So there was a Valentines Day Massacre.

[Parr8hed]

4 minutes ago, Page Turner said:

 

...you should never ask questions to which you don't really want to listen to all the answers.  My ol' pappy taught me that one.

Not true at at. (well the advice may be true, but me not wanting to listen to answers is certainly not true).  I am more than willing to listen.  Even if I don't agree I will listen.  I fall on the side of gun owners being able to own and carry.  But I don agree that some common sense laws may help, if enforced properly.

[Page Turner]

51 minutes ago, jsharr said:

... and walked out the door with a semi auto .22 rile and three 20 round magazines.   

 

 

...magazine capacities larger than 10 rounds are stupid. Actually, I'd favor limiting firearm capacities to six rounds for starters.

[Page Turner]

Just now, Parr8hed said:

Not true at at. (well the advice may be true, but me not wanting to listen to answers is certainly not true).  I am more than willing to listen.  Even if I don't agree I will listen.  I fall on the side of gun owners being able to own and carry.  But I don agree that some common sense laws may help, if enforced properly.

...how do you feel about nationwide limits on manufacturing and technology in the gun world ?

[maddmaxx ★]

58 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said:

sorry to hear this, that it's come to that

School resource officers have a great deal more to do than worry about shooters.  Any high school that has several hundred adolescents crammed into one hormone filled building has problems that sometimes need immediate police attention.

[Parr8hed]

1 hour ago, maddmaxx said:

We do not have laws that allow a doctor to write a single note and remove your right to own a gun.  We do not have laws that state that a spouse under court restraining order for abuse must turn in all firearms and not buy more until such time as the order is lifted.

These are just examples of a host of regulations that would each make a small difference but collectively perhaps make a difference that counts.

I can see the benefit of those.  How to enforce though?  Abuse is against the law.  Yet spouse still abused the wife.  Take away his guns, I am cool with that.  Abuse people, you lose rights.  But how do you just "take away his guns"?  He probably has many not registered that popo knows nothing about.  

[pedalphile]

55 minutes ago, jsharr said:

How would the two laws you mention above matter?  You can take away my right to own a gun today and I could have a gun tomorrow.  When I bought the .22 rifle, I walked into the gun show, saw the rifle, walked to the cash machine, got five crisp $20s, walked back to the booth, handed the guy the cash, showed I was of legal age and walked out the door with a semi auto .22 rile and three 20 round magazines.   

They did not check a computer to see if my doctor said I was crazy or if the wife and I were on the outs.  They took my cash and gave me a gun and it was legal.

 

I'm breaking my own rule here maybe, but doesn't that tell you something is wrong with the gun laws in your country?

[bikeman564™]

Just now, maddmaxx said:

School resource officers have a great deal more to do than worry about shooters.  Any high school that has several hundred adolescents crammed into one hormone filled building has problems that sometimes need immediate police attention.

Not in my neck of the woods

[ChrisL]

I really don't have any input here and don't have the answers to solve these tragedies but I wanted to say kudos to all of you for the thoughtful and respectful discourse in this very polarizing subject.

Well done all.

[maddmaxx ★]

58 minutes ago, jsharr said:

How would the two laws you mention above matter?  You can take away my right to own a gun today and I could have a gun tomorrow.  When I bought the .22 rifle, I walked into the gun show, saw the rifle, walked to the cash machine, got five crisp $20s, walked back to the booth, handed the guy the cash, showed I was of legal age and walked out the door with a semi auto .22 rile and three 20 round magazines.   

They did not check a computer to see if my doctor said I was crazy or if the wife and I were on the outs.  They took my cash and gave me a gun and it was legal.

 

Don't be short sighted.  Tomorrow is quick on the scale of things.  Over the long run these laws will matter.  Part of the gun problem is to look at solutions and state that nothing will help because yesterday's shooting wouldn't have been stopped by that law.

The change is not any one gun, it's a general (and probably slow) change in culture.

What you described in that fire arms purchase is a blatant example of some of the things wrong with our culture.  At the very least gun show purchases should be funneled through a licensed brick and mortar store and take every bit of the required background check time available.

