Massacre

[Chuck Naill]

When I heard about the latest shooting I thought or our member @tsherbs. He has said he intend to retire. How many of these senseless shootings abruptly destroy both the life and those who must carry on. I cannot imagine or want to imagine if my 4th graders were the ones whose lives ended yesterday. Can't imagine the horror of an educator's last day.

[TSherbs]

I appreciate the thought, Chuck. Yeah, rough day for educators. But nothing compared to the devastation on those families and that community. My wife teaches 2nd grade. She sobbed in the shower this morning and went to school in tears. But again, it's Uvalde where the devastation is. My retirement is irrelevant.

[Lloyd]

I sincerely hope there aren't deniers as there were with Sandy Hook.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

The relevance of plans can make us unaware that they may never occur. It takes this to the brevity and uncertainty of our lives and those we love .

No way an 18 year old should have had access to the money and ability to amass an arsenal. Apparently no one was paying attention.

The Texas governor has again shown us who he is.

[Lloyd]

The relevance of plans can make us unaware that they may never occur. It takes this to the brevity and uncertainty of our lives and those we love .

No way an 18 year old should have had access to the money and ability to amass an arsenal. Apparently no one was paying attention.

The Texas governor has again shown us who he is.

At what aft should an individual be allowed to amass an arsenal? Some might say that, anyone that wants one should NOT have access to one.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

Highlights the brokenness of our world

[Chip]

New Zealand and Australia responded to mass shootings in a rational way.

What with our 2nd amendment whackjobs howling and the NRA sucking up money from the murder weapons industry to corrupt legislators, I'm afraid we're stuck in a hell of our own making.

Too bad it's not the children of the responsible parties who suffer.

[Lloyd]

Too bad it's not the children of the responsible parties who suffer.
I prefer that no child suffers.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

I heard an interesting interview late last night regarding this and other mass shootings. The interviewee said the common theme of all the mass shooters is that they are males from fatherless situations. He went on to say how boys are falling behind more and more in developing nations (at least in regards to education standards and suicide rates). I think the problem is bigger than guns (but gun control might be easier than fixing our fatherlessness and toxic sexism).

[Lloyd]

I heard an interesting interview late last night regarding this and other mass shootings. The interviewee said the common theme of all the mass shooters is that they are males from fatherless situations. He went on to say how boys are falling behind more and more in developing nations (at least in regards to education standards and suicide rates). I think the problem is bigger than guns (but gun control might be easier than fixing our fatherlessness and toxic sexism).
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mass-shooters-fatherless-us/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

I heard an interesting interview late last night regarding this and other mass shootings. The interviewee said the common theme of all the mass shooters is that they are males from fatherless situations. He went on to say how boys are falling behind more and more in developing nations (at least in regards to education standards and suicide rates). I think the problem is bigger than guns (but gun control might be easier than fixing our fatherlessness and toxic sexism).
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mass-shooters-fatherless-us/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Instead, that article claimed that seven of the deadliest mass shootings were perpetrated by males under the age of 30, and out of that seven, only one was raised by his biological father:


Warren Farrell PhD, John Gray PhD who wrote The Boy Crisis (the interviewee) referenced this specific stat from your link.

[Lloyd]

I heard an interesting interview late last night regarding this and other mass shootings. The interviewee said the common theme of all the mass shooters is that they are males from fatherless situations. He went on to say how boys are falling behind more and more in developing nations (at least in regards to education standards and suicide rates). I think the problem is bigger than guns (but gun control might be easier than fixing our fatherlessness and toxic sexism).
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mass-shooters-fatherless-us/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Instead, that article claimed that seven of the deadliest mass shootings were perpetrated by males under the age of 30, and out of that seven, only one was raised by his biological father:


Warren Farrell PhD, John Gray PhD who wrote The Boy Crisis (the interviewee) referenced this specific stat from your link.
So, 6/30...20%. Cherry picking an analysis after the data has been viewed is improper use of statistics... unacceptable for hypothesis analysis.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

6/7

[Lloyd]

6/7
Reducing the sample size after an analysis in order to make the statistics work towards one's goal is not permissible in statistical analysis (I'm a mathematician) . So, it's 6/30.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

If the man had only a pocket knife, six bullets, or a sling shot, it would not have made any difference whether he lived with a biological parent. Had the door been locked, it wouldn't matter if the man had a father present or if he were under 30. The point is clear. Being able to freely access an assalt rifle and that many rounds of ammunition is the elephant in the room no Movement Conservative wants to discuss.

Also, we should all read the Second Amendment. It has been redefined in a way that the framers never did intend. And, I am saying this as a gun owner and former hunter. I still love to shoot targets with the BB and pellet guns with my grandson.

Most Americans want reasonable gun control, birth control, and moral decency. Presently we are held hostage by the minority.

[Bold2013]

“Presently we are held hostage by the minority”

So true. So true.

[dneal]

Also, we should all read the Second Amendment. It has been redefined in a way that the framers never did intend.

Apparently “we” should also read the Heller decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), which addresses the language, usage and history very clearly.

[Chuck Naill]

Also, we should all read the Second Amendment. It has been redefined in a way that the framers never did intend.

Apparently “we” should also read the Heller decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), which addresses the language, usage and history very clearly.

Why would we?

Seems objectively clear about its purpose. Had more to do with security of a free state than individual rights to keep a hand gun in the glove compartment.

“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.“

[Chuck Naill]

The NRA evolved from marksmanship to Movement Conservative Politics.

[Chuck Naill]

And now I read that NRA is having a shindig this weekend in Texas with Cruz and Donald speaking . There is just no sense of others.

[dneal]

Also, we should all read the Second Amendment. It has been redefined in a way that the framers never did intend.

Apparently “we” should also read the Heller decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), which addresses the language, usage and history very clearly.

Why would we?



While comments made in ignorance are often emotionally satisfying, it is beneficial to actually understand the argument we’re opining on.

You say the second amendment has been redefined, but you haven’t read the decision?

Justice Scalia went to great lengths (20 pages) on definitions of "arms", "keep", "bear", "the people" etc... referencing the 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the 1771 legal dictionary of Timothy Cunningham, Webster's 1828 dictionary, Blackstone's 1769 legal commentaries, the Pennsylvania declaration of rights, Vermont constitution, etc...

Among many other things, he notes "Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms- bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

So no, nothing has been redefined, but you would know that had you read the decision.

[Chip]

If some whackjob shot up an NRA convention, what would they say?

Blame it on the failure of the christian two-parent home?

[Chuck Naill]

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-26-2022?r=87nb3&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

[Chuck Naill]

Also, we should all read the Second Amendment. It has been redefined in a way that the framers never did intend.

Apparently “we” should also read the Heller decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), which addresses the language, usage and history very clearly.

Why would we?



While comments made in ignorance are often emotionally satisfying, it is beneficial to actually understand the argument we’re opining on.

You say the second amendment has been redefined, but you haven’t read the decision?

Justice Scalia went to great lengths (20 pages) on definitions of "arms", "keep", "bear", "the people" etc... referencing the 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the 1771 legal dictionary of Timothy Cunningham, Webster's 1828 dictionary, Blackstone's 1769 legal commentaries, the Pennsylvania declaration of rights, Vermont constitution, etc...

Among many other things, he notes "Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms- bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

So no, nothing has been redefined, but you would know that had you read the decision.

What was the purpose of the second amendment? It was not so you and I could own a firearm. It was to provide a government need.

This is why reading the document is so important.

[dneal]

What was the purpose of the second amendment? It was not so you and I could own a firearm. It was to provide a government need.

This is why reading the document is so important.

The Supreme Court answers your question in Heller, and it certainly not the answers you posted.

I agree that reading the document is important. Here's the link for you again: Heller decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

[Chuck Naill]

I understand the ruling aka militia or self defense, but the Second Amendment is clear the purpose was to protect what consisted as the country at the time. While I understand interpretations are like rear ends, everybody has one. That said, read the amendment for what it says and not what you would prefer it says.

[Chuck Naill]

How many NRA members own a gun for self defense? Self defense arguements would more fit in Chicago than Montana.

[dneal]

I understand the ruling aka militia or self defense, but the Second Amendment is clear the purpose was to protect what consisted as the country at the time. While I understand interpretations are like rear ends, everybody has one. That said, read the amendment for what it says and not what you would prefer it says.

I'm not the person stating preferences or opinions on what it does or does not say, its purpose, or the many other things you are opining on - like your assertion that it has been "redefined". That's you.

I'm simply pointing out where the document can be found, and that the decision goes to great lengths to clear up all those points you are making. Justice Steven's points in his dissent are addressed. You can read both points of view, evaluate the merits of the arguments, and come to your own conclusion.

The decision discusses Britain's banning of Catholic keeping and bearing of arms - something the Founders would have been keenly aware of. The decision discusses gun laws during reconstruction, and how militia clauses were used to prevent Blacks from defending themselves by denying their right to keep and bear arms. It's a good read.

[Chuck Naill]

If some whackjob shot up an NRA convention, what would they say?

Blame it on the failure of the christian two-parent home?

This just in!!
“Also in the category of Irony Is Dead: During that “important address,” organizers warned in advance, the Secret Service would be taking control of the hall and all guns, ammo, firearm accessories, knives, and other scary items — including laser pointers and selfie sticks — would be prohibited.”

[Chuck Naill]

And from Trump
“For Mr. Trump, who never misses a chance to be fawned over, the show must always go on. The former president, in fact, suggested that his speech Friday would be vital to the healing process. “America needs real solutions and real leadership in this moment, not politicians and partisanship,” he asserted, without a speck of irony. “That’s why I will keep my longtime commitment” and “deliver an important address to America.”

[Chuck Naill]

Perhaps @dneal needs a dead Supreme Court judge to interpret what Trump actually said.

[dneal]

Trump should be the new subject of Godwin's law.

[Chuck Naill]

Trump should be the new subject of Godwin's law.

May we wait until he’s gone to his proverbial bunker?

[Chuck Naill]

Perhaps those employees who were supposed to protect 10 year olds should have been as well equipped.

[Lloyd]

dneal - I would appreciate it if you would summarize what you perceive as the key takeaways from the Heller document.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Sorry, not playing..

The decision begins with a two page syllabus.

[Lloyd]

I read that, dneal. I thought there was something more specific you were alluding to.

https://www.bbc.com/news/61599697

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

You thought wrong.

[Lloyd]

You thought wrong.
Sorry about that. It's easy to misinterpret posts.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

You thought wrong.
Sorry about that. It's easy to misinterpret posts.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

And intent. :)

[Chuck Naill]

My intent on the other hand is not to troll or mislead in my posts. The Second Amendment says what it says. It is about national security. If you happen to use a gun as a hobby or sport, no harm as long as you observe common sense safety. No 18 year old should be able to amass an arsenal and no police force should be less equipped than a crazed person. If the NRA insists in forcing Americans to allow assault rifles, then they should make sure all school resource officers are equipped for whatever they might face. I don't know how you stay outside a classroom of 10 year old's. I'd gotten shot, but Lord God I would have had to do something. "When good men do nothing" comes to mind. I don't know how I could live with myself otherwise.

I heard Trump speak on the shooting and he is as foolish as ever. He is on record for not sending money to Ukraine. Look for him to side with his bud Putin if re-elected. Please don't cite Goodwins Law again. These are more serious times.

On the other hand, there are people willing to tell the truth. This is from San Franciso Giants Manager, Gabe Kapler.
"“When I was the same age as the children in Uvalde, my father taught me to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance when I believed my country was representing its people well or to protest and stay seated when it wasn’t. I don’t believe it is representing us well,” Kapler wrote, adding: “Every time I place my hand over my heart and remove my hat, I’m participating in a self-congratulatory glorification of the ONLY country where these mass shootings take place.”

