 70 years to imagine the machine gun. All this was well within their mental capabilities, I think - there is nothing really radical about any of those - they are all extensions of what was already being done.
They also had the option of prohibiting cannons.
But they did none of that - the made no restrictions whatsoever. So when you tell us that "logically" they did not mean to include guns less capable than what they could see coming less than a lifetime away, well, it doesn't make sense. To truly follow that trail of "logic" inevitably results in their not intending anything more than a muzzle loader and we know that was not true.
Your "logic" is faulty and irrelevant in the discussion of what the framers meant.
Wilderness: Did you know that of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, the only one that has anything to do with technology is the 2nd amendment? The rest of them are evergreen. They don't even mention technology. What they applied to in 1791, still applies today. The fact is, the 2nd amendment was clearly written for the people of the 13 colonies to protect themselves from a central government and foreign entities infringing on their rights to protect themselves. Therefore, they wanted the right to bear arms against those forces. As you said, they did not have armed forces, so they needed a well regulated militia to be able to defend themselves from threats. That is an indisputable fact that cannot be argued. Beyond that ii is all speculation. There are no indisputable facts they were thinking 271 years into the future about taking military assault weapons and downgrading then so civilians could own them.
What would be the consequences today, if civilians did not have those weapons? Do you truly believe, by civilians having those weapons it is going to protect them from a central tyrannous government?
Let's cutout the B.S. You and people like you are paranoid that they are coming to confiscate your guns. You expect it to start with just the ban of any further sale of weapons and then proceed to total confiscation of all civilian's firearms. At that point, you feel total helpless and can't protect yourself from this imaginary enemy.
You and others like you would put this paranoia above saving our children lives to be able to save your guns from total confiscation that will never happen.
The NRA has exploited this paranoia for only one thing and that is money. They get their money from the gun industry and members and then use that to pay off congress and yes Trump as well. This vicious cycle continues and everybody fills their pockets at the expense of those who are killed by this sick scheme.
I has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, it has to do with money, to fund congress by the NRA and the gun industry and to continue it for as long as they can. Why else would the NRA be politically involved? They started out by using former Union National Guard soldiers to train civilians to shoot straight. There was no money and politics involved, until they figured out how to bring that all together.
Peoplepower you actually wrote "Bottom line - "logic" inexorably leads us to the "fact" that the writers were too stupid to think that weapons technology would improve and it is "obvious" that "arms" meant only muzzle loaders." The founding fathers were too stupid? I'd say they were at a level of brilliant that is difficult for someone like you to comprehend. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emmerson (Oh, I don't think he was stupid either) "What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying."
Readmikenow: I did not say they were too stupid. I said how could they predict 227 years into the future to know specifically what arms we have today and how the 2nd amendment still would apply. They were not soothsayers. They were not even good at writing the 2nd amendment. It is one of the poorest written parts of our constitution. Everybody has their own interpretation of it. Gun advocates read it one way while anti-gun advocates read it another way. You can't hear me, because you can't handle the truth.
Why is that anti-gun people will say that we need better gun control laws? While the gun people say, if we control guns, then we have to control cars, airplanes, knifes, forks, and everything else they can think of that will kill or harm people. Isn't that a projection?
Why can't I say that ICBMs are arms as well? That is also a projection. You see how poor the 2nd amendment is written? I proved to you that our military is a well regulated militia. We don't need any further militia, unless you believe in conspiracy theories.
"Gun advocates read it one way while anti-gun advocates read it another way."
LOL That gun haters wish it said something it doesn't, and go to great lengths to try and MAKE it say what they wish, does not make it poorly written. If anything it makes it very well done instead. All the twisting, all the "logic" and all the crying about future technology cannot change those so simple words: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Regarding repeating rifles, I came across this one from the 17th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
Think they could imagine the carnage from a cannon ball? Or worse yet, chain shot? They didn't limit our right to either one...
What's your point? Do we use either to murder school children? Or to protect our homes? Where would you draw the line on what weapons a common citizen can own?
The "point" is that you were simply wrong. There were many available ways under the 2nd amendment in 1800 to create "carnage."
"Do we use either to murder school children? Or to protect our homes?"
What does that have to do with anything? I don't recall anything in our laws that says you can only bear arms to protect school children. What's the point you're trying to make?
I didn't get your point either, Dan. What has cannonballs and chain shot to do with the OP?
That should have been obvious even to you. Your statement: "Our forefathers never imagined the carnage which could be committed by one firearm." The implication is that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to those black, terrible looking "assault rifles" because they forefathers didn't imagine the "carnage" they could do.
But they absolutely knew (no imagination necessary) the "carnage" a single shot from a chain-shot or grape shot firing cannot could do, yet did not exclude such a weapon from the amendment.
Understand better now? What you think the writers of the amendment might or might not imagine is not only irrelevant, so is the damage from the fearsome fake military rifle.
(You might consider as well that those men were not stupid, that they were intelligent, knowledgeable people of the time, and that inventions moved much more slowly. Now think about the fact that the gatling gun (far more deadly than any semi-automatic rifle in a crowded room) came into being only 70 years after the amendment. You might as well insinuate than any gun using a metal cartridge doesn't apply, either - it came 55 years after the amendment and could not have been foreseen and therefore the only weapons we have a right to are muzzle loaders and swords. Makes about as much sense!)
Now, what do cannons and protecting school kids have to with anything?
When was the last time someone used a cannon to murder school children, Dan? Our forefathers didn't have a clue about how powerful future firearms would become. If you think they did, then cite me some passages from them to back up your claim. Most of them left written records of their thoughts on the way Govt. should operate, but very little on how the Constitution would work in the future with unknown weapons.
And I won't even get in to the "well regulated militia" argument now.
When was the last time someone used a cannon to murder school children, Dan?
What could that possibly have to do with the 2nd amendment???? Are you implying that the writers did not mean to include any weapon that was used to murder in a school?
"Our forefathers didn't have a clue about how powerful future firearms would become. If you think they did, then cite me some passages from them to back up your claim."
Nope - as always you make the claim, you support it. Don't expect me or anyone else to prove it wrong or it's automatically right. And while you're at it, you might provide proof that the writers cared one iota how powerful weapons would one day become. I repeat; they were intelligent, knowledgeable people that knew weapons technology would advance.
Best not get into the militia "argument"; using a justification comment to change the wording of what was written is an exercise in futility.
Now, what do cannons and protecting school kids have to with anything?
Who brought cannons into the discussion, Dan?
"But they absolutely knew (no imagination necessary) the "carnage" a single shot from a chain-shot or grape shot firing cannot could do, yet did not exclude such a weapon from the amendment."
As far as I know, chain shot or grape shot is normally fired from a cannon of some sort.
"Do we use either <cannon balls or chain shot> to murder school children?"
Your comment, not mine. So what do cannons and murdering school kids have to with anything? What does it matter? What's the connection? Did you use a random number generator to make a nonsense sentence?
i think you were replying to the wrong person
Why are you people even discussing this? Can you not see the liberal hoax being perpetrated on us in order to dismantle the Constitution? This latest school shooting is already being proved to be a complete hoax, just like Sandy Hook. The very definition of fake news. The truth is if every student in every school had a gun, they could prevent these kinds of tragedies. Gun free zones will be the death of us all!
The latest news: high school students being paid by George Soros to harass GOP lawmakers about gun control. The left is unbelievable!
Your attempts at humor are anything but humorous, and your satire sux. Nothing personal though.
George Soros has really deep pockets. If you do your research, you'll find that almost every protest against our 2nd amendment rights is funded by George Soros.
The solution to these mass shooting is to make sure all school children are armed and can shoot back. If every school child had a gun, potential attackers would be a lot less likely to try to enter a school with a gun.
I just bought an AR15 assault rifle for my 6-year-old granddaughter to take to kindergarten.
It has a Surefire MAG5-100, which is the newest 100-round magazine. No one's gonna mess with her.
Huh! Mine carries a 50 cal machine gun. I built her a tripod-on-wheels for the barrel and the thousand rounds of belt ammo fits in her backpack just fine. It's a little heavy for a 6 year old, though the tripod helps, but she only slumps a little bit and the kids are real good at getting out of her way. Wondering if I should get her armor piercing ammo for the shooter with a vest - what do ya think?
Well, who would go attack a school if they knew the kids had guns? Nobody! I guess maybe that sounds a little extreme, so maybe just all the teachers should be trained in the use of firearms so they can prevent any of these so-called school shootings.
These kids appearing on television as "victims" are actually crisis actors, paid people who go around to so-called crises and espouse anti-2nd amendment views.
How do we know this is true? Because none other than Donald Trump Jr. read the article and give it his thumbs up to an article about one of the kids who is a son of an FBI agent. I trust Donald Trump Jr. to vet my media and clearly he has an understanding of what is true and accurate and what is not.
I can't vouch for the others, but in terms of Hitler, that's not entirely accurate
https://hubpages.com/politics/Hitler-an … ntrol-Myth
The point of the "collage of men" was in regards to founding fathers not foreseeing changes in weapons and somehow that, is the only aspect to be considered. They knew that evil men and governments could, would and as even recent history will testify to this: turn on the populace and march them at gunpoint to gas chambers and mass graves by the tens of millions.
And my point is that it's misleading. There's more to the story. Also, I've seen this poster (now a meme) for decades (with a few variations made). Also, don't forget something about the despots shown; many of them had a more lethal weapon: Their words. They didn't get people follow them by the way of the gun. They did it by a number of ways...but importantly, by their ability to communicate to people who were looking for someone that would pull them out of their misery. And when they finally took over, they systematically (sometimes with guns-- a lot of time with propaganda) liquidated their political enemies.
