Another mass shooting

[Aces4]

1/4 Americans deal with mental illness every year. You may be writing about severe mental illness problems but these are also a lot more common than some think.

And I can think of people who look like they have severe mental problems judging from the fruits of their labors.

I’m talking about all forms of the illness, Tal. How can they put an insurance coverage limit on treatment when the answer can’t be provided within their guidelines?

[Taltarzac725]

I’m talking about all forms of the illness, Tal. How can they put an insurance coverage limit on treatment when the answer can’t be provided within their guidelines?

Mental health and substance abuse health coverage options | HealthCare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/mental-health-substance-abuse-coverage/)

There would be a lot of problems with pre-existing conditions and mental health insurance.

[graciegirl]

Mental health and substance abuse health coverage options | HealthCare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/mental-health-substance-abuse-coverage/)

There would be a lot of problems with pre-existing conditions and mental health insurance.

Again. Another issue where we almost all have the inclination to help but the issue itself is so complex we cannot define it. Putting dangerous people in institutions is so fraught with pitfalls that we become stymied in the very definition of the problem. Ace...I was not speaking of you or anyone here when I spoke of looking down on mental illness. And Tal you are right. Many people who are not what most people think of as seriously mentally ill, suffer from anxiety attacks and depression. Many villagers are looking at the reality of death by old age very soon, and that is scary. We all need to try to understand the normal people who surround us and not make up opinions that a large group of people we don't know are haters. That just isn't true. We don't know, nor we may never know why these men decided to kill people they didn't know.

[Taltarzac725]

Again. Another issue where we almost all have the inclination to help but the issue itself is so complex we cannot define it. Putting dangerous people in institutions is so fraught with pitfalls that we become stymied in the very definition of the problem. Ace...I was not speaking of you or anyone here when I spoke of looking down on mental illness. And Tal you are right. Many people who are not what most people think of as seriously mentally ill, suffer from anxiety attacks and depression. Many villagers are looking at the reality of death by old age very soon, and that is scary. We all need to try to understand the normal people who surround us and not make up opinions that a large group of people we don't know are haters. That just isn't true. We don't know, nor we may never know why these men decided to kill people they didn't know.

Some of these mass murderers look to just be evil people. I met some of individuals whom I would call evil when I was in Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners at the U of MN Law School.

Charles Manson and his gang were very evil and a few of them might have been mentally ill. But, most of them were just rotten to the core.

Stopping evil people. Taking their tools away would be a good step. I mean assault rifles.

The Manson family used knives, clubs and pistols if my memory serves.

[billethkid]

Some of these mass murderers look to just be evil people. I met some of individuals whom I would call evil when I was in Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners at the U of MN Law School.

Charles Manson and his gang were very evil and a few of them might have been mentally ill. But, most of them were just rotten to the core.

Stopping evil people. Taking their tools away would be a good step. I mean assault rifles.

The Manson family used knives, clubs and pistols if my memory serves.

Here and else where in the world...taking the tools away may help, however as stated above much evil killing is done regardless.
If those who would do us harm are intent on doing so, taking away one "tool" would have them turn to something just as lethal.

That is why I always say, it ain't the gun!!!

[Taltarzac725]

Here and else where in the world...taking the tools away may help, however as stated above much evil killing is done regardless.
If those who would do us harm are intent on doing so, taking away one "tool" would have them turn to something just as lethal.

That is why I always say, it ain't the gun!!!

It is the assault rifle. Take a good look at what happened in Dayton, Ohio. 2019 Dayton shooting - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting)

The police killed the shooter within 30 seconds or so after he opened up with an assault type weapon.

At 1:05 a.m., eyewitnesses reported that a man opened fire at the entrance of Ned Peppers Bar in the Oregon Historic District.[8] He was carrying a firearm that included part of an Anderson Manufacturing semi-automatic AM-15 (based on the AR-15)[9][1] in a pistol configuration with a shortened barrel, chambered in .223 caliber ammunition and equipped with a 100-round drum magazine.[2] He fired into crowds and fatally shot nine people.[10][11]

According to Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl, 20 seconds after the shooting began,[5] law enforcement officers already on the scene engaged the gunman.[12] Within 30 seconds after the first shots were fired,[5] the gunman was shot dead.[13] Local police evacuated many nearby night venues, and warned Dayton residents to stay away from the Oregon Historic District.[13]

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If it's not the gun, then hey - let everyone keep their guns, buy as many as they like, as many varieties as they can get their hands on.
and then...

ban the bullets.

[billethkid]

If it's not the gun, then hey - let everyone keep their guns, buy as many as they like, as many varieties as they can get their hands on.
and then...

ban the bullets.

The wacko that is going to commit harm has to go out and buy bullets.

True gun enthusiasts, the 98.965784% law abiding gun owners, have thousands of rounds of what they shoot on hand.

[anothersteve]

The wacko that is going to commit harm has to go out and buy bullets.

True gun enthusiasts, the 98.965784% law abiding gun owners, have thousands of rounds of what they shoot on hand.

And I might add, thousands of rounds of multiple calibers. And it might be more soon if there is talk of banning, taxing, limiting, bullets. There is always a run on ammo and firearms when these tragedies hit. That's just fact.
Steve

[Kenswing]

If it's not the gun, then hey - let everyone keep their guns, buy as many as they like, as many varieties as they can get their hands on.
and then...

ban the bullets.