"“We elect our politicians to represent our interests,” Kapler wrote. “Immediately following this shooting, we were told we needed locked doors and armed teachers. We were given thoughts and prayers. We were told it could have been worse, and we just need love.

“But we weren’t given bravery, and we aren’t free,” he wrote. “The police on the scene put a mother in handcuffs as she begged them to go in and save her children. They blocked parents trying to organize to charge in to stop the shooter, including a father who learned his daughter was murdered while he argued with the cops. We aren’t free when politicians decide that the lobbyist and gun industries are more important than our children’s freedom to go to school without needing bulletproof backpacks and active shooter drills.”

Again, we are being ruled by the minority. Perhaps some will understand.

[Chuck Naill]

From Maurine Dowd

"The shooter in Uvalde slipped into a fourth-grade classroom at Robb Elementary School, ominously announced, “Look what we have here” and fired more than 100 rounds.

The local police did nothing to stop the human sacrifice. Nineteen officers loitered in the hall for as long as 78 minutes as children died. How can you justify keeping assault weapons on the open market when police officers don’t engage with them, even with kids’ lives on the line?

As the officers waited, not bothering to break down a barricaded door, the 19 lambs went to slaughter, trapped in a blood-soaked classroom with an 18-year-old madman. In a haunting tableau, one little girl smeared herself with her dead friend’s blood to appear dead. Meanwhile, desperate parents tried to climb over a chain-link fence to save their children. The police, doing nothing more useful, kept busy by handcuffing at least one parent trying to get into the school."

"Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas coldly said of the massacre, the sixth mass shooting in his seven years in office, “could have been worse.” Donald Trump, who once told me if he were elected president, he would get in his limo and drive down to the National Rifle Association and bargain with it until he could get agreement to some common-sense solutions, spoke to the N.R.A. convention in Houston Friday evening and spouted gun lobby talking points — small price for the tens of millions it spent to get him elected. What a sociopathic jellyfish. It was sacrilege for him to make it seem as though the N.R.A. cared by reading the names of the dead children and teachers, with a bell gonging after each name." SHE SOUNDS PISSED!!

[TSherbs]

Sociopathic jellyfish is right!

Our gun lobby in America is one of our most morally craven institutions. It perpetuates and manipulates for its own profit an outdated and twisted mythology around American masculinity and violence. It perpetuates the myth that whites are not safe from people of color, and that citizens are not safe from its government, and then markets and sells the tools of human destruction to its citizenry by the hundreds of millions, polluting society with lethal tools of false security.

And then we turn them on each other, which is exactly what every manufacturer knows has a certain probability to occur. It is what, in fact, they are designed to do: put holes in other human beings.

QED

Mission accomplished.

[dneal]

Chuck's intent is not to troll, but we have post #31. "Perhaps @dneal needs a dead Supreme Court judge to interpret what Trump actually said."

Chuck's intent is not to mislead, but he asserts his opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and that the Supreme Court "redefined" it - all while confessing his ignorance to what the Supreme Court actually decided, and why. When presented with the opportunity to educate himself and twice provided a link to the decision, he apparently refuses to read it - substituting banal rhetoric about "Trump!" and doubling down on his opinion of what the 2nd Amendment means.

Chuck then introduces some crazed tangent about Putin and Trump, demanding posters not point out that his pseudo argument has devolved to a form of Godwin's law - with an irrelevant invoking of Trump.

As another poster reminded us:




This is Chuck.
When the topic is too tough for him to understand Chuck goes inanely off-topic.
Chuck thinks his distraction prevents you from noticing his inability to engage in genuine discussion.
Don't be Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

Greg Abbot is saying he was misled. Own your shit Greg.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck's intent is not to troll, but we have post #31. "Perhaps @dneal needs a dead Supreme Court judge to interpret what Trump actually said."

Chuck's intent is not to mislead, but he asserts his opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and that the Supreme Court "redefined" it - all while confessing his ignorance to what the Supreme Court actually decided, and why. When presented with the opportunity to educate himself and twice provided a link to the decision, he apparently refuses to read it - substituting banal rhetoric about "Trump!" and doubling down on his opinion of what the 2nd Amendment means.

Chuck then introduces some crazed tangent about Putin and Trump, demanding posters not point out that his pseudo argument has devolved to a form of Godwin's law - with an irrelevant invoking of Trump.

As another poster reminded us:




This is Chuck.
When the topic is too tough for him to understand Chuck goes inanely off-topic.
Chuck thinks his distraction prevents you from noticing his inability to engage in genuine discussion.
Don't be Chuck.

You have your Ukraine thread to whine, vent, and do whatever, stop trolling here, @dneal.

[dneal]

Sorry Chuck. See post #31 to identify the troll. If you believe pointing out your duplicity and hypocrisy is trolling, an easy solution for you is to stop behaving in that manner. Similarly, if you do not want Godwin's law mentioned for invoking Trump, perhaps you should stop invoking Trump.

You say you like to read. You said "reading the document is important". Have you read this document (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)?

[Lloyd]

To members on both sides - Why must you go after each other? Why not focus on such issues as (1) the incident (2) potential causes of this incident (3) what, if any, changes that need to occur (4) if the 2nd ammendment is being used or abused by the NRA (5) if the 2nd ammendment needs a rewrite or just better understanding ....

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Nah, you go first. Why do you have this weird penchant for assuming a role of hall monitor?

You're as complicit as anyone else, and certainly not a neutral arbiter of goings-on; so step down off of the soapbox.

[Chip]

Daniel Defense, the company that made and sold the murder weapon that killed 21 people in Texas, posted this on their Instagram page on 17 April.

https://i.imgur.com/aZLh1CP.jpg

[Lloyd]

Nah, you go first. Why do you have this weird penchant for assuming a role of hall monitor?

You're as complicit as anyone else, and certainly not a neutral arbiter of goings-on; so step down off of the soapbox.

Kids are massacred in Texas, I make a request to focus on this issue which I direct at everyone, and you'd rather tear into each other's foibles? How have I been complicit in this thread?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal go away. You made a request on your Ukrainian thread and I honored it. Show some respect yourself.

[dneal]

@dneal go away. You made a request on your Ukrainian thread and I honored it. Show some respect yourself.

No, you didn’t. See post 101 in that thread, for example. A week later in post 177 and 179? Back again, blatantly trolling.

In this thread, your 2nd amendment claim was silly enough and easily disprovable that I chose to point it out. You chose to escalate to insult and clear trolling in post 31. What was that you said about resorting to ad hominem when you lose the argument? We both know why you refused to read the decision, and why you posted #31. I still think you would find the decision interesting.

[dneal]

Nah, you go first. Why do you have this weird penchant for assuming a role of hall monitor?

You're as complicit as anyone else, and certainly not a neutral arbiter of goings-on; so step down off of the soapbox.

Kids are massacred in Texas, I make a request to focus on this issue which I direct at everyone, and you'd rather tear into each other's foibles? How have I been complicit in this thread?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Bullshit. You could have simply said that instead of your semi-ambiguous "members of both sides choosing to go after each other" and "why not focus on such issues as..."

[Chuck Naill]

Please stop it, @dneal. Go away.

[dneal]

Please stop it, @dneal. Go away.

Sorry buddy, you made this bed. Now lie in it.

[Lloyd]

Why are there separate threads, each with its own unique title, in this subforum when they all descend into reiterated bickering and character attacks on one another?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Why are there separate threads, each with its own unique title, in this subforum when they all descend into reiterated bickering and character attacks on one another?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Good question.

A little research will reveal a strong correlation. Regular participants can probably even point out the specific thread where things changed.

[Lloyd]

Why are there separate threads, each with its own unique title, in this subforum when they all descend into reiterated bickering and character attacks on one another?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Good question.

A little research will reveal a strong correlation. Regular participants can probably even point out the specific thread where things changed.
Do you see this as unfixable? Didn't the Ukraine thread show that some subjects deserve more respectful discussions? Wouldn't a massacre of our youth fall into that category of subjects?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Daniel Defense, the company that made and sold the murder weapon that killed 21 people in Texas, posted this on their Instagram page on 17 April.

https://i.imgur.com/aZLh1CP.jpg

That's disgusting.

[dneal]

Why are there separate threads, each with its own unique title, in this subforum when they all descend into reiterated bickering and character attacks on one another?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Good question.

A little research will reveal a strong correlation. Regular participants can probably even point out the specific thread where things changed.
Do you see this as unfixable? Didn't the Ukraine thread show that some subjects deserve more respectful discussions? Wouldn't a massacre of our youth fall into that category of subjects?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Was post 22 respectful? Post 29? Post 30? Post 31?

[Lloyd]

Why are there separate threads, each with its own unique title, in this subforum when they all descend into reiterated bickering and character attacks on one another?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Good question.

A little research will reveal a strong correlation. Regular participants can probably even point out the specific thread where things changed.
Do you see this as unfixable? Didn't the Ukraine thread show that some subjects deserve more respectful discussions? Wouldn't a massacre of our youth fall into that category of subjects?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Was post 22 respectful? Post 29? Post 30? Post 31?
I didn't post those.

I'm not directing the request for civility in this thread solely at you, dneal. I thought my earlier statement made this clear. A thread discussing the killing of dozens of kids in an elementary school should earn better behavior than reflexive tit for tat postings. Making character assassinations of each other more important than discussing the loss of these kids is, to put it mildly, callous.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

To members on both sides - Why must you go after each other? Why not focus on such issues as (1) the incident (2) potential causes of this incident (3) what, if any, changes that need to occur (4) if the 2nd ammendment is being used or abused by the NRA (5) if the 2nd ammendment needs a rewrite or just better understanding ....

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes, to your question #4. America is subject to a giant toxic myth that independence, since it was once fought for by colonists who wanted to break free from England, is tied to arming the citizenry. We then put in an amendment to protect the right to arm oneself for the purpose of arming a militia against domestic or foreign attack. Since then America has fetishized this idea that arming oneself is intrinsic to the idea of freedom and manhood and America. The NRA and gun lobbyists have all enabled this distortion of what freedom and independence mean in terms of modern citizenry and whether weapons have anything to do with any real security or freedom or independence (outside of the military). This fetishization fuels a multi billion dollar industry and has many politicians shaking in their cowardly boots. Spineless jellyfish, indeed, unwilling to call out the industry of death for the blight on American society that it is.

[dneal]

Why are there separate threads, each with its own unique title, in this subforum when they all descend into reiterated bickering and character attacks on one another?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Good question.

A little research will reveal a strong correlation. Regular participants can probably even point out the specific thread where things changed.
Do you see this as unfixable? Didn't the Ukraine thread show that some subjects deserve more respectful discussions? Wouldn't a massacre of our youth fall into that category of subjects?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Was post 22 respectful? Post 29? Post 30? Post 31?
I didn't post those.

I'm not directing the request for civility in this thread solely at you, dneal. I thought my earlier statement made this clear. A thread discussing the killing of dozens of kids in an elementary school should earn better behavior than reflexive tit for tat postings. Making character assassinations of each other more important than discussing the loss of these kids is, to put it mildly, callous.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You dodged the question. Fine, let’s address your tit for tat posts with Bold then, since that seems to be your new grievance of convenience.

[Lloyd]

I wasn't engaging in tit for tat, and certainly not character attacks on Bold (I happen to have high respect for him despite our differing views). I was pointing out the erroneous use (misuse, abuse) of data to generate unsupportable hypotheses. The data misuse wasn't his; it was from a source he believe(s or d?) to be from an unbiased journalist.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

All I was saying was I heard an interesting interview that suggested something other than guns was to blame for this (coming for someone who studies this specific field). Obviously I haven’t read their book to verify the statistics.

