Another Shooting

[Blazers46]

Shooter. Motive. Victims.

Enraged Patient Bought Gun 3 Hours Before Tulsa Hospital Massacre

Michael Louis, 45, killed four people and himself after complaining repeatedly about back pain following surgery, Tulsa police said.

www.thedailybeast.com

I think its safe to say we need at least some sort of waiting period. Sadly these mass random shootings are a bit contagious. Judging by where society is it seems a bit more easier to catch this "cold".

 

[Rockin’Irish]

I think a fair waiting period, special licensing for anything past pistols/standard single shot rifles/shotguns and maybe some minimum age changes as well. Better mental health awareness/treatment is huge but there will always be people that want to lash out at society.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Sadly, our nation is run by extremists on both sides of the aisle. There is a total lack of trust. Even if there was, any proposed concessions to the other side is met with extreme responses of "they aren't a real democrat" "republican in name only" blah blah blah.

What is the result? Complete nonsensical responses to common sense propositions on issues like abortion or gun reform. Neither side wanting to give an inch. So we end up with people claiming they fully support abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth and 2nd amendment folks claiming there should be zero restrictions related to guns.

 

[Blazers46]

Sadly, our nation is run by extremists on both sides of the aisle. There is a total lack of trust. Even if there was, any proposed concessions to the other side is met with extreme responses of "they aren't a real democrat" "republican in name only" blah blah blah.

What is the result? Complete nonsensical responses to common sense propositions on issues like abortion or gun reform. Neither side wanting to give an inch. So we end up with people claiming they fully support abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth and 2nd amendment folks claiming there should be zero restrictions related to guns.

Politicians appease their bases. Moving on a topic loses votes. A democrat will never applaud (or vote for) a Ted Cruz for moving on abortion or guns. I am just not a fan of party politics because of this. I am a Republican (surprise) which means people automatically assume things... like thinking I hate gays just because I don't want my kids exposed to their "love" as a 1st grader.

 

[Irish#1]

The NRA also pumps so much money into the politicians pockets they're afraid of losing their support if they vote for any type of restriction.

 

[drayer54]

The NRA also pumps so much money into the politicians pockets they're afraid of losing their support if they vote for any type of restriction.

Wrong. Gun control billionaires are outspending NRA by a large margin. NRA has taken a beating in the last few years and much of it is self inflicted.

 

[NDRock]

Sadly, our nation is run by extremists on both sides of the aisle. There is a total lack of trust. Even if there was, any proposed concessions to the other side is met with extreme responses of "they aren't a real democrat" "republican in name only" blah blah blah.

What is the result? Complete nonsensical responses to common sense propositions on issues like abortion or gun reform. Neither side wanting to give an inch. So we end up with people claiming they fully support abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth and 2nd amendment folks claiming there should be zero restrictions related to guns.

Pretty much this. The problem with the internet and 24 hour news cycle is people are always watching. Politicians really can’t work together and come up with solutions because their fanatical bases lose their minds. Impossible to compromise anymore. Don’t see it changing anytime soon.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Savage... and true.

 

[irishff1014]

2 more shootings today. One in Wisconsin at a funeral that 5 people were shot. Probably won't hear much because it sounds like a gang ordeal and doesn't meet the agenda.

A church shooting in Iowa 3 dead including the shooter.

 

[Rockin’Irish]

It’s also a good thing toy guns have essentially been outlawed to make sure our youth weren’t corrupted by playing with them as kids. That was a real game changer.

 

[Bishop2b5]

It’s also a good thing toy guns have essentially been outlawed to make sure our youth weren’t corrupted by playing with them as kids. That was a real game changer.

That's baloney. Toy guns were never the culprit. Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd were. They normalized gun violence and screwed up multiple generations. Mel Blanc is the voice of evil and murder in our world.

edit: I didn't think anyone would misinterpret this, but apparently someone did. It's 100% sarcasm. I was attempting to poke fun at the people who think WB cartoon characters are promoting violence.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I thought banning realistic looking toy guns was to decrease the chances of officers mistaking a toy gun for a real gun. Nothing related to “corruption”.

 

[Rockin’Irish]

I thought banning realistic looking toy guns was to decrease the chances of officers mistaking a toy gun for a real gun. Nothing related to “corruption”.

That was indeed part of the reasoning but another part of the perspective was that it could lead to kids becoming numb to violent behavior. Just like Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam looked at the same way. It’s ironic that the same kids can play violent video games using virtual reality but damn Elmer and Sam are just too much………

 

[Bishop2b5]

That was indeed part of the reasoning but another part of the perspective was that it could lead to kids becoming numb to violent behavior. Just like Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam looked at the same way. It’s ironic that the same kids can play violent video games using virtual reality but damn Elmer and Sam are just too much………

Exactly. The people who think Elmer and Sam are encouraging violence are the same twits who laugh at the suggestion that violent video games are a problem.

