Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   Current Events and News (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/)
-   -   Another mass shooting g (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/another-mass-shooting-g-332298/)

biker1 05-27-2022 07:37 PM

Oh, you really mean abortions, not birth control. It takes a lack of moral compass to conflate the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keefelane66 (Post 2099761)


OrangeBlossomBaby 05-27-2022 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zendog3 (Post 2099423)
No gun safety laws will be passed.No law will limit assault rifles with high capacity magazines. So what can be done? This is legislation that our conservative legislators will support:
1. Quit wasting energy trying to increase gun safety.
2. Realize the NRA is right. The only protection against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.
3. Pass a law requiring every school teacher to carry a loaded automatic pistol anytime he or she is near children.
4. Children under 14 should probably not carry guns, but 15 and older should be required to carry guns while in school to protect themselves.
5. Halls in schools should have glass boxes every 50 yards with a loaded gun inside and a sing that says 'IN CASE OF ACTIVE SHOOTER, BREAK GLASS AND SHOOT INTRUDER.
These laws would stop school shootings! Who would be stupid enough to attack a school if they knew everyone in the place was armed? These common-sense laws would also eliminate bullying. No one wold bully another, if the knew the bullied person had easy access to a deadly weapon.
Widespread gun ownership would also stop road rage. If someone cuts me off, I am unlikely to assail him at the next stop sign if I know he is packing heat.

Spoken like someone who buys the NRA propaganda lock, stock, and double-barrel.

Here's a clue for you (you won't listen to it but here it is anyway):

The NRA has spread the meme about "the only protection against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The NRA is having their convention this weekend. The NRA convention, supposedly FILLED with nothing but the "best" guys with guns - has banned guns at the convention.

Why is that? Why would they be afraid of the one bad guy with a gun, in a convention filled with thousands of goods guys with guns? Why would they need to forbid ALL firearms there?

The answer: because they don't believe that the only way to protect against a bad guy with a gun is to be a good guy with a gun. They don't believe a word of it. What they believe, is that one bad guy with a gun is a really BAD thing, and since they have no way of knowing which guy is the bad one, they're telling them that none of them can have them. You know, the one thing they're accusing certain political party people of trying to do to them - take away their guns.

At their convention - they're taking away your guns. That's what the NRA is doing, to their own guests at their own convention.

But doing that isn't right for anyone else. It's only right for them.

Topspinmo 05-27-2022 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099874)
Gee whiz Batwoman! Somehow banana magazine does NOT have the same nice ring to it as BANANA CLIP. And the logic of blaming dems for the recent increase to 400,000 guns in civilian US hands seems a little........shall we say WEAK. There is some other reason for that increase? One religion expert recently tossed out a theory something like.........the religious right-wing uses GUNS as a kind of "virtue signaling". I assume that this lets them find ACCEPTANCE within that religious right. The young man whispers into the fair maiden's ear, "You like GUNS, I like GUNS, let's .........get married and make little right-wing babies"!
.........That is just one theory. I am not sure myself what has caused this recent increase. I need to further ponder that?


Liberal rant, that’s all.

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099710)
I would like to posit another point on guns. Why are illegal guns so available? Why are so many poor teens buying guns? I suggest our wonderful failure - WAR ON DRUGS. A young poor kid (not this one) looking at a life of poverty or flipping burgers and comparing that to a life with fast cars and women and all they have to do is sell drugs on street corners and get rich. The life may be short, but it will be fun!

Selling drugs provides the funds to buy these no so inexpensive guns. How many poor teens could drop out of school and buy a Luger or AR15 and ammunition? It is the street sales of illegal drugs that funds it. And the guns are simply a tool needed in that line of business.

That is the seed (root cause in my humble opinion). That then leads to all the evils we hear about is large cities - you never hear about a gang doing drive by battings.

Legalizing all drugs will eventually eliminate that entire source of funding for purchasing and using guns by teens and all the crime and deaths caused by them. And it would eliminate all the Billions of dollars we spend on the endless useless Drug War. It would eliminate a large source of income for Drug cartels.

The only down side would be addicts, and the crime, medical and other costs related to that. And other countries have shown that those costs are more than offset by taxing the drug sales.

I propose that one step in stopping gun violence would be to legalize and tax all drugs. Not perfect, it won't stop all gun violence, but I think it is pretty obvious that it would eliminate most.

Interesting theory, but how would that explain the increase from 300 thousand to 400 thousand guns in the last 2 years?

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099722)
Uh, nope, actually, the main difference between English and U.S. safeguards is that English protections rest on statute or case law and may be changed by ordinary statute, whereas U.S. safeguards are constitutional and cannot be relaxed unless the Supreme Court later reverses its interpretation or the Constitution is amended. In addition, our law is judged based on precedent and English law is based on case law. Judges in England have virtually no latitude in judgements, they must rule based on common law, here judges have a lot of latitude and arguments are mostly based on precedent of "similar" cases to determine how to apply the law. Very different.

The claim by many experts that English common law is based on Christianity is rooted in Christianity is a result of the "Church of England" (based on Catholic - without the pope) and is a major reason many people came to the US to get away from a state sponsored religion. I recommend the Patriot Papers for more details.

And I could point out many other religions that also propose "morals" and "ethics" and "laws". As has been posted, some where is religion referenced in the constitution except the prescription of the government endorsing it. In the western world Christianity has had a very dominate affect on morality and ethics. But, it is not along, and the Constitution is very clear the founders did not want religion playing a role in government.