I think we can all agree that the “why” of this situation is multifactorial. However the main stream media and its followers come off as believing it is isolated to guns (and I guess evangelicals too). This makes them look like they lack empathy and are only agenda orientated.

[Lloyd]

While I tend to agree, Bold, that our societal issues are the biggest issue we contend with, I don't agree with either the fake analysis from that writer nor that it has anything to do with single parenting.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

I wasn't engaging in tit for tat, and certainly not character attacks on Bold (I happen to have high respect for him despite our differing views). I was pointing out the erroneous use (misuse, abuse) of data to generate unsupportable hypotheses. The data misuse wasn't his; it was from a source he believe(s or d?) to be from an unbiased journalist.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Bold casually mentioned an interview he heard. You responded with a Snopes article discounting something he never cited. Snopes credibility is another issue, but I'll leave it at that.

Then you literally tit-for-tat posted statistic criteria.

You're literally tit-for-tat posting on this subject, slowly moving the goalposts each time.

[TSherbs]

On the Second Amendment: yes, I am all for repeal and then revision. I am all for a 10year buyback program, and then the outlaw of the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns of any kind, except by law enforcement and the military. A 10year graduated punishment system, where the punishment for possession becomes harsher over the years.

[TSherbs]

I am against the possession by the average citizen of any automatic or semiautomatic weapon. I am opposed to all private gun sales w/o background checks. Basically, I want guns in the hands of private citizens to be rare, highly regulated, and only for hunting by long barrel (and this too would be highly regulated).

[TSherbs]

I have held this position for 40 years and has nothing to do with Uvalde, or Sandy Hook, or Buffalo, or....

[Bold2013]

TS. We need more guns, especially after we defund the police, go easy on criminals, celebrate ‘peaceful’ protests, open our borders to the cartel, and see mental health issues climb nearly as high as inflation.

[dneal]

On the Second Amendment: yes, I am all for repeal and then revision. I am all for a 10year buyback program, and then the outlaw of the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns of any kind, except by law enforcement and the military. A 10year graduated punishment system, where the punishment for possession becomes harsher over the years.

And how did that work out in the places it was tried? Let's make it simple and just use Chicago as an example.

[Lloyd]

dneal - FYI, I will be trying my best to no longer respond on this thread to anything you post that is directed in accusatory tones at me.

While not for me, I can support 1-2 handguns per household and 12 rounds of ammunition as a form of self and property defense IF the owner is fully trained, passes all conditions (personal history, psych, etc.) and uses the latest security measures to safeguard the guns (locks and safes). They should need to submit annual verification of these qualifications to maintain the guns (a photo of the safe and locks with the registered guns and a dated signature would suffice). Anything more (hunting, sport shooting) should remain in an armory/facility of some form. Collectors of arms would need special means of securing their collections, and they would need to attain certification of their possessions as a collection.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Bold- why wouldn't 2 handguns be sufficient? This isn't the wild west.
From what I've read, many guns in Chicago came from out of state.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

TS. We need more guns, especially after we defund the police, go easy on criminals, celebrate ‘peaceful’ protests, open our borders to the cartel, and see mental health issues climb nearly as high as inflation.

"More guns" is already what happens every year, by the tens of millions per year. It's all that has ever happened. It's an addiction, with no awareness, fueled by fear, insecurity, and racism.

[Lloyd]

Does having more pens and inks make one a better writer?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I've said on other threads that I hope that some very smart lawyers find a way to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the statistically predictable use of their products in the commission of crimes, of all kinds, and for the cost to society of the damage that guns do. I believe that gun owners should have to pay into an insurance fund that defrays the costs to society for the health care and incarceration of all gun victims and criminals.

[TSherbs]

The idolatrous worship of guns in this country is a sign of the moral sickness in American culture.

[Bold2013]

Does having more pens and inks make one a better writer?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

No. But it sure would make one’s ‘manifesto’ look much more authentic (assuming you switch pens and inks throughout, preferably mid sentence)

[Bold2013]

The idolatrous worship of guns in this country is a sign of the moral sickness in American culture.

Sure this can be an idol but I wouldn’t use it as the litmus test for our country’s depravity.

[TSherbs]

dneal - FYI, I will be trying my best to no longer respond on this thread to anything you post that is directed in accusatory tones at me.

While not for me, I can support 1-2 handguns per household and 12 rounds of ammunition as a form of self and property defense IF the owner is fully trained, passes all conditions (personal history, psych, etc.) and uses the latest security measures to safeguard the guns (locks and safes). They should need to submit annual verification of these qualifications to maintain the guns (a photo of the safe and locks with the registered guns and a dated signature would suffice). Anything more (hunting, sport shooting) should remain in an armory/facility of some form. Collectors of arms would need special means of securing their collections, and they would need to attain certification of their possessions as a collection.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Two per household? Far too many, especially for the type of weapon that has a higher rate of criminal use and accidental damage, and suicidal efficiency. I say, no hand guns at all.

[Lloyd]

dneal - FYI, I will be trying my best to no longer respond on this thread to anything you post that is directed in accusatory tones at me.

While not for me, I can support 1-2 handguns per household and 12 rounds of ammunition as a form of self and property defense IF the owner is fully trained, passes all conditions (personal history, psych, etc.) and uses the latest security measures to safeguard the guns (locks and safes). They should need to submit annual verification of these qualifications to maintain the guns (a photo of the safe and locks with the registered guns and a dated signature would suffice). Anything more (hunting, sport shooting) should remain in an armory/facility of some form. Collectors of arms would need special means of securing their collections, and they would need to attain certification of their possessions as a collection.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Two per household? Far too many, especially for the type of weapon that has a higher rate of criminal use and accidental damage, and suicidal efficiency. I say, no hand guns at all.
I see your point. I'm thinking of those that feel a need of protecting themselves and their loved ones. In thinking that one per "parent"/adult and one filling of ammo is adequate. Anymore, and it's not for getting rid of a break-in or other "typical" threat. There's no victor in a blaze of gunfire.

What about 3D printable guns?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

.

What about 3D printable guns?



Oh my gosh, no. Criminalize them.

[Lloyd]

The idolatrous worship of guns in this country is a sign of the moral sickness in American culture.

Sure this can be an idol but I wouldn’t use it as the litmus test for our country’s depravity.
Who defines "depravity" (non-faith source, please) and how?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

dneal - FYI, I will be trying my best to no longer respond on this thread to anything you post that is directed in accusatory tones at me.

While not for me, I can support 1-2 handguns per household and 12 rounds of ammunition as a form of self and property defense IF the owner is fully trained, passes all conditions (personal history, psych, etc.) and uses the latest security measures to safeguard the guns (locks and safes). They should need to submit annual verification of these qualifications to maintain the guns (a photo of the safe and locks with the registered guns and a dated signature would suffice). Anything more (hunting, sport shooting) should remain in an armory/facility of some form. Collectors of arms would need special means of securing their collections, and they would need to attain certification of their possessions as a collection.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Who will abide by these proposals, and who will ignore them?

Handguns are (were, actually, since the McDonald v Chicago decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf)) illegal in Chicago, but available throughout Illinois and neighboring States. Criminals did not obey the law, which is why they ended up in Chicago anyway.

Central and South American cartels support gangs in the U.S. Will they follow the proposed gun laws? Or will they smuggle guns just as easily as they do drugs? Partial or total bans will not eliminate the possession of guns by criminals.

The situation in Uvalde is tragic. So was the Boston Marathon bombing, which used pressure cooker bombs. So was an SUV driven into a Christmas crowd in Waukesha. So was two planes flown into buildings in New York. So was the genocide in Rwanda.

Humans do horrible things with and without guns, even to school children.

Seven killed in random stabbing attack outside Chinese school (https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/seven-killed-in-random-stabbing-attack-outside-chinese-school/)
37 children injured in a knife attack at elementary school in China (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/asia/china-elementary-school-stabbing-intl-hnk/index.html)

From the second article:


Knife attacks in China, especially at schools, are not uncommon, with a number of similar attacks taking place in recent years.

In October 2018, a woman wielding a kitchen knife slashed at least 14 children at a kindergarten in the central city of Chongqing.

Nine students were killed at a middle school in Shaanxi province in April 2018 by a 28-year-old man who was later sentenced to death.

In 2017, 11 students were injured after a man climbed over the wall of a kindergarten with a knife and began attacking them.

Shall we ban knives? What about swords?

On 22 October 2015, 21-year-old Anton Lundin Pettersson attacked Kronan School in Trollhättan, Sweden, with a sword. He killed a teaching assistant and a male student, stabbed another male student and a teacher, and died later of the gunshot wounds he received during his apprehension. The second teacher who was wounded died in the hospital six weeks after the attack, on 3 December.

[TSherbs]

The idolatrous worship of guns in this country is a sign of the moral sickness in American culture.

Sure this can be an idol but I wouldn’t use it as the litmus test for our country’s depravity.
Who defines "depravity" (non-faith source, please) and how?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I would define one form of "depravity" as this: a cultural unwillingness to curb the manufacture and sale to ordinary citizens as young as 18 years old of instruments designed to make holes in human bodies using high-powered projectiles with high rates of mortality.

[TSherbs]

[QUOTE=TSherbs;366316][QUOTE=Lloyd;366308]
I see your point. I'm thinking of those that feel a need of protecting themselves and their loved ones.

This is an irrational and unfounded fear. We can't just permit the pollution of our culture with millions and millions of weapons designed to make holes in human bodies simply because we fear home invasions. There are other nation-wide solutions to this other than to engage in an arms race because you are worried for your family. To solve one fear we introduce another threat to our children: guns in the house 24 hours a day.

[Lloyd]

Who will abide by these proposals, and who will ignore them?

Handguns are (were, actually, since the McDonald v Chicago decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf)) illegal in Chicago, but available throughout Illinois and neighboring States. Criminals did not obey the law, which is why they ended up in Chicago anyway.

Central and South American cartels support gangs in the U.S. Will they follow the proposed gun laws? Or will they smuggle guns just as easily as they do drugs? Partial or total bans will not eliminate the possession of guns by criminals.

The situation in Uvalde is tragic. So was the Boston Marathon bombing, which used pressure cooker bombs. So was an SUV driven into a Christmas crowd in Waukesha. So was two planes flown into buildings in New York. So was the genocide in Rwanda.

Humans do horrible things with and without guns, even to school children.

Seven killed in random stabbing attack outside Chinese school (https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/seven-killed-in-random-stabbing-attack-outside-chinese-school/)
37 children injured in a knife attack at elementary school in China (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/asia/china-elementary-school-stabbing-intl-hnk/index.html)

From the second article:


Knife attacks in China, especially at schools, are not uncommon, with a number of similar attacks taking place in recent years.

In October 2018, a woman wielding a kitchen knife slashed at least 14 children at a kindergarten in the central city of Chongqing.

Nine students were killed at a middle school in Shaanxi province in April 2018 by a 28-year-old man who was later sentenced to death.

In 2017, 11 students were injured after a man climbed over the wall of a kindergarten with a knife and began attacking them.

Shall we ban knives? What about swords?

On 22 October 2015, 21-year-old Anton Lundin Pettersson attacked Kronan School in Trollhättan, Sweden, with a sword. He killed a teaching assistant and a male student, stabbed another male student and a teacher, and died later of the gunshot wounds he received during his apprehension. The second teacher who was wounded died in the hospital six weeks after the attack, on 3 December.
The towers and Boston don't apply as those were terrorist attacks on the US. Without large volume guns, it's hard (not impossible) to kill masses. I'm just trying to think of a way to reduce mass killings, not just a few at a time. Gun laws need to be federal, not locality based.
In some areas, I can see an individual making a case for 1-2 guns (inner-city, Louisiana after the flood, remote dwelling). Not enough for mass killings.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

Yeah more federal control, the feds never mess anything up.

