[Taltarzac725]

The leadership of the NRA needs to change. They seem to be hard liners with little respect nor knowledge of the Second Amendment.

How the NRA resurrected the Second Amendment - Vox

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

They could try putting God back in school.

More wars have been fought for "GOD" than for any other motive.

The Golden Rule and the compassion it includes needs to be taught.

[Ron_Ski]

Not a single one of the proposed gun laws would have stopped any of the school shootings. However, the is one simple, easy to implement,
solution that would have stopped all of the shootings. That is controlled and monitored points of entry through metal detectors.
Done correctly, this shouldn't be that expensive or inconvenient.

So far, this has worked very well at airports and sporting venues. It is also used at court houses and all federal buildings.

[John_W]

from NBC-4 The suspect, 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtzis, was held without bond in the Galveston County jail on charges of capital murder, said the county sheriff, Henry Trochesset. Gov. Greg Abbott said both weapons were owned legally by the suspect's father.

No change in the law would of changed the above statement, the shooter never purchased those guns. Even if his father gave the shooter permission, the second he carried the guns onto school property he broke the law. Shooter's don't care about laws. It's irresponsible gun owners that are the problem. The boy's father either giving permission, or he's not keeping his weapons secured in the home was all the shooter needed to be prepared.

As far as a bumpstock, if I were a shooter I wouldn't want one. A 25 round magazine would be gone in 2 seconds. A semi-automatic that fires as quick as you pull the trigger would help 10 magazines go a lot further. Outlaw bumpstocks if you want, but I don't see how they make a difference. The shooters shoots 25 rounds so quickly, he's having to reload more often and his accuracy would be way down.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

This is for your previous post also, where you lied and tried to misdirect about..

First of all, you're being disingenuous in saying "NO" background checks are done"...as that is NOT what is being said. Licensed dealers are still required to perform the checks at gun shows...and no one is saying otherwise.

I never said that NO background checks are being done. Here is what I did say: In order to make actual progress, inflammatory, inaccurate reporting (such as continually misrepresenting what an AR-15 rifle actually is, or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows) must stop as it only fuels the fire."

So who here is really being disingenuous? BTW, thank you for proving that statement correct, which was in my original post in response to the OP.

You also know that because of the 'loophole' that only requires 'gun dealers' to perform background checks (NOT private sellers), even those at gun shows...you're simply trying to deflect.

LOL

First, if a licensed dealer were to attempt to sell a gun as a private individual in order to duck a background check, we are now talking about someone breaking the law, aren't we? Exactly how many guns do you think are bought and sold through private individual to private individual sale at a gun show? There are numerous claims that 40% of guns are purchased without background checks. The link dispels that myth and quotes those who are using that number. Here is another fact checker link

My original point remains to the OPs query. Erroneously reporting data, and misleading purported truth is what keeps a healthy dialogue from moving forward.

"Called for" yet has done NOTHING since the NRA lunch...to push it along.

As for the NRA giving 'lip-service' to banning bumpstocks, here's the typical gun-nut site on that subject. Which people like yourself, are the ones demanding that the NRA virulently resist ANY new laws.

So who is deflecting...again? You still haven't supported your "lunch date" statement.

I also find it curious that you resort to name calling and quickly claim "lip service" to the posted NRA position. They are publicly supporting the review, yet you still attack. Interesting.

I encourage reasonable people to read the entire opinion screed (link below) and judge for yourself...from whence the opposition arises.
ATF Discovers a New Meaning of 'Automatic' to Regulate Bump-Stocks

BS!

The entire goal and sentiment by hardcore gun-lovers, as shown above in the link, is to drag out the process, twist the arms of politicians with the money & power the NRA wields...and wait for the next news cycle and hope people forget about it.

The favorite excuse to try and convince people...not to do ANYTHING.