I have NO problem with people practicing their religion, I have a lot of problem with anyone wanting ME to practice their religion.

That includes my older brother who has multiple doctorates, with his first as Doctor of Theology, and has been on multiple Presidents ethics/morality advisory counsels, including President Bush, and worked as a Southern Baptist Minister in rather large churches around the country his entire life. He KNOWS better than to "encourage" me to go to church! And he adamantly opposes any infiltration of religion into the government and will not hesitate to let you know why if you ask... LOL!

Good educational post. And I ask this question.......do Charter Schools blur the line between church and state? And were they specifically engineered to do just that ?

MartinSE 05-27-2022 07:50 PM

My wife and I had a hour long discussion about the root cause of gun violence in this country today.

This would also explain why so many people believe it is the loss of "faith" that is the problem. The decline of devout Christians happened in the same time period. Which was the cause, can be debated.

This also contains many of the elements I have heard/read on here constantly by my conservative friends. I find myself agreeing with many of their points.

More and more it seems to us that the main thing, the most significant thing that changed was not the growth of the number of guns (that is just a symptom, not a cause) but what changed over the past 50 years is the destruction of the "middle class".

Back in the "good old days" most middle class families had a single bread winner. Not so much today.

Back in the good old days people were optimistic about making a better future for their kids. Not so much today.

Back in the good old days women could CHOOSE to follow a career (or any job) or stay home. Not so much today.

Most people today are pessimistic about the future and they raise their children with that pessimism, frustration and anger. That infects their children with despair, depression, anxiety, apathy and anger. And those children typically don't have a stay at home parent to support them and so they learn from peers, social media and the rage panderers. All of which feed on clicks which are driven by anger and fear.

Back in the good old days kids grew up with positive role models of success (Father knows best, Beaver Cleaver, etc, etc, etc) and positive parents that worked hard but for a reason - to make a better life for their children.

Today, most shows are depressing - post-apocolypse types and shows where the law enforcement officers that used to be like the sheriff of Mayberry, compared to today law enforcement "heroes" often that step outside the system (break the law) to catch the bad guy. Some even are the bad guy (I forget the name but there is a successful show where a serial killer helps the cops catch bad guys, or a show where a school professor turns to making and selling drugs, etc. )

The entire future has shifted from work hard and you can succeed type of optimistic parents to angry and frustrated parents that don't have the time or energy to raise their own kids. So, the kids growing up now go to school fearing they may end up murdered (and they are not always wrong).

Constant stress like that can be crippling and lead to "acting out". They learn to NOT trust the system, because the system is broken and doesn't care about them. No one cares about them, they have been murdered at school for over 20 years now and it appears no one is doing anything to save them. Even their parent(s) abandon them every day to make a living. In the "good old days" parents also worked their ass off and often kids felt abandoned, but then the reason was (in teh background) their parents were working so hard as a way to help their children. Today, their parents are working that hard because of the children - it is expensive to raise children - much more so than in the "good old days". So, the kids have to take on that guilt also - they don't have parents because of them.

Obviously am not saying EVERYONE. I am saying most of the middle class - when there was one.

And that entire change we believe comes about because of the growing death of the middle class. The inevitable result of more and more concentration of wealth in the few. More and more both spouses HAVE to work - not to get ahead, but to survive. And even that is often not enough. We have a growing homeless problem that kids in big cities see everyday. And, they are not just the mental patients, they are not just the lazy "bums" or "hobos" we grew up with. Many are/were upper middle class. I know, I was one of the homeless and it happened suddenly. Just before I had been making 6 figures as an IT consultant. It can and does disappear. When kids see that upper middle class family that went to their school last year - it takes a toll on their belief that they can work hard and succeed. Why brother when everyone they know is working hard and falling behind.

It is a very toxic atmosphere we live in and it leads to very toxic life styles. As old folks from the "good old days" we are very resilient - because most of us grew top in that positive environment. Not all families were my three sons, but the community environment was generally - "this too will pass ,and things will get better". Now it is - things are only going to get worse, nothing I do can change anything. Etc. It is hard to understand what is wrong with this "lazy generation". Why are they not all positive, happy and working to make a better future - we think and say. Which just makes it worse for the children and grand children, because many of us are constantly telling them with these comments that they are lazy failures. Some become broken, and strike out. Guns can then become the tool to express their anger and frustration at the world and everyone in it. Guns give them the power to control their lives. Guns help them be seen. They become important.

I remember a dog trainer telling me, dogs want attention. They will behave to get it, if that doesn't work they will misbehave - but they will get attention, one way or the other. Same can be said for people, especially children.

So, why doesn't this happen in other countries? Well, many of the 1st world countries don't have the disparage in wealth - another thing no so great the US leads in. And combined MOST other countries don't have a plethora of guns easily available. So, when the depressed/angry what ever act out, they have to find other means, because they don't have the easy access to guns.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

OrangeBlossomBaby 05-27-2022 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe (Post 2099632)
Unfortunately that was not clear in the original reply.

Not sure what this has to do with my post, seems to "muddy the waters"

Well not quite. In order to purchase a firearm in Texas, you need either a driver's license or a Texas State ID (link) for which you need proof of the following:

U.S. Citizenship or, if you are not a U.S. Citizen, evidence of lawful presence.
Texas Residency
Identity and
Social Security Number

So BEFORE you can even buy a gun in Texas, you have to either meet the requirements of a driver's license or have lawfully obtained a Texas State ID. THEN you still need to pass a FEDERALLY required background check if purchasing from a gun dealer as this killer did. Oh and by the way, my original request still stands, please provide proof that it is easier to buy a gun legally than to get a driver's license "in many states". The Texas example doesn't work.