[dneal]

I said “Humans do horrible things with and without guns…”. The towers and Boston do apply, as they are examples of horrible things done without guns.

It is in fact not hard to kill masses without guns. You just haven’t given it enough thought. You have to give it a lot of thought when you develop security plans. You consider successful attacks, like Oklahoma City or 9/11, and how unsuccessful attacks like Boston or Waukesha could have more successful. The truly bad guys are certainly thinking about it.

What are “large volume guns”?

How will you get criminals and crazies to comply with your proposal? The law abiding people aren’t the ones killing the masses.


I can see an individual making a case for 1-2 guns (inner-city, Louisiana after the flood, remote dwelling). Not enough for mass killings.

What did the Fort Hood shooter use?

[Lloyd]

I only said it's hard, not impossible. I'm still allowing every adult to have their own handgun. I'm restricting their number of bullets at one load (small volume). I'm just trying to reduce, not eliminate, the issue, both in frequency and scale. What do you propose instead (please refrain from party-based assaults)?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Yeah more federal control, the feds never mess anything up.

And here we go, foot dragging because of animosity toward federal control. Meanwhile, millions of more guns every year flood into bedrooms, kitchens, diningrooms, into streets, into businesses, into churches. To solve the problem of guns, we buy guns. To protect our guns, we buy guns. The world considers us gun-mad. They aren't wrong.

Yeah, the feds. Cuz we have fucked this up so much that that is what we get. It's clear that we can't trust all state legislatures to do what's right.

[TSherbs]

... I'm just trying to think of a way to reduce mass killings, not just a few at a time. Gun laws need to be federal, not locality based.
In some areas, I can see an individual making a case for 1-2 guns (inner-city, Louisiana after the flood, remote dwelling). Not enough for mass killings.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Currently, the definition of a"mass killing" is four or more deaths. Your 6-12 round limit provides plenty for that, if the shooter is particularly efficient and protected from counter assault. But I agree with your purpose to reduce the frequency and fatality counts.

[Chuck Naill]

Yet Abortion Movement Conservatives want the federal government to rule in their direction. Gun owners hold to the Second Ammendment while Pro Life want Constitutional rights removed for others.

As historians have written, there is a myth of the cowboy that many Gun Movement Conservatives cling never mind that over 30 percent of real cowboys were of African decent. This myth suggests they want to government intervention, they can care for themselves and fight their own battles, yet, they have benefitted from the Federal government through out American history. The white male lone wolf is a myth to which many males in the US cling. I suspect this is what I am seeing behind Bold's posts on this and other threads. This is no attack on him, but an observation that is quite familiar.

Someone said to me yesterday, what is it people want? The country is a mess and God is being taken out of everything. I think what people want is to not allow one deranged person have the ability to kill ten year olds and their teachers. Since deranged people cannot be eliminated, the only reasonable responses are to eliminate just anyone obtaining these firearms or banning them all together. This just common sense. If I drive a car I have to have a training and a licence. If I want to drive a semi, more training. Operating most any complicated piece of machinery requires knowledge and a certification. Yet, a deranged human of 18 can purchase a gun that puts them with an advantage over the police.

Also, families who fund these purchases are accessories to their actions.

Places who sell these weapons are also culpable.

Manufactures of these guns are also at fault for how they market their products. Make no mistake, a picture of a gun laying on a bible with a cross is clever if not genius tactic that the maker knows will resonate with those of the "cowboy myth" Gun Movement Conservatives, and who love Jesus.


The armed police in Texas, three of them, did nothing. They had guns. How many NRA members who think guns are the answer would be able explain?

As to people leaving out God in their lives, it is no wonder when you consider the immorality of religious leaders and followers throughout US history. They bought humans to do their work, later marginalized the former slaves throughtout the Bible Belt, and now seems confused as to why African Americans haven't pulled themselves up by their boot straps. As Doctor King said, "you don't tell a bootless man to pull himself up by his boot straps". However, those white "cowboy myth" Movement Conservatives actually think they are where they are because they have no benefit in being white or from the Federal Government. Plus, with the latest revelations about the Baptists, why would anyone want to be associated? Knowing a Bible verse does not matter if you are immoral and lack character, if you don't love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Lastly, it seems many think the Second Amendment means you can have a gun. It actually means you can have a gun for the benefit of the society and community. Perhaps the police in Texas just thought it only pertained to them being able to carry one.

[dneal]

I only said it's hard, not impossible. I'm still allowing every adult to have their own handgun. I'm restricting their number of bullets at one load (small volume). I'm just trying to reduce, not eliminate, the issue, both in frequency and scale. What do you propose instead (please refrain from party-based assaults)?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes, you said it's hard. I said it's not. Getting into detail on why is not prudent.

I'm not sure precisely what the issue is you're trying to reduce. I'll assume school shootings. Despite the media sensationalism, it's actually not that frequent. Calculate the number of schools, multiplied by the number of average days in a school year, for a simple denominator; and use events as the numerator.

It has increased significantly since the mid 90's, and although there are numerous resources Wikipedia's is useful because the data is in a table you can sort. Before 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(bef ore_2000)) and 21st Century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States).

Initially the increase appears to be related to gang violence, but with Columbine it changes. The question is: why? Household gun ownership has remained relatively constant - around 40%. Most studies measure from the 70's or 80's to the present. Availability doesn't appear to be a correlating factor. You could even buy new production, fully automatic weapons up until 1986 - and no one was shooting up schools with machine guns. Gun control schemes appear to be addressing a variable that isn't a root cause and is likely to have little effect (like "gun-free zones"), because the people that follow these laws aren't the ones shooting up schools or other places. Conversely, two places that have statistically no mass shootings are gun stores and gun shows.

The opposite of gun-restriction notions are things like allowing school personnel to be armed, and I think there is some objective merit - but that discussion gets ridiculed by one side just as gun control notions get ridiculed by the other. This topic is as (if not more) contentious as abortion.

I am focused on root cause, and have been looking at it since I was a psychology undergrad listening to one professor, whose expertise was psychopharmacology, rail on over-diagnosis of ADHD and over-prescription of psychotropics.

Since the mid 80s, the DSM III R and DSM IV greatly expanded the number and type of "disorders", with very questionable diagnostic criteria (the DSM 5 raises those issues and attempts to correct). New antidepressants and anti anxiety medications also were developed (SSRIs, for example) in the mid 80s. Essentially, we started diagnosing and drugging our children. Look at the ADHD rates in the U.S. compared to other western nations, and treatment. That begins around age 8-10. Other psychotropics are introduced around 12-14. In the mid 90s, the Columbines begin.

Unless something has changed recently, we can't test for "chemical imbalances" of neurotransmitters like we do for insulin; yet clinicians assert behavioral or mental problems are due to these. Prescriptions that alter serotonin, dopamine, etc... are given based on self-reporting.

These mass-shooting incidents are a wicked problem with decades of societal and technological variables we haven't begun to account for except in the most superficial ways. We have been messing around with brain chemistry in children, and it incidentally correlates very closely with the rise of random shootings. It's a reasonable place to investigate, and one we seem to refuse to for a variety of reasons.

[TSherbs]

Perhaps this is the way to deal with the Second Amendment, and perhaps will satisfy originalists: rewrite the Amendment to state that we have a right to bear the long-barrels and pistols that were available to the writers of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. No better, no worse, no faster to load, etc. Let's freeze the Amendment to exactly the then-current state of personal carry and hunting weapons (no cannons, etc). All other larger, more modern, more lethal weapons would be reserved for the military and law enforcement. In a 100 years (you must think long term on this), the country will have many fewer gun-related deaths per capita.

[Chuck Naill]

There is no doubt the framers didn’t mean modern military firearms. Even the famous lever action rifle and single shot Colt would have changed the wars of the era.

I agree with reservations for military grade firearms. It also requires gun owners to release them and do so for the greater good.

What really for me is the issue is that some think their rights are more important than others. That’s a sad commentary.

Slavery and late term abortion has had to de synthesize others. We can argue this or that, but either others matter or they don’t. As Brooks noted, morality is how we live and choose to value others. Character is one chooses to develop. Let’s say as a teen you did and said things now for which you are ashamed. The reason for the same is because of events or decisions that occurred for which it caused how you think of others and how you now treat them.

[Bold2013]

Dneal thanks for shedding some light on the issues from a different perspective.

[Bold2013]

Draconian gun laws to fix mass shootings is like taking heroine away from an addict. We need to get to the heart of the matter rather than treating it’s symptoms and virtue signaling.

[Chuck Naill]

Ban masks but not assault rifles…….lol! 🤫😂

[TSherbs]

Draconian gun laws to fix mass shootings is like taking heroine away from an addict.

Exactly. Time to take the guns away from this addicted country.

[Bold2013]

Ban masks but not assault rifles…….lol! 🤫😂

Stockpile them if they are your pursuit of happiness.

[Chuck Naill]

The addiction is to a cowboy white male myth. It never did exist. John Wayne’s role wasn’t a real person……

[Chuck Naill]

I find it sad or laughable that a doctor doesn’t support basic infection control, quotes the Bible, is unable to consider that an 18 year old with an assault rifle is the definition freedom, and has no regard for slaughtering 10 year old and their teachers. So much for being pro life .

[Bold2013]

I find it sad or laughable that a doctor doesn’t support basic infection control, quotes the Bible, is unable to consider that an 18 year old with an assault rifle is the definition freedom, and has no regard for slaughtering 10 year old and their teachers. So much for being pro life .

I find it more sad that you frequently resort to ad hominem statements, play both the victim/hero, and love being a ‘disciple’ of the Left.

[Chuck Naill]

I find it sad or laughable that a doctor doesn’t support basic infection control, quotes the Bible, is unable to consider that an 18 year old with an assault rifle is the definition freedom, and has no regard for slaughtering 10 year old and their teachers. So much for being pro life .

I find it more sad that you frequently resort to ad hominem statements, play both the victim/hero, and love being a ‘disciple’ of the Left.

I don’t beat around the bush. Whatever disciple you think you are, it ain’t working .

[Chuck Naill]

Justice Dept to investigate police response.
Good new!!

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/8q2qyc6.jpg

[Chip]

Screw John Wayne. I come from five generations of western ranchers. I worked as a cowhand, camptender, range fence and bridge foreman, grazing cop, and backcountry grazing patrolman, mostly on horseback and alone.

https://i.imgur.com/xAPXCOM.jpg

I never carried a f*cking gun. Never needed one, ever.

All the dickless wannabe cowboy realestate Rambo Jesus rapist a-holes make me sick.

[TSherbs]

Screw John Wayne. I come from five generations of western ranchers. I worked as a cowhand, camptender, range fence and bridge foreman, grazing cop, and backcountry grazing patrolman, mostly on horseback and alone.

I never carried a f*cking gun. Never needed one, ever.

All the dickless wannabe cowboy realestate Rambo Jesus rapist a-holes make me sick.

word

preach it

and nice stance!

[Chuck Naill]

BTW, I felt Jeff Bridges was a better Rooster Cogburn...LOL!!

[Chuck Naill]

Someone mentioned Heller the other day.
"Justices Scalia and Stevens clashed over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep a usable handgun at home, which meant the District of Columbia law prohibiting such possession was unconstitutional. Justice Stevens argued that the protections of the Second Amendment extended only to firearm ownership in conjunction with service in a “well-regulated militia,” in the words of the Second Amendment."

This is exactly as I would have interpreted, the same as Stevens.

