Mass Shootings

[Brian Fantana 6863]

Oh yeah and ban bump stocks because that matters.

[MoJames 8258]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I like the new narrative each time against gun control from the NRA and gun enthuthiasts

1. Columbine - Too much violence in the Media

2. Aurora - Mental Healthcare is the problem

3. Sandy Hook - We need to arm the teachers

5. Santa Fe - We need to harden the schools

What am I missing? I don't remember the Orlando & las Vegas talking points. 

There is this odd parallel between gun enthusiasts and drug addicts.

I consistently have conversations with drug addicts in regards to the need to decrease the use as it is a factor in their health and very well could be the etiology of a multitude of their complaints.  Each and every time, they have another potential cause they believe could be causing their symptoms, but at no point are willing to change the approach on their addiction.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

13 minutes ago, MoJames said:

There is this odd parallel between gun enthusiasts and drug addicts.

I consistently have conversations with drug addicts in regards to the need to decrease the use as it is a factor in their health and very well could be the etiology of a multitude of their complaints.  Each and every time, they have another potential cause they believe could be causing their symptoms, but at no point are willing to change the approach on their addiction.

Interesting point. I’ve always considered the position of “responsible gun owners” or “law-abiding gun owners” as grounded squarely in identity and sense-of-self. It seems that they feel threatened or under attack by those “other people.” For some reason, they aren’t able to see that they are citizens of a society and sometimes society seeks its citizens to do things or make sacrifices for betterment or protection of other citizens and society as a whole. 

There is an identity wedge between some gun owners and the rest of society

[HtownHorn 15230]

3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Interesting point. I’ve always considered the position of “responsible gun owners” or “law-abiding gun owners” as grounded squarely in identity and sense-of-self. It seems that they feel threatened or under attack by those “other people.” For some reason, they aren’t able to see that they are citizens of a society and sometimes society seeks its citizens to do things or make sacrifices for betterment or protection of other citizens and society as a whole. 

There is an identity wedge between some gun owners and the rest of society

Nothing better for protection than a properly trained and responsible gun owner. Hilarious that you fuckers want to compare these people with drug addicts, yes that is a winning strategy.

[Brisketexan 106888]

29 minutes ago, MoJames said:

There is this odd parallel between gun enthusiasts and drug addicts.

I consistently have conversations with drug addicts in regards to the need to decrease the use as it is a factor in their health and very well could be the etiology of a multitude of their complaints.  Each and every time, they have another potential cause they believe could be causing their symptoms, but at no point are willing to change the approach on their addiction.

 

8 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Interesting point. I’ve always considered the position of “responsible gun owners” or “law-abiding gun owners” as grounded squarely in identity and sense-of-self. It seems that they feel threatened or under attack by those “other people.” For some reason, they aren’t able to see that they are citizens of a society and sometimes society seeks its citizens to do things or make sacrifices for betterment or protection of other citizens and society as a whole. 

There is an identity wedge between some gun owners and the rest of society

FANTASTIC pair of posts. I had never thought of it that way, but it really makes an incredible amount of sense.

Many of us know the pattern of addicts, but it really works with a variety of pathologies.  For example, we have recently been dealing with a family member who we've dubbed a "welfare queen."  He's an able-bodied 25 year old man.  But he is pathologically lazy.  He dropped out of college.  He has no job.   His parents support him.  So, he has lots of time to help the family, right?  Wrong.  When called upon to assist in his grandparents' move (moving some elderly folks across multiple states into a new home), he came with his mother...and then hardly lifted a finger.  His ability to find an excuse to not do a particular task, not do any hard work, not get a real job, etc., is unlimited.  There is ALWAYS an excuse.  There is ALWAYS something external to blame.  The one place he'll never look is at himself, and acknowledge that he's a worthless mooch who is a drain on everyone around him.

A lot of gun owners in this country exhibit a similar pathology -- there's always some OTHER excuse or thing we can do, but no way should they change anything they are doing with respect to guns.  It's all about self, and not about society and any sacrifice for the greater good.  The parallel is not so much to addiction, but to pathologies that incorporate selfishness at the expense of all else.