 

[Irish#1]

Wrong. Gun control billionaires are outspending NRA by a large margin. NRA has taken a beating in the last few years and much of it is self inflicted.

They may be, but the NRA is still pumping money to the politicians.

But in 2019, the NRA spent $3.22 million to benefit the political campaigns of senators who oppose gun safety legislation. In 2020, they spent $2.20 million.

 

[NDohio]

Wrong. Gun control billionaires are outspending NRA by a large margin. NRA has taken a beating in the last few years and much of it is self inflicted.

The NRA also pumps so much money into the politicians pockets they're afraid of losing their support if they vote for any type of restriction.

Both of these statements can be true. Pro-gun politicians still receive a lot of money from the NRA. Anti-gun politicians receive a lot of money from gun control billionaires.

 

[drayer54]

Both of these statements can be true. Pro-gun politicians still receive a lot of money from the NRA. Anti-gun politicians receive a lot of money from gun control billionaires.

NRA has lost a lot of influence. They have been targeted by politically motivated AG in NY and have been terribly mismanaged. Their contributions relative to other large entities isn't that big. They also have been pushing in Lean R races vice toss ups, which I don't get.

The anti-gun groups spend money better, IMO. They will even spend money attacking pro-gun candidates on issues completely unrelated to guns where their narrative doesn't fly.

 

[Straussy]

I also asked him this question and am still waiting on his solution.

I'll engage with you when you seem interested in a good faith discussion. I haven't seen anything to that end in this thread, so feel free to not respond to anything I post until you are.

Curious to what your solution would be.

I wish there were a solution. I think there are so many factors at play that it's something that needs to be attacked from multiple angles. Mental Health. Culture. Guns. No one looking at one aspect, or always looking away from one aspect. Gun advocates are passionate, but I think (and polling seems to indicate) there's a lot of room for people to agree on things. I badly want everyone to work together to help craft legislation that can help reduce risks for gun violence.

Before getting specifically to gun policy, I think people are right when they point to a need for better assessment, treatment, and support of mental health issues. I don't know how that's compatible with our country's current model of healthcare. Reading the linked Sandy Hook report hammers home the patchwork nature of mental health treatment and the difficulty of compelling treatment in our current environment.

I'm interested in quick wins that can be made hardening schools but expect purpose-built schools have a worse cost-benefit compared to other interventions. I don't know that's it's feasible to harden much else in the way of public gathering spaces.

I think the bulk of school-focused resources would be better invested in mental health support for students. This could serve a dual purpose of providing light direct support to all students and also help start a larger process to identify and "triage" (for lack of a better word) those students who need more help. For all the advantages they have, I also think American kids have a very difficult road to hoe with the pervasive and psychologically exploitative nature of social media, among the other challenges of our times.

I have a hard time thinking that arming teachers makes much sense. Beyond the economics of training and the potential danger introduced by the presence of a gun in the classroom/school building, the primary advantage of armed teachers is their response time compared to police/SWAT. However, that quick response would also be occurring during the most volatile portion of a shooting, in what may be a crowded/hectic environment. The Charlie Hebdo simulations would point in this direction as well, though that's a small dataset. I defer to folks with more tactical experience in live-fire situations on this one, but I have a hard time seeing the benefit of this outweighing the risks.

I'm not well enough informed on the effectiveness of SROs. As a best case scenario, I picture them as well-trained, well-equipped, plugged in to the student community, and frankly, courageous in difficult situations. Recent incidents have cast a pall on SROs, but it would be unfair to judge them based on these high-profile failures without better understanding of where their intervention created a more positive outcome before any trigger was pulled.

American cultural approval of violence may contribute to our problems as well, but I'm not sure that's backed up by research nor do I know how to begin changing that. Research generally shows violent video games and media can briefly cause increased feelings of aggression but has not been able to link this to actual increased violence.

I don't know that advertising restrictions on gun/ammo/accessory manufacturers would have any real impact on outcomes compared to the pervasiveness of tobacco advertising pre-ban, but it's worth exploring. I suspect our media does most of the heavy lifting moreso than any advertising budget.

We need to combat the cavalier attitude some Americans have toward firearms. Choosing to own a gun is a profound responsibility to your own safety and the safety of those around you. It can still be used for hobby or sport, but it is a tool with a defined purpose and that purpose needs to be respected. I've seen many great examples of this respect and know many gun owners feel the same way. I've also seen some really dumb shit that could have gone bad. Gun safety needs to be a see something, say something situation at all times.