Interesting. I too have been trained in multiple methodologies such as Root Cause Analysis and Six Sigma. What is consistent is identifying the problem and sustainable fixes. Handling "low hanging fruit" is easy in a company for example, where the "bosses" have the ability to shutdown an operation temporarily while these interim fixes are implemented. However, we are not talking about a company with a somewhat limited set of stakeholders but a country with so many more different stakeholders.

I don't know what Root Cause Analysis and Six Sigma is. But I do know how to do a google search and check actual case law and state statutes and regulations.

Your information is correct ONLY as it applies to licensed firearms dealers. It doesn't apply to private sales, or gun shows in Texas. Anyone can buy a gun at a gun show, no background check, no license or ID necessary.

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 2099758)
Taking all of what you said at face value, as being possibly being accurate to an extent, I suggest something that many should consider. Instead of comparing stats, try comparing lifestyles of the different countries compared to ours. And I am not attempting to belittle these tragedies by saying they are minor compared to other causes of deaths in our country. Our lifestyle, even at what is considered poverty level is better than most European or other countries. Our poverty level families live as well as many middle class families in other countries. Just pointing out what I have personally observed living most of my life overseas.

"Extreme wealth disparity" is a myth used by a few for other purposes that I can't say on here without being punished. We have a greater opportunity to succeed in this country than anywhere else. The only excuse is self inflicted lack of motivation to excel.

In my opinion (and I know I will be corrected if thought wrong) one reason for such violence and lack of respect for others is that many young folks are not busy or occupied enough. Growing up, my generation mostly worked in some manner. We had paper routes, mowed lawns, collected refundable sofa bottle deposits, washed cars, pulled weeds, lemonade stands, harvested tobacco, or other crops, etc. When we were young, you could get a paying job at age 14 with a workers permit in my state. Keeping kids busy gives them self-respect and their mind focused on goals.

Of course, there has always been violence in the world, ever since Cain and Able.

As to your 2nd paragraph.......Wealth disparity is NOT a myth or even something in dispute or even close to being political. It IS a STATISTICAL fact that can be looked up for EVERY COUNTRY for COMPARISON purposes. Also another statistic..... the US is 30th or less in UPWARD MOBILITY. Just Google the charts on this!

OrangeBlossomBaby 05-27-2022 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jebartle (Post 2099667)
LOCK ALL SCHOOL DOORS, one door entrance with metal detector, I don't care how much it costs, these are our children that need to be protected. Cost, the obnoxious amount spent on campaign funds, that we all ignore, can go toward this.

And when Johnny brings a ghost gun to school and hides the ammo in his hat or shoes (bypassing the metal detectors), the police will be locked out when he shoots up his science class.

dewilson58 05-27-2022 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099889)
Anyway, it's just a thought.

You have over 80 posts in this thread...............are you tired yet??

:ohdear:

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 08:05 PM

True that !

Sarah_W 05-27-2022 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099874)
Gee whiz Batwoman! Somehow banana magazine does NOT have the same nice ring to it as BANANA CLIP. And the logic of blaming dems for the recent increase to 400,000 guns in civilian US hands seems a little........shall we say WEAK. There is some other reason for that increase? One religion expert recently tossed out a theory something like.........the religious right-wing uses GUNS as a kind of "virtue signaling". I assume that this lets them find ACCEPTANCE within that religious right. The young man whispers into the fair maiden's ear, "You like GUNS, I like GUNS, let's .........get married and make little right-wing babies"!
.........That is just one theory. I am not sure myself what has caused this recent increase. I need to further ponder that?

Yeah, banana mag sounds odd, doesn't it? I can't ignore the significant uptick in firearms sales since January of 2020 and the rabid hoarding of ammunition. The shear number of first time gun buyers is/was hugely significant. That tells me people were and still are afraid and feel vulnerable. A high percentage of my students relate these feelings to me. When the pandemic began I lived 40 miles north of Los Angeles. Hoarding of common household items became a serious problem. People were actually hurting other people in stores. Crime rose dramatically with home invasions. By mid 2020 what the future held was anyones guess. I lived with my cousin and we made risk assessments of our home. We made contingency plans. Obviously, I feel quite capable of defending my home, but what about beyond? CA's Governor shut down gun shops for a while and all of the sudden we knew exactly what its like to not be able to buy ammo. Being in "the business" I had professional contacts and I made sure not to fall below 1,000 rounds in any caliber. I have to have ammo to teach and of course for my own needs.

It disturbs me when evil people, criminals conduct their heinous crimes, killing innocents, especially children. To the core. Then our Legislators want to tell me that I can't have this gun or that gun. Not because of my conduct or my behavior but because of the conduct of an evil person.

i can't accept their reasoning.

MartinSE 05-27-2022 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2099865)
I think it's important to look at our history prior to 1787 and what led up to the writing of the Constitution. Arguably the path was set with the Stamp Act of 1765, converging in Concord and Lexington in 1775 as the British moved to disarm Americans. Our Revolutionary War lasted 8 years and they were very hard desperate years. As Patrick Henry famously said, "I know not what path others may take, but for me, give me Liberty or give me Death.". That sentence sums up our quest for Independence and self-determination. John Dickinson's name has been lost to history for most Americans, but his importance for his time can't be understated. He wrote the grievances to King George, which are delineated in our Declaration of Independence, as well as the Articles of Confederation. But, after eight years of governing this new nation under the Articles it was clear it didn't work and needed to be fixed.

