Recent Shooting and Discussion

[ctznarcane]

If this sick monster would have shot 30 rounds of 12 gauge in the same setting in the same time, there would have likely been 30 fatalities. Locked doors would have been largely ineffective.

As a gun owner, I support better (national) background checks and I’m not a huge fan of private party firearm sales. I also don’t oppose reasonable limitations on magazine capacity. BUT, I don’t think any of the above will fix the issue.

Again, we need to address the why, not the how.

Speaking of that and regarding the idea of putting armed staffing is schools...how long could it take for an armed first responder to react and arrive to where a shooting is in progress?

When I was in high school, our police liaison was one guy in at the east end of the sprawling 5 block wide/long building that was our school.

If someone decided to shoot up our shop wing at the far west end, it'd take a guy in decent shape a good minute to haul ass down there. Probably winded by the time he got there and then will have to aim and not frag a kid or two during a shootout?
Errrr...iffy.

Think of how much damage one kid with whatever type of firearm you want to imagine can do in that minute.

2 cops? Arm the teachers? Maybe.

Just been pondering that.

 

[Brute]

Again, the point is being missed...

In the early 1900's, a groundswell grassroots movement led to the 18th amendment of the Constitution ...the prohibition of all alcohol in the United States. This lasted thirteen years, until another amendment, the 21st amendment repealed it. Can you imagine having a beer in the US was against the law?...doesn't sound reasonable, does it.

You are about to witness another groundswell grassroots movement in our country....and gun owners are in the minority in the voting population.

Instead of arguing whether the cause is mental illness, or guns are only tools, you better start thinking about making concessions to keep some ownership of guns in some form before they are successful in removing all guns from private ownership.

Would I be okay with making it extremely difficult to purchase AR platform style weapons in order to keep our hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns?...of course I would be okay with that.

Would I be okay with a more involved process which may take considerable more time to purchase a gun so a comprehensive background check can be performed including accessing a Federal database which may include criminal and mental health background information?...of course I would be okay with that

Even these measures will not completely stop the insanity we are currently experiencing in this country...but it might just prevent one or more of these mass shootings...and of course I would be okay with that.

I would prefer more reasonable gun regulation than another amendment to the Constitution...

 

[ctznarcane]

Again, the point is being missed...

In the early 1900's, a groundswell grassroots movement led to the 18th amendment of the Constitution ...the prohibition of all alcohol in the United States. This lasted thirteen years, until another amendment, the 21st amendment repealed it. Can you imagine having a beer in the US was against the law?...doesn't sound reasonable, does it.

You are about to witness another groundswell grassroots movement in our country....and gun owners are in the minority in the voting population.

Instead of arguing whether the cause is mental illness, or guns are only tools, you better start thinking about making concessions to keep some ownership of guns in some form before they are successful in removing all guns from private ownership.

Would I be okay with making it extremely difficult to purchase AR platform style weapons in order to keep our hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns?...of course I would be okay with that.

Would I be okay with a more involved process which may take considerable more time to purchase a gun so a comprehensive background check can be performed including accessing a Federal database which may include criminal and mental health background information?...of course I would be okay with that

Even these measures will not completely stop the insanity we are currently experiencing in this country...but it might just prevent one or more of these mass shootings...and of course I would be okay with that.

I would prefer more reasonable gun regulation than another amendment to the Constitution...

So like classifying guns the same way we do motorized vehicles based on..class?

Passenger cars, SUVs, pick ups (Grandpa's old Browning 30.06 or my dad's Remmington skeet gun) are ok for basic operator licenced folk.

But if you want to drive an 18 wheeler (assault rifle..sorry) or a 28' box truck (hand gun) you'll require a bit more training and ahem..screening.

Classify firearms the same way?

Possible...but you know people are gonna bitch about who classifies what and debate over existing ownership being grandfathered as exempt or will owning a weapon of a certain class without approval warrants your execution or some shit like that.

 

[UtahJK]

Assault weapons enable an operator to fire more rounds in a given period of time. Higher capacity magazines further increase that efficiency. Sure many people can cycle out an empty mag for a fresh one in a matter of seconds BUT that couple of seconds could have bought time for some of those people in the school to get a door locked, find cover, etc. One of the teachers died trying to get a door closed and locked if I recall.

The root causes IMO are mental health and the perversion of our national identity with firearms.

Pop-culture glamorizes violence while media and marketers utilize that imagery to keep you scared and buying shit you don't need.

