Guns - With 400 million guns in the US of which 1.5 million AR15’s having been sold it’s closing the barn doors. Banning assault rifles makes sense but will only lead to higher prices for AR15’s already sold. Unless one supports forced confiscation. And if so how do you do that? Court cases to follow.
Red Flag Laws - Take people who are known threats to themselves or others and institutionalize. But on what basis and for how long and who decides when they no longer present a threat.
Parental Responsibility - If your child lives with you and fails a background check police should with a warrant remove all guns from your home. Court lawsuits with that one.
FBI Privacy Laws - Allow the FBI access to hack suspect email and computers for known violent websites and individuals who log on to be questioned, retained or watched. Court cases.
That might help but the real issue is how our young people are being raised. I have no answers for that.
if they were on the terrorist watch list.
Every single Dem voted against it.
You get the idea. Legislation will go nowhere.
Or an assault weapons ban?
do we have any evidence that the bipartisan background check bill would have prevented this year’s mass murders?
(no message)
(no message)
Call me a cynic.
Regarding UBCs, here is what will happen:
- first there will be a few “enhancements” to the current background check methods along with making transfer of guns between individuals illegal without such checks.
- next the cost to do background checks will increase
- next the “instant” checks will go out the window- universal 3 day waiting periods will be the first step
- next the background checks will be expanded to require a full medical history and scouring of every potential buyer’s internet history. Emails will also be searched. Background check costs will again significantly increase.
- 3 days will turn into 3 months and the costs to actually buy a gun legally will exceed the actual price of the gun.
- liberal courts will deem all this “constitutional”
Only the gun lobby and their syncophants believe that. The statute would have to be amended to include any such things.
And if that’s the position,at least have the balls to debate and vote that.
The nation deserves it.
Or be a little bitch like Mitch.
And you can’t refute my hypothesis so you resort to name calling. That’s OK, I have done that myself, but I am making an effort to stop.
Could I be wrong about the planned pathway? Actually, no.
I’ve owned, enjoyed, and used both long guns and hand guns for over 35 years.
I’m hardly a fanatic opposed to gun rights and ownership.
The problem with the gun lobby is that they are opposed to even common sense stuff, and use the same slippery slope argument all the time.
We are getting past that with these events and they really should smarten up.
(no message)
Compromises would be great, but for that.
It just keeps getting worse. Endless political campaigns and, even within each party, there is huge polarization. Centrists on either side of the aisle have no chance. The internet, the 24 hour news cycle, and the narcissism & need to preen in front of the cameras by most politicians plays a part.
(no message)
(no message)
one of the bills you are talking about, please do.
(no message)
The Democrats put up a bill that would do so, and the GOP never brought it to the floor. The proposed their own, watered-down bullshit bill.
We debated this on here. Ned and others opposed banning terrorist-watch-list members from buying guns, because of their fundamental rights or some absolute horseshit.
Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36563337
...the Obama administration trying to put non-terrorists on no-buy lists, which was blocked by the courts, and which is an example of why we can't pass good laws in this country...because we can't trust our leadership to enforce them in good ways. For example, our immigration laws. When someone says, "No one is above the law," they really mean "People who don't vote for me are not above the law."
If you want to dig up an old post of mine, feel free. I will either defend it or tell you I changed my mind...one or the other.
A week after the deadliest mass shooting in the country's modern history, the U.S. Senate on Monday voted down four competing gun control measures largely along party lines, including one put forward by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn that sought to block the sales of weapons to people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list.
Under Cornyn’s bill, the attorney general would be given 72 hours to prove there was a probable cause for denying a suspected terrorist the ability to purchase a gun. The measure garnered support from the National Rifle Association but failed on a 53-47 vote. It needed 60 votes to pass.
“We all agree that terrorists should not be able to purchase a weapon; that is not up for debate,” Cornyn said before the vote. “The question before us is whether we're going to do so in a way that's constitutional.”
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has a fractious relationship with Cornyn, voted in support of his colleague's bill.
Link: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/20/after-orlando-massacre-cornyn-gun-measure-fails-s/
The real bill never made it to the floor, because the GOP blocked it.