The federal government needs to continue funding research into gun violence. We will feel the effect of the decades lost to the Dickey amendment for many years to come.

For specific gun policies, I think the ideas below have merit. I'm looking at this from a glass half-full perspective that legislation could be crafted and interpreted well enough to pass muster

• Universal Background Checks - Overwhelmingly supported, evidence generally indicates they result in lower firearm fatality rates
• Red flag laws - Increase the effectiveness of background checks in identifying people at-risk for gun violence. I'm hopeful as more research is conducted we'll be able to implement a system that is better at identifying when, where, and for how long a danger exists.
• Universal Waiting period - Research indicates waiting periods are particularly effective at reducing firearm suicides by moving the firearm acquisition outside of the period of impulsivity in which the purchase was initiated. Similar to when I wait for two minutes before deciding whether to eat a second burrito.
• Mandatory registration - Strong action against gang gun violence - increase accountability for straw purchasers and reduces the pool of available firearms. Could potentially be retroactive to some degree (e.g. for semi-auto handguns) given the volume of firearms already in private hands.
• Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen firearms - again increasing accountability, combatting straw purchasing.
• Capacity restrictions - important to reduce the scale of mass shootings, but I don't think high-capacity mags needs to be straight-up illegal. I could see something like legal to have at your home or at a range, restrictions on how they can be transported, illegal in public spaces. Carveouts for feral hog hunters, South African armored car drivers, etc. as appropriate.
• Stricter dealer scrutiny (maybe) - Law Enforcement has not disclosed crime gun tracing numbers in 2 decades. At that time, there was a high correlation of guns used in crimes to a small portion of dealers. I hope this has improved but don't have any data beyond occasional investigative reporting.

I'm sure there's more, but it's late.

I won't pretend any of this is easy or simple, or that there aren't drawbacks or weaknesses to many of the thoughts above. I don't think that means it's not worth doing, or not worth trying. We need to start taking actions to save lives rather than continue the pattern of shock and numbness that comes from every Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech, or De'Avry Thomas, or just our bland acceptance of the suicides and one-off homicides that could have been prevented. Policies should be well-considered, but we should not hesitate to do all we reasonably can to save unnecessarily lost lives.

 

[ulukinatme]

Hmm, another sock of a past poster, but who's is it?
Whoever it may be, welcome back.
I think you're right, the gun problem has to be attacked multiple different ways. They could try to take them all away, but it wouldn't solve it. That's about all I'll comment at 5AM.

 

[drayer54]

• Universal Background Checks - Overwhelmingly supported, evidence generally indicates they result in lower firearm fatality rates
• Red flag laws - Increase the effectiveness of background checks in identifying people at-risk for gun violence. I'm hopeful as more research is conducted we'll be able to implement a system that is better at identifying when, where, and for how long a danger exists.
• Universal Waiting period - Research indicates waiting periods are particularly effective at reducing firearm suicides by moving the firearm acquisition outside of the period of impulsivity in which the purchase was initiated. Similar to when I wait for two minutes before deciding whether to eat a second burrito.
• Mandatory registration - Strong action against gang gun violence - increase accountability for straw purchasers and reduces the pool of available firearms. Could potentially be retroactive to some degree (e.g. for semi-auto handguns) given the volume of firearms already in private hands.
• Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen firearms - again increasing accountability, combatting straw purchasing.
• Capacity restrictions - important to reduce the scale of mass shootings, but I don't think high-capacity mags needs to be straight-up illegal. I could see something like legal to have at your home or at a range, restrictions on how they can be transported, illegal in public spaces. Carveouts for feral hog hunters, South African armored car drivers, etc. as appropriate.
• Stricter dealer scrutiny (maybe) - Law Enforcement has not disclosed crime gun tracing numbers in 2 decades. At that time, there was a high correlation of guns used in crimes to a small portion of dealers. I hope this has improved but don't have any data beyond occasional investigative reporting.

I'm sure there's more, but it's late.

I won't pretend any of this is easy or simple, or that there aren't drawbacks or weaknesses to many of the thoughts above. I don't think that means it's not worth doing, or not worth trying.

Vast majority of transactions already have background checks and this puts a ridiculous burden on citizens for a protected constitutional right. If a bad guy wants a gun, he can get a gun. This burden won't apply to criminals. Background checks are already in place. States asking people to verify a permit before a private transaction is reasonable.