Example: Everytime one of these shootings happen, gun sales go up.

Someone just said that guns are tools..they're right. But that's all they are.

But when it becomes your LIFESTYLE (can't leave the house for frozen yogurt without your openly-carried fashion accessory) is when you become a slave to those aforementioned forces.

I conceal carry most of the time. No-one would ever know I'm carrying. But you're right, when I open carry, I make sure it matches the knife I'm carrying and doesn't clash with my wardrobe...

 

[ctznarcane]

I conceal carry most of the time. No-one would ever know I'm carrying. But you're right, when I open carry, I make sure it matches the knife I'm carrying and doesn't clash with my wardrobe...

But do you have an alligator-skin combined gun/knife holster that matches your hat and boots?

I've seen that in public...in Detroit.

 

[Jackal01]

Again, the point is being missed...

You are about to witness another groundswell grassroots movement in our country....and gun owners are in the minority in the voting population.

I would prefer more reasonable gun regulation than another amendment to the Constitution...

It won't happen. The unknown number of 80% rifles alone is staggering I'm safely betting. And a high number of people that own those are the ones that absolutely believe the government will become tyrannical. They have been preparing for nearly a decade if not many decades. Civilians just have way more firepower than the forces that would attempt a confiscation. How else would a AR ban work? And that's if the oath keepers break their oaths. Tough call there. It will be the end of the United States if it happens. Obama and congress had 8 years to do it, it sure won't happen now. Firearms are regulated enough. Time to look at the mind and home life as the issue. Gun bans only affect the good guys.

 

[Brute]

It won't happen. The unknown number of 80% rifles alone is staggering I'm safely betting. And a high number of people that own those are the ones that absolutely believe the government will become tyrannical. They have been preparing for nearly a decade if not many decades. Civilians just have way more firepower than the forces that would attempt a confiscation. How else would a AR ban work? And that's if the oath keepers break their oaths. Tough call there. It will be the end of the United States if it happens. Obama and congress had 8 years to do it, it sure won't happen now. Firearms are regulated enough. Time to look at the mind and home life as the issue. Gun bans only affect the good guys.

Your willing to bet the house on that?...good luck. I'm not promoting a ban on any weapon...only reasonable control. But if you keep insisting on not doing anything, you're going to let others with no dog in the fight write the legislation...and I would bet on that.

 

[Sharkey]

I agree with Brute that reasonable concessions by lawful gun owners are long overdue. While I personally think the likelihood of a constitutional amendment is extremely low, and a forced governmental take back of weapons is even lower, that is besides the point in my book.

A thorough background check has zero effect on my ability to be a lawful gun owner. I'm happy to do it. The "inconvenience" to me is meaningless, especially if the check actually keeps even one whack job from obtaining a firearm and using it in the commission of a crime of any kind. Even if it doesn't keep a single whack job from using a firearm in the commission of a crime, I find it to be a small price to pay in exchange for maintaining the ability to possess a firearm.

No "right" is absolute, plain and simple. It doesn't take much of a change in the U.S. Supreme Court to see that state-imposed restrictions could become the norm. (It's always ironic to listen to the far right talk about state's rights on every issue but reasonable gun control). Hell, a liberal Supreme Court could very easily define "arms" in a way that immediately renders the sale and possession of semi-automatic, detachable magazine firearms unlawful. There would be no need to pursue the Article Five process.

 

[EricInUtah]

Gun Control/Gun Bans are just a rush to "do something". It doesn't matter if it is effective or not, people just want something done. The constant pussification of America leads to this. It leads to emotionally unbalanced and screwed up people doing horrendous things and then more unbalanced people screaming for action.

My opinion is that if a weapon is not necessary for me to possess then it shouldn't be necessary for law enforcement to possess either. I should be afforded the ability to protect myself and my family as members of law enforcement that shows up after my home has already been invaded.

There was a time when I thought that gun bans were not possible in America due to our unique history. America was born from people that refused to be ruled by a king and valued personal freedom above everything. Unfortunately, the lack of hardship and easy living has softened the youth of this country. They just can't see a day where it would be possible that either their own government or an invading force was loading them on to cattle cars. The naivete is astonishing.

 

[A.J.]

Your willing to bet the house on that?...good luck. I'm not promoting a ban on any weapon...only reasonable control. But if you keep insisting on not doing anything, you're going to let others with no dog in the fight write the legislation...and I would bet on that.