In 1787, 12 of the 13 states sent delegates to Philadelphia with one directive, fix the Articles. It was clear they were not authorized to do anything else. The debates ensued and it didn't take long for them to recognize that the Articles were not salvageable. The debates continued and they drafted the Constitution. Individual citizens Rights were not included.

I think the heart of the matter, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, comes to Federalism versus Anti-Federalism. I can really appreciate that they were able to work together to create our Freedom documents. I think we can all understand that surviving eight years of war with the most powerful government and most powerful military of their time might leave them resistant to create another government that might oppress them some day (Anti-Federalists). We can also understand the need of having a strong government and global presence (Federalists). The leading Federalists, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams and more did not want a Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, did not want a strong central government and fought for a Bill of Rights to be included.

It is not difficult to get into the hearts and minds of our Founding Fathers. So much of it is documented. James Madison knew they were doing historic work and transcribed all of their debates. They can be read in a bound book that is 600 type written pages. There are other books on the debates. We have the writings of John Dickinson, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster and so many more. Between 1776 and 1826, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote 1,250 letters to each other. Today that is three volumes.

Knowing that their government sought to disarm them; knowing that they fought eight long years against their government for Independence from oppressive government agendas; and knowing that absolute power corrupts absolutely, I understand the need to enshrine certain Rights with the goal of never having the same oppression. It was required that all 13 states ratify the new Constitution and it took 10 of 13 to pass the Amendments. The Framers heard the message loud and clear that it would not get ratified if the Individual Rights were not included. Madison presented 19 Amendment to the House, to appease the Anti-Federalists. The House presented 17 Amendments to the Senate who paired them down to 12, rewriting some before sending them to the states. The States approved 10 of the Amendments which became our Bill of Rights. One of the Amendments that allowed Congress to give themselves a raise remained unpassed until 1992 when it became our 27th Amendment.

So, I totally understand the very important need to keep and bear arms from the perspective of our Founding Fathers if only for the need to once again face off with an oppressive government. Having arms for the purpose of hunting and self-defense would not even have been a debate or conversation in 1787, it would have been a given, as simply common sense. As I've mentioned, I have nearly 70 books in my library devoted on the Constitution. Personally, I think I am in between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Thank you for that excellent summary. I agree with you, and every thing you said. I do think, from my own readings that there was a lot of "closed door" compromises with slavery, rights, and more - and they all knew it would require compromises on both sides. I also believe they included the ability to modify the constitution specify so changes could be made after the bare minimum they could get passed was actually passed.
---

I have NO desire to do away with gun ownership, as a practical matter and as a "it doesn't really matter" matter. Responsible good people use guns responsibly. Duh. It is the minority of bad actors that causes everyone else to suffer.

I call it my "speed bump theory" of social engineering.

That goes like this, shopping centers have to slow down the few reckless speeders that are endangering the stores customers and driving their insurance through the roof. The responsible people are driving carefully, and not causing any problems. But that small minority races through the parking lot. So, enter speed bumps. It slows down the responsible customers, it even causes damage to the but - but it works enough (not perfect but good enough) to make the insurance company happy, and so we all are punished because of the actions of the few. Eventually, most people drive slowly (social engineered) enough to be "safe" in the parking lots - with or with out the speed bumps.

Sounds to me kind of like the situation we are in with guns. The problem is, how do we solve the problem without punishing the responsible people...

Again, thank you, you seem to be a voice of reason and knowledge in a field of anger and chaos. I look forward to learning more from you.

dewilson58 05-27-2022 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2099896)
You have over 80 posts in this thread...............are you tired yet??

:ohdear:

Guess not.

:ohdear::ohdear:

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2099792)
From what I can see, most present day 'Texans' were on the other side at the Alamo!

That is just a "teeny, tiny" bit racist. So, I will not comment.

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099801)
I agree it is at least A cause. Whether it is the root cause, I don't know. I think the root cause is more like cultural. Where we used to have a thriving middle class, and people (my parents and grand parents) were obsessed with working hard so I could have a better life than they did. There was a sense of manifest destiny and it seemed even politicians worked together and worked out their disagreements.

Somewhere along the way, we lost our dream. Making money became the preferred religion and everyone was "out for themselves. From there we have just spiraled downhill. I think the violence is just frustration and anger expressing itself.

We began our long list of "wars" - war on drugs, war on poverty, war on whatever the current thing someone wants to pour our tax dollars into and the only qualification was you had to guarantee to need MORE money if you want to get the grant.

Yes, greed became good..........practically a religion.

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scbang (Post 2099812)
Yes you can not stop all the killings but why do we make it so easy to kill so many so fast?

Sad

That is the root of this discussion!

OrangeBlossomBaby 05-27-2022 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnsocat (Post 2099688)
We are not talking about nukes, cruise missiles and tanks... we are talking about guns...
Disregard my point with semantics because that solves the problem under discussion?

It's not semantics. It's the point of the discussion. You argue about the unconstitutionality of restricting the right to bear arms.

"Arms" have an actual meaning. A definition. It means weapons. It doesn't mean guns. It means weapons. It is a generic term that is NOT more specifically defined in the Constitution.