<Sigh> The link brings one to an article that does discuss the function of a bumpstock. It also points to the process for changing legislation versus administratively making changes to the constitutional amendments. I have shown where the NRA is calling on the ATF to review bumpstocks in my earlier posting, but you have already dismissed that out of hand. Again, rhetoric is being used to circumvent the constitution. Please recognize that circumventing the constitution by administrative action should be abhorrent to anyone. There are "ultras" on both sides (OP: Can you see how your original post while well intended will just never work?)

I also suggest reasonable people read this article in its entirety.
Fact Check: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work? : NPR

Oh wow, you didn't really go there...did you?

I appreciate the opportunity to present facts though.

Yep I did go there, but I am willing to acknowledge that my statement "strictest gun laws in the country" may be in error. However, Illinois does have the 8th toughest laws in the country (per your link), as well as Illinois concealed carry laws are also among the most stringent in the country.

Interestingly, the article points to the large number of gang shootings in Chicago as a result of gun acquisition from neighboring states, which may not have as stringent gun laws as Illinois. What is continually being overlooked is that we are talking criminal activity. I have already provided the federal laws that would prohibit the illegality of buying and transporting weapons across state lines, but will repost here to ensure that the citation is complete and not chopped:

Federal law prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a handgun outside his state of residence and prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a rifle or shotgun from a non-licensee outside his state of residence. (18 USC 992(a)(3))
Federal law prohibits anyone from transferring a handgun to a non-licensee who resides in another state (with rare exceptions), and prohibits a non-licensee from transferring any firearm to a non-licensee who resides in another state. (18 USC 922(a)(5))

So basically what we are seeing is that the gun laws that have been imposed, whether they are the strictest or not in terms of state rankings, actually don't work BECAUSE THE CRIMINALS DON'T CARE.

Perhaps the issue is not more gun laws, but actually tougher gun crime laws as indicated here in an article "Does Chicago Have The Strictest Gun Laws in the Country?" by Kelly Bauer. If you take the time to read the statistics presented, approximately 25% of the criminals arrested in Chicago from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2015, had one or more prior gun arrests.

Trump appears to backpedal on gun control remarks after NRA meeting | The Independent

ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS?!

The president "appears" to be....

The article does not say that he is, just that he appears to be. In the second video on the same web page, he was supporting taking the guns first then doing due process. So by constitutional law, he would have to "back pedal". He was looking for an answer, had a discussion and indicated that he was open to discussion with the NRA as there is a common goal. But why acknowledge that? Hopefully people will read the whole article and listen to both videos.

Again, name calling and rhetoric aren't constructive. I say again, any attempt to circumvent the constitution by administrative controls and not an act of congress should be opposed and not rubber stamped. I don't care which amendment we are discussing, our founding fathers set up this system so that we don't have history repeat itself.

In an effort to keep this thread from being shut down due to too much politics, the response to your hilarious question can be answered in three words (or 280 characters)... JUST READ TWITTER!



This sad, but true, cartoon succinctly demonstrates yours and so many other...gun-lovers true position.

Really, posting a link to a tweet from a national leader to support your statement would make this too much about politics? I have already demonstrated a propensity to incompletely quote in order to make a statement fit an agenda. I would be remiss to actually believe someone who can't even quote me correctly.

But sorry, too many children have died...for it to continue.

Finally, a point I can completely agree on. Too many children have died.

[ColdNoMore]

Thank you Trayderjoe, very much for proving...everything I stated is correct.

I do get a kick out of your attempted parsing, but anyone can go back and read what you stated...particularly in regards to your false statement that "claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows."

I haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows (required by licensed dealers), but a gun show (by those not claiming to be dealers) and private sale loophole DOES exist...and no amount of parsing will change that fact.

And the doozy is your continued deflection/denial that the NRA didn't change you-know-who's mind on what he had stated publicly prior, AFTER that NRA meeting in which he quickly backpedaled (hope he didn't trip ) from his broadcast statements ...that he "wasn't afraid of the NRA."

Deep in your heart, do you REALLY believe his public backpedaling...had nothing to do with the closed door NRA meeting?

Really?