Why don't we just cut out the middle man and ban mass murderers?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Here's some constructive ideas for consideration:

1. Raise the purchase age to 21, with a waiver for anyone 18-21 who can prove they are living independently.
2. Tighten and strictly enforce the domestic violence law: if you have been convicted of violating domestic violence law, you are automatically registered, and automatically disqualified and legally unable to purchase any firearm. Eliminate the "loop hole" that allows a do-over for anyone whose sentence was reduced/removed, or who pleads guilty to a lesser charge. If you beat your husband, if you clocked your son over the head with his cell phone, if you punched your mom when she tried to ground you for smoking in the back yard, you can't legally own a gun, period. Studies show that domestic violence is one of the main indicators of future violence.
3. Change the culture of people who choose to be armed, and make all firearms come with a trigger lock on the gun right out of the box, sold in the locked position.
4. Increase funding for mental health care, and reduce or even completely eliminate the cost of mental health care for the poor and other under-represented people in this country.

Will any of these things fix the problem? Nope. Will all of these things contribute to reducing the problem? Yup.

[anothersteve]

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/#federal)

Extreme Risk Laws - EverytownResearch.org (https://everytownresearch.org/extreme-risk-laws/)

Safe Storage | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/#federal)

The Federal and State Role in Mental Health | Mental Health America (https://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/issues/federal-and-state-role-mental-health)

How exactly does one "change the culture" of people who choose to be armed?

Steve

[Taltarzac725]

Here's some constructive ideas for consideration:

1. Raise the purchase age to 21, with a waiver for anyone 18-21 who can prove they are living independently.
2. Tighten and strictly enforce the domestic violence law: if you have been convicted of violating domestic violence law, you are automatically registered, and automatically disqualified and legally unable to purchase any firearm. Eliminate the "loop hole" that allows a do-over for anyone whose sentence was reduced/removed, or who pleads guilty to a lesser charge. If you beat your husband, if you clocked your son over the head with his cell phone, if you punched your mom when she tried to ground you for smoking in the back yard, you can't legally own a gun, period. Studies show that domestic violence is one of the main indicators of future violence.
3. Change the culture of people who choose to be armed, and make all firearms come with a trigger lock on the gun right out of the box, sold in the locked position.
4. Increase funding for mental health care, and reduce or even completely eliminate the cost of mental health care for the poor and other under-represented people in this country.

Will any of these things fix the problem? Nope. Will all of these things contribute to reducing the problem? Yup.

Those are all good ideas.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Trigger locks are not part of the gun culture, in general. Most people with firearms don't have them, don't use them, and some don't even know what they are. Similarly to drivers of cars and trucks: The vast majority of drivers buckle up - not because it's the law, but because the law and the existence of these belts have changed the culture of drivers.

So change the culture of gun owners, by having all firearms come with trigger locks installed and locked, upon initial sale. Some folks won't use them. But eventually, more people will, than won't, because this one change will have changed the culture such that their use is just an automatic thing people do. Like stopping at red lights - those didn't always exist, afterall. But the culture was changed. Even a typical law-breaking person who drives too fast, is very likely to stop at a red light as opposed to ignoring it.

There's no barrier preventing anyone from running a red light. But they stop anyway. Because the culture has changed.

That's what I mean about changing the culture of gun owners.

[tophcfa]

I finally read something that seems to make a lot of sense to me as a very reasonable idea to help prevent future mass shootings. The White House has instructed the Department of Justice to work with large internet social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, to develop tools to help identify potential mass murders BEFORE they commit a horrible crime. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been conclusively demonstrated that almost all mass murderers (over the last few years) have had a very strong social media presence including tell tale posts indicative of their intensions.

[anothersteve]

Trigger locks are not part of the gun culture, in general. Most people with firearms don't have them, don't use them, and some don't even know what they are. Similarly to drivers of cars and trucks: The vast majority of drivers buckle up - not because it's the law, but because the law and the existence of these belts have changed the culture of drivers.

So change the culture of gun owners, by having all firearms come with trigger locks installed and locked, upon initial sale. Some folks won't use them. But eventually, more people will, than won't, because this one change will have changed the culture such that their use is just an automatic thing people do. Like stopping at red lights - those didn't always exist, afterall. But the culture was changed. Even a typical law-breaking person who drives too fast, is very likely to stop at a red light as opposed to ignoring it.

There's no barrier preventing anyone from running a red light. But they stop anyway. Because the culture has changed.

That's what I mean about changing the culture of gun owners.

No need to link it again

"In October 2005, as part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress passed and the President signed into law legislation making it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device.16 The law includes various exceptions, including transfers to other federal firearms licensees, law enforcement officers, and federal, state or local agencies.17 The legislation does not apply to transfers by private sellers, and does not require that transferees use the device.18"

Steve

[Taltarzac725]

I finally read something that seems to make a lot of sense to me as a very reasonable idea to help prevent future mass shootings. The White House has instructed the Department of Justice to work with large internet social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, to develop tools to help identify potential mass murders BEFORE they commit a horrible crime. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been conclusively demonstrated that almost all mass murderers (over the last few years) have had a very strong social media presence including tell tale posts indicative of their intensions.

That is something anyway. Maybe someone watched the show Elementary this season which is precisely about this and a bigwig businessman who goes down the path of killing people his search engines show MIGHT become such mass murderers. Sherlock Holmes and Watson are trying to take this madman down. No human being should play God. And this man, the search engine Guru, is a narcissistic sociopath IMHO. He is extremely bright though.