So MartinSE's point is 100% valid. You say we all have the right to bear arms. Arms means weapons. It does not mean guns, exclusively. It is also not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of law.

jimjamuser 05-27-2022 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scbang (Post 2099820)
I absolutely agree with your observation. Only problem is that your observation is applicable to most of other developed countries and they don't have same mass shooting problem like us. What don't they have? GUNS..

SAD

yes, that IS what I have been saying to prove my opinion!

Taltarzac725 05-27-2022 08:21 PM

Would the Founding Fathers want the "well-regulated militia" to have cannons? Probably if they were to be able to meet a similarly armed foe. How about private citizens having cannon? Maybe if they were captains of legal pirate ships Privateers who faced other ships with cannon but just some person in some city or town? I kind of doubt they were let just anyone own a cannon.

Kenswing 05-27-2022 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2099896)
You have over 80 posts in this thread...............are you tired yet??

:ohdear:

I think Grumpy and JimmyJam are in competition for who can say the same thing over and over the most times. Grumpy took a quick lead but JimmyJam is coming on strong.

Sarah_W 05-27-2022 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099889)
My wife and I had a hour long discussion about the root cause of gun violence in this country today.


Anyway, it's just a thought.

Excellent post!

Sarah_W 05-27-2022 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2099895)
And when Johnny brings a ghost gun to school and hides the ammo in his hat or shoes (bypassing the metal detectors), the police will be locked out when he shoots up his science class.

Neither a "ghost gun" nor ammo would bypass a metal detector.

MartinSE 05-27-2022 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2099898)
Yeah, banana mag sounds odd, doesn't it? I can't ignore the significant uptick in firearms sales since January of 2020 and the rabid hoarding of ammunition. The shear number of first time gun buyers is/was hugely significant. That tells me people were and still are afraid and feel vulnerable. A high percentage of my students relate these feelings to me. When the pandemic began I lived 40 miles north of Los Angeles. Hoarding of common household items became a serious problem. People were actually hurting other people in stores. Crime rose dramatically with home invasions. By mid 2020 what the future held was anyones guess. I lived with my cousin and we made risk assessments of our home. We made contingency plans. Obviously, I feel quite capable of defending my home, but what about beyond? CA's Governor shut down gun shops for a while and all of the sudden we knew exactly what its like to not be able to buy ammo. Being in "the business" I had professional contacts and I made sure not to fall below 1,000 rounds in any caliber. I have to have ammo to teach and of course for my own needs.

It disturbs me when evil people, criminals conduct their heinous crimes, killing innocents, especially children. To the core. Then our Legislators want to tell me that I can't have this gun or that gun. Not because of my conduct or my behavior but because of the conduct of an evil person.

i can't accept their reasoning.

Another reasonable post, this is getting to be a habit with you.

I guess I have been "out of touch" (personally inflicted) for a while and I just learned tonight that the Administration is going to make another attempt at banning "assault weapons". Obviously in response to the emergent situation. I am a liberal and I am TOTALLY against that. I am about as anti-gun as a person can be, and I am totally against that. Why, you ask?

Because it is typical liberal/DEM grand standing and it is stupid. It is grandstanding because it is stupid and they know it and they will try anyway. It is stupid because it probably wont pass - so they burn political capital to achieve nothing. It is stupid because even if they get it passed, it will be cut down by the SCOTIS. It is stupid because even if they get it passed, and the SCOTUS does not knock it down, it wont work, because there is no way to collect all the AR15s from people that don't want to give them up. The main thing the law will accomplish is there will be a sudden rash of "stolen gun" reports, and a bunch of AR15's will suddenly mysteriously disappear. Yeah right...

Sigh.

It can't work. It is obvious to the most casual observer. For reasons often expressed here - frequently wrongly (bats anyone), but at the heart is the simple argument that even if somehow the government sends out millions of agents to forcibly collect the guns (a REALLY bad idea) the guns will magically disappear. But, even if the agents find them and one day there are NO AR15's around - okay, so what? There are plenty of alternatives. As many have said hand guns are also semi automatic, hand guns are smaller, lighter, easier to hide, and a 9mm, I believe, can hold 17 rounds. So, a more powerful close in gun that can kill 17 instead of 19 children. And I am SURE you can come up with even better alternatives. So, all the law will actually do at BEST is change the gun of preference for DEMS to hate on.

I really wish the administration would consider passing legislation to close loop hopes in existing laws, pass a universal back ground check and pass a domestic violence bill.

Domestic violence correlates to mass shootings - not saying causation, but there is a strong correlation. And hand guns are the most frequent gun of choice in mass shootings - not AR15's. So they would be addressing two issues - domestic violence and hand guns used in mass shootings, that could probably get passes, it doesn't require the banning of any guns, and it might have an impact - small but measurable impact on mass shootings.

For the schools the ONLY thing I see for now is hardening. No guns carried by teachers - bad idea. No patrolling guard and guard towers. No rate fencing around the school.

But, hardening that is already being used in many schools. Things like locked doors at class rooms. ID verification at a single entry point, maybe with an armed guard - sort of a TSA at airports approach. Surveillance cameras inside and out.

And, here is a tech idea - automatic gun shot detection and location determination in and around schools, that automatically notifies a trained experienced team of responders - sort of a swat team that specializes in mass shooting and school shootings - nothing else. Every city/town would have two teams one primary and one backup. (hopefully we will not get to having two mass shootings per day even in a big city - but maybe)

It is even possible using some of the new AI technologies to identify what type of round/gun was fired (or a good guess) and how many guns are active.