[Parr8hed]

3 minutes ago, Page Turner said:

...how do you feel about nationwide limits on manufacturing and technology in the gun world ?

let me think about this.  gotta go do some stuff and I will be back.

[maddmaxx ★]

50 minutes ago, jsharr said:

but what about person to person sales?  How is that enforced?  I went to a gun show and you could buy, sell or trade private party to private party with no background check.  Not sure how you can ever put the horse back in the barn when there are tens of millions of horses loose.

Over time.

[jsharr ★]

1 minute ago, pedalphile said:

I'm breaking my own rule here maybe, but doesn't that tell you something is wrong with the gun laws in your country?

Damn straight.  Took me by surprise for damn sure.  Needs to change, but it won', or not fast if at all.  You simply cannot control so many totally unregistered, privately owned anythings.   The only way I see to control this is to cut off sales of ammo to the public.  You have to go register your gun, then request to purchase ammo, the amount of which is controlled as well and then and only then do you get ammo.

Once all the hoarded ammo is gone, then the problem will begin to diminish.

If you want to target shoot, the ranges control the guns and ammo and you pay a fee to shoot one of their guns.

It will take time, but it needs to change, regardless of how safe I feel I am with my guns, it needs to change.

 

[maddmaxx ★]

5 minutes ago, Parr8hed said:

I can see the benefit of those.  How to enforce though?  Abuse is against the law.  Yet spouse still abused the wife.  Take away his guns, I am cool with that.  Abuse people, you lose rights.  But how do you just "take away his guns"?  He probably has many not registered that popo knows nothing about.  

Over time you create a culture change.

This is not a magic wand problem that can suddenly go away.  It will probably take decades but it has to start.  Simply saying that it can't be fixed immediately does not justify not starting.

[maddmaxx ★]

My motto is not really take the guns away from the people but rather take the people away from the guns.  It's not quick, It's not perfect as you can always point to someone who goes over the edge suddenly without warning but it is a start.

 

 

What we have going on now is a fight not to start.  That leads to non gun people simply trying to ban everything.  The binary solution rarely works.

[12string]

2 hours ago, jsharr said:

How would the two laws you mention above matter?  You can take away my right to own a gun today and I could have a gun tomorrow.  When I bought the .22 rifle, I walked into the gun show, saw the rifle, walked to the cash machine, got five crisp $20s, walked back to the booth, handed the guy the cash, showed I was of legal age and walked out the door with a semi auto .22 rile and three 20 round magazines.   

They did not check a computer to see if my doctor said I was crazy or if the wife and I were on the outs.  They took my cash and gave me a gun and it was legal.

 

OK, let's start with writing a law to stop that.

The "we have laws" argument doesn't do anything except show that the laws we have suck at doing their job and we need new ones

[jsharr ★]

Just now, 12string said:

OK, let's start with writing a law to stop that.

The "we have laws" argument doesn't do anything except show that the laws we have suck at doing their job and we need new ones

I agree with you.  With the laws we have, or do not have in place in Texas, the two laws mentioned would be useless.  Change needs to occur, but more laws probably will not fix the problem.  Ammunition limits and controls may.  It will be a long slow process.  

[12string]

1 hour ago, maddmaxx said:

What we have going on now is a fight not to start.  That leads to non gun people simply trying to ban everything.  The binary solution rarely works.

Exactly!  The problem isn't whether or not it's guns or people or laws.  It's that our government flat out refuses to even try to find out what the problem is.  The NRA, representing less than 5% of all voters, contributes so much money in such key races that they have a disproportionate say in the interpretation of, and restrictions placed upon the second amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are a number of ways in which that can be interpreted.  The literalist reading that say the Founding fathers did not want a standing army out of fear that it would be used as the British used theirs against the colonists, but understood that without a well formed and armed militia that could be pressed into service against another attempt by the British, the free state could not be secured.  The Living Document reading believes that gun ownership is intended to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.  But no matter which you choose, there is nothing that forbids restrictions within the framework.  There are laws on the books that place restrictions on EVERY amendment.  An honest effort by our lawmakers could very well address the problem within the framework of that wording, regardless of the interpretation.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

I think two issues have been blurred with this event, and virtually always get blurred when these type of things happen.