"Kate believes that Justice Stevens’s dissent in Heller provided a better account of both the text and history of the Second Amendment and that in any event, the method of historical inquiry the majority prescribes should lead to the court upholding most gun safety measures, including the New York law pending before the Supreme Court. John believes that Heller correctly construed the original meaning of the Second Amendment and is one of the most important decisions in U.S. history. We disagree about whether Heller should be extended to protect citizens who wish to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and, if so, how states may regulate that activity — issues that the Supreme Court is set to decide in the New York case in the next month or so.

But despite our fundamental disagreements, we are both concerned that Heller has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws. In the 14 years since the Heller decision, Congress has not enacted significant new laws regulating firearms, despite progressives’ calls for such measures in the wake of mass shootings. Many cite Heller as the reason. But they are wrong."


"Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller. Some progressives, for example, have blamed the Second Amendment, Heller or the Supreme Court for atrocities like Uvalde. And some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues.

Neither is fair. Rather, we think it’s clear that every member of the court on which we clerked joined an opinion — either majority or dissent — that agreed that the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.

Justice Scalia — the foremost proponent of originalism, who throughout his tenure stressed the limited role of courts in difficult policy debates — could not have been clearer in the closing passage of Heller that “the problem of handgun violence in this country” is serious and that the Constitution leaves the government with “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller merely established the constitutional baseline that the government may not disarm citizens in their homes. The opinion expressly recognized “presumptively lawful” regulations such as “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” as well as bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” like schools, and it noted with approval the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Heller also recognized the immense public interest in “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/supreme-court-heller-guns.html

[dneal]

How do you know the author is correct in these characterizations? Have you read the decision and dissent?

[Chuck Naill]

What I posted were Scalia and Steven’s clerks. Stevens wrote the decent.

[dneal]

Did those clerks also write this?


So we're not asserting that our views on Heller are in any way authoritative

The decision is authoritative. You should give it a read, for the history lessons it contains, if nothing else.

-edit-

Stevens’ dissent is also in the link I posted earlier, by the way, as is Breyer’s.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, the clerks are the authors. The title is , “We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong”

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/yk5hgA8.jpg

[TSherbs]

Ouch, that's a tough one

[Lloyd]

https://thescotfree.com/health/surgeons-who-see-it-up-close-offer-ways-to-stop-gun-violence/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

https://thescotfree.com/health/surgeons-who-see-it-up-close-offer-ways-to-stop-gun-violence/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Great article. I support the recommendations.

[dneal]

https://thescotfree.com/health/surgeons-who-see-it-up-close-offer-ways-to-stop-gun-violence/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Great article. I support the recommendations.

From the article: "One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s."

More idiots babbling about stuff they're ignorant on.

What's a "high-velocity" weapon?
What's the difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger Ranch Rifle?

[Lloyd]

https://thescotfree.com/health/surgeons-who-see-it-up-close-offer-ways-to-stop-gun-violence/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Great article. I support the recommendations.

From the article: "One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s."

More idiots babbling about stuff they're ignorant on.

What's a "high-velocity" weapon?
What's the difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger Ranch Rifle?
I don't know. Is there a difference in the projectile released? They didn't say only AR-15. So, maybe that rifle would also be viewed in that restricted class in their proposal.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

There is caliber - diameter of the bullet.
There is the weight of the bullet measured in grains
Variables such as powder charge (and type), and barrel length, affect muzzle velocity.
You can calculate muzzle energy from the weight of the projectile and muzzle velocity.
There are various bullet designs and materials that affect various things - mainly penetration and expansion.

A 5.56 round has a muzzle velocity of about 3000 fps
A 12 guage slug has a muzzle velocity of around 1250 fps

It is illegal in most states to hunt deer with the former, but not the latter.

So why do these doctors focus on "high velocity"

[Lloyd]

There is caliber - diameter of the bullet.
There is the weight of the bullet measured in grains
Variables such as powder charge (and type), and barrel length, affect muzzle velocity.
You can calculate muzzle energy from the weight of the projectile and muzzle velocity.
There are various bullet designs and materials that affect various things - mainly penetration and expansion.

A 5.56 round has a muzzle velocity of about 3000 fps
A 12 guage slug has a muzzle velocity of around 1250 fps

It is illegal in most states to hunt deer with the former, but not the latter.

So why do these doctors focus on "high velocity"
Perhaps solely to simplify the discussion they stated the high velocity guns. But they did state that certain projectiles cause near impossible to treat damage while others cause more treatable wounds, and they were suggesting the restriction on the former.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

From the article: "A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds”.

How does the capacity, method of feeding, or action of the rifle cause extremely destructive tissue wounds?

[Lloyd]

From the article: "A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds”.

How does the capacity, method of feeding, or action of the rifle cause extremely destructive tissue wounds?
Perhaps those adjectives were used for added impact in the phrasing. Does a single round of an AK15 cause more damage that a .38? Or, maybe damage from a steady stream of bullets (high-capacity, rapidly discharged) have a higher likelihood of causing too much damage on any one. A super high rate could virtually cut someone on half.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Can you read this from Medscape?
"What an AR-15 Does to a Child's Body: Why Surgeons Can't Look Away"
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/974671



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-61679043

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

From the article: "A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds”.

How does the capacity, method of feeding, or action of the rifle cause extremely destructive tissue wounds?
Perhaps those adjectives were used for added impact in the phrasing. Does a single round of an AK15 cause more damage that a .38? Or, maybe damage from a steady stream of bullets (high-capacity, rapidly discharged) have a higher likelihood of causing too much damage on any one. A super high rate could virtually cut someone on half.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I do believe they were used for "added impact". Rhetorical nonsense to persuade the ignorant.

There is no "AK15", but I'll assume that's a typo and you meant "AR" The doctor in your video talks about permanent wound cavities vs temporary wound cavities. Which is a larger diameter: .223" or .357" (the actual size of .38 special)? Self defense rounds ("hollow points") of a .38 special can expand upwards to 1/2" - creating a permanent wound cavity twice the size of the AR.

A "steady stream" of non-expanding bullets, .22" in diameter, would require a belt fed machine gun (e.g. M249 SAW) and a stationary target. But hey, "super high rate" and "cut someone in half" sure sounds dramatic.

RE your medscape thing - a 39 minute video that began with hyperbolic nonsense nested under the guises of the "appeal to emotion and "appeal to authority" fallacies. It's one thing to (rightly) be outraged and emotional. It's another to let that determine decision making.

The video started out with the implication that there have been 27 mass school shootings this year - as he begins with "...discuss a horrific mass shooting that occurred..." followed by "This is the 27th school shooting this year...". There have only been 13 mass school shootings (https://reason.com/2022/05/26/uvalde-texas-mass-shooting-statistics-gun-crimes-misleading/). By the time the first doctor began his rant and demonstrating his ignorance - I was done listening.

If you want to read something more sensible, maybe start with something like this:

What We Know about Mass School Shootings—and Shooters—in the U.S. (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-about-mass-school-shootings-mdash-and-shooters-mdash-in-the-u-s/). Perhaps we should spend a little more effort on the perpetrator rather than rushing to decisions about the object. The perpetrator still has a multitude of other methods besides "assault rifles".

[Chuck Naill]

True, but you can't do as much damage.

[dneal]

True, but you can't do as much damage.

Wrong. See: Bath, Michigan.

[Chuck Naill]

Lol, wasn’t thinking about explosive devices. Wow, he killed 40 plus and mistakenly blew himself up in the process.

[Lloyd]

dneal- I posted that so you could hear their side, not necessarily mind. As for the "cut in half", I mean that the more capable the weapon (high speed, large capacity), the easier the "job" of putting many holes in many people in a given amount of time (until authorities arrive) and an resort job of fending of authorities.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

I know “their” side. Emotional, hyperbolic and ignorant; with preformed “common sense” conclusions and a refusal to consider anything else. We did the assault weapons ban. Clinton lost the House and Senate due in part to it. Had no effect, per the Obama era CDC, but here we are again.

Rand: Improving Gun Policy Science (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/improving-gun-policy-science.html)


Th roughout the course of the Gun Policy in America project, we consistently found inadequate evidence for the likely effects of different gun policies on a wide range of outcomes. This does not, of course, mean that the policies have no effects, but instead reflects the relatively scarce attention that has been focused on better understanding these effects. This is partly because, for the past two decades, the U.S. government has been reluctant to sponsor work in this area at levels comparable to its investment in other areas of public safety and health, such as transportation safety. But even among private research sponsors, research examining the effects of gun policies on officer-involved shootings, defensive gun use, and hunting and recreation—outcomes of interest to many stakeholders in the gun policy debate—is virtually nonexistent. Furthermore, data that would help researchers examine the effects of gun policies are often either not collected or not shared. Here, we review some of these challenges to the scientific study of gun policies and recommend ways to improve this body of research.

The thing they don’t include is mental health, because the APA doesn’t want to stigmatize it.

Ethan Crumley, the Oxford Michigan school shooter gave teachers a note of his ideations, even pleading “help me”.

Reuters - Michigan school shooting 'entirely preventable,' $100-million suit says (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/michigan-school-shooting-entirely-preventable-says-100-mln-federal-lawsuit-2021-12-09/)

I’m all for discussing solutions. I’m long past entertaining demands of single solutions while ignoring any other option besides bans. Again, gun ownership is the constant. We have to be open to looking at the other variables that could be causes. There are a few arguable outliers, but students shooting up schools didn’t start until Columbine.

[Chip]

Military-style weapons and ammunition are designed to inflict maximum tissue damage. Some slugs are designed to tumble and/or fragment on impact. No genuine hunter would use such a weapon or ammo. They are strictly for killing people: murder weapons. Holy relics of the psycho-right-wing fringe and the drug cartels.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

[dneal]

Wrong. Any bullet can tumble.

The 5.56mm and it's initial 55gr bullet allowed infantrymen to carry more ammunition. Basic load is 210 rounds instead of the 88 rounds WWII infantrymen carried with their M1 Garand.

Previous .30 caliber rounds used in the M1 and then M14 were 125-150gr, and much more lethal (again, which is why you can deer hunt with a 30-06 and .308, but not a 5.56). Current 5.56mm is designed to penetrate Russian soft body armor, and has been refined with the addition of steel cores and later tungsten tips. The problem arose that they just punch little holes in insurgents. After decades of complaints regarding the ineffectiveness 5.56, the U.S. Army is switching to 6.8mm.

The Hague convention forbids what you mention. Hunters use them (ballistic tip and hollow points) because they kill more quickly. Self defense rounds are hollow points because they're more effective (larger permanent wound cavity = more blood loss more quickly).

[Bold2013]

Clearly Dneal knows what he is talking about (maybe we should listen before stating our opinion or finding sources warning of “AK15s” as proof texts).

[Lloyd]

Clearly Dneal knows what he is talking about (maybe we should listen before stating our opinion or finding sources warning of “AK15s” as proof texts).
The AK15 is related to the AR47....I never claimed to know much about guns/rifles.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

At least the doctors are stating a need to deal with the public mental health issue AND gun control.... not treating this as one or the other.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Steve Jobs' text "prediction" isn't much better...

[dneal]

At least the doctors are stating a need to deal with the public mental health issue AND gun control.... not treating this as one or the other.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The biggest issue is that the main way mental health is addressed is through self-report on the ATF 4473. "Have you ever been committed or adjudicated..." etc...

I understand and sympathize with the APA's position on stigmatizing mental health. I would have no problem with mandatory inclusion of more serious mental health issues and prescription of psychotropics included in the NICS database. The specifics of that would of course need to be refined. Which psychotropics, how long a report would remain in the NICS, etc... for example.