I HATE any of those ideas being put in around elementary schools. I think it is normalizing horror to children. But, for gods sake it has been over 20 years and we have made NO progress. Lots of stupid stuff, but nothing that stopped the recent shooters and constant growth in mass and school shootings.

So, let us do something that can help. Maybe not perfect but better than banning a gun that another gun can be substituted in hours with another model. All politics and no cattle - to paraphrase a Texas saying.

Sarah_W 05-27-2022 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099899)
Thank you for that excellent summary. I agree with you, and every thing you said. I do think, from my own readings that there was a lot of "closed door" compromises with slavery, rights, and more - and they all knew it would require compromises on both sides. I also believe they included the ability to modify the constitution specify so changes could be made after the bare minimum they could get passed was actually passed.
---

I have NO desire to do away with gun ownership, as a practical matter and as a "it doesn't really matter" matter. Responsible good people use guns responsibly. Duh. It is the minority of bad actors that causes everyone else to suffer.

I call it my "speed bump theory" of social engineering.

That goes like this, shopping centers have to slow down the few reckless speeders that are endangering the stores customers and driving their insurance through the roof. The responsible people are driving carefully, and not causing any problems. But that small minority races through the parking lot. So, enter speed bumps. It slows down the responsible customers, it even causes damage to the but - but it works enough (not perfect but good enough) to make the insurance company happy, and so we all are punished because of the actions of the few. Eventually, most people drive slowly (social engineered) enough to be "safe" in the parking lots - with or with out the speed bumps.

Sounds to me kind of like the situation we are in with guns. The problem is, how do we solve the problem without punishing the responsible people...

Again, thank you, you seem to be a voice of reason and knowledge in a field of anger and chaos. I look forward to learning more from you.

As I recall, slavery was a very serious topic during the drafting of the Constitution. After all, "All men are created equal". South Carolina was an economic powerhouse at that time and therefore had a tremendous influence of the proceedings. Slavery of course was the engine of their economy.

The reason I don't like the analogy of cars=guns is because driving a car is a privilege, not a Right. A Right has much more importance than a privilege.

MartinSE 05-27-2022 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2099896)
You have over 80 posts in this thread...............are you tired yet??

:ohdear:

Yes I am tired, I am "sick and tired" of empty thoughts and prayers. I am sick and tired or pointless arguing on what to call a magazine and not coming up with any ideas on how to stop being known as the best country to move to if you want your children to be murdered while being taught to read.

And I am sick and tired of people that would rather argue than try - just try - to fix the problem.

And rest assure, if WE THE PEOPLE want to, we can accomplish anything, solving this problem is easier than going to the moon and we did that.

But instead we go 20 years and accomplish nothing.

Yes, I am very tired. Aren't you?

If my 80 posts bother you, I strongly urge you to block me. It really isn't all that hard.

MartinSE 05-27-2022 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2099915)
The reason I don't like the analogy of cars=guns is because driving a car is a privilege, not a Right. A Right has much more importance than a privilege.

Very true, but most people have cars and hate speed bumps, while only half the people own guns. Most of those people, I expect, never encounter a situation where they are intimately involved with a gun. So, I use the analogy because most people on both sides of the aisle can relate to it.

But also, rights are VERY important, but as a renowned conservative SCOTUS once said, (to paraphrase) "All right are given by the government and can be restricted or limited by the government, including gun rights. Hence, we have gun control laws. The gun control laws we have may be stupid or not effective, but there are limits - even to the first amendment. As I have said in several posts - I want my M1Abrams and I want it now damn it. My RIGHT to bear arms shall not be infringed on and my arms of choice is a tank.

Uh, probably won't happen. But, I can yell - LOL! point being all rights are limited to some degree.

EDIT: Oh I forgot, I expect you have heard of sovereign citizens? They believe that driving is a RIGHT. and they don't need the government to give them permission or a license. So far they have had some difficulty in finding a judge that agrees with them - lol!

MartinSE 05-27-2022 09:04 PM

Good night everyone, enough is as good as a feast, and this thread has been way more than enough for me - wasted another day of the limited supply I have left trying to discuss a serious topic with people that aren't interested. Well a few are interested - most not so much. So, bonne nuit.

I might take a day or two off to recover some balance (I know, I can already hear the crowd roaring with cheers!). I hope I didn't repeat myself too much in this closing post.

Davonu 05-27-2022 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099916)
…solving this problem is easier than going to the moon and we did that….

Couldn’t disagree more.

The moon was a technical challenge, with absolute, computable solutions. Dealing with human mental illness and evil to stop heinous acts of mass murder is far more complex.

Sarah_W 05-27-2022 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2099914)
Another reasonable post, this is getting to be a habit with you.

I guess I have been "out of touch" (personally inflicted) for a while and I just learned tonight that the Administration is going to make another attempt at banning "assault weapons". Obviously in response to the emergent situation. I am a liberal and I am TOTALLY against that. I am about as anti-gun as a person can be, and I am totally against that. Why, you ask?

Because it is typical liberal/DEM grand standing and it is stupid. It is grandstanding because it is stupid and they know it and they will try anyway. It is stupid because it probably wont pass - so they burn political capital to achieve nothing. It is stupid because even if they get it passed, it will be cut down by the SCOTIS. It is stupid because even if they get it passed, and the SCOTUS does not knock it down, it wont work, because there is no way to collect all the AR15s from people that don't want to give them up. The main thing the law will accomplish is there will be a sudden rash of "stolen gun" reports, and a bunch of AR15's will suddenly mysteriously disappear. Yeah right...