First is the right to own firearms.  The Founding Fathers specifically wrote prohibitions against the government infringing on that right, for good reasons.  (I would suggest it is well worth the investment of time to review these reasons.)  Having that right, itself, does not cause a person to murder people in a mass shooting, any more than the right to free press causes a reporter to commit libel or the right of free assembly causes a crowd to turn into a destructive mob.

The second is the behavior of the individual who commits the crime.  While a firearm can allow a person to sow death and injury, it still requires as Parr8 said a person to pull the trigger.  The behavior is the factor that is unpredictable.  Such behavior cannot be legislated against in a preemptive manner, without taking away other rights, and without due process.  Legislation can only react to such behavior, to create punishment to mete out for the action.

But what if the person does not fear the punishment, or intends to commit suicide before capture?  The legislation is ineffective against such a person.  But legislation is passed anyway because politicians want to be perceived as doing something.

So why are we seeing more of these events?  I would commend attention to maxx's comment about culture change.  Our culture has indeed changed, and changed to the point where some people, and a greater percentage of the population, now believe these types of acts will create an acceptable resolution to the problems they face.  The why of this varies from individual to individual, but this mode of acting/acting out is indeed more common.

This, I believe, is the largest root factor that few want to directly address - the so-called elephant in the room.

What is it about our culture that leads people to believe such behavior of killing and maiming people is now accepted by more people than before?  Is it that they are taught that their 'feelings' or their 'self-image' is more important than another's physical well-being?  Is it because there is less emphasis in religion or religious instruction, especially the 'Thou shalt not kill' part?  Is it because the social media environment and electronic devices foster a 'now now now' mindset that anything can be had instantly, all problems can be solved in 30 minutes or less (as seen on TV), or that there is an app or a product you can buy-shipped-overnight to assuage all ills?

Or is it a combination of all of these?  Or none?

My own take is that our present culture inculcates a lesser respect for others' lives.  It does not matter what weapon a mass killer uses to harm others - he chooses the weapon that he believes will be the most convenient, least detectable, and/or most effective. 

And he employs it because he doesn't care what happens to others because of his actions. 

Find the reason(s) why people are no longer caring.  Fix those, and then I believe you will see the frequency of these events diminish.

[Razors Edge ★]

4 minutes ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

My own take is that our present culture inculcates a lesser respect for others' lives.  It does not matter what weapon a mass killer uses to harm others - he chooses the weapon that he believes will be the most convenient, least detectable, and/or most effective. 

And he employs it because he doesn't care what happens to others because of his actions. 

Find the reason(s) why people are no longer caring.  Fix those, and then I believe you will see the frequency of these events diminish.

...and start getting guns and ammo out of people's hands. Even if it takes 100 years, it will be better to start it now (imagine if we had started 10, 20, 30 years ago???). Easy access to guns makes it easy to kill 17 folks or for a depressed child to kill themselves.  

Tom

[12string]

16 minutes ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

But what if the person does not fear the punishment, or intends to commit suicide before capture?

That's not the law that needs to change.

What if the person couldn't so easily get his hands on that gun in the first place?  There's no fear of punishment aspect to laws to address that, it prevents the action in the first place.

Another factor not being discussed in the "culture has changed" argument:  The gun industry, in the early 80's made a decision to change their marketing away from hunting and protection to a militaristic appeal, as they saw a huge profit opportunity in the previously untapped semi-automatic weapon market. I'd be curious to know how many meetings discussed how nicely that was dovetailing with the rise in militaristic video games.

[jsharr ★]

16 minutes ago, 12string said:

That's not the law that needs to change.

What if the person couldn't so easily get his hands on that gun in the first place?  There's no fear of punishment aspect to laws to address that, it prevents the action in the first place.