It was not Democrats stopping people on the Watch List from being banned from buying guns. Jesus.
probable cause for denying a suspected terrorist the ability to purchase a gun. The measure garnered support from the National Rifle Association but failed on a 53-47 vote. It needed 60 votes to pass."
(no message)
Got him dead to rights
(no message)
Answer my question. If the Senate is serious about this issue why won’t Mitch bring a clearly bipartisan background checks bill to a vote?
Version."
I was right. Again. So tiresome. You guys are more divorced from the facts than anyone else on this Board. Cornyn proposed a reasonable restriction on gun purchases and Dems voted it down bc they wanted more.
Why won't Dems just take what they can get?
Answer the question above which you can’t.
"Trump not welcome in El Paso after his rhetoric inspired shooter"
"Democrats pressure McConnell to cancel Senate recess for emergency gun control vote"
"Ohio shooting witness: That next shot might be you"
"Dayton Mayor: When is enough, enough"
"Rev. Al Sharpton: Action needed, not prayer, to fight domestic terrorism, white nationalism"
"Joe: GOP, businesses, CEOs turn blind eye to Trump rhetoric"
"O'Rourke: We've got to be bigger than this hate"
"Harris: Any words that Trump speaks today I find to be empty"
"Ryan: GOP nees to get the s*** together and stop pandering to the NRA"
"Rep. Bass: El Paso shooter's alleged creed reads like a script from a Trump rally"
How does a news media organization not see the bias and all out attempt to blame evil on the party they literally hate?
(no message)
(no message)
In the other, it did not.
(no message)
(no message)
I guess I thought it was the fact that they are not harping on the Dayton shooter's apparent non-Trumpiness.
(no message)
Or perhaps various accounts of it and quotations from it.
I didn't think that was a genuine fact in dispute. Do you need a link, or are you good?
Then I missed it. I watched some clips on this case and hear no references to his writings beyond what he had on his social media pages.
That you prefer that to Humble Pie or Small Faces makes me again question if our alliance is built upon sand, rather than bedrock. This changes everything.
The ban sounds helpful until one realizes just how many of these weapons are already out there. There are also plenty of equally lethal substitutes that won’t be banned.
Some of these red flag proposals make sense if that can be done consistent with the Constitution.
Doing zero isn’t the solution. On the other hand, knowing what you are doing won’t much dent the problem is likely wise.
waning.
I don't think that correlation is strong. It seems that respect for life has been on the upswing for the last 30 years or so.
I can't speak to suicide rates, but suicide seems to be less connected to "respect for life" as to severe depression. People I've know who committed suicide were profoundly gentle towards others.
, are part of a bigger story about the value being put on life.
Coming into the ER with complications 50 to 60% of the time.
Regardless, if they aren't reportable, how could you know whether the number isn't way down?
like abortion and assisted suicide and the like become an "it is what it is" situation, the bar to garner interest gets raised.
The lower rate indicates an increased appreciation of life. Whether or not you perceive more of a hands-off attitude (I'm not sure where that comes from), the result has been fewer abortions. Now, I suppose there could be entirely different reasons for the reduction in abortions that have nothing to do with appreciation for life. That's probably impossible to measure.
But to the extent that we are speculating the increased mass shootings have something to do with abortion, what little hard evidence we have directly contradicts the notion.
(no message)
WCIF drew a parallel between abortion and disregard for life that has led an increase in mass shooting.
If abortion and cavalier attitude towards life are connected, (as postulated by WCIF) then the reduction in abortion over the years cannot be evidence of increased disregard for life that would lead to mass shootings. I should have been clearer in that posts (e.g. "if one assumes you are correct that...").
I am not arguing the underlying assumptions (which gets nowhere fast), I am arguing that the evidence does not support the causation argument. If you really want to take it a step further would could argue that abortion and respect for life are completely uncorrelated because people say we have no more respect for life, yet we keep reducing the amount of abortions.
bullet. If it were all about statistics, the post by the physicist over the weekend would tell us we should be spending our resources and debate on other issues.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Abortion on demand.