To be fair, they're not alone in that respect.  I think that ethos has infected us on most every issue -- we have turned from a country of "we the people" into "me the person," and everyone else be damned.  That's a recipe for breaking a society, and we're following it to the letter.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Brisketexan

[jimmyjazz 47152]

6 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Nothing better for protection than a properly trained and responsible gun owner. Hilarious that you fuckers want to compare these people with drug addicts, yes that is a winning strategy.

Except for those pesky facts, which show that living in a home where guns are kept increases one's likelihood of death by homicide anywhere between 40% and 170%.

 

Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). ⤴︎

Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). ⤴︎

Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf. ⤴︎

[GW Hayduke 1957]

11 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Nothing better for protection than a properly trained and responsible gun owner. Hilarious that you fuckers want to compare these people with drug addicts, yes that is a winning strategy.

And this is exactly my point. There is an identity wedge between some gun owners and the rest of society. 

[MoJames 8258]

14 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Nothing better for protection than a properly trained and responsible gun owner. Hilarious that you fuckers want to compare these people with drug addicts, yes that is a winning strategy.

To clarify a bit, a large portion of those I see with drug addictions are alcoholics.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Except for those pesky facts, which show that living in a home where guns are kept increases one's likelihood of death by homicide anywhere between 40% and 170%.

 

 

 

I’ll check those out. The one I usually cite is Kellermann’s 1993 study that states:

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

Edited May 23, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[Buzzrock 15136]

We seem to have strayed from the original topic.

Solutions I’ve heard that I am intrigued by or outright supportive of:

1. Legislation that would hold the gun owner responsible for any crime committed with their guns

Problems: doesn’t address illegal guns out there with no “owner”, could be hard to prove in court, doesn’t help with people who legally acquire guns and then do harm, possible slippery slope to gun registration?

2. Securing schools

Problems: expensive, perception by some that kids would feel imprisoned

3. Require proof of gun safety training to purchase ammunition

Problems: may be unconstitutional, doesn’t stop violence committed with legally-acquired guns/ammo

[Buzzrock 15136]

Something else that I’ve been thinking about:

If you have kids then you know that telling them “That’s bad, never touch it!” is a sure recipe for them to want to touch it. A loud group in the current conversation is 24/7 yelling “Guns are bad!!!” Kids love bad things.

I grew up on a farm with guns around in addition to all sorts or dangerous tools. I was taught that tools could be dangerous unless I knew how to use them. But once I was taught how to properly shoot, or weld, or hook up a PTO or whatever then I was allowed to do it.

Perhaps better gun education is an angle?

[atomheartbevo 90642]

27 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Perhaps better gun education is an angle?

Adam Lanza was very well educated on guns.

[Helobious 9818]

31 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Something else that I’ve been thinking about:

If you have kids then you know that telling them “That’s bad, never touch it!” is a sure recipe for them to want to touch it. A loud group in the current conversation is 24/7 yelling “Guns are bad!!!” Kids love bad things.

I grew up on a farm with guns around in addition to all sorts or dangerous tools. I was taught that tools could be dangerous unless I knew how to use them. But once I was taught how to properly shoot, or weld, or hook up a PTO or whatever then I was allowed to do it.

Perhaps better gun education is an angle?

I'll take it you're not a fan of abstinence-only sex ed then. Or "drugs are bad mmkay" type anti-drug campaigns.  

[atomheartbevo 90642]

32 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Solutions I’ve heard that I am intrigued by or outright supportive of:

1. Legislation that would hold the gun owner responsible for any crime committed with their guns

Problems: doesn’t address illegal guns out there with no “owner”, could be hard to prove in court, doesn’t help with people who legally acquire guns and then do harm, possible slippery slope to gun registration?

2. Securing schools

Problems: expensive, perception by some that kids would feel imprisoned

3. Require proof of gun safety training to purchase ammunition

Problems: may be unconstitutional, doesn’t stop violence committed with legally-acquired guns/ammo

#2 and #3 aren't going to stop somebody who is determined and patient, and a lot of these guys planned their massacres in great detail.  #2 would simply shift the killing to the streets by the school, the gate(s) of the school, or athletic events, or whatever.  #3 - a lot of these guys, while they had a massive amount of ammo stockpiled at home or wherever, were able to kill plenty with what they were able to physically carry.