Red Flag laws that violate due process are unacceptable, but in many of these cases the shooter had serious red flags that should have prohibited ownership and they should have been in jail. I'm fine with this, as long as due process is respected.

Waiting period- Another undue burden on dealers and the law-abiding that doesn't solve the problem. Pass

Registration- Libs dream of this to publish and target gun owners. The only useful purpose of registration is confiscation. This is a serious infringement that crosses a deep line into unreasonable action with bad intent.

Capacity restrictions- Hell no.

Dealer scrutiny? Tell me you've never filed an ATF form without telling me you've never filed an ATF form.

The fix is in law enforcement and consequences. These kids that raise hell and everyone knows who they are that roam free are a problem. These blue states and blue cities that catch and release criminals so they commit again are a huge problem. IF someone commits a crime in possession of a firearm, lock their ass up for awhile. We need a crime bill, not a gun bill. This President liked crime bills long ago.

 

[Blazers46]

I'll engage with you when you seem interested in a good faith discussion. I haven't seen anything to that end in this thread, so feel free to not respond to anything I post until you are.


I wish there were a solution. I think there are so many factors at play that it's something that needs to be attacked from multiple angles. Mental Health. Culture. Guns. No one looking at one aspect, or always looking away from one aspect. Gun advocates are passionate, but I think (and polling seems to indicate) there's a lot of room for people to agree on things. I badly want everyone to work together to help craft legislation that can help reduce risks for gun violence.

Before getting specifically to gun policy, I think people are right when they point to a need for better assessment, treatment, and support of mental health issues. I don't know how that's compatible with our country's current model of healthcare. Reading the linked Sandy Hook report hammers home the patchwork nature of mental health treatment and the difficulty of compelling treatment in our current environment.

I'm interested in quick wins that can be made hardening schools but expect purpose-built schools have a worse cost-benefit compared to other interventions. I don't know that's it's feasible to harden much else in the way of public gathering spaces.

I think the bulk of school-focused resources would be better invested in mental health support for students. This could serve a dual purpose of providing light direct support to all students and also help start a larger process to identify and "triage" (for lack of a better word) those students who need more help. For all the advantages they have, I also think American kids have a very difficult road to hoe with the pervasive and psychologically exploitative nature of social media, among the other challenges of our times.

I have a hard time thinking that arming teachers makes much sense. Beyond the economics of training and the potential danger introduced by the presence of a gun in the classroom/school building, the primary advantage of armed teachers is their response time compared to police/SWAT. However, that quick response would also be occurring during the most volatile portion of a shooting, in what may be a crowded/hectic environment. The Charlie Hebdo simulations would point in this direction as well, though that's a small dataset. I defer to folks with more tactical experience in live-fire situations on this one, but I have a hard time seeing the benefit of this outweighing the risks.

I'm not well enough informed on the effectiveness of SROs. As a best case scenario, I picture them as well-trained, well-equipped, plugged in to the student community, and frankly, courageous in difficult situations. Recent incidents have cast a pall on SROs, but it would be unfair to judge them based on these high-profile failures without better understanding of where their intervention created a more positive outcome before any trigger was pulled.

American cultural approval of violence may contribute to our problems as well, but I'm not sure that's backed up by research nor do I know how to begin changing that. Research generally shows violent video games and media can briefly cause increased feelings of aggression but has not been able to link this to actual increased violence.

I don't know that advertising restrictions on gun/ammo/accessory manufacturers would have any real impact on outcomes compared to the pervasiveness of tobacco advertising pre-ban, but it's worth exploring. I suspect our media does most of the heavy lifting moreso than any advertising budget.

We need to combat the cavalier attitude some Americans have toward firearms. Choosing to own a gun is a profound responsibility to your own safety and the safety of those around you. It can still be used for hobby or sport, but it is a tool with a defined purpose and that purpose needs to be respected. I've seen many great examples of this respect and know many gun owners feel the same way. I've also seen some really dumb shit that could have gone bad. Gun safety needs to be a see something, say something situation at all times.

The federal government needs to continue funding research into gun violence. We will feel the effect of the decades lost to the Dickey amendment for many years to come.