Sigh.

It can't work. It is obvious to the most casual observer. For reasons often expressed here - frequently wrongly (bats anyone), but at the heart is the simple argument that even if somehow the government sends out millions of agents to forcibly collect the guns (a REALLY bad idea) the guns will magically disappear. But, even if the agents find them and one day there are NO AR15's around - okay, so what? There are plenty of alternatives. As many have said hand guns are also semi automatic, hand guns are smaller, lighter, easier to hide, and a 9mm, I believe, can hold 17 rounds. So, a more powerful close in gun that can kill 17 instead of 19 children. And I am SURE you can come up with even better alternatives. So, all the law will actually do at BEST is change the gun of preference for DEMS to hate on.

I really wish the administration would consider passing legislation to close loop hopes in existing laws, pass a universal back ground check and pass a domestic violence bill.

Domestic violence correlates to mass shootings - not saying causation, but there is a strong correlation. And hand guns are the most frequent gun of choice in mass shootings - not AR15's. So they would be addressing two issues - domestic violence and hand guns used in mass shootings, that could probably get passes, it doesn't require the banning of any guns, and it might have an impact - small but measurable impact on mass shootings.

For the schools the ONLY thing I see for now is hardening. No guns carried by teachers - bad idea. No patrolling guard and guard towers. No rate fencing around the school.

But, hardening that is already being used in many schools. Things like locked doors at class rooms. ID verification at a single entry point, maybe with an armed guard - sort of a TSA at airports approach. Surveillance cameras inside and out.

And, here is a tech idea - automatic gun shot detection and location determination in and around schools, that automatically notifies a trained experienced team of responders - sort of a swat team that specializes in mass shooting and school shootings - nothing else. Every city/town would have two teams one primary and one backup. (hopefully we will not get to having two mass shootings per day even in a big city - but maybe)

It is even possible using some of the new AI technologies to identify what type of round/gun was fired (or a good guess) and how many guns are active.

I HATE any of those ideas being put in around elementary schools. I think it is normalizing horror to children. But, for gods sake it has been over 20 years and we have made NO progress. Lots of stupid stuff, but nothing that stopped the recent shooters and constant growth in mass and school shootings.

So, let us do something that can help. Maybe not perfect but better than banning a gun that another gun can be substituted in hours with another model. All politics and no cattle - to paraphrase a Texas saying.

I agree. We shall see whether they successfully ban AR's. It is a fools errand given how many are in circulation. You are also correct in that there are many replacements if someone is determined to mass carnage. I find it hard to believe our Legislators are that naive. To turn an old phrase, "You can eat an elephant one bite at a time". That is the approach to defeating the 2nd Amendment, and their agenda, in my opinion. If they did succeed in another ban I'm not convinced the SCOTUS would hear such a case.

I would like to see a Congressional Investigation to seriously study all mass shootings with an extra emphasis on school shootings. It would need to be an in depth analysis.

In the meantime, interim solutions should be put in place for all schools to prevent entry of a shooter. We have single point entries to get on airplanes with scanning machines. If all doors to enter a building are locked but a controlled entrance you can stop the easy access. I don't know how long such an attack actually lasts but I have to believe the response needs to be within minutes. The principal could have a gun safe and there could be volunteer staff who are professional trained to respond to a shooter before the Police arrive. They could wear a certain color vest so not to be confused with the active shooter.


In 2018, I lived about 2 miles from the Borderline Bar & Grill when Ian David Long killed 12 people and injured 16. He had a .45 cal. Glock handgun and 7 high capacity magazines. No AR.

I used to go to the Borderline years ago to dance. In 2018 it was a popular hangout for college kids. Long was raised without a father figure and was a trouble maker in school, sometime threatening teachers, etc. After high school he went into the Marine Corp and received excellent training. The turning point for him was breaking up with his girlfriend, which pushed him over the edge. He went to a bar where he was known and killed people.

The first person he killed was the unarmed security guard. Then he entered the door and shot the young woman who collects the cover charge in the face. As dancers panicked with no where to run he opened fire. Some broke windows to get out, some tried to hide. There were 3 off duty cops there that night enjoying the music. But, according to CA law/regulation they are not allowed to be armed when they are in a bar. Even though they were unarmed, they shielded young people with their bodies.

Now I will tell you some things you won't find in news articles. The first to respond were two CHP officers, one a woman. They arrived and could hear the shooting inside the bar but the cowards wouldn't go inside. A few minutes later Sheriff Deputy Ron Helus arrived. He tried to organize the three of them to engage. As they went in the female officer who was terrified accidentally shot Ron in the back. He was months from retirement.

Ventura County is not far from Las Vegas and it has a great Country station and Country fans. At least 800 people from Ventura attended the Route 91 concert in Las Vegas for that massacre. Some died. The Borderline was a meeting place for Route 91 survivors. For some of the people at the Borderline that night it was the second time they had been the victim of a mass shooting event. One or two of the young people who survived Las Vegas died at the Borderline.

The following spring I had four students who were there that night who took several lessons with me. They don't ever want to feel that helpless again.

What I know is that these events go down quickly and the Police will be along to clean up the mess. The First Defender is us, the only ones at the scene when it begins. When I've been asked why I train as much as I do my answer is simply this. Statistically, it is not likely that I will ever face an armed assailant. But, the chances are not zero.

Trayderjoe 05-27-2022 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2099891)
I don't know what Root Cause Analysis and Six Sigma is. But I do know how to do a google search and check actual case law and state statutes and regulations.