And I would guess many of the friends of would be mass shooters are already telling the FBI and local police about friends and acquaintances they think might do something horrible. They have stopped would be shooters this way. I think one at the Villages Charter School was stopped by someone alerting a school authority of stuff he/she had heard on the social grape vine. That was after Parkland I believe much not very long after it. I could be wrong however.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

No need to link it again

"In October 2005, as part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress passed and the President signed into law legislation making it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device.16 The law includes various exceptions, including transfers to other federal firearms licensees, law enforcement officers, and federal, state or local agencies.17 The legislation does not apply to transfers by private sellers, and does not require that transferees use the device.18"

Steve
"provided with" secure storage OR safety device is not the same thing as "having all firearms come with trigger locks installed and locked, upon initial sale."
It's not the same thing. I was being very specific with my words.

Not just any gun storage, not "provided with" - which doesn't require that the gun is LOCKED when it's sold, only that the option for the gun owner to lock it is provided.

Opt in vs. opt out. It sounds like a small distinction but it's significant.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I finally read something that seems to make a lot of sense to me as a very reasonable idea to help prevent future mass shootings. The White House has instructed the Department of Justice to work with large internet social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, to develop tools to help identify potential mass murders BEFORE they commit a horrible crime. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been conclusively demonstrated that almost all mass murderers (over the last few years) have had a very strong social media presence including tell tale posts indicative of their intensions.

That will just drive the criminals to find any of the myriad of other media options available to them. For instance - 8chan, which is where one of the shooters posted. I'd never heard of it til this week. But obviously one of the shooters did.

[Taltarzac725]

That will just drive the criminals to find any of the myriad of other media options available to them. For instance - 8chan, which is where one of the shooters posted. I'd never heard of it til this week. But obviously one of the shooters did.

There is a dark web that most of us know nothing about. You need special software to access it. They do talk about it a lot in law and order like TV shows.

[Kenswing]

"provided with" secure storage OR safety device is not the same thing as "having all firearms come with trigger locks installed and locked, upon initial sale."
It's not the same thing. I was being very specific with my words.

Not just any gun storage, not "provided with" - which doesn't require that the gun is LOCKED when it's sold, only that the option for the gun owner to lock it is provided.

Opt in vs. opt out. It sounds like a small distinction but it's significant.
What's the big push to have the lock installed upon initial sale? All you do is open the case, insert key in lock and remove the lock. You could do that before you even leave the store or when you get to your car.

[billethkid]

There needs to be a more open minded approach to the issue/problem.

Need we be reminded the lawful gun owners in the magnitude exceeding 98% are being tarred with the brush intended for the less than one percent wacko/deranged/what ever bent on doing harm.

Until such time intelligent solutions come forth addressing the real issue....there will be nothing done as demonstrated by the so called lack of action over the years and to date.
There is no doubt our law makers have struggled with this problem through many administrations.

Like it or not....call it what one will or not....there has to be recognition calling for change that is aimed at the one percent while ignoring the 98% just is not going to progress.

The above means nothing to anti-gunners, the uninformed and their agenda.

[anothersteve]

What's the big push to have the lock installed upon initial sale? All you do is open the case, insert key in lock and remove the lock. You could do that before you even leave the store or when you get to your car.

Wondering the same thing myself.
Steve

[Polar Bear]

What's the big push to have the lock installed upon initial sale? All you do is open the case, insert key in lock and remove the lock...
Wondering the same thing myself...
As was I.

[tophcfa]

Trigger locks are not part of the gun culture, in general. Most people with firearms don't have them, don't use them, and some don't even know what they are. Similarly to drivers of cars and trucks: The vast majority of drivers buckle up - not because it's the law, but because the law and the existence of these belts have changed the culture of drivers.

So change the culture of gun owners, by having all firearms come with trigger locks installed and locked, upon initial sale. Some folks won't use them. But eventually, more people will, than won't, because this one change will have changed the culture such that their use is just an automatic thing people do. Like stopping at red lights - those didn't always exist, afterall. But the culture was changed. Even a typical law-breaking person who drives too fast, is very likely to stop at a red light as opposed to ignoring it.

There's no barrier preventing anyone from running a red light. But they stop anyway. Because the culture has changed.

That's what I mean about changing the culture of gun owners.

Trigger locks have their place in safety, like storing a firearm that is in your home and not in a safe, so that a child can not stumble across the firearm and accidentally discharge it (if the owner is stupid enough to leave it loaded). Or if a firearm owner is traveling so that if they go into a store someone can not steal the firearm from the car and easily use it. However, in my home state of Massachusetts, they have gone overboard with the requirements. My pistol needs to be stored in a safe or with a trigger lock, unloaded. The ammunition needs to be stored in a separate, locked area. So if a thief breaks into my home, I need to tell him/her, excuse me, please wait her while I unlock my pistol, then go to a separate area and unlock my ammunition. Then please wait patiently while I load my firearm. I don't think someone who has no regard of the law, and has already broken into my home, will abide. I am better off owning a knife, baseball bat, or Ax to protect my family. Oh well, so goes it in the state of Massachusetts.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It wasn't a "big push." It was a suggestion, that y'all have spent two pages on this forum questioning. Seems to me that the push is to reject suggestions.

[Taltarzac725]

Trigger locks have their place in safety, like storing a firearm that is in your home and not in a safe, so that a child can not stumble across the firearm and accidentally discharge it (if the owner is stupid enough to leave it loaded). Or if a firearm owner is traveling so that if they go into a store someone can not steal the firearm from the car and easily use it. However, in my home state of Massachusetts, they have gone overboard with the requirements. My pistol needs to be stored in a safe or with a trigger lock, unloaded. The ammunition needs to be stored in a separate, locked area. So if a thief breaks into my home, I need to tell him/her, excuse me, please wait her while I unlock my pistol, then go to a separate area and unlock my ammunition. Then please wait patiently while I load my firearm. I don't think someone who has no regard of the law, and has already broken into my home, will abide. I am better off owning a knife, baseball bat, or Ax to protect my family. Oh well, so goes it in the state of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Gun Control Laws - FindLaw (https://statelaws.findlaw.com/massachusetts-law/massachusetts-gun-control-laws.html)

From what you wrote it sounds like common sense has gone out to window as far as home protection is involved in Massachusetts.