Just curious, are you sure Hitler did not say: "Gun Control Works!!!" Ask the experts!" in Mein Kampf? With the illustration of various dictators even from the 1970s? I was sure it was in there somewhere. But we have you to set the record straight on that. Anyway, Hitler and Germany apparently passed a Law, that restricted in the most extreme form any weapons from the Jewish Population.
LOL That's hilarious! Fake news from 40 years ago - who woulda thunk it?
Yep, fake as fake. And that poster has been around for years. Use to see them at gun shows, too. I've also seen an alternative such as ones that state Afghanistan and Somalia have gun rights.
Also, calling me out for a missing two-letter preposition? I could do that to nearly everyone on this site.
The 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which came into force the day after Kristallnacht, effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich within the occupied Sudetenland and Austria of the right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition.
Sounds like gun control to me. 7 Million Conspiracy Theorists, perhaps that never believed a government would go rabid.
I mentioned that. He claimed he had no use for gun restrictions, with the exception of his enemies; however, many historian agree that this didn't help to suppress the Jewish population. By that time, everything was being taken away from them.
In actuality the Wiemar Republic (sp) that came before Hitler had very stringent gun law (in that case, citizens were restricted or banned from owning guns). Ironically, it was meant to keep guns out of the hands of radicals from both sides of the spectrum (From the right the Nazis and other groups and from the left, the Communist). Thus, when Hitler came to power he lifted gun restriction for most of the population.
Ahh... Now we come to my actual point.
Again. Or for the first time if I didnt explain it in detail enough. To quote you:
"when Hitler came to power he lifted gun restriction for most of the population"
Then he killed the rest of them. Unarmed ones.
This is what the FF Did Foresee.
Actually, if I'm following correctly, what you believe was something the FF foresaw, may have been a product of compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists to get the constitution ratified. Contrary to popular belief the creation of the US Constitution was not an easy-breezy process. It was contentious, ugly, and sometimes violent. After all, they started with trying to fix the flawed Article of Confederation before realizing that the type of government formulated by this doctrine wasn't working. Federalist wanted a strong central government; the anti-feds wanted to ensure citizens and states had rights. Somewhere along the way the issue of slavery became a huge thorn..which may have been a major factor in the creation of the 2nd Amendment (although I don't know if that's a definite fact. Still, worth investigating).
Did the F.F. foresaw the rise of such despots? That's very speculative, even if some of them may have had a distrust of the strong central government..
As with Hitler: He loosened regulation. It was not a complete ban; however, he had remarked (as I mentioned in the article) that he hated the idea of gun control for citizen (or those people he deemed citizens). Also, as I've mentioned, the gun restriction implemented on Jews was part of a systematic measure to take every rights from them. As some historian stated they already had everything taken away from them before this was handed down upon them.
Sorry about that - I didn't mean to "call you out" but, given both HP's and googles insistence on perfect grammar, just to help a little. I will try and remember not to repeat it.
But...if you would care to proofread my hubs for grammar and spelling it would be appreciated, especially as I'm sure you can find such errors there. I never turn down honest criticism that might get me a better ranking.
I hope everyone watched the special on CNN tonight with survivors of the shooting confronting Marco Rubio and a female representative of the NRA. Rubio had his ass chewed and refused to not take donations from the NRA in the future. He's already received over 3 million dollars from them.
At least he showed up to take the heat unlike the coward Governor Rick Scott. These kids will be voting age soon and there will be hell to pay for the inaction by the Republicans who take money from the NRA.
Yes, vote blue and eventually only the police will have guns. The police. You know, the ones who are always being labeled racists and fascists by liberals.
The police, who are always murdering black kids for no reason.
The next step will be that the police will become more and more an arm of whoever is in power. They will become more aligned or opposed politically. Next thing you know it will be just a fascist government like Nazi Germany. Agencies like our IRS will be used to target opponents. Oh wait. My bad. Already happened.
PhoenixV: And there you have it. The "What if game with the paranoia."
I have some Travel Awards built up. Would you like to travel to Syria or some city in Iraq and then tell us all how bad stuff doesnt happen if we ignore history and uhm reality?
I hate to burst your bubble but your an my gov. have killed far more innocent or non combative human beings than our citizens with ar15s. (Aka full auto liberal tommy guns) ever will. Ever.
Why not go after them? Demand they disarm. Of course we know what would happen if you tried to disarm your meek, benevolent caretakers.
PhoenixV: You know not of what you speak: You are comparing apples and oranges. Syria is under the rule of Bashar Al Assad, a Shia Alawite. His people are just plain Shia or Sunni. He doesn't like them, so he is committing genocide to get rid of them and the Russians are helping him because of the oil fields. Iran is also Shia and they are also helping him in covert ways. ISIS is also Sunni and is in the mix.
Now, please tell me how this compares to the good ole USA and how do we go from where we are today to the conditions that are occurring in Syria? Even if his people had assault weapons, they could not defend themselves from barrel bombs that are filled with gasoline, nails, and shrapnel and are tossed out helicopters indiscriminately. In addition, he has gassed many of his people.
I hope you do use your travel rewards and do go to Syria and see what it is really like and then come back here and compare it to America.
Yea its probably not as bad here compared to the extra judicial killings of American Citizens in far away places. We do most of our killing abroad. For now. Out of sight, out of mind. Drone attack some kids. A village. Maybe a wedding. Install a vicious dictator one day, start a war to get rid him the next. Arm both sides. Let them kill each other. But you love your caretakers no matter how many innocent people they kill. You wont ever question them or try to stop them. Is it because you know that if you did, they would send SWAT or some other abbreviated agency to come kill you and everyone else in your house, maybe a few neighbors in the excitement. Oops.
PhoenixV: I don't know what you are talking about and <personal attack snipped>
The things I speak of are true and verifiable incidents that have actually happened to the best of my knowledge and as I can recall. I do not smoke crack or abuse any drugs; prescribed or illegal. I do not drink alcohol or even smoke tobacco.
However I would almost rather be a drug addict than to be a person that is a liar, given to calumny.
We also screened everyone to make sure that no dangerous inanimate objects could be carried on planes. Maybe that's a bigger factor.
And 60% of airlines pilots have a military background. So they already have formal training with weaponry.
I'm sure you're right - screening all passengers is more effective than pilots trying to shoot down a terrorist without putting the plane on the ground at the same time.
But another one is the sheer number of people (including students) that enter the thousands of schools in the country every day. Outside of a metal detector that's set pretty low, I don't see us doing much screening in schools. We have neither the time or resources to do it anything like we do in an airport.
There's plenty of cheap knives that can go right through a metal detector. If they're determined enough, they'll find a way.
https://squattheplanet.com/threads/knif … ors.27497/
By the way, that 60%. Your talking about people who were in the Air Force. Zero combat training.
According to wikipedia, concerning basic training for the air force:
Trainees undergo extensive training with the M-16. Trainees will learn and practice the rules for safe use and handling of the weapon. They will also receive training in how to assemble, disassemble, clean and repair the M-16."
In spite of having two nephews in the air force I'm completely ignorant of what training entails (except that one of them was whatever they call an MP and DID have extensive training in weapons for it). So I'm not positive if this is true or not but I can add that https://www.military.com/join-armed-for … edule.html says that week 7 includes 9mm pistol training. That's "formal training in weaponry", as indicated by Valeant, whether it's "combat training" or not. And certainly fighter jocks receive "combat training" whether it includes guns or not.
Sure, a week of weapons training. I was in the Army, we went to the range a couple of times a year, but our main focus was in our regular jobs. I would guess that the former military people applying for pilot positions at the airport were Air force pilots. I'm sure they have extensive knowledge in firing missiles, but unless they are in the infantry I would say that they get much, much less experience at an actual firing range than your average civilian with a hunting license.
Maybe. But I grew up on venison and elk, and the only time Dad and I hit the "firing range" was to pop off 3 or 4 rounds to sight the gun in each fall.
I see dudes skeet/ trap shooting there all the time. But everyone has a different experience.
Absolutely! Our guns were not toys, were not used for entertainment or fun. They were tools used to provide food for the family, just as Mom's garden shovel and rake was.
What I find disturbing is there are two conflicting world views in this country. One side wants more gun control, which on certain levels can be reasonable. The other wants to see armed guards in the schools, which can be carried out in a reasonable manner, the same thing that politicians and entertainers get. The worst thing possible is to make people defenseless based on your world view. The idea that "we shouldn't have to protect our kids from bad people with guns, because it should be impossible for them to get guns" only endangers the children.
We live in a world with more guns than there are people. A bank may be a gun free zone, but at least it has armed guards. Why? Because they know somebody is going to break the rules. And kids are far more valuable than money.
Yes, there is a "nanny state" attitude operating here - Big Daddy - whether from DC or your local sheriff - will provide all the security we need, so there is no reason to shoulder any responsibility ourselves. One day we might even make it to that utopia, but for now we've a long, long way to go to get there.
It seems rather curious that we recognize that children are not responsible for their own safety - think of the changes we've made to playgrounds as just one example - but even with all the school shootings we still don't see ourselves as responsible, either. Just some dream that if we can but push psychotics to choose a weapon that isn't a a fake assault rifle they won't kill anyone, and it isn't working.