Your information is correct ONLY as it applies to licensed firearms dealers. It doesn't apply to private sales, or gun shows in Texas. Anyone can buy a gun at a gun show, no background check, no license or ID necessary.

Yeah, not quite. Many licensed gun dealers (FFLs) attend gun shows. Federal law requires that an FFL conduct a background check whenever they sell a firearm, whether at their own store or at a booth at a gun show. The ONLY time an FFL is not required under federal law to conduct a background check is if the purchaser has a valid firearm license from the state that is not less than 5 years old per 18 U.S. Code § 922(t). I can't speak to Texas, but my experience in Florida is that license or not, a background check is conducted when purchasing a firearm from an FFL.

It is correct that a private sale does not require a background check and there are some private sales that do occur at gun shows. However, these types of sales are typically "one offs" and not someone at a table selling a hundred guns. Telling you that responsible gun owners making a private sale won't just sell a gun to anyone will fall on deaf ears, but at least I tried.

Trayderjoe 05-27-2022 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2099880)
Spoken like someone who buys the NRA propaganda lock, stock, and double-barrel.

Here's a clue for you (you won't listen to it but here it is anyway):

The NRA has spread the meme about "the only protection against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The NRA is having their convention this weekend. The NRA convention, supposedly FILLED with nothing but the "best" guys with guns - has banned guns at the convention.

Why is that? Why would they be afraid of the one bad guy with a gun, in a convention filled with thousands of goods guys with guns? Why would they need to forbid ALL firearms there?

The answer: because they don't believe that the only way to protect against a bad guy with a gun is to be a good guy with a gun. They don't believe a word of it. What they believe, is that one bad guy with a gun is a really BAD thing, and since they have no way of knowing which guy is the bad one, they're telling them that none of them can have them. You know, the one thing they're accusing certain political party people of trying to do to them - take away their guns.

At their convention - they're taking away your guns. That's what the NRA is doing, to their own guests at their own convention.

But doing that isn't right for anyone else. It's only right for them.

Yeah.....no. There were a couple of prior posts in this thread that explained why the gun ban was put in place for the upcoming convention when others made similar incorrect statements.

ElLegal 05-27-2022 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFlorida (Post 2098800)
Maybe we should not let our children play violent video games that gives them the idea that it's ok to kill people ?

🤔🤔🤔🥤🍿

ElLegal 05-27-2022 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2098801)
:popcorn::popcorn:

🥃-🥃

ElLegal 05-27-2022 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2098805)
Successful lawsuits against gun manufacturers might get some changes like those the tobacco companies underwent decades ago.

What have gun manufacturers done wrong? When we have the shootings, most of the time the perpetrator has been on the radar, and known to authorities.

ElLegal 05-27-2022 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSteph (Post 2098840)
I think we do have too many guns in America. I own guns but can be realistic about it.

The thing is, it is not the entirety of the issue.

Google acid attacks in London. Knife attacks in the UK.

If you want to hear about mass casualty, Google Bow and Arrow killer in Norway.

I would agree that guns do enable mentally ill people to commit mass casualty events more broadly and severely.

So how many guns do you think the government should “allow” citizens to own?

Problem is mental illness.

But again if people couldn’t get their hands on guns, And they were hellbent on harming others, not having a gun wouldn’t get in their way.
🥃🥃

Woodbear 05-27-2022 11:59 PM

2 Attachment(s)
It is painful to read how uneducated some are when it comes to guns. A new AR platform ban is a joke. Below is 2 pictures of the SAME firearm. One has a wood stock and the other is scary black. They both shoot the same round. They both can change their magazine capacity. They are equally effective at doing their job. So what is an AR.......a normal gun in a costume!

jdulej 05-28-2022 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2098920)
The shooter legally purchased two AR platform rifles from a federally licensed gun store. This WOULD have required a background check.

Does anyone know if a background check (Fed or state, if there is one) reaches back to a person's history when they were a minor? The check on the current mass killer would be pretty pointless if it only covered the 2 days when he was 18+.

MDLNB 05-28-2022 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2099880)
Spoken like someone who buys the NRA propaganda lock, stock, and double-barrel.

Here's a clue for you (you won't listen to it but here it is anyway):

The NRA has spread the meme about "the only protection against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The NRA is having their convention this weekend. The NRA convention, supposedly FILLED with nothing but the "best" guys with guns - has banned guns at the convention.

Why is that? Why would they be afraid of the one bad guy with a gun, in a convention filled with thousands of goods guys with guns? Why would they need to forbid ALL firearms there?

The answer: because they don't believe that the only way to protect against a bad guy with a gun is to be a good guy with a gun. They don't believe a word of it. What they believe, is that one bad guy with a gun is a really BAD thing, and since they have no way of knowing which guy is the bad one, they're telling them that none of them can have them. You know, the one thing they're accusing certain political party people of trying to do to them - take away their guns.

At their convention - they're taking away your guns. That's what the NRA is doing, to their own guests at their own convention.

But doing that isn't right for anyone else. It's only right for them.


It's already been explained that the reason for banning guns at the "NRA convention" was because Trump was speaking there. Don't you think that the SS has enough difficulty protecting high profile subjects?

Keefelane66 05-28-2022 06:40 AM

It’s good to know there is only ONE Casket maker of children’s Caskets 4 sizes in 12 colors. Cherokee Casket Company/ Georgia they are donating them to the Texas Families


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.