Safe Storage | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/)

My rifle is never loaded at home nor on the road but I always treat it like it is. But I would have a hard time getting to the ammunition I have so much junk around.

[Kenswing]

It wasn't a "big push." It was a suggestion, that y'all have spent two pages on this forum questioning. Seems to me that the push is to reject suggestions.
Just trying to understand why you think such a measure would help.. You're the one who made the point that the lock should be installed at the time of sale. Just trying to understand the benefit..

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Just trying to understand why you think such a measure would help.. You're the one who made the point that the lock should be installed at the time of sale. Just trying to understand the benefit..

It's one tool to change how consumers use a product, that provides a pro-active approach to consumer safety.

Sort of like the seatbelt issue. Until it was a mandatory requirement for car manufacturers to build their cars with those seatbelts, most people didn't use them, even if their cars came with them. That was before USING them was made mandatory too. But once all the cars were manufactured with them, the use of them went up significantly. Only at that point, after seeing their use go up and un-belted deaths go down, did the states start mandating the use of these things that were required.

The same concept with trigger locks at the point of sale. If the thing comes locked, then that one singular minor inconvenience will set the psychological message to the buyer to correlate "buy gun" with "lock gun."

It's a simple, potentially effective, relatively inexpensive (considering that they have to come with some kind of lock or storage anyway) tool to "change the culture."

Is there some reason why anyone would be AGAINST the idea? Or any of the other ideas I suggested? Or is it another one of those "I don't understand, therefore I'm against it" things?

[Kenswing]

It's one tool to change how consumers use a product, that provides a pro-active approach to consumer safety.

Sort of like the seatbelt issue. Until it was a mandatory requirement for car manufacturers to build their cars with those seatbelts, most people didn't use them, even if their cars came with them. That was before USING them was made mandatory too. But once all the cars were manufactured with them, the use of them went up significantly. Only at that point, after seeing their use go up and un-belted deaths go down, did the states start mandating the use of these things that were required.

The same concept with trigger locks at the point of sale. If the thing comes locked, then that one singular minor inconvenience will set the psychological message to the buyer to correlate "buy gun" with "lock gun."

It's a simple, potentially effective, relatively inexpensive (considering that they have to come with some kind of lock or storage anyway) tool to "change the culture."

Is there some reason why anyone would be AGAINST the idea? Or any of the other ideas I suggested? Or is it another one of those "I don't understand, therefore I'm against it" things?
I'm not against it at all. Certainly wouldn't hurt to have a lock installed. That being said, it wouldn't entice me to use a lock any differently than I do now. Maybe for new gun owners it might make a difference. Certainly won't have any impact on mass murders though.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for gun safety. I actually support a requirement that would require people to have some type of gun safety class before being allowed to purchase a firearm. It actually makes me a little nervous knowing there are so many people out there who have bought a gun for self protection who have never fire it or any gun before. I know the 2nd Amendment would probably prevent that from ever happening though.

[billethkid]

But what does all the so called safety like trigger locks, safes, etc have to do with solving the mass shooting issue?

All the devices/suggestions/etc/etc/etc do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.....the 1% problem. What good does it do if the already law abiding safe gun owner uses all these means and devices to avoid accidental shootings are used by the 98+%.

The one percent would/could care less and will go on their rampage of killing.

This thread is a shining example of why law makers at all levels of government seem to have done little or nothing. Way too much effort being spent debating aspects of gun control that have nothing to do with how to keep us safe from the next mass shooter!!!!

Surely all the brain power available could do an analysis of all public and mass shootings. Reaching some conclusion after looking at all the who, the why, the when, the where, how often, time of day, the weather, how many others knew or saw the signs but did nothing.
What is it that we do not do merely because we are more concerned about offending some one or some group or some organization than nailing down the issue.

WHAT EVER IT TAKES!!!!
Has not happened to date. And it is unlikely to not happen any time soon.

As far as weighing down the 98+% of law abiding gun owners with more controls/restrictions/etc to control the 1%....be happy in the quest as that is all that will be accomplished....the quest that is!!

[Polar Bear]

But what does all the so called safety like trigger locks, safes, etc have to do with solving the mass shooting issue?...
Considering the topic of the thread, that’s a very fair question. And the answer is obvious to most...nothing.

[Taltarzac725]

Considering the topic of the thread, that’s a very fair question. And the answer is obvious to most...nothing.

Actually a gun trigger lock might stop some teenager who takes their parents' weapons with the idea of using these in a school or some other kind of shooting.

Horrible attacks my man using a knife in Southern CA. He was targeting Hispanics. Sounds mentally ill from descriptions of what happened.

4 Killed, 2 Wounded in Series of O.C. Attacks; Suspect Arrested | KTLA (https://ktla.com/2019/08/07/several-killed-in-series-of-garden-grove-attacks-police/)

[ColdNoMore]

The truth of the matter is, that the NRA and gun-nuts will do everything possible (including the NRA spending itself into bankruptcy) to stop any meaningful changes in the laws until this tragedy, like all of those previously...slowly goes away.

Which is what they're counting on.

If by chance some traction is gained on changes, there will be screeching about how "the government is trying to take away all of your guns," which as history has proved...will simply spur gun/ammunition sales.