What are your thoughts- Why aren't motor vehicles more heavily regulated on the basis of speed alone? Do cars really need to be able to reach speeds of 120mph? If cars could only reach a max speed of 55 it would lower the national number of deaths as well as reduce emissions.
They used to be, back in the 70's. Until gas prices eased, whereupon speed limits went right back up.
But yes, cutting speed limits (or to an even greater degree, that max speed a car could reach at all) would save far more lives than any gun legislation could ever think of doing.
But that would mean that voters would have to sacrifice instead of only those evil, hateful gun lovers that live to kill.
But if msm (leftwing media) and social media giants (leftwing media) and Hollywood (leftwing media) would make it their 24/7/365 mission to bombard the minds of their "audience" : that 70mph "extremists" cause more death than other things, I think theyd get on board with that "cause". Btw Chevy Ford and Toyota are obviously evil conservative capitalist that probably vote for Trump.
Get on board with everyone else slowing down, maybe.
(Speed limits around me are now 80MPH, which means everyone drives 90)
my point is that more people die in motor vehicle accidents than by gun violence and gun accidents combined. I mean it isn't as if a person is more dead if killed by a gun vs. a car.
I'd hesitate to make a comparison between total gun-related injuries and total vehicle-related injuries (both including fatalities), because without normalizing the data, it's comparing apples to oranges. It would probably be difficult to normalize the data accurately though.
One way to do it is by exposure to risk, e.g. number of vehicle-related injuries per X number of hours driving, and number of gun-related injuries per X number of hours shooting. That would give you an injury rate for both types of activity. But it would be very difficult to capture that data.
Even if you could capture the data, that still wouldn't be an accurate comparison of the risk. You would also need to consider the severity of injury. E.g. do the same as for the number of incidents, but also use an injury severity scoring system (liked the one developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine)(1)(2). You would have to analyse both the likelihood and severity of incidents to determine the risk of harm associated with each activity.
It's difficult to say without the relevant data, but I strongly suspect that, in general, more people spend more time driving than shooting. So although the total number of vehicle-related injuries is relatively high, the injury rate for that activity may be lower relative to other activities. Conversely, although total gun-related injuries are lower than vehicle-related injuries, it's likely that on average people spend less time doing that activity than driving, so the injury rate for that activity may be higher.
In relation to your main point about vehicles. Are there ways to reduce the risk associated with driving further? Definitely. Reducing the speed vehicles can travel is a great idea. But I don't think that's a reason not to look at how the risk of gun violence can be reduced. The choice is not reduce the risk of vehicle-related injuries or gun-related injuries. Those outcomes are not mutually exclusive. You can do both.
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associati … e_Medicine
I think you missed the point of those gun related injuries, for it is not the time spent shooting; it is the time spent subject to a possible shooting. It's not the shooter that counts then, but the victim's time of exposure. As that exposure is pretty much 24-7, the risk of being shot is extremely low - far lower than that of having an accident while on a roadway (driving or walking).
The risk of shooting is not determined by the amount of time people are exposed to the possibility of being shot. It's about the number of times shooting results in actual harm. A good example of that can be seen in comparisons between the risk of flying vs the risk of driving.
To compare flying to driving you would take the number of fatalities resulting from flying/ driving and calculate a rate based on a common denominator, like the number of miles driven/ flown. E.g. in 2015 there were 416 aviation fatalities)(1) and 641,905 miles flown(2) giving a rate of 6 fatalities per 10,000 miles flown. There were 35,092 driving fatalities(3) and 3,095,373 miles driven(4) for the same year, giving a rate of 113 fatalities per 10,000 miles driven. So the fatality rate for driving was higher than it was for flying in 2015. Doing the same calculation for a number of years shows the risk of driving is greater than the risk of flying, in terms of actual harm.
To compare driving and shooting, you would need to do the same calculations, changing the denominator to a unit of exposure common between the two activities, e.g. number of hours the activity is done. And this is where the exposure becomes an important factor.
If by some chance you could capture the total number of hours of shooting activity, then even if the total number of hours and the total number of fatalities were a tiny fraction of those for driving, the fatality rate could still be exactly the same, or even higher.
That's why comparing the total fatalities caused by driving to the total fatalities caused by shooting is misleading. It is not an accurate comparison.
If federal departments were allowed to study the risks associated with firearms without it negatively impacting their federal funding (in the same way the risks associated with vehicles has been studied) we would have a better idea of how shooting compares to driving in terms of risk.
(1) https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/dat … 5-2016.pdf
(2) https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita … 01_40.html
(3) https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu … ion/812348
"It's about the number of times shooting results in actual harm."
"To compare driving and shooting, you would need to do the same calculations, changing the denominator to a unit of exposure common between the two activities, e.g. number of hours the activity is done <hours driving, not times being struck by a car>."
Which one is it?
Fact is, which you agree with, it is the exposure. You can be exposed to an auto accident any time you are where a (moving) car might be found - a road, a sidewalk, a parking lot, etc. But not your bedroom, in the mall or inside a school, for there are no cars to run over you there. On the other hand people have been shot in all those places, so that exposure must be included. The actual exposure time for being shot, then, is 24 hours per day because you could be shot anywhere (unless you wish to take time off for astronauts or the time spent at the top of Everest).
I think the main point is that total number of fatalities is not a reliable way to compare the risk of driving and shooting as activities.
And to clarify, location is not relevant to calculating fatality rate. You just need to know how many fatalities resulted from the activity, and how much of the activity was done. How much it was done is the exposure because, by definition, you can't have a driving-related fatality unless someone is driving. Likewise, you can't have a fatality resulting from someone shooting a gun, unless someone is shooting a gun. So the exposure to the risk of driving or shooting in any given month, is the amount of driving and shooting that took place in that month.
(to see why a location, including a bedroom, is not the most accurate measure of exposure to driving-related injury, do a Google image search on "car accident house").
In the case of shooting, I don't think it's currently possible to accurately determine the total number of hours people spend doing that activity, which means it's not possible to accurately calculate a fatality rate. So I don't think an accurate comparison between driving and shooting is possible based on the rate of injury. You might be able to do some rough calculations based on law enforcement reports, gun range records, voluntary surveys etc. but current legislation around federal funding is, in practice, prohibitive of that type of research.
Not going to argue semantics with you, or what is "exposure" to either shooting or auto accidents.
But I WILL say that any "comparison" can only be that we know, with zero doubt, that decreasing speed limits (and enforcing them, which we CAN do) will decrease the death toll, and with a very strong correlation between how much we drop the limit to how many lives are saved. We don't do it.
On the other hand, there is zero evidence to indicate that removing access to guns (which we canNOT do) will save any lives at all: on the contrary, what evidence we DO have says the opposite. So we try to remove access to guns.
I trust you see the obvious; when we know how to save lives we don't because we don't want to pay the price. And when we DON'T know how to save lives we use efforts designed to force someone else to pay the price. A rather ugly picture, IMO.
It's true that in some places where traffic speeds have been reduced, the number of fatal incidents has fallen. So absolutely, if the goal is to save lives, then reducing the speed of vehicles in other places, or the speed of vehicles themselves, makes sense.
It's also true that access to fully automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since 1934, and the number of mass shootings involving manufactured fully automatic weapons is 0. So if the goal is to save lives, then access to other types of weapons . . . etc.
But people are not restricted to asking for one or the other. They can call for both, and I think they are. The Department of Transport proposed speed limiters for large commercial vehicles(1). That proposal apparently came "[a]fter a decade-long push by trucking and safety advocates"(2). But despite the fact that federal departments, truck advocates, and the insurance industry(3) are calling for it, the current administration seems to have decided that limiting the speed of large vehicles is less important than "economic growth" and "individual liberty"(4). Nonetheless, limiting the speed of certain types of vehicles is certainly on people's radar.
In addition to that, because driving is an activity that can have fatal consequences, and the goal is to save lives, it makes sense that federal funds are used to research issues around driving as a matter of public safety.
As shooting is an activity that can have fatal consequences, and the goal is to save lives, it also makes sense for federal funds to be used to research issues around the use of firearms as a matter of public safety. Part of the problem is that current legislation, in practice, restricts such research.
So you're right, reducing vehicle speeds can save lives, and that idea has progressed to the point of draft proposals being made. The same progress can't be said about the issue of gun violence, where federal departments are restricted from even researching the subject, let alone drafting proposals for risk reduction measures.
So anyone concerned about the dangers of driving can call on government to rethink their response to the proposals limiting vehicle speeds. They can also call on government to consider how automatic weapons have been regulated for the last 80 years, and how many of those types of weapons have been used in mass shootings. And they can certainly call on government to remove restrictions on research into firearms as a public safety issue.
I don't think any of those are unreasonable demands for a society to make of government.
(1)(2) https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/us-d … l-vehicles
(3) https://www.trucks.com/2017/02/23/speed … ave-lives/
(4) http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fle … ngton.aspx
"...the current administration seems to have decided that limiting the speed of large vehicles is less important than "economic growth" and "individual liberty"
Or the administration believes that vehicles with greatly varying speeds on the same highway is probably not a great idea. That HAS been an objection, you know, and one I believe is valid.
Are you confusing reducing gun homicides with reducing homicides? You seem to be assuming, against worldwide statistics, that reducing gun ownership have reduced murders because the bodies don't have bullet holes in them. That there has not been a mass murder using automatic guns does NOT mean that no killer that would prefer an automatic has not killed with a different weapon. Did Timothy McVeigh want a machine gun and "settled" for a bomb?