#1 is partly where I'm at.  Way too many of these shootings were with firearms from the home.  I would also toss in a much better background check/red flag system that takes into account household members who have problems - we need to have that discussion about removing firearms from homes with people who have serious mental issues.  And way too many of these shootings had way too many warning signs that were being ignored, deliberately or not.   We already somewhat discourage people from owning firearms when they have a felon in the house (whether it's right or not, overzealous prosecutors can go on fishing expeditions with felons and their family members).  We also penalize people with "dangerous" dogs when those dogs get loose and maul/maim/kill.

[Chuckie Finster 23043]

2 minutes ago, Helobious said:

I'll take it you're not a fan of abstinence-only sex ed then. Or "drugs are bad mmkay" type anti-drug campaigns.  

It's makes your head explode to think about how millions of people make these arguments simultaneously:  

"The only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy is abstinence, there's no need for sexual education in schools."

"People are going to do whatever they want, so gun control is pointless and we need better gun education in schools."

[Neonmoon 38130]

Weird. That whole "don't murder people" and "rape is not cool" seem to be working. (for most people)

Maybe trying to get humans to stop consentual sex & victim-less non harmful drugs like marijuana are a lot different than convincing people to not rape. 

[Born to Run 6601]

To clarify a bit, a large portion of those I see with drug addictions are alcoholics.

Interesting topic. I can’t think of a single gun nut I’ve know that didn’t drink an alarming amount and constantly fear some future confiscation of guns, race riot or home invasion. Cynicism, paranoia and probably racist undertones fueling the whole thing.

I’m not talking your average gun owner like myself or so many others I know. I mean the real deal gun 24-7 on my hip and hoarding ammo variety.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

1 minute ago, Born to Run said:

Interesting topic. I can’t think of a single gun nut I’ve know that didn’t drink an alarming amount and constantly fear some future confiscation of guns, race riot or home invasion. Cynicism, paranoia and probably racist undertones fueling the whole thing.

I’m not talking your average gun owner like myself or so many others I know. I mean the real deal gun 24-7 on my hip and hoarding ammo variety.

I knew a guy that had an Arsenal that covered the walls of a basement that included a 50 caliber fully automatic machine gun. He also had a tank and was a prepper. Guy was serious, smart, and would never mix alcohol with guns. 

[Hank Kingsley 21775]

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

^^^^^^

That pretty much sums up my point. 

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

I like how they blame video games but I did not know that Oliver North (NRA President) was a consultant on Call of Duty.

[Pancho 46299]

 

[Buzzrock 15136]

I'll take it you're not a fan of abstinence-only sex ed then. Or "drugs are bad mmkay" type anti-drug campaigns.  

Definitely not a fan of either.

[Buzzrock 15136]

It's makes your head explode to think about how millions of people make these arguments simultaneously:  
"The only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy is abstinence, there's no need for sexual education in schools."
"People are going to do whatever they want, so gun control is pointless and we need better gun education in schools."

No one in here is saying that. Not productive.

[Eskimohorn 5682]

No one in here is saying that. Not productive.

He didnt say that people here are saying that. Not productive.

[HoustonHorn 1064]

He didnt say that people here are saying that. Not productive.

So you made his point for him

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

On 5/18/2018 at 1:04 PM, In10se said:

Ironically, the answer is guns. Gun down the leadership of the NRA, and gun down all politicians who support/receive support from the NRA. 

That starts happening in masse and laws will change really quickly. They're all about guns that they can use to kill people. Not when guns are used to kill them. 

The tolerant left on display here folks. Kill everyone that they dont agree with! Seek help, you are a fucking psycho. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

This criminologist has been studying and compiling a database of school shootings since 1990.  They are getting close to completion.  

The TLDR version, is that she does not think school shootings have increased.  And that the "there have been 300" shootings this year databases are misleading. 

So quotes to chew on:

 

Quote

Though school shootings have fueled the gun control debate for more than a century, reliable data on the frequency of school shootings and the factors that motivate the gunmen remain hard to come by.

That’s where Nadine Connell, an associate professor of criminology and director of the Center for Crime and Justice Studies at the University of Texas at Dallas, comes in. Connell is building a database of all school shootings in the U.S. since 1990, information she hopes will help law enforcement and school leaders better understand the causes of school violence, and how to prevent it.