And then grateful gun/ammo manufacturers will donate to the coffers of the NRA to keep their financial heads above water and nothing will happen or change...once again. :oops:

The ONLY way meaningful progress can ever be made in this country, is to somehow convince those who feel 'manly/macho' when they have their guns, that it takes more guts/integrity/honor...to stand up to the insanity of the ingrained gun culture in this country...that so many worship. :ohdear:

[anothersteve]

The truth of the matter is, that the NRA and gun-nuts will do everything possible (including the NRA spending itself into bankruptcy) to stop any meaningful changes in the laws until this tragedy, like all of those previously...slowly goes away.

Which is what they're counting on.

If by chance some traction is gained on changes, there will be screeching about how "the government is trying to take away all of your guns," which as history has proved...will simply spur gun/ammunition sales.

And then grateful gun/ammo manufacturers will donate to the coffers of the NRA to keep their financial heads above water and nothing will happen or change...once again. :oops:

The ONLY way meaningful progress can ever be made in this country, is to somehow convince those who feel 'manly/macho' when they have their guns, that it takes more guts/integrity/honor...to stand up to the insanity of the ingrained gun culture in this country...that so many worship. :ohdear:

What Both Sides Don't Get About American Gun Culture - POLITICO Magazine (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/04/mass-shooting-gun-culture-227502)

"The view of guns as neutral tools, a view shared by conservative defenders of gun rights as well as liberal advocates of gun regulation, misses a crucial fact about guns and gun ownership. It wrongly assumes that the distribution of guns and their presence in their owners' lives are totally independent facts that don't shape the opportunities and choices of the people who use them.

But increasingly, research into the culture and political views of gun owners is painting a very different portrait. Gun owners' politics don't generally fall into lockstep with the NRA—but guns themselves are woven into people's lives in ways that go far beyond a tool. This suggests that the path to gun law reform won’t be as simple as liberals might hope or conservatives might fear."

"One of the most authoritative and interesting surveys of the attitudes of gun owners was conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2017. That survey shows the vast majority of Americans who own guns are not members of the NRA and that most favor some form of gun control. However, most refrain from pushing for greater regulation of guns because they neither trust the government nor believe that it will protect them. They often resent the disdain for their way of life of the kind expressed by President Barack Obama when he suggested they “cling to guns or religion” as a way of expressing “antipathy to people who aren't like them … as a way to explain their frustrations." They see themselves as on their own in a dangerous world."

The demographics of gun ownership in the U.S. | Pew Research Center (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/)

Steve

[ColdNoMore]

What Both Sides Don't Get About American Gun Culture - POLITICO Magazine (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/04/mass-shooting-gun-culture-227502)

"The view of guns as neutral tools, a view shared by conservative defenders of gun rights as well as liberal advocates of gun regulation, misses a crucial fact about guns and gun ownership. It wrongly assumes that the distribution of guns and their presence in their owners' lives are totally independent facts that don't shape the opportunities and choices of the people who use them.

But increasingly, research into the culture and political views of gun owners is painting a very different portrait. Gun owners' politics don't generally fall into lockstep with the NRA—but guns themselves are woven into people's lives in ways that go far beyond a tool. This suggests that the path to gun law reform won’t be as simple as liberals might hope or conservatives might fear."

"One of the most authoritative and interesting surveys of the attitudes of gun owners was conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2017. That survey shows the vast majority of Americans who own guns are not members of the NRA and that most favor some form of gun control. However, most refrain from pushing for greater regulation of guns because they neither trust the government nor believe that it will protect them. They often resent the disdain for their way of life of the kind expressed by President Barack Obama when he suggested they “cling to guns or religion” as a way of expressing “antipathy to people who aren't like them … as a way to explain their frustrations." They see themselves as on their own in a dangerous world."

The demographics of gun ownership in the U.S. | Pew Research Center (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/)

Steve

Thank you for making my point...much appreciated. :ho:


The truth of the matter is, that the NRA and gun-nuts will do everything possible...


...to stand up to the insanity of the ingrained gun culture in this country.


P.S. And by no means should my label of "gun-nuts" be applied to all who own weapons. That designation is reserved for those who put any regulation of guns...above the lives of innocent children and the public.

I mean for cripes sake, discounting the insane scumbags who claimed that Sandy Hook never even happened, if next to nothing of consequence was accomplished after THAT atrocity...what chance does any other tragedy have of changing the gun-nut's minds? :ohdear:

[anothersteve]

"but guns themselves are woven into people's lives in ways that go far beyond a tool."

That's all you took in from those two links?

Steve

[ColdNoMore]

"but guns themselves are woven into people's lives in ways that go far beyond a tool."

That's all you took in from those two links?

Steve

Nope.

Unlike a lot of people here who eschew links in general (quite likely because they haven't figured out how to even provide them :oops:) and others who seldom read them anyway, I almost always take the time to read links provided (a believer of 'never miss an opportunity to increase one's knowledge')...in their entirety.

But instead of taking every single item that I agreed with/supported my own view(s), or even the opinions that I disagree with, I simply highlighted that portion of your post...that went straight to the crux of the issue. :ho:

[Taltarzac725]

How many hunters in the US use an assault rifle for hunting? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/How-many-hunters-in-the-US-use-an-assault-rifle-for-hunting)

Found this interesting.

I grew up around a lot of friends who loved guns in Reno, Nevada. I had two shotguns and two 22s. A single shot 22 and a lever action Winchester like 22.

Used to hunt rattlesnakes around Rattlesnake Mountain in Reno, Nevada with a few friends but was never very good as I would take the rear in the line and "accidentally" bump into rocks. Boy was I clumsy.