Either way, the answer to the question "Why aren't motor vehicles more heavily regulated on the basis of speed alone?!", is that the relevant government department has made a proposal to do exactly that for certain types of vehicles. I doubt it will be the last proposal.
There is no single risk reduction measure that can fix the issue of homicide in general. The issue is too wide in scope and complexity. So it's a matter of necessity that different types of violent behaviour are assessed, and measures developed that are targeted specifically to each.
It's necessary because each type of behaviour has a unique set of challenges. Even within categories of violence, there are sub-categories, where the impact of a solution may vary. As we discussed, gun violence that facilitates other crime (e.g. robbery) is very different to the type of gun violence defined as a mass shooting, and very different to the type of gun violence used as part of gang violence etc. That means the most effective solutions may be (and likely are) different also.
Finding a single measure that will address all the different types of violence that constitute homicide, is an unrealistic prospect. So it would be foolish not to pursue a measure that reduces the risk of one type, because it doesn't also reduce the risk of another. It's also not how other risks are managed.
In transportation there are regulations targeted at specific types of vehicles. To drive a commercial vehicle, for example, you need a Commercial Drivers License. It's acknowledged that driving that type of vehicle requires "a higher level of knowledge, experience, skills, and physical abilities"(1). That risk measure does nothing to reduce the number of pedestrians hit by cars, but it's still a sensible measure and forms part of a set of transportation regulations that collectively help reduce the overall risk of vehicle-related injuries and fatalities.
The fact that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration exists at all, is a risk reduction measure in itself, and it's mission is very specific: "to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involving large trucks and buses"(2). It's regulations do nothing to reduce the risk of injuries and fatalities that result from flying, but that doesn't mean its regulations are not worth having.
Likewise, regulations targeted at specific types of violence, e.g. gun violence, or even specific types of gun violence, like mass shootings, may do nothing to reduce the number of people stabbed, but that doesn't mean those regulations are not worth having. Instead they would form part of a set regulations that collectively help reduce the overall risk of violence in society, along with measures that target knife crime, etc.
(1) https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/ … rs-license
"So it would be foolish not to pursue a measure that reduces the risk of one type, because it doesn't also reduce the risk of another."
And there we have a major disagreement, for your "reduces the risk of one type" cannot be supported with anything but assumptions. You assume that taking certain guns from law abiding people means criminals won't have them. You assume that taking guns from the insane or the criminal means they won't kill.
Both assumptions are shown false in the real world; your assumptions are false to fact. Nevertheless they are proposed over and over and over, and always with a negative return - the question is "Why?" and there are two answers. 1) Because we live with that hope that doing it again will produce a different result, and because it doesn't cost the proponents anything to try again; others will pay the price. And 2) Because we wish to disarm America. Either or both are at the root of the assumptions.
Don, we know, from experience, that lowering the speed limit to a maximum of 55 (or 40 or 20) everywhere in the country will save lives. But we don't do it because we all will pay the price and are unwilling to do that. But gun controls...the only people paying anything are those that wish to exercise their rights; the people pushing that endless stream of gun controls don't want a gun and don't want anyone else to have one either. There is no negative there - even when it doesn't save lives it is still a positive result because some guns were removed from society.
"Likewise, regulations targeted at specific types of violence, e.g. gun violence, or even specific types of gun violence, like mass shootings, may do nothing to reduce the number of people stabbed, but that doesn't mean those regulations are not worth having."
When you can show this to be true - that there is an expected positive result based on something other than the two assumptions given above, then you might have a case for making that statement. Until then it is worth nothing at all; it is an obvious ploy to keep regulating gun ownership until there are no guns for until that point you can (and will) say that "Well, if we do a little more, collectively it will help prevent deaths. Doesn't work for me; doesn't work for anyone that values freedom and rights.
We know, from experience, that firearms that are heavily restricted have never been used in mass shootings.
We also know that the proponents of additional gun controls includes gun owners. In fact a majority of people (including NRA members) support additional controls in some form or other (1)(2)(3)(4)(5).
So I don't agree that we can't expect a positive outcome from additional restrictions, and I don't agree that additional gun controls are only supported by those who would not be affected by them.
I do agree that we must know more about the issue of gun violence. So federal agencies should be free to study the risks of firearms in the same way they study other risks to public safety such as transportation etc.
If getting the relevant funding is an issue, then I understand a military parade planned for October will cost between $10 - $30 million (6)(7). Using that money instead to set up a programme of study to investigate the issue of gun violence as a matter of public safety, would be a very useful alternative.
You are presenting a catch 22 situation. You're suggesting that gun controls measures should not be acted on until we know "from experience" that they work. But you can never know "from experience" if something works, unless you act on it.
The only reason we know, from experience, that reducing speeds has a positive outcome on injuries, is because someone, somewhere, tried it. Likewise, the only reason we know, from experience, that heavily restricted firearms are not used in mass shootings, is because some firearms were heavily restricted. Experience is borne of action. So if you want policy decisions to be based on what you know works from experience, then you need to take some actions.
(1) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ra-members
(2) https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ … lls-243647
(3) http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta … -all-gun-/
(4) https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ … oll-244759
(5) http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-c … poll-2018/
(6) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/poli … index.html
"We know, from experience, that firearms that are heavily restricted have never been used in mass shootings. "
You have exactly one example - got any more? Plus, of course, you are still using that same assumption that a mass murderer won't murder if he can't get the gun he wants - can you support that assumption?
"In fact a majority of people (including NRA members) support additional controls in some form or other (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). "
I'm sure you can find some. Can you find lots of them that support banning of the guns they own, use and enjoy? I have no stats, but I strongly suspect you cannot, which leaves you right back with what I said - it's fine to ban guns if you don't have any.
No argument that the parade is a massive waste of money. So was the "investigation" into the claimed Putin/Trump collaboration to fix the election. I'm sure we can both find many, many areas we consider a waste of federal money, but other than that what was the purpose of the claim?
"But you can never know "from experience" if something works, unless you act on it. "
Of course we can, or at least get a VERY good idea of the validity of the idea. All we have to do is look around the world and see what the results are - something that isn't being done.
"The only reason we know, from experience, that reducing speeds has a positive outcome on injuries, is because someone, somewhere, tried it. "
Not true - basic physics will give us the impact energy and we can get a very good idea of statistical probabilities of dying from an accident at varying speeds. Set the maximum to 20 MPH, for instance, and there will be very few fatalities (if any). So we know.
"Likewise, the only reason we know, from experience, that heavily restricted firearms are not used in mass shootings"
Great! Now show, from experience, that "heavily restricting ANY firearms (or all of them) will reduce the death toll from mass murders. You can start with the experience in Australia that shows the opposite and explain why it will be reversed in the US.
Don, almost everything you have said here - nearly every point and every paragraph - goes right back to that same assumption that if you can keep guns out of the hands of the population then killers won't kill. Nothing you present, then, is worthwhile as it relies 100% on that assumption - an assumption that real world experience proves false. You may be happy with a mountain of bodies as long as there are no bullet holes in them, but most of us aren't.
If you restrict yourself to not taking action without first seeing examples of that action being successful, then you literally can't do anything that has not been done before. I don't think that approach is sensible.
Using such a criteria would have rendered lots of historic achievements impossible to accomplish. The fact that more stringent regulations of firearms has never been applied more broadly for longer than a 10 year period, is not a good reason not to do it.
In terms of addressing the issue of murder in general. As I said, I think it would be foolish not to introduce a measure that could reduce a certain type of gun violence, on the grounds that it can't solve the issue of homicide in general.
I expect gun owners who support additional gun controls understand that applying stringent regulations to something is not the same as banning it. Going back to the comparison with transportation, there are lots of stringent regulations around the use of aircraft. From their airworthiness through to how they are marked, how they are registered, how they are operated, where they are operated, how pilots are trained, how flights are recorded etc. But no one could reasonably suggest that aircraft have been banned.
I won't get into a debate about the merits of spending taxpayers money investigating if there was collusion between a president and a hostile foreign power, vs the merits of spending taxpayers money on a military parade. I think the relative merits of each speak for themselves. I think we agree the main point, which is that there are lots of different ways research into gun violence could be paid for, and such research is worthwhile.
Understanding, based on physics, that reduced traffic speed should lower vehicle injury rates, is not the same as knowing from experience that it does, which is your self-imposed criteria. The only way to satisfy that particular criteria would be to take action. If you just meant you can have a high level of confidence that something will work before doing it, then I agree.
You're right, one way to determine how confident we can be that more stringent gun controls would (or would not) work, is by looking "around the world". But to do that you would have to directly compare general crime rates, gun crime, other types of violent crime, and approaches to gun control between different countries.
If you don't think such comparisons are valid (e.g. because countries define and record crimes differently) then looking at the rest of the world is not helpful as a way of determining your level of confidence. Conversely, if you do think such comparisons are valid, then any positive outcome in relation to gun crime in other countries should increase your confidence level that similar action would achieve the same outcome in the US.
In the case of positive outcomes, suggesting that a reduction in gun crime is not a positive outcome because the action that caused it hasn't also solved the issue of murder in general, doesn't make sense. It's also not the approach taken with any other type of public safety issue. Regulations exist specifically to reduce truck-related injuries. Applying the approach you are suggesting would mean not having those regulations on the grounds that they do nothing to prevent pedestrians being hit by cars. That's not a sensible risk reduction strategy.