The work comes as students and their advocates nationwide demand new policies they say could help keep students safe. Students across the country recently participated in a daylong school walkout to push for new gun control legislation. But, as Connell has found, school shootings are extremely rare. Although the fear of mass school shootings often drives policy, she said, those efforts aren’t always the most productive.

With the help of a federal National Institute of Justice grant, Connell has teamed up with several University of Texas at Dallas students, along with researchers at the University of Maryland at College Park, Michigan State University, and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at The City University of New York.

Quote

The 74: What prompted you to track school shootings in this way, and what do you hope to accomplish?

Connell: I study school violence in general, so I’ve always been interested in the safety of students at school. As a society, we have prioritized the school building as a place where we want our children to be the safest.

I was struck after Sandy Hook, when we started seeing a lot of headlines about the number of school shootings. Around 2014, I would see headlines with really high numbers of school shootings. I thought, “Well, that can’t be true. I can’t imagine I’m missing that much.”

As a researcher, I take pride in trying to know what’s going on in my field, and so I started digging a little deeper. I started gathering all of the different school shooting incidents that were being added up to make these headlines, and what I saw is that there was a real misinformation campaign going on. When anybody hears the term “school shooting,” they think about the really tragic events, like Parkland in February, or Columbine, or Sandy Hook.

As a parent or a community member, if somebody says there’s been 300 school shootings, in our heads, we immediately think there have been 300 awful, tragic, worst-case-scenario incidents. But that’s not what was happening. It struck me that there was a lot of confusion, and I decided that nobody was doing a good job of trying to understand these incidents, either as a whole or as individual typologies.

I worked with some graduate students and some undergraduate students, and we started compiling this database. As we did, we were more and more struck by the different types of incidents that make up school shootings. In fact, as I expected, the vast majority of them are not rampage shootings. They are the same kinds of gun violence incidents that we see in the rest of our communities.

I started working with some scholars in the field who had expertise in how to collect these type of data. Getting that kind of information is really difficult, as you can imagine, because it encompasses so many things: It’s information about an incident, a victim, an offender, a school. That’s how we teamed up with Michigan State and John Jay University and the University of Maryland to come together and start doing this at a level of detail and completeness that was only possible when we got federal funding and support.

A lot of school shootings that are being categorized by, say, Everytown for Gun Safety, are not necessarily what most people think of as school shootings. In fact, the Everytown tracker includes incidents that do not result in injury. Why is it important for you to make that distinction?

One of the things that interests us is intent. Our database currently only looks at fatalities or injuries. We do not include accidental discharge unless someone is injured.

We have to be reasonable in our starting approach so that we’re not overwhelmed. But also, without injury or fatality, you are much less likely — especially as we go back historically — to get a count. From our perspective, it’s realistic that if we were to include non-injuries, we would only get the more recent ones as people have become more alert to this issue and as the media has publicized them. That is not a fair comparison. That would accidentally or unintentionally suggest an increase in events that we have no comparison point to show if they had increased. That’s a very real concern of mine, and that is why we are not looking at cases where there was no injury or fatality.

Quote

In terms of trends, there are a couple of things that are important to keep in mind from the perspective of policymaking. One is that, as of now, we don’t think there is an increase in the number of incidents as much as there is an increase in the attention to the incidents.

Anything before Columbine, there’s a real reporting bias that we may not ever be able to truly overcome. So I really caution people when they say that school shootings have increased, because I don’t think that’s going to be our finding. Certainly, attention has increased.

https://www.the74million.org/article/74-interview-with-nadine-connell-schools-are-safer-than-theyve-ever-been-but-shootings-dominate-the-headlines-criminologists-are-digging-back-decades-to-discover-why-they-occur-a/

[DDD Dad 14647]

Fuck Alex Jones right in the ass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/podcasts/the-daily/sandy-hook-alex-jones-infowars-lawsuit.html

If you're not familiar with the whole Alex Jones/Sandy Hook issue, this is a really good summary and hammers home how outrageous and damaging the alt-right/fake news can be.

[tantric superman 4668]

I wish people would start with a basic determination of how many deaths are acceptable before they draw a line in the sand regarding policy decisions.

 

39 so far this year.  So what, 100 for 2018?  Equal amount injured..

100 kids dying in the US per year due to school shootings isn't enough for me to suggest we do anything about the 2nd amendment.  But 100 dying per year is probably enough for me to think about whether our background check policies/training requirements/age limitations make sense in terms of federal law.