The friends I went hunting with had a lot of rattlesnake skins tacked up in their bed rooms. I had Playboy centerfolds at around 13 or 14.

I gave up the friends after one of them shot me in the left picky with a BB gun. He had been pointing it at my eye but I persuaded him to try to shoot between my fingers. He missed. But I had had enough of these "friends" who were very much into the hunting tradition.

They did eat the rattlesnakes they killed.

[Trayderjoe]

I was listening to a discussion that indicated that juvenile records are sealed and/or expunged and thus the current background checks for firearms purchases would not include juvenile records. A juvenile could have committed a crime (or crimes) which would prohibit owning or purchasing a firearm when similar crimes committed by an adult would be flagged.

Should this be true, then all rules that block access to these records should be evaluated, so that firearm purchase background checks can access these records. Perhaps a "first pass" compromise for those who want to keep all juvenile records sealed would be to access personal versus property crimes.

[Taltarzac725]

I was listening to a discussion that indicated that juvenile records are sealed and/or expunged and thus the current background checks for firearms purchases would not include juvenile records. A juvenile could have committed a crime (or crimes) which would prohibit owning or purchasing a firearm when similar crimes committed by an adult would be flagged.

Should this be true, then all rules that block access to these records should be evaluated, so that firearm purchase background checks can access these records. Perhaps a "first pass" compromise for those who want to keep all juvenile records sealed would be to access personal versus property crimes.

There should be a lot of due process in these kind of matters and not broad bumper sticker like policies. Some kids get in with the wrong crowd and then turn over a new leaf. That certainly happened with me and my older brother in Reno, Nevada. I got away from my teen friends because they were too violent for my taste and surrounded myself with books. Then met an English teacher who challenged me to read the classics and the like and gave me a small Memorial Scholarship in her murdered daughter's name-- the Michelle Mitchell Memorial Scholarship. Some of my classmates in her English class and others at Earl Wooster HS were suspects in her murder which was not solved until 1979. It happened on my birthday of 2-24 in 1976. The police were interested in part with Earl Wooster HS students because a Earl Wooster HS student had committed a heinous murder in 1963 of a British skiing instructor Olympic athlete. I guess they thought history might be repeating itself. At least, some of us saw it that way. Both of these killings were with knives.

And it turned out that they got the wrong person in 1979 because of her false confession and the Reno, Nevada community's need to get this case closed. They did identify the most probable culprit in 2014. After the mentally ill woman was behind bars in a mental ward for 35 years.

Context is important and not painting with a too broad a brush. But mistakes are still made but fortunately not that often.

[Midnight Cowgirl]

I finally read something that seems to make a lot of sense to me as a very reasonable idea to help prevent future mass shootings. The White House has instructed the Department of Justice to work with large internet social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, to develop tools to help identify potential mass murders BEFORE they commit a horrible crime. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been conclusively demonstrated that almost all mass murderers (over the last few years) have had a very strong social media presence including tell tale posts indicative of their intensions.


I had mentioned this same thing many, many comments before this one.

I think the public has to be aware of these problematic posts by others that seem to sound a little strange and should be reported to authorities also.

With so many of us on social media sites, the public could easily spot a comment that needs to be reported.

[Trayderjoe]

There should be a lot of due process in these kind of matters and not broad bumper sticker like policies. Some kids get in with the wrong crowd and then turn over a turn leaf. That certainly happened with me and my older brother in Reno, Nevada. I got away from my teen friends because they were too violent for my taste and surrounded myself with books. Then met an English teacher who challenged me to read the classics and the like and gave me a small Memorial Scholarship in her murdered daughter's name-- the Michelle Mitchell Memorial Scholarship. Some of my classmates in her English class and others at Earl Wooster HS were suspects in her murder which was not solved until 1979. It happened on my birthday of 2-24 in 1976. The police were interested in part with Earl Wooster HS students because a Earl Wooster HS student had committed a heinous murder in 1963 of a British skiing instructor Olympic athlete. I guess they thought history might be repeating itself. At least, some of us saw it that way. Both of these killings were with knives.

And it turned out that they got the wrong person in 1979 because of her false confession and the Reno, Nevada community's need to get this case closed. They did identify the most probably culprit in 2014. After the mentally ill woman was behind bars in a mental ward for 35 years.

Context is important and not painting with a too broad a brush. But mistakes are still made but fortunately not that often.

I agree that a broad brush should not be applied, nor did I suggest it. However, where there is a clear criminal history involving crimes against a person (think robbery, assault, etc.) by a juvenile, then that should be considered when that juvenile becomes an adult if they are trying to purchase a firearm. I specifically parsed out the "property" crimes as an example of a "quick" compromise.

Overall, we still have to understand why we have a violence problem, and when someone has such a track record as a juvenile, it should not be expunged or erased from consideration once they become an adult IF they choose to own a firearm in particular.

I wouldn't leave this to politicians to decide the how, clearly the appropriate people need to be identified to put together an appropriate plan.

Will the system be perfect? Probably not, but then again, we do need to do something to keep firearms away from people who should not be in possession of them.

[Trayderjoe]

I had mentioned this same thing many, many comments before this one.

I think the public has to be aware of these problematic posts by others that seem to sound a little strange and should be reported to authorities also.

With so many of us on social media sites, the public could easily spot a comment that needs to be reported.

