It couldn't happen here, until it does ...active shooter on MSU campus

[YGIFS 19452]

Number of Texans who've won the Powerball Jackpot since 1995:  0

Number of Mass Shooting Events in Texas since 1995: 19

Number of MSE Fatalities just in Texas since 1995: 166 

Number of MSE Injuries just in Texas since 1995:  ~500

Number of those immediately adjacent to mass shooting events in Texas since 1995, suffering severe emotional damage:  ~Tens of Thousands 

Many of us are guilty of using hyperbolic examples for effect (powerball, lightning strikes, Covid-19 death rates, etc.).  But when it comes to gun statistics, you gotta get that shit right.  

Obviously, there is an extremely small chance any of us are anywhere near a mass shooter event.  We get that.  The problem I have with them is the randomness, volume of carnage, and inability to substantially de-risk it.  I'm 20x more likely to die in a traffic fatality on a motor cycle than in my truck.  So I don't ride a motorcycle.  Doesn't mean an 18-wheeler can't still kill me, but I've driven the odds down to almost zero.  Lightning can still strike me, but it's a slim chance...and effectively zero if I don't make it a habit of being the tallest thing for a mile in any direction during a lightning storm directly overhead. 

I can do little things each day to reduce already small probabilities to basically zero.  Buying weed once a year likely means I will never be involved in gang or drug war shootings, but working as a drug trafficker all week...your chances rise considerably that you'll be involved in a related shooting.  So I can pretty easy not get involved in gang or cartel business.  What I have to do though, is send my kids to school, I have to go to the grocery store, I have to attend church services, I have to go to work.  I can't de-risk that.  I can't avoid that like I can avoid drag racing, extreme weather, or the drug trade.  I don't live in fear, I live in frustration. 

If the "good guy with a gun" stopped this shit at even Mendoza line levels, .200, I'd pack in public each and every day.  But the reality is closer to the batting average of Dave Dravecky, after he lost his arm.  

   

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I get what you're saying, but it kind of missing the point of the reason for needing ultra high security measures. Imagine living in a society where those measures aren't needed and we could use those funds for educating children.

There is that pinko talk again. How dare you.

[fattyflattie 4638]

4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Many of us are guilty of using hyperbolic examples for effect (powerball, lightning strikes, Covid-19 death rates, etc.).  But when it comes to gun statistics, you gotta get that shit right.  

No. I want to be held to the same standard as @Brisketexan   I’ve been told there are no longer any gun laws. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

6 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

What I have to do though, is send my kids to school, I have to go to the grocery store, I have to attend church services, I have to go to work.  I can't de-risk that. 

Sure you can. Most “mass shootings” happen in the exact cities you’re thinking they would.   If we really want to use statistics, let’s stop using Ulvalde as our baseline and start talking about the other 610/year.   The 4 person “mass shooting”. 

[YGIFS 19452]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Sure you can. Most “mass shootings” happen in the exact cities you’re thinking they would.   If we really want to use statistics, let’s stop using Ulvalde as our baseline and start talking about the other 610/year.   The 4 person “mass shooting”. 

What are the "4 person mass shootings" to which you refer?  If that's some kinda shorthand for something, I genuinely don't know what it is other than a statistic.

To your other point---mass shootings do not happen in the exact cities I think they would.  Here are the ones just in Texas.  Tell me which one of them scream "Rampant Urban Crime!" or "DRUG TRADE VIOLENCE!" 

Daingerfield (don't even know where that is), Grand Prairie, Waco (multiple times), College Station, Fort Worth, Spring, Garland, Plano, Sutherland Springs, Sante Fe, El Paso (one of America's 5 safest large cities), Midland-Odessa, Uvalde, a more than few near misses in Austin (UT Library and crazy old white dude shooting up the courthouse in the middle of the night and on to iH-35).  This isn't gang turfwar in Houston we're talking about.

[Pig Bellmont 8725]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You don't find it disingenuous to say we just need to enforce the laws we have when the laws we have are being overturned as quickly as the court system will allow based upon a radical reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court last summer? 

Also, if the laws we already have are good enough, why haven’t they been working the last 20 years? I mean if the solution is so simple surely it would have happened by now, right? “We just need to enforce them” is just code for “I’d rather we do nothing as a society”. 
 