For specific gun policies, I think the ideas below have merit. I'm looking at this from a glass half-full perspective that legislation could be crafted and interpreted well enough to pass muster

• Universal Background Checks - Overwhelmingly supported, evidence generally indicates they result in lower firearm fatality rates
• Red flag laws - Increase the effectiveness of background checks in identifying people at-risk for gun violence. I'm hopeful as more research is conducted we'll be able to implement a system that is better at identifying when, where, and for how long a danger exists.
• Universal Waiting period - Research indicates waiting periods are particularly effective at reducing firearm suicides by moving the firearm acquisition outside of the period of impulsivity in which the purchase was initiated. Similar to when I wait for two minutes before deciding whether to eat a second burrito.
• Mandatory registration - Strong action against gang gun violence - increase accountability for straw purchasers and reduces the pool of available firearms. Could potentially be retroactive to some degree (e.g. for semi-auto handguns) given the volume of firearms already in private hands.
• Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen firearms - again increasing accountability, combatting straw purchasing.
• Capacity restrictions - important to reduce the scale of mass shootings, but I don't think high-capacity mags needs to be straight-up illegal. I could see something like legal to have at your home or at a range, restrictions on how they can be transported, illegal in public spaces. Carveouts for feral hog hunters, South African armored car drivers, etc. as appropriate.
• Stricter dealer scrutiny (maybe) - Law Enforcement has not disclosed crime gun tracing numbers in 2 decades. At that time, there was a high correlation of guns used in crimes to a small portion of dealers. I hope this has improved but don't have any data beyond occasional investigative reporting.

I'm sure there's more, but it's late.

I won't pretend any of this is easy or simple, or that there aren't drawbacks or weaknesses to many of the thoughts above. I don't think that means it's not worth doing, or not worth trying. We need to start taking actions to save lives rather than continue the pattern of shock and numbness that comes from every Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech, or De'Avry Thomas, or just our bland acceptance of the suicides and one-off homicides that could have been prevented. Policies should be well-considered, but we should not hesitate to do all we reasonably can to save unnecessarily lost lives.

To the bolded. Mental health and society is HUGE. I have always been in the thinking if I need a law (murder) to keep me from killing my wife I am the problem not the lack of law. If I need the government to restrict or take away something (gun control/bans) from me to prevent me from killing my wife I am still the problem... not the thing restricted.

Schools can play a part but they are limited. Professional standards recommend at least one counselor and one social worker for every 250 students, and at least one nurse and one psychologist for every 750 students. Elementary aged kids carry the same teacher but they still have 20-30 students. Schools are not designed to be THE mental health service but they are designed to reinforce and be a back up. The main or point person should always be the parent. When COVID shutdowns were all the rage the worry from schools and administrators were the kids going back to bad situations. I know many teachers that would tell you the problems school aged children face today are vastly different than what kids faced 20-30 years ago. Schools have went from soley education to now were we are discussing if we need to beef up mental health services. Why? Why has society changed so much that we are asking our schools to not only teach but become mental institutions of mental health among the push that schools essentially become parents and start teaching our kids about gender identity and keeping those conversations secret from parents.

Society has changed, culture has changed, people have changed. We have become a fatherless entitled society among other things. Societal norms have changed. A lot of this entitlement and fatherlessness stems from the government supporting almost 1/2 of our children. We learn to be fathers and men from our fathers. If you grow up with no father and are supported by Uncle Sam you grow up thinking that is the role of government. It then becomes governments job to solve all your problems... which is why schools are now being asked to do so much. After some of these shootings some of my teacher friends were posting on social media "only if they would allow us to 'XYZ'..." That is not their job or their intended role. Government is not and should not be the "easy button" but with some families and communities we are asking them to be the only button.

The question that needs to be addressed, what is happening with the families? A person finds true Identity and purpose inside the family unit. People need a healthy feeling of purpose and identity. In a way I feel like I am honoring those that came before me by contuing and building on things from my ancestors and family, I feel like I am part of something. There is a lot to be said about legacy and passing on charactor and other positive traits. We currently live in a society where government wants to control everything but then a large sector of society is amost begging them to as well... stop the madness. When the going gets tough men bounce. When the going gets tough women know they have the government in their back pocket to raise their children... not only financially but with social skills, living skills, gender issues, sex, mental health even discipline.

You hear about a school shooting its almost automic the shooter is going to be 16-19 years old. Its one thing to adjust from early childhood to middle childhood then a big shift in adolescents. An even bigger shift when you are at an age where you preparing to support yourself into adulthood. There is obvoiusly something off about how our kids are tranistioning into adulthood. Americans have high expectations, often unrealistic. The pressures a 17 year old faces are off the charts if you do not have good adults surrounding you. I am not saying its the end all and only answer but every solution seems to be more reactive than proactive. "Lets fix mental health"... "we need better healthcare".... "less guns" all seem to be bandaids on more serious issues... We need better mental health services because we have a mental health problem... caused by what? How do we fix that problem? Its like your boat starts taking on water so you start scooping out the water... once the whole becomes bigger you ask for more buckets instead of fixing the hole.