Agreed. What concerns me is what we hear from people about a mass shooter AFTER such a horrible act. I forget which shooter, but a former friend indicated that AFTER A GUN WAS HELD TO HIS HEAD he stopped being friends with the murderer. Why was this not reported? And if it was, why was it not acted upon? We have also heard from school mates about rape and murder lists. One person claimed she and her mother reported a concern to the school system and nothing happened. Are these people making this stuff up for "15 minutes of fame" or did any/all of these events really happen? I keep hearing if "you see something, say something". Does this really need to be qualified to indicate that you say something BEFORE a murder?

[Midnight Cowgirl]

Agreed. What concerns me is what we hear from people about a mass shooter AFTER such a horrible act. I forget which shooter, but a former friend indicated that AFTER A GUN WAS HELD TO HIS HEAD he stopped being friends with the murderer. Why was this not reported? And if it was, why was it not acted upon? We have also heard from school mates about rape and murder lists. One person claimed she and her mother reported a concern to the school system and nothing happened. Are these people making this stuff up for "15 minutes of fame" or did any/all of these events really happen? I keep hearing if "you see something, say something". Dve just happened,,oes this really need to be qualified to indicate that you say something BEFORE a murder?


I think when someone hears or reads something that may sound a little strange, they don't realize the severity of the words until something bad happens.

I do believe that now -- in light of all the things that have just happened, we all are more aware and on guard.

[Barefoot]

Agreed. What concerns me is what we hear from people about a mass shooter AFTER such a horrible act. I forget which shooter, but a former friend indicated that AFTER A GUN WAS HELD TO HIS HEAD he stopped being friends with the murderer. Why was this not reported? And if it was, why was it not acted upon?

We have also heard from school mates about rape and murder lists. One person claimed she and her mother reported a concern to the school system and nothing happened.

Are these people making this stuff up for "15 minutes of fame" or did any/all of these events really happen? I keep hearing if "you see something, say something". Does this really need to be qualified to indicate that you say something BEFORE a murder?Good questions!
It's incredible to read about these red flags that happened prior to the mass murders. :ohdear:

[Nucky]

I'm waiting for a post from Carl In Tampa. Many people in our Community with Law Enforcement Backgrounds may have different ideas or thoughts than many of our regular people. This Thread has been Fantastic with many Great Ideas but Unfortunately IMHO The Horse Is Out Of The Barn.

I hope many of the possible remedies mentioned and those we haven't heard can be melded into a real solution ASAP. I hope the Rhetoric from everyone will calm down. I can only do something about me so I'll be the first to as my kids say, Chill Out!

I mean to be strickly constructive with my post. Don't spin it, please.

[anothersteve]

I think when someone hears or reads something that may sound a little strange, they don't realize the severity of the words until something bad happens.

I do believe that now -- in light of all the things that have just happened, we all are more aware and on guard.

You mean maybe something like this?

Mother of El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius called police about son owning assault rifle: Lawyers - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-el-paso-shooter-patrick-crusius-called-police/story?id=64846894)

Steve

[Barefoot]

You mean maybe something like this?
Mother of El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius called police about son owning assault rifle: Lawyers - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-el-paso-shooter-patrick-crusius-called-police/story?id=64846894) SteveWow. :ohdear:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

He's 21, has no record or history of criminal activity, therefore he is legally allowed to purchase and possess an AR-15. The bar is set pretty low for gun ownership. The standards are lower than those for driving a car. No one should be surprised by this, at all. Angry, yes. Surprise, no.

[Aces4]

...

[Taltarzac725]

I agree that a broad brush should not be applied, nor did I suggest it. However, where there is a clear criminal history involving crimes against a person (think robbery, assault, etc.) by a juvenile, then that should be considered when that juvenile becomes an adult if they are trying to purchase a firearm. I specifically parsed out the "property" crimes as an example of a "quick" compromise.

Overall, we still have to understand why we have a violence problem, and when someone has such a track record as a juvenile, it should not be expunged or erased from consideration once they become an adult IF they choose to own a firearm in particular.

I wouldn't leave this to politicians to decide the how, clearly the appropriate people need to be identified to put together an appropriate plan.

Will the system be perfect? Probably not, but then again, we do need to do something to keep firearms away from people who should not be in possession of them.

One good thing about the Reno, Nevada mess with the Michelle Mitchell murder and its solution is that the National Judicial College is at the University of Nevada, Reno. Home | The National Judicial College (https://www.judges.org/) (UNR) Michelle Mitchell lost her life close to the UNR campus on 2-24-1976. She was a 19 year old nursing student and not too far from the nursing school when murdered. Of course, the co-eds were very scared that this killer might return to campus. I got two BAs at the University of Nevada, Reno. (1980, 1981 -- Philosophy/History) Her murder was "solved" in 1979.


Some of my Philosophy and other UNR professors taught classes at the National Judicial College.

The boy who shot me in the left pinky around 1974 with a BB gun went into a mental health treatment program soon after that and is now a very successful Reno businessman. Or looks like it. I did not stay in touch with any of the people from that crowd except for one of their sisters. She was very pretty.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

One good thing about the Reno, Nevada mess with the Michelle Mitchell murder and its solution is that the National Judicial College is at the University of Nevada, Reno. Home | The National Judicial College (https://www.judges.org/) (UNR) Michelle Mitchell lost her life close to the UNR campus on 2-24-1976. She was a 19 year old nursing student and not too far from the nursing school when murdered. Of course, the co-eds were very scared that this killer might return to campus. I got two BAs at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her murder was "solved" in 1979.

The boy who shot me in the left pinky around 1974 with a BB gun went into a mental health treatment program soon after that and is now a very successful Reno businessman. Or looks like it.