And don’t get me started on local sheriffs refusing to enforce red flag laws. There’s a whole can of worms here

[fattyflattie 4638]

7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

What are the "4 person mass shootings" to which you refer? 

The definition of a “mass shooting”, at least per CNN’s latest article. 
 

8 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

a more than few near misses

We doing near misses now?  Don’t tell traffic statistics. 

[Dahobbs 17655]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Also, if the laws we already have are good enough, why haven’t they been working the last 20 years? I mean if the solution is so simple surely it would have happened by now, right? “We just need to enforce them” is just code for “I’d rather we do nothing as a society”. 
 

And don’t get me started on local sheriffs refusing to enforce red flag laws. There’s a whole can of worms here

Setting aside the fact that isn't clear that any regulation of firearms is currently Constitutional, the reason our existing laws haven't worked is because they were designed to not work. Or, at least they were not designed to be easily enforced or designed to prevent harm rather punish malfeasance. For a law to truly have a preventative effect, enforcement needs to be practical and forward looking. That means having laws centered on where guns are manufactured and distributed. Having laws that require owners/purchasers to self-report information that may preclude them from owning guns is nice and all, but any true enforcement of those laws is after the fact (and difficult to accomplish) and isn't preventative. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Dahobbs

[YGIFS 19452]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

The definition of a “mass shooting”, at least per CNN’s latest article. 
 

We doing near misses now?  Don’t tell traffic statistics. 

I think most sites, policy groups, and even politicians agree that 4 people involved constitutes a mass shooting, and rightfully so.  I'd say 3+.  Murder-Suicides are as old as guns themselves.  I'd say 3+.  But it's semantics

I only added Austin as a perfunctory sidenote.  I did not count near misses in the totals upthread.  That's cold dead bodies, some torn up beyond recognition.  

Yes, there are mass shootings in the the same cities over and over again each year.  But my point again is that most of those involve people who've elected to be involved in certain industries which have a proliferation of gun violence.  I can avoid those lines of work entirely, and avoid those cities close to entirely.  What I cannot do is not buy food, educate my kids, skip work, and not attend church.  That's where the shooting happens to innocent people.  That's the frustrating part.  As long as we have gang turfwars and drug wars, we're gonna have shootings but they're almost entirely confined to others in their "game." Just like Asia and Latin America.  The uniquely American thing, is in addition to that horrendous reality, we also have this other thing over here that nobody else does where we let dangerous people get dangerous amounts of dangerous firepower and grant them the ability to enter every day America in the most innocuous towns, in the most innocuous establishments.  

Americans think they're elevating the debate after a mass shooting by saying, "What about Chicago?  What about New Orleans?  What about Saint Louis?"  

On the rare occasion, there's a random shooter event in any other corner of the world, they shout, "What about America?"  We're the violent shithole to them that Detroit is to you and me.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 hour ago, royiv said:

Imagine living in a society where those measures aren't needed and we could use those funds for educating children.

Criminals shouldn't commit crimes. Things would be better if they didn't.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

16 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Americans think they're elevating the debate after a mass shooting by saying, "What about Chicago?  What about New Orleans?  What about Saint Louis?" 

If it's raining and there's a hole in your roof, you don't concern yourself with the dripping faucet. Ignoring the hole and wringing your hands over the faucet is peak Surly.

[aggie08 21525]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

If it's raining and there's a hole in your roof, you don't concern yourself with the dripping faucet. Ignoring the hole and wringing your hands over the faucet is peak Surly.

Imagine being so tone deaf as to call dead elementary kids a "dripping faucet"

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Imagine being so tone deaf as to call dead elementary kids a "dripping faucet"

Emotional people don't solve problems--they sit in Congress and point fingers.

[Dahobbs 17655]

10 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

If it's raining and there's a hole in your roof, you don't concern yourself with the dripping faucet. Ignoring the hole and wringing your hands over the faucet is peak Surly.