I would however like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank you for your detailed work & effort (very few ever spend the effort to link to even an opinion piece, to try and bolster their argument).

What you have accomplished however, albeit unintentionally I'm sure...is to so aptly demonstrate WHY nothing has been done.

[billethkid]

Too many hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!

The easy target (pun intended!) is of course guns. It is the politically correct position. It is the partisan position. It is the position of those who have no idea what they are talking about. It is the position of the media slanted which the lemmings parrot....and so on.

As has been said too many times to count.
It is not the guns.

Why is there no rage/anger/hostility toward the ongoing teaching of our youth and young adults how to maim/rape/torture/dis-member/disrespect/et al?
All one has to do is review the video games, the television shows, the movies, the attitudes toward right and wrong.

Day in and day out the preponderance of violence is a steady presentation in the lives of our daily lives.

Once upon a time parents would be selective about what the "kids" watch. Almost a non-existent practice.

The language and attitude and disrespect of far too high a percent of our youth is unacceptable.

Add to the above (and much more like it) the easy going, permissive, don't upset anybody culture.....the formula for only more violence is cast.

Why do we not hear about these things. Because it affects the parents and the administrators, the so called adults of the day are too involved in the same crap. And they sure are not going to want to deny themselves the enjoyment that is poisoning our youth our culture.

Nope!!
It is much easier to pick a subject to blame that most of them DO NOT PARTICIPATE in like guns to blame. Zero impact on their enjoys.

Until the root cause is addressed we the people can go on wringing their hands and waving their arms and talking from the prepared talking points, with no progress (what ever that means).

The innocents will continue to be ALLOWED to be slaughtered until such time as America wakes up and restores it's disciplined roots, culture and values.

Shame on we the people to allow such a deterioration to continue. As the last 20 years have shown.....IT CAN AND WILL ONLY CONTINUE!!

It ain't the guns.

[tomwed]

"Consider the following seven factors, not diagnostically, not as a “profile,” and certainly never as the basis for punitive action, but as points for consideration in a quest to reduce school violence:

1. So far, all school shooters have been male and the vast majority (over 90 percent) were active or recent students at the school.

2. If there is one predominant theme in school shootings, it is anger and revenge.

a. 75% of school shooters felt bullied or harassed by other students
b. Sometimes shooters felt unfairly treated by teachers
c. They seldom have specific targets, but kill randomly in order to inflict the most harm

3. School shooters tended to be socially awkward and avoidant, and often isolate themselves with few if any friends.

a. They were sometimes described as “strange”
b. They seemed to have a penchant for” retreat into fantasy,” especially when under stress
c. Shooters exhibited an obsessive quality that often led to detailed planning, but ironically they seemed to lack an understanding of the consequences of their behavior and thus may have a history of adverse encounters with law enforcement
d. The same obsessive quality drives the shooter to focus upon interpersonal rejection, unfair treatment, and elaborate plans for revenge
e. They expressed fascination with violence, morbid media, death
f. If the shooter does associate with others, it is likely to be with those who share preoccupations with the macabre
g Shooters may have a history of cruelty to animals (this is a low probability factor, but a significant one when present)
h. There is often a sense of hopelessness that predicts their own death by the end of the incident

4. The media contagion effect (copycat killings) may serve as an especially powerful motivator for those who already feel anger, frustration or loss.
5. Shooters tend to have experienced dysfunctional family situations or experience a lack of effective adult supervision, mentoring, or oversight.
6. 68% of shooters obtained weapons from their home or the home of a relative. (Yes, ease of availability to firearms does matter.)
7. Shooters tend to express their frustrations and anger using art and/or social media posts, thus monitoring of such media becomes an important tool in early identification of individuals at risk for committing violence.

This model is not a “profile.” It is simply the accumulation and integration of recurring themes that warrant consideration, not only by law enforcement, but educators and mental health clinicians dedicated to primary prevention and school safety.

So can we tell who will be next to kill? Probably not. But we can facilitate direct supportive outreach and intervention with those who may be at high risk for committing school violence or to their families, or both."