I was shot in the back by a guy with a BB rifle, when I was in high school. We were at a strip-mall parking lot near the school and I was walking back to class after lunch, he and his buddies were also returning, but a little bit behind me.

I never reported it because these were known bullies, and I knew if I reported it and one of the kids got in trouble, the others in the group would have made the next 3 years of high school a living nightmare.

They weren't mentally ill, and they were legally allowed to own the rifles. No one stopped them, no one called the police when they heard the shot (BB guns aren't silent afterall).

The BB lodged around 1/10th inch deep into the flesh under my shoulderblade. If it had gone two inches to the left I would have suffered permanent spinal damage.

He was aiming for my buttocks.

Fast forward to my early marriage years, when I was in my 30's. Beloved spouse had a BB gun but kept it in storage in the condo basement, which was a shared space under the building, each unit separated by chicken-wire walls.

Some kid from the next building broke into the cellar, broke into our unit, and stole the BB gun. He then proceded to go up the hill to another building, and shot through the screen window of a neighbor. The neighbor's infant child was sitting in a high chair at the table near the window.

I do not, have never, and never will approve of guns, for anyone, for any reason. But I acknowledge and appreciate that they are a necessary part of law enforcement and military. I also acknowledge that - especially in today's mess of a society, people need to maintain their right to own and carry guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government (which is what the 2nd Amendment was written to do in the first place).

[Taltarzac725]

I was shot in the back by a guy with a BB rifle, when I was in high school. We were at a strip-mall parking lot near the school and I was walking back to class after lunch, he and his buddies were also returning, but a little bit behind me.

I never reported it because these were known bullies, and I knew if I reported it and one of the kids got in trouble, the others in the group would have made the next 3 years of high school a living nightmare.

They weren't mentally ill, and they were legally allowed to own the rifles. No one stopped them, no one called the police when they heard the shot (BB guns aren't silent afterall).

The BB lodged around 1/10th inch deep into the flesh under my shoulderblade. If it had gone two inches to the left I would have suffered permanent spinal damage.

He was aiming for my buttocks.

Fast forward to my early marriage years, when I was in my 30's. Beloved spouse had a BB gun but kept it in storage in the condo basement, which was a shared space under the building, each unit separated by chicken-wire walls.

Some kid from the next building broke into the cellar, broke into our unit, and stole the BB gun. He then proceded to go up the hill to another building, and shot through the screen window of a neighbor. The neighbor's infant child was sitting in a high chair at the table near the window.

I do not, have never, and never will approve of guns, for anyone, for any reason. But I acknowledge and appreciate that they are a necessary part of law enforcement and military. I also acknowledge that - especially in today's mess of a society, people need to maintain their right to own and carry guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government (which is what the 2nd Amendment was written to do in the first place).

I get the 2nd Amendment and its well regulated militia. The Founding Fathers studied Roman and English history and knew what could happen under a bad king, emperor or demagogue. They also put a lot of checks-and-balances impacting the armed forces so that an Emperor, King or demagogue in the USA could not get control of the military like what would happen often in the Roman Empire. One year the Roman Empire had four Emperors and each had his own army. Another had five Emperors. And one six. Year of the Four Emperors - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors) Year of the Five Emperors - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Five_Emperors)
Year of the Six Emperors - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Six_Emperors)

But a group of private citizens taking on the US military in 2019 is very hard to believe. Could have happened in the 1790s I suppose and maybe up through the 1890s but after the machine gun and tank and other even more horrible weapons were made widely used by the military....

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I get the 2nd Amendment and its well regulated militia. The Founding Fathers studied Roman and English history and knew what could happen under a bad king, emperor or demagogue. They also put a lot of checks-and-balances impacting the armed forces so that an Emperor, King or demagogue in the USA could not get control of the military like what would happen often in the Roman Empire. One year the Roman Empire had four Emperors and each had his own army. Another had five Emperors. And one six. Year of the Four Emperors - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors) Year of the Five Emperors - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Five_Emperors)
Year of the Six Emperors - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Six_Emperors)

But a group of private citizens taking on the US military in 2019 is very hard to believe. Could have happened in the 1790s I suppose and maybe up through the 1890s but after the machine gun and tank and other even more horrible weapons were made widely used by the military....

It happened in Germany, Poland, and several other countries between 1939 and 1942. Don't think it can't happen, just because your idea of government military must always, and exclusively, involve tanks and missiles.

The government military can also include foot-soldiers with handguns and rifles, marching through your town and knocking on your door.

Government military can be, has proven to be in the past, and in some places in the world still is, much more nefarious than that.

[Taltarzac725]

It happened in Germany, Poland, and several other countries between 1939 and 1942. Don't think it can't happen, just because your idea of government military must always, and exclusively, involve tanks and missiles.

The government military can also include foot-soldiers with handguns and rifles, marching through your town and knocking on your door.

Government military can be, has proven to be in the past, and in some places in the world still is, much more nefarious than that.

True in lots of parts of the world.

I kind of have a high opinion of the US military because of some of the people I have met over the years and how they often will stand up against those who thwart the rule of law and the US Constitution.

There were good German military in WWII who stood up to Hitler and almost won except for fate in one of the various assassination attempts on Hitler who was a rather mentally ill demagogue who just hit Germany with his despicable ideas at just the wrong time (for Germany and the rest of the world). They moved the meeting place of Hitler's conference because of heat. If not for that he probably would have died along with many of his most prominent followers. 20 July plot - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot) How Close Was Operation Valkyrie to Success? | History Hit (https://www.historyhit.com/how-close-was-operation-valkyrie-to-success/)

The 2nd Amendment did seem to plan for these kind of people resisting tyrants.