I also do not see the issue with allowing teachers or faculty who choose to be armed. That gets immediate hyperbolic responses, just like we heard how the country would turn into the Wild West if we started allowing concealed carry. There is also concern about a teacher potentially shooting a student during an incident - but that seems nonsensical since if there's a mass-shooting event, students are already at risk (and probably more if the shooter's fire isn't being suppressed or attention distracted away from children). As an aside, bullet behavior around hard surfaces is not what most people think. Standing next to a wall or lying on the floor, for example, is a bad idea. It's better to stand a foot away from a wall, or crouch on the floor.

Anyway, the fact remains that mass shootings in gun shops and gun shows - the opposite of "gun free" zones - are extremely rare and statistically zero.

The Aurora Colorado shooter (good case for the mental health point) selected the specific target because of the signs declaring it was "gun free". There is a limited sample size, because most of these types kill themselves (and that appears to be their ultimate intent), or are killed by police.

[Bold2013]

At least the doctors are stating a need to deal with the public mental health issue AND gun control.... not treating this as one or the other.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

My real fear is that guns are taken away but the bigger issues of mental health are not fully addressed (As I said previously work needs to be done to determine why not just how).

[Bold2013]

At least the doctors are stating a need to deal with the public mental health issue AND gun control.... not treating this as one or the other.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The biggest issue is that the main way mental health is addressed is through self-report on the ATF 4473. "Have you ever been committed or adjudicated..." etc...

I understand and sympathize with the APA's position on stigmatizing mental health. I would have no problem with mandatory inclusion of more serious mental health issues and prescription of psychotropics included in the NICS database. The specifics of that would of course need to be refined. Which psychotropics, how long a report would remain in the NICS, etc... for example.

I also do not see the issue with allowing teachers or faculty who choose to be armed. That gets immediate hyperbolic responses, just like we heard how the country would turn into the Wild West if we started allowing concealed carry. There is also concern about a teacher potentially shooting a student during an incident - but that seems nonsensical since if there's a mass-shooting event, students are already at risk (and probably more if the shooter's fire isn't being suppressed or attention distracted away from children). As an aside, bullet behavior around hard surfaces is not what most people think. Standing next to a wall or lying on the floor, for example, is a bad idea. It's better to stand a foot away from a wall, or crouch on the floor.

Anyway, the fact remains that mass shootings in gun shops and gun shows - the opposite of "gun free" zones - are extremely rare and statistically zero.

The Aurora Colorado shooter (good case for the mental health point) selected the specific target because of the signs declaring it was "gun free". There is a limited sample size, because most of these types kill themselves (and that appears to be their ultimate intent), or are killed by police.

I like the idea of school police officers. Protect kids and show them good role models of authority.

[dneal]

Ideally, although often it seems to be more of a problem. Much of that is selection criteria and psychological screening. In layman's terms, you end up with a bully mall-cop.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

[22.1045-146/39.4.6]

data indicates mental health is not root of problem

comparison shows mental health similarities across discrete disparate organic populations

large scale firearm incidents near exclusive to organic population self-labelled as the united states

analysis indicates root is relationship between organic population and firearm as the primary solution

[Bold2013]

Ideally, although often it seems to be more of a problem. Much of that is selection criteria and psychological screening. In layman's terms, you end up with a bully mall-cop.

Well we need someone in the building who can respond appropriately (not sure I want that burden to fall on educators).

[dneal]

[22.1045-146/39.4.6]

data indicates mental health is not root of problem

comparison shows mental health similarities across discrete disparate organic populations

large scale firearm incidents near exclusive to organic population self-labelled as the united states

analysis indicates root is relationship between organic population and firearm as the primary solution

!WARNING!
!BOT DETECTED!
!INITIATING TROLL PROTOCOL!

[dneal]

Ideally, although often it seems to be more of a problem. Much of that is selection criteria and psychological screening. In layman's terms, you end up with a bully mall-cop.

Well we need someone in the building who can respond appropriately (not sure I want that burden to fall on educators).

I get that and I sympathize. It would need to be on a voluntary basis, and is a local issue.

The case in Florida of the SRO hiding outside, and the case of Uvalde, are not conclusive but they show the potential for problems.

The lack of data reinforces not rushing to conclusions or solutions.

A question I have is why we didn't need these previously? Seems we're not addressing the root cause.

[TSherbs]

At least the doctors are stating a need to deal with the public mental health issue AND gun control.... not treating this as one or the other.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The biggest issue is that the main way mental health is addressed is through self-report on the ATF 4473. "Have you ever been committed or adjudicated..." etc...

I understand and sympathize with the APA's position on stigmatizing mental health. I would have no problem with mandatory inclusion of more serious mental health issues and prescription of psychotropics included in the NICS database. The specifics of that would of course need to be refined. Which psychotropics, how long a report would remain in the NICS, etc... for example.

I also do not see the issue with allowing teachers or faculty who choose to be armed. That gets immediate hyperbolic responses, just like we heard how the country would turn into the Wild West if we started allowing concealed carry. There is also concern about a teacher potentially shooting a student during an incident - but that seems nonsensical since if there's a mass-shooting event, students are already at risk (and probably more if the shooter's fire isn't being suppressed or attention distracted away from children). As an aside, bullet behavior around hard surfaces is not what most people think. Standing next to a wall or lying on the floor, for example, is a bad idea. It's better to stand a foot away from a wall, or crouch on the floor.

Anyway, the fact remains that mass shootings in gun shops and gun shows - the opposite of "gun free" zones - are extremely rare and statistically zero.

The Aurora Colorado shooter (good case for the mental health point) selected the specific target because of the signs declaring it was "gun free". There is a limited sample size, because most of these types kill themselves (and that appears to be their ultimate intent), or are killed by police.

I like the idea of school police officers. Protect kids and show them good role models of authority.

I know a high school kid who got a school cop's gun out of the holster in the school. It was wrestled away from her before she could use it (probably on herself).

Guns in schools suck. Any and every gun. All of them. Just like guns in homes. Part of our sickness (thinking that we are safer in the presence of more guns) has now spread to thinking about schools.

[TSherbs]

At least the doctors are stating a need to deal with the public mental health issue AND gun control.... not treating this as one or the other.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Very sensible approach.

[Chip]

In most recent cases, armed security guards who confronted shooters with military-style weapons, body armor, etc. were killed before the massacre took place. The BS about a "good guy with a gun" is one of those RWW delusions.

[Bold2013]

In most recent cases, armed security guards who confronted shooters with military-style weapons, body armor, etc. were killed before the massacre took place. The BS about a" good guy with a gun" is one of those RWW delusions.

Maybe we need more than one.

[dneal]

Maybe Chip needs to provide data (as opposed to opinion pieces) to support his assertions, particularly in light of his previously demonstrated ignorance.

[dneal]

There are plenty of studies that show pro and con correlations of various aspects of the gun control debate, and plenty of refutations of any particular study.

HERE is the study President Obama tasked the CDC with in 2013 (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/1). What it demonstrates, if anything, is just how little we know about the issue - but "gun-grabbers" and "gun-nuts" run rampant with their "truth" nonetheless. It reinforces the Rand essay's argument for encompassing evaluation, which is unlikely to happen since the topic is hyper-partisan and (as mentioned earlier) easily as contentious as abortion.

For those with short attention spans, this Slate article (https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/handguns-suicides-mass-shootings-deaths-and-self-defense-findings-from-a-research-report-on-gun-violence.html) is a reasonably objective commentary on the study with 10 key takeaways. For the international reader, Slate is a left-leaning publication (see: Media Bias Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/) and All Sides (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart)) that I chose in order to prevent the usual accusations of "right-wing" partisanship.


Rethinking Gun Control
Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.

June 24th, 2013

Background checks are back. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden said that five U.S. senators—enough to change the outcome—have told him they’re looking for a way to switch their votes and pass legislation requiring a criminal background check for the purchase of a firearm. Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who led the fight for the bill, is firing back at the National Rifle Association with a new TV ad. The White House, emboldened by polls that indicate damage to senators who voted against the bill, is pushing Congress to reconsider it.

The gun control debate is certainly worth reopening. But if we’re going to reopen it, let’s not just rethink the politics. Let’s take another look at the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

3. We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns. According to the report, “In 2007, one estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294 million: ‘106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.’ ” This translates to nearly nine guns for every 10 people, a per capita ownership rate nearly 50 percent higher than the next most armed country. But American gun ownership is concentrated, not universal: In a December 2012 Gallup poll, “43 percent of those surveyed reported having a gun in the home.”

4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”

5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”

9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.

These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research that have been blocked by Congress over politics. Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.

[TSherbs]

In most recent cases, armed security guards who confronted shooters with military-style weapons, body armor, etc. were killed before the massacre took place. The BS about a" good guy with a gun" is one of those RWW delusions.

Maybe we need more than one.

No, we don't.

[Chip]

Maybe Chip needs to provide data (as opposed to opinion pieces) to support his assertions, particularly in light of his previously demonstrated ignorance.

Don't shovel that "data" crap. The articles I linked are based on published research. You wouldn't know what to do with raw data if you had it. Have you ever analyzed a data set?

In fact, your use of the term shows a profound and willful ignorance of how science proceeds.

Here's more to consider.

California Has America’s Toughest Gun Laws, and They Work

As in the “Swiss cheese model” of Covid prevention, a lot of small measures add up.

By Shawn Hubler
May 31, 2022

The grotesque toll of gun violence is again being debated in Congress. As Luis Ferré-Sadurní and I reported over the long weekend, states are not holding their breath.

Particularly this state: In ways that have tended to be underreported, California has significantly lowered gun deaths, Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, an emergency room doctor and longtime firearm violence researcher, told me this week.

“For the last 20, maybe even 25 years — except for the two years of the pandemic, which have increased homicides and suicides across the country — our rates of firearm violence have trended downward,” said Dr. Wintemute, who directs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento. “And this has been at a time when most of the rates in the rest of the country have gone up.”

California’s rate of firearm mortality is among the nation’s lowest, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, compared with 13.7 per 100,000 nationally and 14.2 per 100,000 in Texas, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported. And Californians are about 25 percent less likely to die in mass shootings, compared with residents of other states, according to a recent Public Policy Institute of California analysis.

I asked Dr. Wintemute how California is different. Here’s a lightly edited excerpt from our conversation, which took place on Memorial Day after his emergency room shift:

Just a couple of weeks ago, California had a mass shooting. By what measures are our policies a success?

You have to look at it on a population basis. We do have more mass shootings in California, but we’re also by far the largest state. I looked a while ago at the rates of firearm violence across the 21st century — homicide and suicide together — and the rest of the country was up, but California’s rates were so far down that the average was flat.

We always hear that nothing works, that even California’s strict gun laws are ineffective.

That’s because we evaluate policies one at a time, in isolation. The results for one policy might be mixed or even negative. But what California has done over a number of decades has been to enact a whole bundle of policies that I think work in synergy, to measurable effect.

It sounds like the “Swiss cheese model” public health experts have used to address Covid.

Yes. The idea is to prevent the holes in the policies from lining up. But if we rank the states, California’s rate of firearm violence ranks 29th out of 50 states for homicides and 44th for suicides.

Can you share some examples?

California has done a lot to prevent high-risk people from purchasing firearms. We’ve broadened the criteria for keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose a danger to themselves or others due to mental illness. If you’re convicted of a violent misdemeanor in California, you can’t have a gun for the next 10 years; that offense has to be a felony in most states.

We require background checks, and not just from licensed retailers; in most states, purchases from private parties require no background checks or record keeping of any kind. We have a system, that we’re evaluating now, for getting guns back from “prohibited persons” — people who have been convicted of violent crimes or who are facing domestic violence restraining orders. And we enforce these policies, unlike a lot of other states.