Another factor not being discussed in the "culture has changed" argument:  The gun industry, in the early 80's made a decision to change their marketing away from hunting and protection to a militaristic appeal, as they saw a huge profit opportunity in the previously untapped semi-automatic weapon market. I'd be curious to know how many meetings discussed how nicely that was dovetailing with the rise in militaristic video games.

Studies have shown that the US plays no more or less video games than anywhere else.  We are not crazier, more video gamed, etc.   We just have more guns by a very wide margin than any other country.   The gun may look more military, but an AR 15 semi auto, without a bump stock, does not shoot any faster than any other semi auto long gun out there.

It is guns, simply put that make the killings easier here, whether a mass murder, or shooting the guy you are robbing, or shooting your domestic partner who you are mad at.

We need to find a way to make all gun sales registered, to control the sales of guns and ammunition and do it soon.

Yemen is second in amount of guns owned and quess what, they have a lot of gun crime.  

It may well be a cultural shift, it may be that with the internet and other media, that the attacks are so publicized that the seed is planted and watered again and again and again now, in a way that it was not in the past.

and it may be that the anonymity afforded by the internet is making us, as a whole, less caring, as we can say whatever we want to whoever we want any time we want with little or no repercussion from the audience.  Much like how people will honk the horn and yell and make rude gestures while driving a car in traffic, but would not react the same way if walking in a crowd.

 

[Kzoo]

15 minutes ago, jsharr said:

We need to find a way to make all gun sales registered, to control the sales of guns and ammunition and do it soon.

It has worked out so well for Chicago and the great state of Illinois.

[jsharr ★]

6 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

It has worked out so well for Chicago and the great state of Illinois.

You are quoting a gun owning, Republican, NRA member (solely to get reduced rates on training and accredidation) Texan advocating gun control and that is all you can come up with?  sheesh.

[12string]

3 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

It has worked out so well for Chicago and the great state of Illinois.

It has actually worked out so well for countries that have outlawed guns prior to putting hundreds of millions on the streets, including in suburbs nearby. 

A small island of restriction surrounded by access to guns, with a short period of data doesn't tell the story.

 

[Kzoo]

Just now, jsharr said:

You are quoting a Texan advocating gun control and that is all you can come up with?  sheesh.

Actually I'm trying to stay out of this debate.  There has been lots of well thought out political points presented that has allowed for meaningful discussion without this thread getting sent to P&R.  None of it by itself, will change any minds.  Internet discussion doesn't have a great history of doing that.   My take is not political and will certainly get it moved.  

Were I to contribute my true thoughts here I would be forced to move the thread myself.

Kzoo out....

[jsharr ★]

1 minute ago, Kzoo said:

Actually I'm trying to stay out of this debate.  There has been lots of well thought out political points presented that has allowed for meaningful discussion without this thread getting sent to P&R.  None of it by itself, will change any minds.  Internet discussion doesn't have a great history of doing that.   My take is not political and will certainly get it moved.  

Were I to contribute my true thoughts here I would be forced to move the thread myself.

Kzoo out....

My mind has been changed, not by this thread alone, but by the evidence that guns, in and of themselves, seem to produce this sort of thing.  Take away the guns and much of the violence will go away.  In part I think this is because you can be violent from a distance.  Pulling a trigger for 10 yards or 100 yards away remove the perpatrator from the victim more that if you had to be right in their face and stab them, or choke them, etc.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, jsharr said:

Damn straight.  Took me by surprise for damn sure.  Needs to change, but it won', or not fast if at all.  You simply cannot control so many totally unregistered, privately owned anythings.   The only way I see to control this is to cut off sales of ammo to the public.  You have to go register your gun, then request to purchase ammo, the amount of which is controlled as well and then and only then do you get ammo.

Once all the hoarded ammo is gone, then the problem will begin to diminish.

If you want to target shoot, the ranges control the guns and ammo and you pay a fee to shoot one of their guns.

It will take time, but it needs to change, regardless of how safe I feel I am with my guns, it needs to change.

 

So will cutting off access to ammo be as effective as outlawing things like cocaine or heroin? 

[Kzoo]

Outlaw 9mm Parabellum and only outlaws will have 9mm Parabellum.     

