[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

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

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]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

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

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

…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]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

Maybe we should not let our children play violent video games that gives them the idea that it's ok to kill people ?

🤔🤔🤔🥤🍿

[ElLegal]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

🥃-🥃

[ElLegal]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.