You can have measures that specifically address truck injuries, and you can have measures that specifically address car injuries. It's not one or the other. You can also have some measures that address vehicle injuries in general. Likewise, you can have measures specifically aimed at reducing mass shootings and measures aimed at reducing stabbings, and measures aimed at reducing violence in general.
So I don't accept the idea that adopting measures specifically to reduce gun violence, means you have to accept a "mountain of bodies" caused by, for example, knife crime. Trying to address one issue does not prevent you from also trying to address the other. It's gun control in addition to other measures to protect the public from violent crime, not instead of.
"If you restrict yourself to not taking action without first seeing examples of that action being successful, then you literally can't do anything that has not been done before. I don't think that approach is sensible."
And if you restrict yourself to trying the same failed tactics again and again and again you will never accomplish anything at all. And I ton't think that approach is sensible. We've tried gun controls, over and over. We've done background checks, we've make certain things illegal and we've banned guns. And every time we've done it the bodies keep right on coming - the inescapable conclusion is that more laws is NOT the answer to violence in America. Not even a partial one.
If you don't think reducing speed limits will save lives you need to take a look at the statistics before and after the institution of a 55 MPH limit nation wide. You will change your mind.
How many people don't own an airplane because of those stringent requirements on them? How many will not purchase a gun when the cost in time, privacy or money becomes too onerous? Are you forgetting that you can virtually ban something simply by increasing the price necessary for it?
No, you don't need to look at general crime, etc., to see the results of low numbers of guns (stringent gun control). All you need to do is look at the homicide rate (that IS what is being discussed, after all) with varying numbers of guns in the hands of citizens. As there is no correlation between the two it becomes very apparent that there is no causal effect either - with or without guns, killers will kill.
Reducing gun homicides is not valuable at all...not when the homicide rate doesn't change because you pushed killers to use a different weapon. And that's exactly what has happened - what experience shows to be true - throughout the world. I said it before: the goal is not to reduce the number of bodies with bullet holes in them, it is to reduce the number of bodies, period. And taking guns away (or restricting them, passing laws about them, etc.) does nothing to accomplish that. You can forever pretend that killers won't kill if you take away their gun, but whether a thousand such statements or a million, the fact remains that removing the choice of weapons does not stop a killer. The pile of bodies does not shrink. People still die, and just as many of them.
"Trying to address one issue does not prevent you from also trying to address the other. "
The address the issue and quit avoiding it. Address the issue of how many people die from violence rather than restricting your self to only one tool and pretending that if you can just eliminate violent gun usage then the overall violence will be reduced. Quit assuming that killers will not kill if you can just take their preferred tool, for all the evidence we have denies it. Accept that you won't change anything by taking guns, whether you call it "stringent laws", "gun controls" or simply "banning guns", for real world experience shows us all too plainly that doing so does not shrink that pile of the dead and does not dry the tears of the survivors for they don't care if their loved one died by bullet or bomb.
Don, you are tied, with an anchor chain from the USS Carl Vincent to the notion that if you can keep killers from having a gun they won't kill. Until you, and the rest of those making the same assumption, open your eyes and look around you nothing is going to change. Do your own research if you don't like mine. Find out if gun controls really reduce the murder rate. Ask the question and honestly look for answers...without assuming that you already know. I predict you will be as shocked as I was if you truly make an effort to answer that simple question: "Does reducing the number of guns in a society reduce the homicide rate". "Does fewer guns mean fewer dead?" And, while you do it, keep in mind that every piece of that "gun control" you want to see really is about reducing the number of guns in the hands of the population. You may complain that you only want to keep killers from having them, but whether it is by banning, background checks or strong mental testing the desired result is to reduce the number of guns.
Applying more stringent regulations to anything other than fully automatic weapons, for more than a 10 year period, has never been tried in the US. Fully automatic weapons are the only type of firearm that have been so heavily regulated, and they have never been used in a mass shooting. I don't accept that as a failure, and I don't accept the idea that if one risk reduction measure does not reduce every risk, then it shouldn't be implemented.
I agree, reducing traffic speed typically reduces road-related injuries. But the statistics showing the actual effect of reducing traffic speeds (as opposed to predictions) only exist because someone reduced traffic speed and measured the result. Someone, or more likely a number of different people in different places, took action and turned theoretical benefit into a practical reality.
And we don't refuse to reduce traffic speeds on the grounds that it will not also reduce aviation injuries. Instead we try to do everything reasonably possible to reduce aviation-related injuries and all other transport-related injuries.
Looking at the fatality rate of all modes of transport, will not tell you the risk associated with, for example, cycling. Likewise looking at the fatality rate of all types of violence, will not tell you the risk associated with gun violence. And t makes sense to suggest that someone doesn't care about people who die in, for example, boating accidents, just because they are calling for safety measures to reduce cycling deaths. Likewise it makes no sense to suggest someone doesn't care about people who get stabbed, just because they are calling for safety measures to reduce gun violence.
The issue is that transportation, as a whole, is so broad and complex in scope, that any regulation applicable to all types needs to be so general, it's limited in its effectiveness. Likewise violence, as a whole, is so broad and complex in scope, any regulation applicable to all types is so general, it's limited in effectiveness.
So although there are laws that relate to business in general, regulations also need to address specific industries (transport, energy etc.) and even sectors within those industries (aviation, shipping; oil, gas etc.) so that risk reduction measures can address the specific (and unique) issues within each.
Likewise, although there are laws that relate to violence in general (murder, assault etc), regulations also need to address specific types of violence (knife crime, gun violence) and even specific types of violence (mass shootings, gang shootings and stabbings, domestic violence etc.) so risk reduction measures can address the specific (and unique) issues within each.
I agree, it's important to identify root causes, so you are right in that the root causes of violence in society are not the availability (or not) of guns or knives etc. Those root causes, I suspect, run much deeper, maybe even into our very nature as a species, and we absolutely do have to address that.
Until we are able to reach beyond those parts of our nature though, we also have to do everything reasonably possible to reduce the immediate causes, even if that means limiting some freedoms. That certainly means limitations on the speed people can drive. And it should also mean more limitations on how people buy, own, sell etc. firearms.
"Until we are able to reach beyond those parts of our nature though, we also have to do everything reasonably possible to reduce the immediate causes, even if that means limiting some freedoms."
And, to you, "reasonably possible" means anything at all that you can rationalize into a hope, regardless of the cost. I disagree, for cost (financial, loss of rights or freedoms, any and all costs) are always a concern and in addition a hope based on a rationalization rather than an honest expectation isn't worth any cost at all. When you have educated yourself as to the expected return for limiting gun ownership - when you have researched the question instead of using assumptions think think might be true but reality shows aren't - we can talk again. Until then I have to confess, for when someone tells me I must give up my rights and freedoms because they think it might save lives even though history shows differently, I'm not much interested. Do your research and find out how many lives can be "reasonably expected" to be saved by limiting gun ownership and come back. There is lots of history on the topic, so you won't lack for information or data. We'll talk more then, starting with the question you will have just researched.
Willderness: It's interesting how 2nd amendment advocates always couch their replies as "giving up my rights." This is what you said and it is always what other gun rights people say.
"Until then I have to confess, for when someone tells me I must give up my rights and freedoms because they think it might save lives even though history shows differently."
How has history shown differently about rights? History shows that there are always sacrifices made by the few to save the many. It's not the other way, where sacrifices of the many are made to save the rights of a few. If any further sales of assault weapons are banned, you may be giving up your right to buy one, but you will still be able to keep and buy other firearms. It is the paranoia of them coming for your guns that gets in the way of reality.
We always give up rights for the good of the many. It's a part of living in a group rather than a hermit.
Of course, the gain needs to equate to the loss; we would not give up the right to have food so that the people of Cincinnati can gorge every day on ice cream. And that's where you fail - you wish millions to give up their right so that the remaining millions won't be afraid until the next mass murder. The gain is negligible, the loss very definite. Now if you could just show that there was an expected (expected, not hoped for) gain to be had outside of political points it might be different. So far no one has - they just assume there will be one or, as Don says, try it and if it doesn't work keep that loss in place a go for more. Which makes that paranoia very, very real, doesn't it?
I don't think its about how much either of us know (or don't know) about the subject. I just happen to think your argument is fundamentally flawed, assuming I understand you correctly.
As I understand it, you believe more stringent gun controls should not be implemented because that will not also reduce fatal stabbings, or other types of homicide.
In response to that argument, I've tried to explain why I think that approach is flawed, by comparing it to the approach taken with other public safety issues, such as transport safety: we don't refuse to implement safety controls for cars because those controls will not also reduce aviation fatalities.
I've also tried to explain why we don't do that: because it's not a reasonable way to manage risk, especially complex risks.
And I've tried to explain that it's not an "either/or" situation: society doesn't have to either fixing every type of homicide, or fix nothing. There are helpful measures in between.
So as far as I can see, there isn't a lack of knowledge about the issue of guns between us. It's actually a disagreement about how public safety risks should be managed.
On that score, the approach to guns should be the same as the approach to other public safety issues. And guns are a public safety issue. Like cars, and planes and food, and chemicals and anything else that can have a negative impact on the safety of the public at large.
In all those areas, sectors, industries etc. there are controls narrowly targeted at very specific types of risk, e.g. FAA regulations for runways, or local DMV regulations about texting while driving etc. None of those regulations alone can stop all transport-related fatalities. But together, as part of a wider legal framework, they have an accumulative effect which reduces overall risk.
The same approach should be applied to guns. There will never be a single regulation that can solve the issue of homicide in general. If that could happen, then laws making murder illegal would be all that's needed. But we know that's not the case.