[jsharr ★]

5 minutes ago, Zackny said:

So will cutting off access to ammo be as effective as outlawing things like cocaine or heroin? 

it will make it harder for the everyday person to get it.  You will have to know someone.  As it stands now, it is easier to get ammo than Sudafed at Walmart.

[Page Turner]

 

1 hour ago, Kzoo said:

It has worked out so well for Chicago and the great state of Illinois.

 

1 hour ago, Kzoo said:

...  My take is not political and will certainly get it moved.  

Were I to contribute my true thoughts here I would be forced to move the thread myself.

Kzoo out....

 

5 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

Outlaw 9mm Parabellum and only outlaws with have 9mm Parabellum.     

[Kzoo]

4 minutes ago, jsharr said:

it will make it harder for the everyday person to get it.  You will have to know someone.  As it stands now, it is easier to get ammo than Sudafed at Walmart.

I may be off track here but i bet that Sudafed from Walmart has probably killed a whole lot more people than ammo from Walmart.

[Kzoo]

3 minutes ago, Page Turner said:

 

 

 

You don't really need help counting do you?

 

[jsharr ★]

4 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

I may be off track here but i bet that Sudafed from Walmart has probably killed a whole lot more people than ammo from Walmart.

 

Sudafed just found a new way to avoid the regulations

[pedalphile]

5 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

I may be off track here but i bet that Sudafed from Walmart has probably killed a whole lot more people than ammo from Walmart.

If it killed more innocent kids in school, or at cinemas or concerts you are spot on

[TrentonMakes]

1 minute ago, jsharr said:

Sudafed just found a new way to avoid the regulations

"How is he, doctor?"

"Well, he was hit twice, and he's lost a lot of blood.... but his sinuses are clear."

[pedalphile]

Otherwise, you should do what you promised and shut up.

[Kzoo]

11 minutes ago, pedalphile said:

Otherwise, you should do what you promised and shut up.

No

 

[Kzoo]

And yet we still allow people to drive cars, smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. 

 

Cause of death (Data from 2015 unless otherwise noted)	Number
All Causes	2,712,630
Major Cardiovascular Diseases [MCD]	832,024
Diseases of Heart [subset of MCD]	633,842
Cerebrovascular Diseases [subset of MCD]	140,323
Malignant Neoplasms [Cancer]	595,930
Deaths Attributed to Tobacco Smoking (Each year from 2005 through 2009)1	480,320
Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases	155,041
Accidents (Unintentional Injuries) [Total]	146,571
Motor Vehicle Accidents [subset of Total Accidents]	37,757
Alzheimer's Disease	110,561
Diabetes Mellitus	79,535
Influenza and Pneumonia	57,062
Drug-Induced Deaths2	55,403
Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis	49,959
Intentional Self-Harm (Suicide)	44,193
Septicemia	40,773
Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis	40,326
Alcoholic Liver Disease [subset of Chronic Liver Disease]	21,028
Injury by Firearms	36,252
Alcohol-Induced Deaths	33,171
Parkinson's Disease	27,972
Pneumonitis Due to Solids and Liquids	19,803
Homicide	17,793

[Ltdskilz]

5 hours ago, maddmaxx said:

. . .  We do not have laws that state that a spouse under court restraining order for abuse must turn in all firearms and not buy more until such time as the order is lifted. . . .

Um, yes we do.

[pedalphile]

Fair enough, don’t do yourself a favour, keep on digging your stupid hole.

[Kzoo]

Just now, Ltdskilz said:

Um, yes we do.

I'm pretty sure that would be state specific, wouldn't it?

[jsharr ★]

[Kzoo]

1 minute ago, pedalphile said:

Fair enough, don’t do yourself a favour, keep on digging your stupid hole.

You misspelled favor again.....

I'm not digging any whole.  I have appreciated the conversation here.  I haven't taken a position but if you really want to know, I want kids in our schools to be safe.  I want less killing on our streets. I want fewer kids to grow up without fathers in their home.  I want people to place a greater value on the sanctity of life.  I want people to stop dying of cancer, HIV, heart disease.... I want our children to grow up with hope.