Right to die.
Legalize Drugs.
Vote Democratic.
No gun law or gun restriction measure would have or could have prevented what occurred. A person could have done the same amount of damage with a 9mm handgun, loaded with self-defense ammo and a few clips in his pocket. You can scream AR-15s are the devil, take away all guns, blah, blah, blah... but the bottom line is that too many guns already exist in our country, many of which are not even registered, and it is impossible to get them all back. If they are out there, evil people will find them and will use them. i want mine to protect my family.
Nothing could have stopped the massacres this weekend, but we can bring down the casualty rates in the long-run. One way to do this might well be to focus on the rate of fire - the shooter in El Paso would not have been able to kill as many people with a handgun that he had to reload frequently. He could have brought in a few, theoretically, so it is no cure-all. But making shooters reload gives people a chance. No one needs a high-capacity magazine.
And having slower rounds - like come out of handguns - lowers the casualty rate too. We should look at controlling muzzle velocity of civilian weapons. No one needs to be able to fire rounds that tumble when they enter the body.
And you are much more likely to accidentally kill your family with your handgun than actually ever protect them in any real way.
If we were probability driven, we wouldn't care about these mass shootings. We'd be focusing on other things, among them Chicago.
As cheeks points out, the slower rounds thing is a non-issue.
The best point you make relates to magazine size. But, in the end, I'm not sure that will do much. And, so few people are killed by these events, it makes sense to solve other situations first, and just let people defend themselves.
We should ban text messaging, right?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Practice...
(no message)
As one of my buddies likes to say, "it's a performance enhancing drug".
If that guy in El Paso had a handgun, the casualty rate would not be nearly as high.
Muzzle velocity makes a very big difference.
A larger bullet needs less speed to confer the same amount of stopping power.
If anything, the fact that he was using a longer barrel made him more accurate. (And, by the way, a billet in a rifle will exit the muzzle faster than the same bullet exiting a shorter barreled handgun.)
Again, the muzzle velocity thing just seems silly to me, but let's have a conversation about it. How do you propose to regulate it? All guns? Have you read anything that indicates what the max muzzle velocity should be? (Honest question, not a trap.)
When I go elk hunting, I want (need) all 3000 FPS from my 300 Win Mag.
When I use my 460 S&W revolver for deer, I want (need) all 2000 FPS.
But neither of these would be the choice a mass murderer would use.
It really doesn't take much to kill a human, if you limited MV to something considered less lethal on humans, you would necessarily eliminate all effective hunting rounds for medium to large game.
But, I am okay with reasonable magazine size restrictions.
Are Winchester Magnums ever used by mass shooters?
I think magazine capacity and muzzle velocity are good places to start a conversation here, one that could lead to the decrease in casualties from these shootings while still protecting the second amendment.
If we could have a rational conversation. Which obviously we can't.
Are you on board with that?
Or how about everyone has to have a breathalyzer installed on their vehicle?
Or how about we legislate that phones must be disabled when moving over a certain speed?
Another problem with MV restrictions is for handloaders such as myself, I often won't know for sure what the MV will be until I try it.
The mass shootings are obviously terrible, and senseless, but your chances of dying in a mass shooting are what? Surely much less than mosquito born diseases and about 1000 other things.
Last time I checked, their gun control restrictions were pretty tight.
You asked, "Are Winchester Magnums ever used by mass shooters?" I'm guessing no.
You said, "I think magazine capacity and muzzle velocity are good places to start a conversation here, one that could lead to the decrease in casualties from these shootings while still protecting the second amendment." I think magazine capacity is the only factor you mention that may help. But, in the end, you need extra guns at the scene. Otherwise, it won't work.
You said, "If we could have a rational conversation. Which obviously we can't." Muzzle velocity, by itself, if it is even a factor, may be responsible for .00001% responsible for deaths. It is kind of like when the gun banners went after bayonet lugs and flash suppressors and pistol grips and trademarks. People who knew how guns work were like, "Wait, what?" Total waste of time and money, even if you win and get a bill passed. Go after something that counts, like magazine capacity.