So, as with other areas of public safety, the most pragmatic, sensible approach to gun violence would be to: implement controls that may be targeted at reducing the risk of specific types of gun violence, e.g. mass shootings etc; ensure existing controls are improved and properly enforced; and examine the root causes for different types of gun violence to determine what mid to long term strategies can be developed. And if you want to reduce homicides in general, do the above for all the other types of violence too.
So I can only hope I understood your core argument (sometimes things can get lost in translation so to speak), and if I have, that you understand my objection to it. Either way, thanks for being civil.
No, you have completely, 100%, missed my argument. Of course removing guns from society would not reduce the number of knifings, bombings, etc. Only a fool would try to make that argument without massive factual data to back them up. Data that I don't believe for a moment is available anywhere in the world.
But that isn't the point at all. I'll try once more to make that point clear, and why I maintain it is true. Let's start with the acknowledgement that all gun controls, all gun restrictions, are aimed at reducing the number of guns in the country. It may be only a specific group that can't have one (felons, maybe) or it may be the total population (ban on "assault rifles", maybe), but however it is couched it is an effort to keep people from having a gun, or the gun they wish.
With that in mind, consider the effect if we could accomplish it - assume we could evaporate every "assault rifle" in the country. Set aside for the moment that "if you take guns, only criminals will have guns" - while that statement is very, very true, it is another issue entirely. Now assume that our past history has shown that there are 100 shootings every year, plus another 50 murders using other weapons (knives, bats, hands & feet, etc.), and of those 100 shootings, 3 were from assault rifles (actually fairly close to the correct percentage we see).
What is the expected result? 150 murders, 100 with guns and 50 with other means. The killer that would have used an assault rifle now uses a handgun. Or a rifle. Or a shotgun. So assume that we could evaporate all guns; what is the expected result then? 150 murders - 5 with guns (because we really can't get them all) and 145 from other weapons. Our magical evaporation tool did not save even a single life.
Now the "why". Analysis of the relationship between the gun ownership rate in a society and the homicide rate in that same country shows, and shows very plainly, that there is no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate. Removing guns from a country will not and cannot predict what the resulting homicide rate will be; taking guns will not necessarily reduce the pile of bodies. It might, it might not, but either way it wasn't the action of instituting rigid gun controls (reducing gun ownership rates) that produced either the rise or fall in homicides. This is not opinion, this is mathematical fact from third party data collection by the UN. A third party without an ax to grind, that cares not one whit what happens in the US or the politics in our country.
You see, without a correlation at all, there can be no causal effect, for if one causes the other then there must be a close correlation. On the other hand, if there is a correlation then the best we can say is that there might be a causal relationship and it might be worth our time to take guns and see what happens.
But...but...but...it is "common sense" that if we take the deadly guns away, mass murders will fall!!! We all know this...or do we? Do we "know" it or do we assume it? Well, we can look at Australia as a guideline; a real life, historical experience that we can learn from. Australia took all semi-automatic guns from it's citizenry, over the span of one year. A huge undertaking, and a very expensive one. What were the results?
The homicide rate, all causes, was and had been for some time, on a slow decline in Australia prior to 1996, the year they bought back the guns. And that homicide rate continued on the same, slow, slide for another 10 years after the buy back before steepening into something different. No change, in other words - the millions spent and the loss of rights of Australians did not save any lives although it has produced more bodies without bullet holes.
But we mentioned mass murders - Australia has not had a mass murder since the buyback - of course it saved lives! Except that that statement is totally false - not only has Australia had mass murders (and shootings!) since the buy back, it is had as many in the 20 years after the buy-back as in the 20 years prior to it. And just as many people died in those mass murders in the 20 years post as in the 20 years prior. Once more, no lives saved.
Now go back to that understanding that taking guns won't prevent knifings or bombings. Too true, but what it does do is increase the number of dead from other weapons. The Aussies found matches to be a great weapons, for instance.
So. Crudely and simplistically put, my point is that gun controls - reducing gun ownership - does not save lives. It pushes killers into using a different tool, and the bodies don't have bullet holes, but there are just as many bodies as with more guns. You seem completely chained to the idea that if we take the gun from a killer (s)he won't kill, but it is a completely false concept for that killer simply chooses a different tool and kills anyway. Once more, this is not opinion, it is not "common sense" and it is not a rationalized concept derived from "logically" considering some of the facts of a killing. It is cold, hard numbers from history; history that has been repeated over and over and over.
Without any reasonable expectation of gain (reduced death toll) there is absolutely no reason to extend current gun controls. Except, of course, for political brownie points, provide a false sense of security to those that fear guns, disarming of the citizenry, etc. No positives at all, then, that even come close to the negative of having additional government interference in our lives.
That's my point: reducing gun ownership does not save lives, so why do it? And your answer, to date, is that it does save lives, but you have produced zero to support that opinion. You haven't even checked (correct me if I'm wrong) to see if it's true; just assumed that it has to be true because it's "common sense" that killers will only use an (assault rifle, semi-automatic rifle, bump stock, whatever you wish to ban) to kill with - if the killer can't get it they won't harm anyone. As obviously false as the notion that because murder is against the law, killers won't murder, but...
Ok, so you're not arguing for a gun safety measure that can somehow reduce all homicides at the same time; you acknowledge such a thing would be virtually impossible to even demonstrate, let alone achieve.
The issue is that you may as well be asking for that, because that's the consequence of applying the logic you are trying to apply.
The self-imposed criteria of not implementing something that can't reduce the overall risk (e.g. homicide) will necessarily result in restricting any effort to control the specific risk (e.g. gun violence).
To see that, just apply the same logic used in your scenario to another area of public safety:
Say, for example, there are 100 fatalities per 100,000 miles flown by private pilots each year, and 50 fatalities per 100,000 miles driven. So 150 fatalities per 100,000 miles flown/driven for these two forms of transport.
Let's say the FAA introduce a new safety regulation for owning and flying private planes. This causes some people to stop flying their private plane and drive instead. Subsequently the rate of private plane fatalities drops by 25%. But the rate of car fatalities also goes up exactly 25%. So the overall rate of fatalities for these forms of transport stays the same..
Applying your criteria would mean that the FAA should refuse to implement the safety measure that reduces private plane fatalities, because that safety measure can do nothing to reduce the overall fatalities of flying and driving combined.
The issue is that this would leave the FAA effectively unable to introduce any safety regulations for planes, because using that criteria, it would be virtually impossible to do so.
So here is an alternative to that logic:
The FAA does introduce its new safety measure for private planes, resulting in a 25% drop in fatalities among private pilots.
At the same time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as part of its monitoring of traffic safety data, recognizes an increase in vehicle related fatalities. In response it develops strategies (based on well funded research) aimed at reducing this increase in vehicle-related fatalities.
Meanwhile the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recognizes, as part of its role, an increase in the number of truck-related fatalities and, using well funded research, develops strategies aimed at reducing truck related facilities.
Meanwhile, the Federal Highway Administration recognizes, as part of its role, that poorly maintained highway infrastructure is an underlying cause of, say 2%, of fatal road traffic incidents, so develops (based on well funded research) programs of work that identify and rectify the highest risk areas.
Meanwhile, local DMVs introduce (or reinforce) measures aimed at reducing road traffic incidents.
Meanwhile local law enforcement agencies ensure highway regulations are enforced properly.
Meanwhile, parents, teachers and guardians talk to young drivers about the risks of unsafe driving.
Meanwhile, friends and colleagues intervene when one of their party tries to get behind the wheel of their car in an unfit state to drive.
And so on . . .
The point is, the story does not end with a regulation, it does not end with the FAA, and it does not end with government.
And you'll notice that each group at every level, from governmental, to state, to municipal, to personal, does not need to try to solve ALL traffic fatalities. They just need to focus on their specific area of responsibility. From researching all truck fatalities in the case of a federal department, to simply not letting John or Emma drive home while they're drunk, in the case of individuals.
This is what a multi-faceted approach to road safety looks like. And it's what a multi-faceted approach to gun safety should look like. Your argument: "without any reasonable expectation of gain (reduced death toll) there is absolutely no reason to extend current gun controls", seems to completely ignore this whole approach, resulting I think in a faulty conclusion.
Great! Now what else will you propose in order that violent deaths are reduced? So far the only thing proposed leaves us with just as many bodies - what else is required to actually reduce the death toll? You're suggestion is (I think) that we need to take steps to shift the violence into other areas...but expect that same death toll. And then try and reduce deaths in those areas. Unacceptable, given the enormous price to be paid.
And when you've found the additional steps, you still need to provide evidence that the gun laws helped; that any reduction in deaths is not totally the result of the other steps taken. In the scenario you're talking about, you'll need to reduce the death toll from knives, bludgeons, hands and so on. Then when matches and poison become popular, figure out how to ban those. A never ending problem, in other words...unless you actually address the roots of the problem - the cause rather than the symptom. And if you can do that you don't need gun laws, either, for guns don't shoot themselves. Knives don't jump up and stab people, and bats don't swing themselves.
Again, going back to your tale, you mention training as a method of reducing traffic facilities (the only method of reducing air fatalities is to ban flying in your scenario). What is the reasonable alternative for violent deaths? We're not talking accidents here, that training might help; we're talking intentionally murdering people. Producing results (deaths) that are exactly what is wanted, not an unintended result of carelessness.
I don't think we'll be able to solve the problem of violent deaths here and now in this forum, sadly. But I do think we can determine what sensible approach to the problem looks like.