Some may have heard or read this story before but its a good lesson on why we need fathers. Endangered elephants were reintroduced into other areas. They took younger elephants because they were lighter and easier to fly. The young elephants than started to kill rhinos and other animals. The solotion was bringing the older male elephants to train the younger elephants how to be elephants.

Humans and elephants both fare better with dads around

Turns out that elephants need their fathers too. When a wildlife refuge had to relocate their overgrowing elephant population, they had to leave the father elephants there due to size & weight restrictions. What happened to the behavior of the elephants w/o the males proves the importance of dad.

www.fatherhood.org

Do we need gun control? Maybe... because our crazy people are getting crazier. I have worked in many group homes, jails, schools... even in peoples homes. Working in the group homes or the jails every pod or milieu was different. The more crazy each miliue got the more you had to control the environment. We even do it as parents. The kids keep sneaking cookies you hide them. They find them you just dont buy them anymore. Have we got to a point in society where society is so messed up the good kids in the house have to go without cookies so they other kids dont get diabetes? Maybe... but its a society problem we have to fix either way. But like I said at the very beginning, if I need someone to take a gun away from me to keep me from killing my wife the gun is not problem. If we need to take guns away so sick, confused, ill-adjusted teens or young adults do not shoot up schools its the guns that are the problem.

And stop blaming video games... my son is huge into pokemon go. I highly doubt you will see him throwing balls at people trying to catch them (half joking). I grew up shooting people in video games. My kill count will rival anyone on the planet. You might have an argument for music. There is something about music that I think is somewhat "spiritual". These songs becomes anthems or themes for life with some people. Songs are powerful which is why churches sing songs and when I am in bad mood I will play some good Christian worship music.

 

[ACamp1900]

Great post blazers, I don’t agree with everything but you make good points. The fact some seem to laugh off or even encourage fatherlessness is terrible imo,… but here we are

 

[Blazers46]

Great post blazers, I don’t agree with everything but you make good points. The fact some seem to laugh off or even encourage fatherlessness is terrible imo,… but here we are

Yeah its not a cure all. People just dont know how to adult anymore and have a serious problem adjusting to it.

 

[Straussy]

Hmm, another sock of a past poster, but who's is it?
Whoever it may be, welcome back.
I think you're right, the gun problem has to be attacked multiple different ways. They could try to take them all away, but it wouldn't solve it. That's about all I'll comment at 5AM.

Sorry to disappoint, not a sock puppet. Reasonable assumption though in a thread like this. Came here to lurk for the recruiting info, tried to avoid the political crab buckets, but got pulled in post-Uvalde and made an account.
Unfortunately, I'm sure you're right that it's never going to be solved, but I think there's a lot more we can do to make it better. Especially when we're doing so little now.

Before I get started Drayer, I'm operating from the perspective I mentioned of respecting guns and treating them seriously. I don't want to make life more difficult for mentally healthy, responsible gun owners, I want to reinforce that culture of responsible ownership. I do want to look at changes that can make the acquisition process much more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns. I'm also looking at this as preventing gun deaths of all kinds - mass shootings, suicides (gun attempts are much more likely to be fatal), gang violence, etc.

Vast majority of transactions already have background checks and this puts a ridiculous burden on citizens for a protected constitutional right. If a bad guy wants a gun, he can get a gun. This burden won't apply to criminals. Background checks are already in place. States asking people to verify a permit before a private transaction is reasonable.

I understand most transactions already have background checks. Pushing to all transactions makes red flag laws more effective and makes it more onerous for the bad guys to get a gun. If we need to make the process easier in some circumstances - accommodations for transfer to a family member or something similar, some TSA Pre-check equivalent, then that's fine. Absence of universal background checks allows for a freer flow of guns to people who shouldn't have them.

Red Flag laws that violate due process are unacceptable, but in many of these cases the shooter had serious red flags that should have prohibited ownership and they should have been in jail. I'm fine with this, as long as due process is respected.

Largely agreed. I think we agree that the devil is in the details of a temporary order in a time of acute crisis. Hopefully more research can better identify risk factors and support refinement of processes.

Waiting period- Another undue burden on dealers and the law-abiding that doesn't solve the problem. Pass

I appreciate the burden for the purchaser for this one, though I actually think it takes a burden off dealers to identify and deal with someone who may be acting impulsively. Waiting periods may not do much for mass shootings, but the limited research we have indicates waiting periods have a weak correlation to decreased suicides overall and a moderate correlation to decreased firearm suicides.

Registration- Libs dream of this to publish and target gun owners. The only useful purpose of registration is confiscation. This is a serious infringement that crosses a deep line into unreasonable action with bad intent.