What else?

In the early 1990s, cheap handguns — “Saturday Night Specials” — were almost entirely manufactured around Los Angeles. It was a few companies making upward of 800,000 cheap handguns a year. So the state imposed standards for design and safety. One of the companies has since gone to Nevada. The rest went belly-up and no one else has come in to fill the gap.

What about gaps?

Every time California sets a new standard, the gun industry tries to outwit it. Unregulated ghost guns have become immensely popular here, precisely because we’re such a tightly regulated market. And the state program to recover guns from prohibited people has never had the level of funding it needs to do the whole job — there are only about 40 trained agents for the whole state and a backlog of at least 10,000 people whose guns need to be taken.

Overall, what could the rest of the country learn from California?

The lower the prevalence of ownership, the lower the rate of firearm violence — that’s been one of the most robust research findings for decades. Rates of gun ownership are lower here, in part because of this bundle of state measures. In the United States overall, something like 25 percent to 30 percent of individuals own guns. In California, it’s about 15 percent to 18 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/california-gun-laws.html?referringSource=articleShare

[Chip]

In most recent cases, armed security guards who confronted shooters with military-style weapons, body armor, etc. were killed before the massacre took place. The BS about a" good guy with a gun" is one of those RWW delusions.

Maybe we need more than one.

Delusions? You have more than enough.

[TSherbs]

Maybe Chip needs to provide data (as opposed to opinion pieces) to support his assertions, particularly in light of his previously demonstrated ignorance.

Don't shovel that "data" crap. The articles I linked are based on published research. You wouldn't know what to do with raw data if you had it. Have you ever analyzed a data set?

In fact, your use of the term shows a profound and willful ignorance of how science proceeds.

Here's more to consider.

California Has America’s Toughest Gun Laws, and They Work

As in the “Swiss cheese model” of Covid prevention, a lot of small measures add up.

By Shawn Hubler
May 31, 2022

The grotesque toll of gun violence is again being debated in Congress. As Luis Ferré-Sadurní and I reported over the long weekend, states are not holding their breath.

Particularly this state: In ways that have tended to be underreported, California has significantly lowered gun deaths, Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, an emergency room doctor and longtime firearm violence researcher, told me this week.

“For the last 20, maybe even 25 years — except for the two years of the pandemic, which have increased homicides and suicides across the country — our rates of firearm violence have trended downward,” said Dr. Wintemute, who directs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento. “And this has been at a time when most of the rates in the rest of the country have gone up.”

California’s rate of firearm mortality is among the nation’s lowest, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, compared with 13.7 per 100,000 nationally and 14.2 per 100,000 in Texas, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported. And Californians are about 25 percent less likely to die in mass shootings, compared with residents of other states, according to a recent Public Policy Institute of California analysis.

I asked Dr. Wintemute how California is different. Here’s a lightly edited excerpt from our conversation, which took place on Memorial Day after his emergency room shift:

Just a couple of weeks ago, California had a mass shooting. By what measures are our policies a success?

You have to look at it on a population basis. We do have more mass shootings in California, but we’re also by far the largest state. I looked a while ago at the rates of firearm violence across the 21st century — homicide and suicide together — and the rest of the country was up, but California’s rates were so far down that the average was flat.

We always hear that nothing works, that even California’s strict gun laws are ineffective.

That’s because we evaluate policies one at a time, in isolation. The results for one policy might be mixed or even negative. But what California has done over a number of decades has been to enact a whole bundle of policies that I think work in synergy, to measurable effect.

It sounds like the “Swiss cheese model” public health experts have used to address Covid.

Yes. The idea is to prevent the holes in the policies from lining up. But if we rank the states, California’s rate of firearm violence ranks 29th out of 50 states for homicides and 44th for suicides.

Can you share some examples?

California has done a lot to prevent high-risk people from purchasing firearms. We’ve broadened the criteria for keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose a danger to themselves or others due to mental illness. If you’re convicted of a violent misdemeanor in California, you can’t have a gun for the next 10 years; that offense has to be a felony in most states.

We require background checks, and not just from licensed retailers; in most states, purchases from private parties require no background checks or record keeping of any kind. We have a system, that we’re evaluating now, for getting guns back from “prohibited persons” — people who have been convicted of violent crimes or who are facing domestic violence restraining orders. And we enforce these policies, unlike a lot of other states.

What else?

In the early 1990s, cheap handguns — “Saturday Night Specials” — were almost entirely manufactured around Los Angeles. It was a few companies making upward of 800,000 cheap handguns a year. So the state imposed standards for design and safety. One of the companies has since gone to Nevada. The rest went belly-up and no one else has come in to fill the gap.

What about gaps?

Every time California sets a new standard, the gun industry tries to outwit it. Unregulated ghost guns have become immensely popular here, precisely because we’re such a tightly regulated market. And the state program to recover guns from prohibited people has never had the level of funding it needs to do the whole job — there are only about 40 trained agents for the whole state and a backlog of at least 10,000 people whose guns need to be taken.

Overall, what could the rest of the country learn from California?

The lower the prevalence of ownership, the lower the rate of firearm violence — that’s been one of the most robust research findings for decades. Rates of gun ownership are lower here, in part because of this bundle of state measures. In the United States overall, something like 25 percent to 30 percent of individuals own guns. In California, it’s about 15 percent to 18 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/california-gun-laws.html?referringSource=articleShare

Common sense. Thx for posting this.

[TSherbs]

I like the idea of school police officers. Protect kids and show them good role models of authority.

What did you mean by this? How is a man with a gun in a school "a good role model of authority"? A man with a gun in a school is not a "role model of authority." That man would be either an attacker bent on murder, or another whose role is to intimidate using the threat of injury and/or death. We know that guns in schools cannot prevent killings from happening. They could limit them, perhaps, but only after several deaths have already occurred, and only if the attacker does not disable or kill the protective person first (which happens half the time, we read). So, the guard with a gun is really there mostly as an intimidation factor, to suggest that the consequences of an attack will be lethal. But, as we also learned, over half of the cases of attacks at schools (and in several other cases also), the intent is to kill and then commit suicide (by one's own trigger or that of the guard). Intimidation has no effect in these cases; it is even part of the plan.

No, this is not a "good role model of authority." These "officers" do have other roles that they engage in every day at schools and can be valuable to the school community. But this has nothing to do with their guns. It is despite them.

Our society and our schools would both be better off without the ubiquitous presence and threat of gun violence nearly everywhere we go. It is a national sickness that our country has not yet had the courage to rid itself of.

[dneal]

Don't shovel that "data" crap. The articles I linked are based on published research. You wouldn't know what to do with raw data if you had it. Have you ever analyzed a data set?

So analyze some data, smart guy, instead of shitposting.

All I see is you copying and pasting opinion pieces. Have you ever formulated a post with a thesis and supporting points, and without the vitriol?

[Chip]

Another question for Dr. Science.

If data on the problem is so necessary, why have the Republican gun-whores in Congress consistently blocked attempts to have the CDC do research on guns, gun violence, and gun injuries?

Could it be that they (and their NRA bribemasters) know what the results would show?

Under extreme public pressure, they have at last budged ever so slightly.

Here's a quick screenshot:

https://i.imgur.com/26UHzAG.jpg

[dneal]

So you know how to use a search engine. That's a start!

Unfortunately, you're still stuck on op-eds. C'mon Chip, let's see that data-analyzing brain in action.

Or are you as much of an expert on that as you are bullets?

[Chip]

So you know how to use a search engine. That's a start!

Unfortunately, you're still stuck on op-eds. C'mon Chip, let's see that data-analyzing brain in action.

Or are you as much of an expert on that as you are bullets?

You're a sad case, amigo.

Incidentally, as a US senator Ted Cruz (TX) earns $174,000 per year, while the NRA paid him $176,274.

[dneal]

I'm the sad case?

Curious.

I'm not the self-proclaimed writer that is unable to craft a paragraph of thoughts that don't consist of vitriol and rhetoric.

I'm not the guy who thinks posting guns and crosses, and ridiculing christians (which I'm not) is a worthwhile contribution.

Should I continue?

[Lloyd]

Boys... why not show focus out of respect for this thread's topic, the massacre of children, and start a new thread specifically for shouting derogatory names at each other?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

There you go with the hall-monitor attitude again. There are a few folks around here with the level of credibility to pull it off. You ain't one of 'em.

[TSherbs]

Boys... why not show focus out of respect for this thread's topic, the massacre of children, and start a new thread specifically for shouting derogatory names at each other?

I already have done this. Months ago.

[Lloyd]

There you go with the hall-monitor attitude again. There are a few folks around here with the level of credibility to pull it off. You ain't one of 'em.
If this topic, or any topic here, matters, why let it devolve into childish name-calling versus taking the "call and response" into its own thread? It's like taking a fight outside the bar to let the other patrons continue their intended "goal" (intoxication or discussions).

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

Boys... why not show focus out of respect for this thread's topic, the massacre of children, and start a new thread specifically for shouting derogatory names at each other?

I already have done this. Months ago.
Is there a sticky thread for personal attacks?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I'll bump it now

[Lloyd]

I'll bump it now
Looking at the end of that thread, it doesn't look like it has been used for the application that I was suggesting.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I'll bump it now
Looking at the end of that thread, it doesn't look like it has been used for the application that I was suggesting.


Well no shit, Lloyd. All threads morph here. Usually into ad hominem bullshit. Sometimes into comedy. Sometimes into recipes, or pictures of turtles.

Rarely into art.

[TSherbs]

The only way to help, I have learned, is not to respond to certain posts. Sometimes that is challenging. But I have found nothing else that works. I made that thread to try to help. It was, perhaps, naive, but there it is.

[Lloyd]

Perhaps, the only threads that can end up in amicable discussions are those that begin in acrimonious postings. We should start all threads with the tossing about of derisive epithets at each other. Then, they might reach their desired result. 🙄

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

like reverse psychology

the anti-de-evolution of thread intelligence

:)

[Lloyd]

like reverse psychology

the anti-de-evolution of thread intelligence

:)
I know, it flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, but it may work in this crazy-ass forum.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Boys... why not show focus out of respect for this thread's topic, the massacre of children, and start a new thread specifically for shouting derogatory names at each other?

Okay with me. Thanks.

[Lloyd]

Interesting article discussing two sides of an approach used to confiscate guns from individuals potentially at risk to either themselves or society - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/nyregion/red-flag-law-shootings-new-york.html

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Paywall.

[Lloyd]

Paywall.
Here's a download into a PDF http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/629d61568331d/NYT_article.PDF


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Pretty balanced article.

The extremely pro-gun side hates this, and argues it's a violation of due process. As long as it's a court order, I'm ok with "red-flag" laws in general; although I don't know if a specific law would need to be written to allow a judge to temporarily confiscate firearms. I would like to see some sort of deadline provision to prevent abuse - like the proceed after 3 days provision for background checks*

*If NICS doesn't respond to a background check, the dealer may complete the transfer after 3 business days. This assures the public that an administration can't "drag their feet" in order to limit sales. If a denial is issued after the 3 days, the BAFTE can recover the firearm.

[Lloyd]

Pretty balanced article.