Good practice for managing complex risks is to break the problem down into smaller areas of focus; an approach that's been tried and tested.
In 1966 following pressure from a public concerned about car safety, the U.S. Department of Transportation was created. Divisions within the DoT are focused on safety solely within their own areas of accountability. So the FAA does not concern itself with road fatalities etc and the NHTSA does not concern itself with aviation injuries.
On the road, the number of traffic-related fatalities per year between 1979 and 2005 decreased 14.97%. The number of deaths per capita decreased 35.46%. In 2011 the number of fatalities was the lowest it has been in 62 years, since 1949(3). Although there has been an increase in the traffic fatality relatively recently, the overall outcome cannot reasonably be described as a failure.
In aviation, the number of commercial aviation fatalities in 2014 was: 0. In 2015 it was: 0. In 2016 it was: 0. In 2017 it was: 0. The overall trend since 1960 has been downwards (1)(2).
Both agencies responsible for these areas of public safety use research to develop programmes of work around advocacy, information and education; and stringent, targeted regulations.
In terms of the effects on individuals, no one can reasonably argue that cars or commercial flying has been banned. Restricted in some ways, yes, but not banned. It is, however, a demonstrable fact that aviation is one of the safest modes of transport, and traffic fatalities have significantly reduced over a number of decades.
And an approach like the above does not stop you from examining and addressing the root causes of an issue, it actively encourages that kind of multi-faceted approach. Public health agencies and researchers have been advocating gun violence be treated this way for some time(3)(4)(5).
In 2013, the National Academies of Sciences of Engineering and Medicine outlined what such an approach would look like as part of the government "Now is the Time" initiative to address gun violence:
"A public health approach involves three elements: (1) a focus on prevention, (2) a focus on scientific methodology to identify risk and patterns, and (3) multidisciplinary collaboration to address the issue . . . This public health approach has produced successes in reduction of tobacco use, unintentional poisoning, and motor vehicle fatalities. (IOM, 2008)"(6)
So you're right, the problem of violence in society is huge in scope and complexity. I don't know if you can eliminate violence in society altogether. And if you can I don't know by how much. But with a problems that are wide in scope and complexity, and extreme in severity, perhaps asking how much is not the best question, because what's an acceptable number of people who suffer violent death? Surely it's zero.
So perhaps a more meaningful question is: are we doing everything we reasonably can to prevent such deaths? If the answer to that is yes, then by definition you can't reasonably do any more. If the answer is no then there is still work to do.
Currently, in relation to gun crime, I don't think anyone could honestly say the answer is yes. So there is still work to do. Breaking the problem into smaller parts, then taking a multi-faceted approach (which includes stringent regulations) to each, is a tried and tested approach. Doing the same with violence makes sense.
(1) https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/fact … and-drones
(2) https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/dat … stats.aspx
(4) https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/conf … B10998.pdf
Don' you're trying to equate working on accident prevention with working on intentional acts of the insane. It doesn't work, and part of the reason is that we KNOW how to prevent many car accidents (we know how to prevent ALL auto deaths) and we KNOW how to prevent injuries when an accident does happen.
We can't say that with murders. We don't know how to prevent them, so when we decide to experiment by repeating the same old actions, actions that have been fully proven worldwide to be ineffective, it is foolish in the extreme. Far worse than merely foolish is that when we take those actions we no longer work on the causes, on things that might help. Consider the kids marching today, calling for the removal of guns. A few - very few - are calling for the befriending of the loners in school, and it is something that might help reduce school shootings, but their voices are lost in the screams for disarmament. Disarmament that we know will not help.
I don't see that as useful or wise. The notion that it is a good thing to simply experiment in the hopes that we'll one day find something just does not make it. Not when the cost is SO high and not when it has been done over and over and over, always with negative results.
Here; some correlations in the small area of school shootings:
1) There has been a dog within two blocks of every school shooting - a 100% correlation. Should we ban dogs, then?
2) Every school shooting has been in daylight hours - a 100% correlation. Should we hold school only at night, then?
3) Not a single school shooting has taken place with snow on the ground. Should we install snow makers at every school, then?
No. There is zero reason to think that ANY of these things will provide for any reduction in school shootings, for there is zero causal relationship in any of them. Just as there is zero causal relationship with the availability of guns...yet you continue to promote gun controls. Exact same reasoning - there is a correlation so it has to be causal - yet only guns are chosen for action. Why? We know it won't work any more than banning dogs will, so what possible rationale can there be for doing it?
That we spent resources and time on preventing car accidents, when we know how to do that, is a red herring for there is no similarity at all. Here - a suggestion on gun controls that might help at least gun violence and is in line with your auto accident thinking. Spend a billion on creating a gun that will fire only for the owner, is priced no more than $50, and require that all guns be equipped with it. No exceptions - any existing gun must be retrofitted or replaced at govt. cost of a few billion more. The only guns not so equipped are highly illegal and anyone found in possession of one to be jailed immediately under the legal assumption they are attempting murder. IMO it might help simply because the huge majority of guns used in murders are not legally owned by the shooter and we would (very slowly) eliminate those from existence. Do we try? Do we spend the money? No - the cost is too high and applies to everyone. Far cheaper (to the person that doesn't own a gun) to simply take the guns and let someone else bear the cost.
Bottom line is that we're not willing to pay the price to reduce even gun violence, let alone violence from other methods. We're unwilling to consider costs that we all pay, we're unwilling to change ourselves - only when someone else, that we don't really like or understand, can be forced to pay the price do we consider action.
I'm doing much more than that. I'm equating accident prevention, disease control and crime prevention, and suggesting that it's appropriate to use a combination of all three approaches to address the issue of gun violence.
When the Institute of Medicine says things like . . .
"Violence, including firearm-related violence, has been shown to be contagious. Recognizing this, the academic community has suggested that research examine violence much like is done for contagious diseases" (IOM, 2013)(1).
. . . it indicates to me that the approach I am suggesting may not be insane. Likewise, when the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine says . . .
"Developing an integrated and collaborative public health and criminal justice injury prevention paradigm will improve interventions to reduce harms associated with firearm-related violence . . . This recommended strategy has been reaffirmed and reinforced over the years, including in a 1999 IOM report Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment, which argued that “the injury field has much to contribute to scientific understanding of firearm injuries and to the prevention of violence, complementing the contributions made by criminal justice, mental health, and other approaches"(2)
. . . that also indicates to me that what I'm suggesting is a sensible approach.
And when I see papers in The Journal of the American Medical Association called "Modeling Contagion Through Social Networks to Explain and Predict Gunshot Violence in Chicago" which suggest that . . .
"An epidemiological analysis of a network of 138 163 individuals in Chicago, Illinois, determined that social contagion was responsible for 63.1% of the 11 123 gunshot violence episodes that occurred between 2006 and 2014"(3)
. . . that also suggests that a combined approach is not an insane idea.
The fact is Wilderness, based on likely reliability, I trust the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine; the Institute of Medicine etc. more than I trust you.
Thank you for the thought food though. I value the opportunity to examine issues like this. Apart from the issue of additional regulation, which seems to be your biggest bone of contention, I think we actually have a similar view
We both acknowledge regulations alone are not the answer. The main difference seems to be that I believe regulations definitely play a part of a holistic approach, you seem to believe they do not. Nothing you have presented convinces me that's the case though.
I stand by the view that addressing gun violence through a combination of well funded research; stringent regulation and enforcement; and advocacy, information, education etc, is the most sensible approach to the problem.
Happy to leave the final comment with you.
(3) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain … ultClick=1
And I'll make that comment. I believe you are on the right track in investigating other sources as causal to violence (whether gun or not). I have no reason to disbelieve that gun violence leads to more gun violence any more than I would disbelieve that the "violence" on a hockey rink leads to hair trigger tempers and fights on the rink. It most certainly does.
I just take exception to the idea that if we take the guns away it will end (or reduce) the violence and that goes triple for mass murders where it doesn't come from anger or prior violence but from insanity. If you want to end the fights on the hockey rink the answer might be to make rules of such severity that no one will violate them - permanent suspension for swinging a fist or hockey stick, maybe. But you aren't proposing that - instead you're proposing that we either take away the ice skates or fine the audience in the hopes it will end. It won't.
Instead (for gun violence) the answer is to examine the "disease" (and make no mistake; that violence IS a disease) and do something about it. Not put a bandage on, hiding the symptoms until someone rips it off. And that's all that taking guns can do; hide the disease until the killer decides to kill. There are some things that can help reduce the death toll from guns - biometrics would prevent a gun from firing upon being dropped, for instance, and would save a few lives every year. It would likely save a few more from suicide via a rifle (how easy is it to put the trigger finger on while looking down the barrel?) if they didn't find an alternative method (and other methods are more likely to fail). But these things are not the problem with gun violence, for they are accidental or suicidal and barely register on the death toll.
So there is very little that I think we can add to gun laws. Not nothing, but very little that would stand any chance of actually saving lives. Our efforts belong with the disease, not the tool. I just watched a movie, The Red Pill, which mentioned that there are some 5,000,000 incidents of domestic violence...against men. Slightly less against women, for a total of nearly 10,000,000 incidents per year. Gang warfare goes on every day. Road Rage. Anger/violence at children's sports games, not to speak of professional sports (I coached soccer and baseball, but not sure I would care to do so today). Huge, venting rambles of hate speech on the 'net. Animal cruelty and violence. The list goes on and on and on in the ways that violence in increasing in our culture and I don't think it is just better coverage. We all see it happening all the time - it's not on the other side of the state, not in another town or just across the country. It's in our own neighborhood.