I can't connect the dots with you on this one and honestly, this feels like it borders on paranoia.
In my world, this is a list maintained by FBI that local law enforcement can query when they have a serial number for a crime gun. I don't see any utility of publishing a list of gun owners. I think all republicans and most democrats would rightfully see publishing such a list as an invasion of privacy. Is there any precedent for government seizing anything (outside of eminent domain and civil forfeiture on traffic stops) that was not preceded by a crime of some significance or court order? Providing police the ability to trace crime guns back to their source to cut off the supply is the definition of law enforcement and consequences in my book.

Capacity restrictions- Hell no.

Can you elaborate? Why can't we associate extra responsibility with owning a 100 round drum mag? What parts of my original proposal were specifically objectionable? original proposal: "I could see something like legal to have at your home or at a range, restrictions on how they can be transported, illegal in public spaces. Carveouts for feral hog hunters, South African armored car drivers, etc. as appropriate."

Dealer scrutiny? Tell me you've never filed an ATF form without telling me you've never filed an ATF form.

I'm confident 95% of dealers are great and nothing needs to change for them. All I said was we don't have much recent data and current laws are not always being appropriately enforced. Link 1 Link 2

The fix is in law enforcement and consequences. These kids that raise hell and everyone knows who they are that roam free are a problem. These blue states and blue cities that catch and release criminals so they commit again are a huge problem. IF someone commits a crime in possession of a firearm, lock their ass up for awhile. We need a crime bill, not a gun bill. This President liked crime bills long ago.

I agree catch and release needs to be refined so we don't have criminals out doing exactly what they were just doing. At the same time, we also don't need to imprison someone for 3+ months because they can't make $5,000 bail for a misdemeanor, causing them to lose their job, get behind on bills, and fall down a deep economic hole with few legal ways out, all when they haven't even been found guilty of anything yet.

I was ready to agree with you on firearm enhancements, but saw a few sources of info indicating research on enhancements was mixed at best (including this as an example). I am still moderately in favor it as another bullet point reinforcing responsible gun ownership, but could be convinced to go away from it.

I'm interested in hearing what you think a crime bill should entail. I'm not sure how a crime bill stops many, if any, mass shootings or does anything for people who shoot themselves in a moment of mental crisis, but I certainly have gaps in my knowledge I'd be happy to have filled.

 

[Irish#1]

Vast majority of transactions already have background checks and this puts a ridiculous burden on citizens for a protected constitutional right. If a bad guy wants a gun, he can get a gun. This burden won't apply to criminals. Background checks are already in place. States asking people to verify a permit before a private transaction is reasonable.

Red Flag laws that violate due process are unacceptable, but in many of these cases the shooter had serious red flags that should have prohibited ownership and they should have been in jail. I'm fine with this, as long as due process is respected.

Waiting period- Another undue burden on dealers and the law-abiding that doesn't solve the problem. Pass

Registration- Libs dream of this to publish and target gun owners. The only useful purpose of registration is confiscation. This is a serious infringement that crosses a deep line into unreasonable action with bad intent.

Capacity restrictions- Hell no.

Dealer scrutiny? Tell me you've never filed an ATF form without telling me you've never filed an ATF form.

The fix is in law enforcement and consequences. These kids that raise hell and everyone knows who they are that roam free are a problem. These blue states and blue cities that catch and release criminals so they commit again are a huge problem. IF someone commits a crime in possession of a firearm, lock their ass up for awhile. We need a crime bill, not a gun bill. This President liked crime bills long ago.

For the most part, we agree on the 2nd Amendment, but I'm curious how extending the waiting period or better background checks are a burden? The process will basically remain the same. It will just extend the time a little bit.

 

[Irish#1]

I agree catch and release needs to be refined so we don't have criminals out doing exactly what they were just doing. At the same time, we also don't need to imprison someone for 3+ months because they can't make $5,000 bail for a misdemeanor, causing them to lose their job, get behind on bills, and fall down a deep economic hole with few legal ways out, all when they haven't even been found guilty of anything yet.

I don't think losing a job or getting behind on your bills is very high on the list of concerns for criminals. Getting caught is probably their first priority.

 

[Straussy]

I don't think losing a job or getting behind on your bills is very high on the list of concerns for criminals. Getting caught is probably their first priority.

For criminals, yes. But I was referencing cases like Kalief Browder (link), and others (link), of people who haven't been able to afford bail and were locked up for extended periods of time, only to be found innocent.

 

[Blazers46]

For the most part, we agree on the 2nd Amendment, but I'm curious how extending the waiting period or better background checks are a burden? The process will basically remain the same. It will just extend the time a little bit.