On the state level, states like California and Florida and Texas certainly can be looking at 20 per year.  Is that worth trying to pass some state laws that would pass muster under the current liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

(It's always struck me that this is similar to airline terrorism deaths.  It never seems like we try to put in perspective how many lives elaborate TSA procedures are worth. 

We certainly think everyone driving 70 and having cars is worth so many thousands of deaths per year.) 

I think we'd have an easier time talking about the issue if we just agree that all of us have some sort of death tolerance in regard to the value of a broad 2nd amendment and gun regulations.

[Lurch 5949]

I wish people would start with a basic determination of how many deaths are acceptable before they draw a line in the sand regarding policy decisions.

 

39 so far this year.  So what, 100 for 2018?  Equal amount injured..

100 kids dying in the US per year due to school shootings isn't enough for me to suggest we do anything about the 2nd amendment.  But 100 dying per year is probably enough for me to think about whether our background check policies/training requirements/age limitations make sense in terms of federal law.

On the state level, states like California and Florida and Texas certainly can be looking at 20 per year.  Is that worth trying to pass some state laws that would pass muster under the current liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

(It's always struck me that this is similar to airline terrorism deaths.  It never seems like we try to put in perspective how many lives elaborate TSA procedures are worth. 

We certainly think everyone driving 70 and having cars is worth so many thousands of deaths per year.) 

I think we'd have an easier time talking about the issue if we just agree that all of us have some sort of death tolerance in regard to the value of a broad 2nd amendment and gun regulations.

 

Hi. GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A RUSTY NAIL.

 

[tantric superman 4668]

This is a liberty issue, and liberty needs to be measured against deaths you tolerate to maintain that liberty.  I don't think its a particularly radical proposition. 

[MoJames 8258]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

This is a liberty issue, and liberty needs to be measured against deaths you tolerate to maintain that liberty.  I don't think its a particularly radical proposition. 

[jimmyjazz 47152]

I take a calculated risk when I drive or fly.  I don't think it's reasonable to say that children and teachers should take calculated risks when going to school.

For one thing, school (of some sort) is mandatory up to a certain age.

[tantric superman 4668]

I'm not asking anyone to take any calculated risk.

I'm asking the folks who purport to support a liberty interest (the right to buy any weapon they want), to tell me how many kids have to die before they are willing to engage in constructive dialogue about limiting that liberty in some way. 

And I'm asking the folks who purport to limit that liberty interest to define what they are trying to achieve.  Zero accidental gun deaths ever?   

[staboner 5084]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'm not asking anyone to take any calculated risk.

I'm asking the folks who purport to support a liberty interest (the right to buy any weapon they want), to tell me how many kids have to die before they are willing to engage in constructive dialogue about limiting that liberty in some way. 

And I'm asking the folks who purport to limit that liberty interest to define what they are trying to achieve.  Zero accidental gun deaths ever?   

again, we have a problem with mentally unstable people having much to easy access to guns. thems the words. stick to that. 

we need measures to:

- make gun ownership more of a responsibility

- make mental health a national crisis (IMO it is)

talking about the 2nd amendment is hot air, regardless of what side your hot air comes from.

if the first above treads on your liberty then so be it. your calcs are wrong and IMO you are failing to account for the mental anguish and anxiety this problem is causing all of our society

 

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

1 minute ago, staboner said:

again, we have a problem with mentally unstable people having much to easy access to guns. thems the words. stick to that. 

we need measures to:

- make gun ownership more of a responsibility

- make mental health a national crisis (IMO it is)

talking about the 2nd amendment is hot air, regardless of what side your hot air comes from.

if the first above treads on your liberty then so be it. your calcs are wrong and IMO you are failing to account for the mental anguish and anxiety this problem is causing all of our society

 

I would support a law where the gun owner is held responsible for a minor in their custody under 18 stealing their weapon and using it in a mass shooting. 

[jimmyjazz 47152]

12 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

And I'm asking the folks who purport to limit that liberty interest to define what they are trying to achieve.  Zero accidental gun deaths ever?   

No.

[tantric superman 4668]

staboner,

Tell me how I am failing to account for anything, since all I have done is suggest a better avenue of discussing the matter.