"Profiling" School Shooters
Can we tell who will be the next to kill?
Posted Mar 29, 2018

So this was written prior to the last shooting and since there has been 1 shooting per week it would be interesting how it would apply to those as well.

I said this in another similar thread. We have 1 counselor per 500 students and mostly they need to spend their day doing paper work not having heart to heart talks. You need a 24 hour hotline for troubled kids that need someone to talk to and whistle bowers. Experienced teachers can tell you who needs extra attention. They can also tell you what coaches and other teachers are applying unhealthy pressure.

What about suicide?
"The Shocking Numbers
Suicides among girls ages 15 to 19 doubled from 2007 to 2015, when it reached its highest point in 40 years.

The suicide rate for boys ages 15 to 19 grew by 30 percent from 2007 to 2015.

Twice as many young men, ages 20-24, commit suicide, compared with young women. In teens, ages 17-19, the ratio is even more skewed, with suicide claiming nearly five times the number of young men.
Additional risk factors include traumatic or stressful life events; a prior suicide attempt; a sense of isolation and lack of support; impulsivity issues; substance abuse issues; poor coping skills; and access to a suicide method.
Young men are four times more likely to die from suicide than young women. However, in the same age range, females are more likely than males to attempt suicide. "

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The leadership of the NRA needs to change. They seem to be hard liners with little respect nor knowledge of the Second Amendment.

How the NRA resurrected the Second Amendment - Vox

In other words they disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but not the Supreme Court's.

And linking an article from Vox is almost as bad as linking one from Salon.

The left loves to bash the NRA. But remember, the NRA has over 5,000,000 members. Those members are voters just like you and me.

If you really want to counter the NRA you can get onboard with Michael Bloomberg and his $50,000,000 and contribute to his Everytown For Gun Safety.

There's also plenty of other lobbying groups you can support such as the Brady Campaign, Mom's Demand Action, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, etc. There are plenty of groups you could join to counter the NRA.

[billethkid]

So it is not the guns. It is the NRA?!?!

And please explain how or why "fixing", eliminating, changing, emasculating, etc the NRA affects what is going on in the schools and by who.......

The get the NRA folks right next to the anti gun folks.....programmed.....directed......

Used to be amusing. Now it has become frightening!!

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by billethkid

So it is not the guns. It is the NRA?!?!

And please explain how or why "fixing", eliminating, changing, emasculating, etc the NRA affects what is going on in the schools and by who.......

The get the NRA folks right next to the anti gun folks.....programmed.....directed......

Used to be amusing. Now it has become frightening!!

Haven't you heard, the NRA is the Boogie Man..

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Thank you Trayderjoe, very much for proving...everything I stated is correct.

I do get a kick out of your attempted parsing, but anyone can go back and read what you stated...particularly in regards to your false statement that "claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows."

Ok. Apparently I give more credit than where credit is due. The sentence is written, and I have not denied writing it: "In order to make actual progress, inflammatory, inaccurate reporting (such as continually misrepresenting what an AR-15 rifle actually is, or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows) must stop as it only fuels the fire. " I am calling out people who CLAIM that no background checks are done at gun shows, but are using emotion to set an agenda . Kind of like people who claim that there are leaders who are encouraging bullying by telling people to "pull up their big boy pants", but can't prove it. The actual use of the "pull up your big boy pants" was in reference to David Hogg choosing to bully companies and people. Don't get me wrong, I will absolutely defend David Hogg's right to free speech (I needed to include that so I am not accused of denying free speech-is that clear enough?). The call out to David was that if he was going to enter the arena, then yes, he will be challenged and he should be prepared for a discourse with which he may not agree (sound familiar?)

I haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows (required by licensed dealers), but a gun show (by those not claiming to be dealers) and private sale loophole DOES exist...and no amount of parsing will change that fact.

So because you "haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows", then it must not be happening? Really? And again, you either cannot or will not produce any links to substantiate you rhetoric regarding those tweets.