Any piece of legislation will become the precedent for more legislation. What is "reasonable control" ? Where does it stop? Either way it still won't cure crazy. Again your concept of making the preferred tool harder for normal law abiding citizens to get won't stop crazy psycho nut jobs from getting them because they don't care. It may however hinder your ability to respond to the threat if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and it comes to you or your family. If someone wants to cause harm and or kill people they will. By gun, bus, plane, train, car, poison, arson, explosion the list goes on and on. The legality of purchase will make no difference.


Sent from my iPad using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[Sharkey]

Any piece of legislation will become the precedent for more legislation. What is "reasonable control" ? Where does it stop? Either way it still won't cure crazy. Again your concept of making the preferred tool harder for normal law abiding citizens to get won't stop crazy psycho nut jobs from getting them because they don't care. It may however hinder your ability to respond to the threat if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and it comes to you or your family. If someone wants to cause harm and or kill people they will. By gun, bus, plane, train, car, poison, arson, explosion the list goes on and on. The legality of purchase will make no difference.

Ahh, the slippery slope. A few honest questions then. Are you against the general ban on the possession and ownership of full auto firearms? What about the possession of C4 or its equivalent? What about grenades and/or grenade launchers? Why stop there? Are you against civilian ownership of "gunships"? (aka, weaponized aircraft)

I agree crazy will find a way to be crazy. But I fail to see the logic in saying that there is no benefit to society in reasonable controls.

 

[Sharkey]

Gun Control/Gun Bans are just a rush to "do something". It doesn't matter if it is effective or not, people just want something done.

There is truth to that, which is exactly why intellectually honest conversations must be had to discuss the balance of social utility and social harm of the given subject matter. Through such discussions, reasonable minds can usually find reasonable middle ground. The key, however, is for all sides involved to be reasonable. So far, in my opinion, neither side to the gun debate is reasonable.

My opinion is that if a weapon is not necessary for me to possess then it shouldn't be necessary for law enforcement to possess either. I should be afforded the ability to protect myself and my family as members of law enforcement that shows up after my home has already been invaded.

Sorry, but I actually find that scary. Law enforcement has to deal with threats on a day to day basis that simply do not apply to the vast majority of citizens. I'm fine with LEO's having the advantage and shutter at the thought of regular citizens driving around weaponized vehicles, carrying fully automatic weapons, and shouldering grenade/gas launchers. Most people are too stupid, self-absorbed, and ignorant to drive their own civilian vehicles safely...I can only imagine what would happen if everyone had tanks.

There was a time when I thought that gun bans were not possible in America due to our unique history. America was born from people that refused to be ruled by a king and valued personal freedom above everything.

If personal freedom reigns supreme, then why did our founders create laws?!?

Unfortunately, the lack of hardship and easy living has softened the youth of this country. They just can't see a day where it would be possible that either their own government or an invading force was loading them on to cattle cars. The naivete is astonishing.

It is theoretically possible that Ariana Grande would have sex with me; that doesn't mean I need to buy a bunch of condoms. There is a huge difference between possible and likely. To believe that our own law enforcement and/or military would take up arms against the civilians of this country is a big, big stretch in my opinion. I have greater faith in them than that.

 

[EricInUtah]

Sorry, but I actually find that scary. Law enforcement has to deal with threats on a day to day basis that simply do not apply to the vast majority of citizens. I'm fine with LEO's having the advantage and shutter at the thought of regular citizens driving around weaponized vehicles, carrying fully automatic weapons, and shouldering grenade/gas launchers. Most people are too stupid, self-absorbed, and ignorant to drive their own civilian vehicles safely...I can only imagine what would happen if everyone had tanks.

There is no reason that your local police should have tanks, weaponized vehicles or grenade launchers. Where do you live that this is necessary?

If personal freedom reigns supreme, then why did our founders create laws?!?

If you will notice, the constitution is basically a set of rules as to how the government shall be run and then the Bill of Rights was set as limitations on the government and as a protection for the citizens. The Constitution sets limits to the regulatory power of the federal government. Laws are necessary as long as they do not infringe on basic rights and are agreed upon by the citizens.

It is theoretically possible that Ariana Grande would have sex with me; that doesn't mean I need to buy a bunch of condoms. There is a huge difference between possible and likely. To believe that our own law enforcement and/or military would take up arms against the civilians of this country is a big, big stretch in my opinion. I have greater faith in them than that.