The problem is that the Second Amendment more likely protects 30 round magazines than anything else. I think you guys really need to repeal the Second Amendment if you want to do something.
There is no panacea answer to this.
Restrictions on magazine size, and assault weapon ban are okay with me, although I doubt they will make much difference.
Likely unpopular with the left, but Dayton proved the best answer is a trained person with a gun to take the asshole out. Luckily, cops right there for that one.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
A mass shooting usually means too few firearms present.
It was weird watching the El Paso police take 30 minutes to gear up after arriving. I assume they were gearing up fully because the shooting had stopped. If they were waiting to get into full combat uniform before going after the shooter, they all need to be fired.
The cops in Dayton killed that guy in under 30 seconds.
Texas is swarming with guns. Didn't matter.
Just total idiocy.
I too am surprised that there were no concealed carriers in that walmart. Maybe El Paso really is a blue town, but still, very surprising that there weren't more guns there.
And it was COPS, not guns, who stopped Dayton.
even always has armed security?
Why does every school for our elite leaders’ children have them?
I would not be opposed to having people get private training from an authorized training company, and then carry their certificate in their wallet if they carry their gun.
have a clean record.
That’s the joke, you can conceal carry a gun without having to show you know how to shoot or care for the weapon properly, yet you need to to take a drivers test to operate a motor vehicle.
But it turns out that concern was unfounded, there have been no issues at all.
vetting the app which really isn’t hard to do. There have been permits that shouldn’t have been issued.
By the way, the gun rights lawyer mentioned in the article is the guy that has the case against the county I’m defending discussed in my response to Ned.
Link: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/columnists/maria-panaritis/concealed-carry-gun-permits-bucks-county-pennsylvania-sheriff-milt-warrill-lie-and-try442313-20180329.html
Of course there're way less people in Iowa, yet 99 counties. Our sheriffs don't have a lot going on...
Those with criminal intent will carry no matter what, so it has no effect there.
At least with constitutional carry, you have a chance of good people being armed as well.
Granted, you get your random NFL player who shoots his gun by accident in a strip bar, but you get cops doing that, too.
allowing people to carry concealed lethal force that we have for driving a car, you need to prove you know how to properly use the weapons. Do you shoot at all for sport? I still occasionally go to the range with my BIL. Even some of the peeps there are downright dangerous and obviously untrained in basic safety. Many have CCW permits.
annual updates. During that time, all guns purchased can be tracked by the person. If they are building an arsenal, it can warrant further dialogue and on-site evaluation.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But if there are no training requirements for a permit, then the only reason to issue them is to build a database of law abiding gun owners (the criminal carriers won't be logged in such a system). Makes you wonder if there is an ulterior motive to building that database.
By the way you need no permit to open carry...........like Wyatt Earp.
Link: https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20190507/pa-bill-would-eliminate-need-for-concealed-carry-permit
In fact I’m representing a county right now in a goober lawsuit that they are trying to turn class action.
The claim in that one is that the county would send notifications for renewals by post card to permit holders thus violating their treasured confidentiality by statute which also contains a $1K liquidated damages provision for each disclosure. As this county is a proud member of the venison belt, there were literally thousands of postcards sent out during the releavant SOL period. Hence, the importance of class certification as well as whether the post cards constitute “public disclosure”. Case obviously brought by a gun lobby attorney.
First, it is great to hear you say that guns don't kill people, people ("COPS") kill people.
Secondly, When I said "more guns" I obviously intended that they be present to return fire. Again, we are actually agreeing here.
Sure, it is best to have "COPS" be present. But, I can think of 20 people who would have enjoyed a little crossfire between the shooter and a concealed carrying citizen this past Saturday. Can something go wrong? Sure. Is it far more likely that fewer people will die if someone returns fire? Of course. It is far more likely than if you reduce the muzzle velocity of the guns, or whatever. FAR. MORE. LIKELY.
(no message)
truck and mowing a crowd of people over ala France a few years back.
I’m okay with a ban on the thought that if it even stops one of these, it has served its purpose. It is NOT a panacea though.