And the doozy is your continued deflection/denial that the NRA didn't change you-know-who's mind on what he had stated publicly prior, AFTER that NRA meeting in which he quickly backpedaled (hope he didn't trip ) from his broadcast statements ...that he "wasn't afraid of the NRA."

Deep in your heart, do you REALLY believe his public backpedaling...had nothing to do with the closed door NRA meeting?

Really?

Ok, again I gave more credit than was due.

I wrote: "The article does not say that he is, just that he appears to be. In the second video on the same web page, he was supporting taking the guns first then doing due process. So by constitutional law, he would have to "back pedal". He was looking for an answer, had a discussion and indicated that he was open to discussion with the NRA as there is a common goal. But why acknowledge that? Hopefully people will read the whole article and listen to both videos.

Could this "backpedaling" have come from a discussion with the NRA? Yes, if they pointed out the constitutional issues he would face with administratively eliminating due process. As neither you or I were in the room, what happened is mere speculation. You just choose to inflame and infer to match your agenda. Re-read the highlighted line once more..."So by constitutional law, he would have to back pedal". Of course you flippantly ignore the second video in which he talks about taking the guns first then due process. Do you even understand what due process is and how important it is?

I would however like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank you for your detailed work & effort (very few ever spend the effort to link to even an opinion piece, to try and bolster their argument).

I will even take your backhanded acknowledgement as I (and others reading this thread) recognize that this will be the best that will happen.

What you have accomplished however, albeit unintentionally I'm sure...is to so aptly demonstrate WHY nothing has been done.

I do actually have to give you the credit for showing why progress is slow. It takes time to have a reasonable discussion. What I have written, and others see, is that I have tried to stick to the facts (do you even remember my acknowledging that my understanding of the Chicago gun law severity was incorrect once I followed the link and read the information?), but what I read is continued rhetoric and still no evidence that many claims being made are indeed factual.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Too many hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!

The easy target (pun intended!) is of course guns. It is the politically correct position. It is the partisan position. It is the position of those who have no idea what they are talking about. It is the position of the media slanted which the lemmings parrot....and so on.

As has been said too many times to count.
It is not the guns.

Why is there no rage/anger/hostility toward the ongoing teaching of our youth and young adults how to maim/rape/torture/dis-member/disrespect/et al?
All one has to do is review the video games, the television shows, the movies, the attitudes toward right and wrong.

Day in and day out the preponderance of violence is a steady presentation in the lives of our daily lives.

Once upon a time parents would be selective about what the "kids" watch. Almost a non-existent practice.

The language and attitude and disrespect of far too high a percent of our youth is unacceptable.

Add to the above (and much more like it) the easy going, permissive, don't upset anybody culture.....the formula for only more violence is cast.

Why do we not hear about these things. Because it affects the parents and the administrators, the so called adults of the day are too involved in the same crap. And they sure are not going to want to deny themselves the enjoyment that is poisoning our youth our culture.

Nope!!
It is much easier to pick a subject to blame that most of them DO NOT PARTICIPATE in like guns to blame. Zero impact on their enjoys.

Until the root cause is addressed we the people can go on wringing their hands and waving their arms and talking from the prepared talking points, with no progress (what ever that means).

The innocents will continue to be ALLOWED to be slaughtered until such time as America wakes up and restores it's disciplined roots, culture and values.

Shame on we the people to allow such a deterioration to continue. As the last 20 years have shown.....IT CAN AND WILL ONLY CONTINUE!!

It ain't the guns.

I would add the following question that you did not list....

WHY does our country not address those from outside the country whose mission it is to inflict unrest and strife on issues like this ?

Why pretend that does not exist, constantly and to my knowledge with no plans to address it ?

It is totally ignored in all these discussions and it seems it is just getting worse. What point in ignoring it as if it were not real ?