Laws, more laws, lawyers, legislators, and courts are not the answer.  They haven't been and never will be.

Is that enough for your shallow brained view on life in the USA.

[pedalphile]

4 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

You misspelled favor again.....

I'm not digging any whole.  I have appreciated the conversation here.  I haven't taken a position but if you really want to know, I want kids in our schools to be safe.  I want less killing on our streets. I want fewer kids to grow up without fathers in their home.  I want people to place a greater value on the sanctity of life.  I want people to stop dying of cancer, HIV, heart disease.... I want our children to grow up with hope.

Laws, more laws, lawyers, legislators, and courts are not the answer.  They haven't been and never will be.

Is that enough for your shallow brained view on life in the USA.

0.001. On the whole your hole gets no smaller, but keep digging. Or just acknowledge that your comparison of the Sudanese and guns was so much stupid.

[Kzoo]

Just now, pedalphile said:

0.001. On the whole your hole gets no smaller, but keep digging. Or just acknowledge that your comparison of the Sudanese and guns was so much stupid.

Sudafed not Sudanese - Thanks for helping.  

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?  Let me answer for you.  Obviously not.

Parents, children, grandparents, neighbors, co-workers are dying from a meth epidemic here.  Access to pseudoephedrine is a major contributing factor.  

So before you tell me to shut up....... grow up.     And think of the children.

[12string]

14 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

Laws, more laws, lawyers, legislators, and courts are not the answer.  They haven't been and never will be.

And that is the crux of the argument.  You are absolutely correct, the gun laws in this country aren't the answer, and never will be.  Which is PRECISELY why we need much stronger laws, because the ones we have don't work.

[Kzoo]

2 minutes ago, 12string said:

And that is the crux of the argument.  You are absolutely correct, the gun laws in this country aren't the answer, and never will be.  Which is PRECISELY why we need much stronger laws, because the ones we have don't work.

I can't be absolutely correct in your mind if we disagree.  Maybe you missed the part where I said "... more laws..... are not the answer. ...... and never will be."

[Ltdskilz]

9 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

I'm pretty sure that would be state specific, wouldn't it?

You are probably correct. Under Texas law, if a woman involved in getting a divorce obtains a Protective Order, it's standard practice down here for the man to be required to turn in his firearms to the LEOs and his concealed carry is automatically suspended.

But under federal law, we have the Lautenberg Act which makes it illegal to possess or purchase a firearm by anyone who has ever pleaded guilty to, or been convicted of, of a misdemeanor or felony involving domestic abuse. This caught a lot of folks by the short hairs, as the law was retroactive and it was common place for someone to plead to a misdemeanor charge and pay $50 and go back home rather than pay a lawyer $5,000 to fight a felony charge when he had already made up with his wife. 

[12string]

2 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

I can't be absolutely correct in your mind if we disagree.  Maybe you missed the part where I said "... more laws..... are not the answer. ...... and never will be."

OK, then you're absolutely wrong.  That was easy  

And to clarify another discussion point, there are about 6,000 death per year from illegal stimulants, meth being just one, and almost none of it comes from Sudafed since the laws were strengthened (see how that works).  Compared to 33,000 gun deaths.

[jsharr ★]

12 minutes ago, Ltdskilz said:

You are probably correct. Under Texas law, if a woman involved in getting a divorce obtains a Protective Order, it's standard practice down here for the man to be required to turn in his firearms to the LEOs and his concealed carry is automatically suspended.

But under federal law, we have the Lautenberg Act which makes it illegal to possess or purchase a firearm by anyone who has ever pleaded guilty to, or been convicted of, of a misdemeanor or felony involving domestic abuse. This caught a lot of folks by the short hairs, as the law was retroactive and it was common place for someone to plead to a misdemeanor charge and pay $50 and go back home rather than pay a lawyer $5,000 to fight a felony charge when he had already made up with his wife. 

I am pretty sure that in Arkansas when this happens, the woman is still the sister and/or cousin of the man who turns in his guns.