That's what needs addressed, and taking guns from people isn't how to do it. I'll add that the comment about social contagion leading to gun violence supports this. It does NOT support gun laws as a solution; it supports addressing the contagion.
"But these things are not the problem with gun violence, for they are accidental or suicidal and barely register on the death toll."
I agree with accidental, but suicide deaths by firearm are almost double that of homicide:
In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens). These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole … ted_States
I'm pretty confident that gun control could reduce the suicide rate, given that a significant proportion of suicides are impulsive. Having a less easy means to kill than a bullet to the head can be a good enough deterrent. Of course, that'd still be treating the symptom and not the cause.
I've been meaning to watch that documentary. Would you recommend it?
I agree that suicides can very likely be reduced by reducing the availability of guns. But is that a reasonable response? Someone may harm themselves with this, so you can't have one? I think not - it is an enormous (IMO) declaration that we as a people are not responsible for ourselves; that Uncle Sam must take care of us, must make our decisions for us. An attitude that I find very distasteful.
Not at all. Like I said, it's treating the symptom (suicide by gun), not the cause (mental health issues). And it would infringe on the rights of responsible citizens.
I'm just saying I'm confident that if we were to recall all guns, suicides would decrease. I'm less confident that such a recall would decrease the other types of violence your country experiences.
I've looked at the suicide problem just enough to be convinced that those people suiciding with a gun are more likely, statistically, to succeed that those that use other methods. Which would seem to indicate that if we (effectively) removed guns from our society the suicide rate would go down - the only other possibility is that a suicide will make multiple efforts if the first try does not succeed. I think that unlikely as there is often help given (forced, if necessary) from third parties when a failed effort to kill ones self is made.
Worldwide statistics tell us that removing guns from a society does nothing for the homicide rate. So does actual, historical experience. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that it won't cut other forms of violence/injury, either, although I will add that decades (100 years?) of being without guns might result in a slowly changing mindset towards violence in general. Will small children, without the pervasiveness of guns in our society including toy guns, slowly become less aggressive over multiple generations? I'll leave that to the psychologists.
Yes, help + the fact that there's a subcategory of suicide victims that act on impulse. This article is an interesting read on the matter:
"As illogical as this might seem, it is a phenomenon confirmed by research. According to statistics collected by the Injury Control Research Center on nearly 4,000 suicides across the United States, those who had killed themselves with firearms — by far the most lethal common method of suicide — had a markedly lower history of depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, previous suicide attempts or drug or alcohol abuse than those who died by the least lethal methods. On the flip side, those who ranked the highest for at-risk factors tended to choose those methods with low “success” rates."
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bey … WV26JAl.99
"On the road, the number of traffic-related fatalities per year between 1979 and 2005 decreased 14.97%. The number of deaths per capita decreased 35.46%. In 2011 the number of fatalities was the lowest it has been in 62 years, since 1949(3)."
Did you mean to cite something else here? Those figures aren't on that page.
Do you have any evidence that those decreases are primarily a result of traffic restrictions? My guess is that safer vehicle and road design account for the majority of the decrease. Safer gun designs can prevent accidental deaths (see this link for a few examples), but would a safer gun design have prevented a murderer from carrying out killings?
Which leads me to my next point: most of the deaths involved with vehicles are accidental in nature - human errors, design flaws, and harsh weather conditions are the main causes of driving accidents. The majority of perpetrators do not have the intent to hurt or kill someone. Thus, education and legal deterrents are going to be effective, at least to some extent. These deterrents will not work on someone who has the intent to kill, whether that's with a gun or a vehicle.
If we look at the model used to lower vehicle deaths:
There's only one category that would stop someone who's determined to kill, and that's the physical environment. We are also approaching the point where vehicles will be able to be programmed to brake prior to impact with another vehicle, human, or obstacle. Smart guns may eventually perform a similar function.
Overall, if you use that same model with guns you'll be able to reduce accidental deaths, but I don't see how you will reduce deaths caused with intent.
Yes, I did mean to cite something else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_veh … S._by_year
I think it's very likely improvements in vehicle and road design etc., have contributed to decreases in traffic fatalities. It's also the case that regulations and advocacy for safety are one of the drivers of the development of such improvements, and wider adoption of them.
I don't think any single measure is going to solve the issue of gun violence, but I do think a combined approach (including education and legal deterrent) is the most sensible way to address the issue. The CeaseFire initiative is an example of education/ (non-armed) intervention reducing instances of intentional gun violence (1)(2)(3).
(2) http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publica … ummary.pdf
(3) http://cureviolence.org/partners/us-par … -partners/
That's not exactly the education that I meant. With vehicles, educational campaigns are often about smart and safe vehicle operation - not drinking and driving, not texting, using seat-belts, taking breaks when feeling tired etc. I.e. accidental causes of accidents.
In this case, it's not that these gang members are using guns in an unwise and unsafe manner (they are, but that's besides the point). They are using guns immorally. Their gun violence is a symptom of their problems, which are almost innumerous to list. The public education is referring to the awareness aimed at the community - like a flu shot, so that when gang violence occurs the community's "immune system" responds with calls to action.
In other words, the educational approaches with vehicles are about proper vehicle operation. The CeaseFire program does not have educational approach about proper gun operation. There can be educational approaches about proper gun operation, but again, these will prevent accidental deaths, not intentional ones.
Still, programs like CeaseFire are right approach in the sense that they targeting the cause(s) of the problem - in this case, lack of jobs is the biggest factor in gang participation. This goes in line with what wilderness said about befriending the loners in school as opposed to disarming the population (although I think the cause is deeper than that).
Given that gangs operate outside of the law, I can't see how a legal deterrent (i.e. gun regulation) would reduce their killing rate. Even if you were to confiscate all guns, the result would be exactly as wilderness said - these gangs would switch from guns to knives or bats or crowbars. Violence would continue unabated and the rest of the population would have their rights infringed upon.
The phenomenon of mass shootings is different to gang related gun violence, which is different to domestic violence involving a firearm etc. The combination of immediate and root causes differs for each, so different measures will have varying degrees of effect.
Initiatives like CeaseFire may help reduce gang related gun violence, but may do little to reduce other types. That doesn't mean such initiatives should not be part of the solution.
Likewise legal deterrent may help reduce one type of gun violence, but not another. That doesn't mean it should not be part of the solution either. A multi-faceted approach that takes into consideration the different immediate and root causes of each type of gun violence makes most sense.
The idea that a risk reduction measure should not be implemented because it can't solve every type of gun violence, or indeed every type of violent crime, makes little sense.
But I don't want to rehash the discussion that's just been had. Mine and Wilderness' comments are there to see.
"Likewise legal deterrent may help reduce one type of gun violence"
Which type? Just curious.
"The combination of immediate and root causes differs for each, so different measures will have varying degrees of effect. "
I'm not confident at all in this statement. On the surface they are very different, yes, but the root causes not so much. A propensity to violence, and the maximum violence possible (death) is common to all. A willingness to cause great harm to others. No recognition that killing is wrong, no acceptance that individuals are not judge, jury and executioner.
"We know, from experience, that firearms that are heavily restricted have never been used in mass shootings. "
How many times were they used in mass shootings before they were heavily restricted? None? What were the results of the restriction, then?
I agree, you can and should do both, otherwise it's veering towards whataboutism.
One thing to note though: if the aim is to save lives, reducing the speed limit is a no-brainer. In fact, that line of reasoning could be argued for many luxuries like smoking, drinking, and certain foods.
There's more weight behind gun rights given the 2nd Amendment and that guns have actual utility.
Your argument does fail to factor in the increase in population from 18 million to 23 million over the time period. So while the population increased, the homicide rate decreased. The decrease in rate per 100,000 has gone down significantly.
The same people marching today to take guns away from law abiding citizens balk at the idea of armed security in schools.
Clearly it's not a safety issue, more like a control issue.
Mass killings will NEVER stop until Americans stop raising kids on pharmaceuticals for one thing , it is the disturbed mind that kills pure and simple , not the gun , not the bully , not the gun owner , a moraless America breeds these acts of violence Gun laws have been extensively tried .Violence laws have been extensively tried ,
The systematic breakdown of the education system , same for the law enforcement community, lousy parenting skills , the lack of ANY and all comprehensive mental health system whatsoever , ALL guarantee the recurrence of mass killings .
by Mike Russo 13 months ago
I am fed up with the gun people stating that more people are killed by other means than guns. Statistically that may be true. But at this point it is not about statistics. It is about keeping our environment safe. In this latest mass shootings, the shooter killed five people and...
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
Today marks six months since the Sandy Hook shootings. Over 5,000 people have been killed by guns since then. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … oting.htmlWhat are your thoughts?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
The following ideas would, I think, go a long way to REDUCE (not eliminate) mass killings in particular and death by gun overall.1. Heavily regulate ownership of any weapon classified as "semi-automatic", whether pistol or rifle. 2. Heavily regulate possession of any magazine over 10...
by PrettyPanther 13 months ago
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 2-5, 2019. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5. "Would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?" Support 56%Oppose 41%Unsure 4% ...
by Josh Ratzburg 4 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
by Celia Ribeiro 4 years ago
It's inevitable that the recent events in Newton i'm going to once again bring to light with some consider a gun control issue. 15 people injured and for dead including the shooter. The sheriffs department is reporting that at this time they have obtained enough information to...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|