"Russia-linked bots have particularly distorted the gun control debate. Revelations that thousands of bot posts had claimed Parkland survivors were paid actors prompted Facebook and YouTube to promise to crackdown on trolls. But the falsehoods continue to proliferate. Meanwhile, in April, YouTube headquarters in Silicon Valley itself became the site of a mass shooting."



What Mass Shootings and Big Data Have in Common | The New Republic

The minute we have any kind of mass shooting they appear on Facebook, although not restricted to simply that site and begin the proliferation of phoney and false stories.

And between the shootings, we allow them to incorporate plain out lies and false truths to our children, and again.....we have no plan to fight this.

We continue to do "as ordered"....fight with each other over and over again.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Ok. Apparently I give more credit than where credit is due. The sentence is written, and I have not denied writing it: "In order to make actual progress, inflammatory, inaccurate reporting (such as continually misrepresenting what an AR-15 rifle actually is, or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows) must stop as it only fuels the fire. " I am calling out people who CLAIM that no background checks are done at gun shows, but are using emotion to set an agenda . Kind of like people who claim that there are leaders who are encouraging bullying by telling people to "pull up their big boy pants", but can't prove it. The actual use of the "pull up your big boy pants" was in reference to David Hogg choosing to bully companies and people. Don't get me wrong, I will absolutely defend David Hogg's right to free speech (I needed to include that so I am not accused of denying free speech-is that clear enough?). The call out to David was that if he was going to enter the arena, then yes, he will be challenged and he should be prepared for a discourse with which he may not agree (sound familiar?)

No, seriously, it's definitely my bad...for giving too much credit.

For that...you have my apology.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

So because you "haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows", then it must not be happening? Really? And again, you either cannot or will not produce any links to substantiate you rhetoric regarding those tweets.

Puhleeze, you're straining credulity...of even the most naive of people.

If you can't see the bullying in the Tweets...then THAT'S the real problem.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Ok, again I gave more credit than was due.

I wrote: "The article does not say that he is, just that he appears to be. In the second video on the same web page, he was supporting taking the guns first then doing due process. So by constitutional law, he would have to "back pedal". He was looking for an answer, had a discussion and indicated that he was open to discussion with the NRA as there is a common goal. But why acknowledge that? Hopefully people will read the whole article and listen to both videos.

Could this "backpedaling" have come from a discussion with the NRA? Yes, if they pointed out the constitutional issues he would face with administratively eliminating due process. As neither you or I were in the room, what happened is mere speculation. You just choose to inflame and infer to match your agenda. Re-read the highlighted line once more..."So by constitutional law, he would have to back pedal". Of course you flippantly ignore the second video in which he talks about taking the guns first then due process. Do you even understand what due process is and how important it is?

You're doing it again!

While solely concentrating on the admittedly embarrassingly stupid statement of "confiscation, then due process" (which I agree was beyond ignorant, for a person at that level), you are purposely avoiding the issue of bumpstocks...WHICH WAS ALSO DISCUSSED in the publicly broadcast meeting.

And yes, THAT was also backpedaled on after the NRA PRIVATE meeting...which has so far resulted in crickets.

Nice try though.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

I do actually have to give you the credit for showing why progress is slow. It takes time to have a reasonable discussion. What I have written, and others see, is that I have tried to stick to the facts (do you even remember my acknowledging that my understanding of the Chicago gun law severity was incorrect once I followed the link and read the information?), but what I read is continued rhetoric and still no evidence that many claims being made are indeed factual.

I've given all the evidence a reasonable person needs, which will always fall woefully short with those who actually depend on EMOTIONS...and their love of guns over the love/safety of children.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

~snipped~


I've given all the evidence a reasonable person needs, which will always fall woefully short with those who actually depend on EMOTIONS...and their love of guns over the love/safety of children.

ROFL.. I'm sure your definition of a reasonable person differs from others.

To blame an inanimate object for these killings instead of the people committing them is pure EMOTION..

And to say people love their guns more than children or their safety is pure EMOTIONAL BS. Even if you banned guns altogether it likely wouldn't stop mass killings.