The extremely pro-gun side hates this, and argues it's a violation of due process. As long as it's a court order, I'm ok with "red-flag" laws in general; although I don't know if a specific law would need to be written to allow a judge to temporarily confiscate firearms. I would like to see some sort of deadline provision to prevent abuse - like the proceed after 3 days provision for background checks*

*If NICS doesn't respond to a background check, the dealer may complete the transfer after 3 business days. This assures the public that an administration can't "drag their feet" in order to limit sales. If a denial is issued after the 3 days, the BAFTE can recover the firearm.
While 3 days is too short, I agree with the general idea.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

On *more* SROs in schools as a solution to school gun violence:

https://youtu.be/KgwqQGvYt0g

It's John Oliver, and it's 26 minutes long

[Chuck Naill]

He said the problem is, “anyone can get a gun”! That’s true. That is the issue. Anyone!!! Even a felon can own a gun here if confected for a crime less than a year in prison. Can’t vote for life.

[dneal]

On *more* SROs in schools as a solution to school gun violence:

https://youtu.be/KgwqQGvYt0g

It's John Oliver, and it's 26 minutes long


Holy shit, that is selective...

Kinda delicious that 26 minutes of selective hyperbole contains the accusation of selectivity.

[dneal]

He said the problem is, “anyone can get a gun”! That’s true. That is the issue. Anyone!!! Even a felon can own a gun here if confected for a crime less than a year in prison. Can’t vote for life.

Wrong.

ATF Form 4473 question 21C:

Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?


The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:


convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

[Lloyd]

Thanks, dneal. Any idea how tightly that is maintained?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

https://www.lucklaw.net/felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm

[Chuck Naill]

“Alabama state law prohibits pistol possession by anyone convicted of a violent felony. This means that not every felony offense will disqualify you from possessing a firearm under state law (though you would still be prohibited under federal law).Mar 25, 2021”

[TSherbs]

These felony restrictions are not nearly enough. No shit, felons shouldn't get guns. That's like a kindergarten level response. Duh.

What are we going to do about the rest of America? You know, all those non-felons who become felons by turning guns on people (children included) and putting holes in them? Just throw out hands up and say, "Jeez, we can't further restrict gun ownership cuz of that 2nd amendment about militia armament"?

[dneal]

Thanks, dneal. Any idea how tightly that is maintained?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Not sure what you mean. There are the occasional problems, like an issue with DOD (the Air Force) not reporting a domestic violence charge (see: Lautenberg Amendment) - which would have prevented the Sutherland Springs shooter from passing a NICS check. Mental health data is not reported.

It does seem to do a decent job preventing felons from purchasing. Data shows the majority steal their guns, or have a friend/family member etc... do a straw purchase (which is illegal - and one of the things that never get prosecuted).

[Lloyd]

If the Gun Control Act requirements for ownership (not just purchasing) that dneal stated were implemented AND efforts were made for reporting other's (including loved ones) potential risks, most of these incidents would not have happened. Society needs to praise and, if need be, protect those who report.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

No one can ready the second amendment and think it means a right to own a gun.

[dneal]

THIS ARTICLE (https://medium.com/@yishan/you-cannot-regulate-guns-unless-you-know-how-to-use-one-d129d0a82974#.etmljzqy0) is from a liberal who doesn't believe in the second amendment, but owns guns.

He gets a few things wrong, like when automatic weapons were banned. I don't agree with his assertion that you need to be "intimately familiar", but his overarching point is valid. If you want to regulate guns, or have a conversation about them, you should first have some idea what you're talking about.

Worth the 5-10 minutes it takes to read it. Here's an excerpt:


You Need To Know How To Use Guns If You Want To Be Able to Regulate Them
I am a liberal who owns guns.

Yishan Wong
Jun 21, 2016


I own five handguns and four rifles — one which I built myself from parts. It was fairly easy and a lot of fun, as I am an engineer by training.

I used to run a very popular internet forum [Reddit]. In that job, I witnessed a great diversity of opinions. I learned one big thing: no matter how unreasonable you think your opponent is, he knows many important things that you do not, and you need to understand those things to have any hope of reaching an agreement.

Many blue state liberals feel an increasing sense of helplessness when confronted with another mass shooting. After every shooting, no new legislation is passed and research even shows that gun laws tend to loosen as a result. During Obama’s time in office, over 100 million new guns have been sold. What can you do?

Well, I am here to tell you the first thing you need to do if you want meaningful gun control legislation to be passed in America.

If you want to personally do something that will help, here it is:

You Must Learn How To Use a Gun

Sounds crazy, right?

Almost every gun control advocate I know hates guns and wants nothing to do with them. They are vaguely (or very) afraid of them, and believe that if they fire a gun or buy one, they will suddenly become a gun nut or turn evil.

That is nonsense. You need to understand guns intimately if you want to regulate them.

This kind of thinking is common sense when it comes to making laws about anything else, yet somehow it flies out the window when it comes to regulating something as simple and dangerous as guns.

Being a gun owner who doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment is really lonely. My liberal friends react with a sort of politely sanctimonious horror to learn that I own all these weapons. My gun friends think it’s absurd and despicable that I can be into guns but not support the Second Amendment. But it gives me a very special insight into the gun debate, which is this: many gun owners would be willing to support reasonable gun control but they will not have a conversation with gun control liberals because without exception, every time you open your mouth to speak about guns, you reveal that you know absolutely nothing about how guns work.

Do you think it’s reasonable for old white men who say things like “the female body has ways of shutting that down” to make laws about abortion and contraception?

Do you think it’s reasonable for people who have their emails printed out for them to make laws about encryption standards and internet governance?

Do you think it’s reasonable for people to make traffic laws and emissions standards if they’ve never owned or driven a car, or even ridden in one?

That is the kind of thing you are expecting when you want to regulate guns but have never used one in your life.

---snip---

Simple Things About Guns That Every Gun Person Knows That Every Gun Control Advocate Doesn’t

I’m going to present a series of misconceptions that you probably believe. What’s interesting about these is that without exception, almost every gun owner will get these right, whereas almost every non-gun-owning gun control advocate will get them wrong (apologies in advance to gun people who read this; I will be glossing over minor technicalities).

I’ll explain why each one is wrong, and offer an analogy to familiar liberal issues often aligned with gun control.

1. Which is more powerful, a WW2 rifle, or the modern M16?

Which one of these is the more powerful rifle?

You would probably say the M16. You’d be wrong.

The WW2-era M1 Garand rifle fires a larger bullet with nearly twice the muzzle energy of the modern M16. (The reason we use the M16 today is due to other characteristics relevant to battlefields and military operations, beyond the scope of this piece) A round fired from an M1 Garand can tear through multiple targets while the M16 cannot.

Why does this matter? Because it leads people to say things like the AR-15 (the civilian model of the M16) is “the deadliest rifle” or to misunderstand how it’s not appropriate for hunting. That’s true that the AR-15 is not appropriate for hunting, but not because it’s a scary military rifle — it’s because it’s underpowered.

Making this kind of error because of assumptions you think are reasonable but really aren’t is like insisting that abstinence-only programs prevent teen pregnancy. They don’t.

You’re letting plausible-seeming assumptions lead you to be grossly misinformed about how and why things work and the many factors involved.

He goes on with comments on silencers, hollow points and whatnot. The particulars aren't that important, but once you start asserting what "should" be done - and it's clear you don't know anything about the thing we "should" be doing something about, your argument falls on deaf ears. I don't mean that forum-wise, but as an example of why the national debate is so fucked up.

[Lloyd]

Thanks, dneal. At least for me, I accept that anyone who passes the requirements you listed earlier should be able to own whatever they like provided they can safeguard their "armory" and can be annually assessed (by who? ) to maintain ownership. As for what surviving arms should be verboten, I'd want others to decide if any should be banned. Personally, I'm more concerned about firing rate and quantity of bullets than the stopping power per bullet. If an individual can only fire one cannonball per hour, who cares?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Seems a little snarky to me.

Solid cannonballs were mainly used in naval battles. Most were fused and exploded. "The bombs bursting in air", for example, were naval mortars fired at Fort McHenry. Maybe you're ok with folks shooting exploding projectiles. I'm not.

[TSherbs]

What "should be done" is that 2/3 of the US Congress and then 3/4 of the states of the United States of America should repeal and then revise the 2nd Amendment to make America no longer the repository of the largest arsenal on the planet of privately owned ballistic weaponry among the citizenry (double the per-capita ownership than the #2 nation on the list).

What "should be done" is that the President should appoint more Supreme Court judges open to the possibility of permitting additional regulation of gun ownership.

What "should be done" is that the US should end its addiction to the mythology of masculine indepence and righteousness via the power of putting holes in other humans.

What should end is the vicious cycle of errant belief that more guns (unlimitted access and ownership) means more safety.

What should end is the gross immoral marketing of guns to men, women, and young adults that modern gun ownership is somehow quintessentially American and central to our identity and the country's safety and future.

The obscene over-saturation of weapons designed to make holes in other human beings is another form of pollution (these hundreds of millions of guns also feed the black-market sales, and will for decades to come) are also like non-biodegrabable plastics that will be stuck in our cultural landscape for decades. What will ever become of them all? In how many households will these accumulate for the next 50 years, as the inductry also tries to manufacture and sell hundreds of millions more to accumulate in closets, basements, under bed matresses, glove compartments, tucked in pants, under arms, or just plain worn on holsters in full view? How many desk drawers? How many men (mostly) will clean and caress and fondle them, dreaming of a sense of security and legitimacy, seduced by the destructive penetrating power of those projectiles?

[Chuck Naill]

Meanwhile, back to the topic. Limiting access will most certainly change the outcome. Gun owners are beginning to realize the crazies showing up at demonstrations are the biggest threat toward their perceived right to own whatever they can afford. These folks need to follow through and vote for people who believe in common sense gun laws and regulations. Trumpians are going to give anyone anything to get a vote, no matter how many 9 year olds are killed. That we even need to be having this conversation is crazy. How can you be pro life and leave 4th graders unprotected by a mentally deranged 18 year old and local law enforcement that listen at the door?

If this means I am liberal, I am liberal. I think more likely I am a non Movement Conservative.

[Chuck Naill]

If you just had to have an assault rifle, would you submit to a complete psychological background evaluation, a 30 day waiting period, and an extensive training period?

[Chuck Naill]

Heavily armed officers waited an hour .
So much for a good guy with a gun

[Lloyd]

Heavily armed officers waited an hour .
So much for a good guy with a gun
Of course the problem was that there weren't MORE heavily armed good guys, including heavily armed teachers, custodians, and lunch ladies.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

The correct answer is they were not good enough.

[Lloyd]

The correct answer is they were not good enough.
Is anyone....outside of a movie character?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

There are some that are gooder than others

[Chuck Naill]

Is the Dolly Llama more gooder?

[Lloyd]

Llamas are good, but they don't use guns. Their hoofs can't work the trigger.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

What about Dolly?

[Lloyd]

Jolly ol' Dolly is a Llama. A hoofed good guy that can't work a gun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Or change a diaper

[Lloyd]

Or change a diaper
No changing diapers nor reason to own a gun? So, being hoofed isn't a handicap; it's an asset.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

I'd guess two things were in play. First, the police were simply afraid of being shot.

Second, there's a sort of paralysis when a group is hit with the need to make a quick decision, and no one will risk it. I saw that happen while fighting wildfires.

[dneal]

He's got a point.

New Rule: Hollywood's Culture of Violence


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebg2YnBj9II

[Lloyd]

He's got a point.

New Rule: Hollywood's Culture of Violence


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebg2YnBj9II
100% agree! That and video games, too.
I wonder which came first, my pacifism or my preference for b/w comedies of the '20s-'40s. The only violent movies I've ever been into were the Bruce Lee/Sonny Chiba/Jackie Chan/Kurosawa martial arts movies...which didn't have guns. The gangster, war, and crime movies I watch the most of are pre-1960, when the violence was implied or brief. Up to the age of 20, males (I can't speak for females) want to emulate their silver-screen heros. That's why I developed a Groucho-like sense of humor (and without a laughing delivery).

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™