Talking about the 2nd amendment is hot air?  Well fuck, I guess I have the wrong relevant amendment and I completely missed the fact that we have a court that will fucking move mountains to proclaim all sorts of gun rights.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by tantric superman

[staboner 5084]

1 minute ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I would support a law where the gun owner is held responsible for a minor in their custody under 18 stealing their weapon and using it in a mass shooting. 

something like this sure seems logical.

i think just ticking the needle in that direction, no matter how little, is a start. 

[staboner 5084]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Tell me how I am failing to account for anything, since all I have done is suggest a better avenue of discussing the matter.

Talking about the 2nd amendment is hot air?  Well fuck, I guess I have the wrong relevant amendment and I completely missed the fact that we have a court that will fucking move mountains to proclaim all sorts of gun rights.

 

the 2nd ammendent is what it is. talking about it - pro or con - is useless, especially given the complete clusterfuck that is our federal government

the problem is we have mentally unstable people with much to easy access to guns. give it shot (pun intended). practice saying it. its good man

[Lurch 5949]

something like this sure seems logical.
i think just ticking the needle in that direction, no matter how little, is a start. 

It’s exactly the deterrent Nancy Lanza needed.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

2 minutes ago, staboner said:

something like this sure seems logical.

i think just ticking the needle in that direction, no matter how little, is a start. 

I agree, I think it would make the parents talk to their kids a little more and it would make them take their gun security more seriously. Unfortunately, this is actually a "common sense" regulation but it would never get any traction with the liberal lawmaking wing because they would overreach which puts a full stop to constructive policy discussion.

[tantric superman 4668]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No.

Then what are you trying to achieve?  And does it involve a limitation of gun owner's right or increase their potential liability?  If it does either of these, then my suggestion is that the only way to have the dialogue with gun rights advocates is to deal with the potential lives gained vs. liberty lost.

My suggestion is that there is virtually no liberty lost in terms of increasing background checks and licensing requirements, etc.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

3 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

It’s exactly the deterrent Nancy Lanza needed.

 

Well a locked up gun wouldve been harder to get to for Adam, not sure if this was sarcasm or not. 

[Lurch 5949]

Congress and the trumptard need ZERO help from liberals to put that in place. Why not done?!

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

1 minute ago, Lurch said:

Congress and the trumptard need ZERO help from liberals to put that in place. Why not done?!

Has anyone even suggested it? I would be in full support

[Brisketexan 106888]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

No.

Correct.

All liberty interests are limited in some way, shape, or form.  Hell, the most obvious and sacred one is the 1st amendment right of free speech, and even that is restricted (time, place, and manner restrictions, no "fighting words," defamation is a legal cause of action, etc.).

And they are restricted in what amounts to a balancing test -- the individual liberty interest versus some social utility/burden analysis.  That's why we have the liberty to drive a car....but not the liberty to drive it at 100 mph through a school zone.

Finally, firearms are ALREADY subject to such balancing, and have been for 80+ years -- there are heightened restrictions and requirements for owning a fully automatic weapon.  There are age limits on the purchase of weapons (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns).  Etc. etc.  We're just discussing the proper balance to be struck.

And because the question is one of balance, not extremes, the goal can never be "NO gun deaths," or "NO automobile deaths."  The goal is to reduce them as much as possible in balance with preserving the liberty interest in using the tools.

[staboner 5084]

3 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I agree, I think it would make the parents talk to their kids a little more and it would make them take their gun security more seriously. Unfortunately, this is actually a "common sense" regulation but it would never get any traction with the liberal lawmaking wing because they would overreach which puts a full stop to constructive policy discussion.

i would consider myself a liberal and i don't want the 2nd amendment touched. 

blaming one part of our dysfunctional government is really not healthy IMO. 

All for making gun ownership a much more serious privilege of some type. thanks for your understanding. 

[jimmyjazz 47152]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Then what are you trying to achieve? 

Personally, I would like to see a reduction in the effectiveness as well as frequency of mass shootings.   I believe the former can be addressed by limiting magazine capacity and perhaps firing rate.  Whether that solution reduces the frequency of events, I don't know.

I absolutely support longer waiting periods, better reporting, and elimination of private sale loopholes.  While it appears that the statistics don't actually point to "mental illness" as a significant correlating factor with these events, I would sure like to see this country address mental health in a more positive manner.