I believe the Jews in Poland probably had a similar outlook prior to 1939. Also, if you will notice, I said "their own government or an invading force". Will it happen next week? No. Will it happen in the future? Almost assuredly.

 

[TrailHunter]

Im with Sharkey & Brute. If other states keep refusing “reasonable” changes, it’s going to backfire.... I live in Cali... None of the “reasonable” laws here have prevented me from owning firearms... We can not have high capacity Mags, 2 week waiting period on purchases, background checks, Must be 21, etc... Now none of those things really bother me or prevent me from protecting my home..... but I do understand the slippery slope.... I can not Conceal Carry and I have to choose firearms off a list (gun roster). And this is where I feel my rights are Violated. So I understand the need to push back.... because if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

We must find the laws between Cali & Florida that makes sense, are reasonable, and maintain our rights....

 

[Sharkey]

There is no reason that your local police should have tanks, weaponized vehicles or grenade launchers. Where do you live that this is necessary?

My local police, like most departments with an actual S.W.A.T. team, absolutely has weapons that are not available to civilians. Of course I was being somewhat ridiculous with my examples, so let me be more reasonable. Civilians don't need grenades, barricade penetrating projectiles, 40mm projectiles of any kind or the pumps that shoot them, riot agents, gas, select fire weapons, shockwaves, BAT CAT's, explosives, etc., etc., etc.

If you will notice, the constitution is basically a set of rules as to how the government shall be run and then the Bill of Rights was set as limitations on the government and as a protection for the citizens. The Constitution sets limits to the regulatory power of the federal government. Laws are necessary as long as they do not infringe on basic rights and are agreed upon by the citizens.

They are still rules, all of them. Reasonable people came together to come up with reasonable rules based on middle ground. Having a government of any kind is, in and of itself, recognition that people cannot be left solely to their own ideals of "personal freedom". If that was our founders' intent, they could have just created a national military and left government out of the mix.

I believe the Jews in Poland probably had a similar outlook prior to 1939. Also, if you will notice, I said "their own government or an invading force". Will it happen next week? No. Will it happen in the future? Almost assuredly.

I know what you wrote. The likelihood of a full on invasion of US soil by a foreign government is very, very small. In this day and age, invasions of 1st world nations are done electronically. Now, is it possible that some rogue nation of religious fanatics will try to send a nuke our way? Of course. In either of those two circumstances, however, personal arms will be about as effective as flicking boogers. Besides, if there was truly an invasion by a foreign nation, don't you think our own government/military would willingly give arms to any able body willing to carry them?

 

[Sharkey]

We must find the laws between Cali & Florida that makes sense, are reasonable, and maintain our rights....

Agreed. I live in an extremely gun-friendly state (NV)...at least for now but that is changing fast. I don't like some of CA's gun laws because I don't feel they are narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate purpose (i.e. worrying about the way certain firearms look). I also think it is far too difficult to get a CCW in California. That said, I think it is far too easy to get a CCW in Nevada. Quite frankly, 1/3 of the people in my class had no business picking up a weapon, much less carrying one out in public. I have no issues with living in a "shall-issue" state, but I think the minimum proficiency level to CC should be substantially greater than it is in Nevada.

 

[Brute]

Any piece of legislation will become the precedent for more legislation. What is "reasonable control" ? Where does it stop? Either way it still won't cure crazy. Again your concept of making the preferred tool harder for normal law abiding citizens to get won't stop crazy psycho nut jobs from getting them because they don't care. It may however hinder your ability to respond to the threat if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and it comes to you or your family. If someone wants to cause harm and or kill people they will. By gun, bus, plane, train, car, poison, arson, explosion the list goes on and on. The legality of purchase will make no difference.


Sent from my iPad using WAYALIFE mobile app

You're right...can't cure "crazy"...just trying to make it more difficult for "crazy" to get weapons for mass murder

To Sharkey's point...legislation will begin at the state level, first in more liberal states, since this is low hanging fruit. You will eventually see old white men, who have had gun advocacy groups and lobby's that have financed their campaigns for decades in control of the congress leave, being replaced by younger people who have never fired a gun...this will happen in my lifetime.

 

[TLife]

This is only tangentially related, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[EricInUtah]

Also relevant:

 

[HighwayTrout]

That chart is silly and not relevant being so inaccurate . Any graph charting out homicides are not relevant in my opinion. The homicide rate is being suppressed by the advancements in medical technology.

It’s a widely different picture if it depicted aggravated assault.