I probably would support a waiting period. Small loophole could be private sellers.

For criminals, yes. But I was referencing cases like Kalief Browder (link), and others (link), of people who haven't been able to afford bail and were locked up for extended periods of time, only to be found innocent.

Kalief Browder was not necessarily a bail problem but taking 3+ years to have a trial about a stolen backpack. The family actually posted bail but found out he had a probation hold. After that it was the courts delaying that held everything up. That was a NY justice system problem.

 

[Blazers46]

Sorry to disappoint, not a sock puppet. Reasonable assumption though in a thread like this. Came here to lurk for the recruiting info, tried to avoid the political crab buckets, but got pulled in post-Uvalde and made an account.
Unfortunately, I'm sure you're right that it's never going to be solved, but I think there's a lot more we can do to make it better. Especially when we're doing so little now.

Before I get started Drayer, I'm operating from the perspective I mentioned of respecting guns and treating them seriously. I don't want to make life more difficult for mentally healthy, responsible gun owners, I want to reinforce that culture of responsible ownership. I do want to look at changes that can make the acquisition process much more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns. I'm also looking at this as preventing gun deaths of all kinds - mass shootings, suicides (gun attempts are much more likely to be fatal), gang violence, etc.

I understand most transactions already have background checks. Pushing to all transactions makes red flag laws more effective and makes it more onerous for the bad guys to get a gun. If we need to make the process easier in some circumstances - accommodations for transfer to a family member or something similar, some TSA Pre-check equivalent, then that's fine. Absence of universal background checks allows for a freer flow of guns to people who shouldn't have them.


Largely agreed. I think we agree that the devil is in the details of a temporary order in a time of acute crisis. Hopefully more research can better identify risk factors and support refinement of processes.


I appreciate the burden for the purchaser for this one, though I actually think it takes a burden off dealers to identify and deal with someone who may be acting impulsively. Waiting periods may not do much for mass shootings, but the limited research we have indicates waiting periods have a weak correlation to decreased suicides overall and a moderate correlation to decreased firearm suicides.


I can't connect the dots with you on this one and honestly, this feels like it borders on paranoia.
In my world, this is a list maintained by FBI that local law enforcement can query when they have a serial number for a crime gun. I don't see any utility of publishing a list of gun owners. I think all republicans and most democrats would rightfully see publishing such a list as an invasion of privacy. Is there any precedent for government seizing anything (outside of eminent domain and civil forfeiture on traffic stops) that was not preceded by a crime of some significance or court order? Providing police the ability to trace crime guns back to their source to cut off the supply is the definition of law enforcement and consequences in my book.


Can you elaborate? Why can't we associate extra responsibility with owning a 100 round drum mag? What parts of my original proposal were specifically objectionable? original proposal: "I could see something like legal to have at your home or at a range, restrictions on how they can be transported, illegal in public spaces. Carveouts for feral hog hunters, South African armored car drivers, etc. as appropriate."


I'm confident 95% of dealers are great and nothing needs to change for them. All I said was we don't have much recent data and current laws are not always being appropriately enforced. Link 1 Link 2


I agree catch and release needs to be refined so we don't have criminals out doing exactly what they were just doing. At the same time, we also don't need to imprison someone for 3+ months because they can't make $5,000 bail for a misdemeanor, causing them to lose their job, get behind on bills, and fall down a deep economic hole with few legal ways out, all when they haven't even been found guilty of anything yet.

I was ready to agree with you on firearm enhancements, but saw a few sources of info indicating research on enhancements was mixed at best (including this as an example). I am still moderately in favor it as another bullet point reinforcing responsible gun ownership, but could be convinced to go away from it.

I'm interested in hearing what you think a crime bill should entail. I'm not sure how a crime bill stops many, if any, mass shootings or does anything for people who shoot themselves in a moment of mental crisis, but I certainly have gaps in my knowledge I'd be happy to have filled.

Just picking you brain here. Do you think these mass shootings (either school or other) is a gun problem or a society problem? Have guns changed so much that we need to fix guns and how to get them and what guns are available or or has society changed so much that we need to fix guns and how to get them or what guns are available? Or has society changed so much that we need to look at society?

 

[RDU Irish]

I probably would support a waiting period. Small loophole could be private sellers.


Kalief Browder was not necessarily a bail problem but taking 3+ years to have a trial about a stolen backpack. The family actually posted bail but found out he had a probation hold. After that it was the courts delaying that held everything up. That was a NY justice system problem.

Amendment VI​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This one has been an abomination for a long time. Financially devastating to need to engage our legal system and the time it takes to get to trial is absurd.