It is raining. There is a hole in our roof. But our roof is also a mesh cover and isn't designed to keep out the rain. Worrying about the hole is stupid because we need an entirely different kind of roof. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is raining. There is a hole in our roof. But our roof is also a mesh cover and isn't designed to keep out the rain. Worrying about the hole is stupid because we need an entirely different kind of roof. 

I agree. So how do we fix it?

[bolverk 29714]

Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions has done some research and found two policies that have proven to reduce the number of mass shooting events as well as the number of deaths associated with them. Unfortunately, funding for research is lacking.

The full linked article is worth a read, but here are the key findings:

Quote

 

One was a requirement that a gun purchaser go through a licensing process. "A licensing process requires someone to, you know, directly apply and engage with law enforcement, sometimes there's safety training and other requirements," says Webster.

Another approach that seemed to reduce deaths from mass shootings was state bans on buying large-capacity magazines or ammunition-feeding devices for semi-automatic weapons.

 

Quote

 

An additional common refrain after a mass shooting, he says, is a call for policies that make it easier for people to carry guns so they can defend themselves. "Well, guess what, the data do not bear that out at all," says Webster. "If anything, it shows higher rates of fatal mass shootings in response to weaker regulations for concealed carry by civilians."

And while school systems might try to respond to the threat of mass shootings by having police officers on site or having students go through drills, "as far as I know, there's not strong research about any of those things," says Hemenway.

Keeping guns away from young people, whether through safe storage of firearms in a home or age restrictions on purchasing, would be expected to have a protective effect, says Webster, based on data showing that "the peak ages for violent offending with firearms is roughly 18 to 21."

 

 

[Dahobbs 17655]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I agree. So how do we fix it?

Ideally implement regulations designed to proactively rather than reactively address gun violence. These would mean implement some restrictions/impediments to gun ownership. But unfortunately it appears any such laws are now unconstitutional. So I guess we start by either amending the constitution or getting the Supreme Court to change its mind again and interpret rights under the 2nd amendment the same way it interprets other rights rather than being the special exception amendment that isn't subject to any reasonable limitations (unless those exact limitations existed in 1791)

[Zepol87 9191]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Sure you can. Most “mass shootings” happen in the exact cities you’re thinking they would.   If we really want to use statistics, let’s stop using Ulvalde as our baseline and start talking about the other 610/year.   The 4 person “mass shooting”. 

Oh is this the Chicago argument again?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Ideally implement regulations designed to proactively rather than reactively address gun violence. 

How would your proposed changes have fixed the issue that happened at MSU?

 

[Helobious 9464]

40 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Criminals shouldn't commit crimes. Things would be better if they didn't.

Clearly the answer is to not have any laws then, since criminals don’t follow them anyway.

[Dahobbs 17655]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

How would your proposed changes have fixed the issue that happened at MSU?

 

Strict licensing requirements enforced at point of sale would have prevented the MSU shooter from obtaining his gun. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Strict licensing requirements enforced at point of sale would have prevented the MSU shooter from obtaining his gun. 

Not sure I understand. What licensing requirement would have stopped him from buying a gun? FWIW, I have no idea how long he had the gun or where he bought it, but since it was a pistol, he was required to have ID / background check.

[hookemATL 11841]

18 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

Oh is this the Chicago argument again?

THE BULLS ARE THE GREATEST DYNASTY OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!  MJ THE GOATTTTTTTTT

[0xdeadbeef 1652]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions has done some research and found two policies that have proven to reduce the number of mass shooting events as well as the number of deaths associated with them. Unfortunately, funding for research is lacking.

The full linked article is worth a read, but here are the key findings:

 

You're probably thinking that the "John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions" must be some non-partisan, non-bias research group that is honestly looking for solutions. It's part of John Hopkins after all, and that's a prestigious organization, right. 

Well, that happens to be the new name for the "Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence" which is the non-profit branch of the advocacy group called "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence".  That coalition was formerly known as "National Coalition to Ban Handguns", but they changed their name because they decided they wanted to ban more than just handguns. The organization was founded on the idea of banning private gun ownership.

They fact that their 'research' just happens to align with, and recommend steps toward, their founding principals should surprise no one.

 

 

 

 

 

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

What I cannot do is not buy food, educate my kids, skip work, and not attend church.  That's where the shooting happens to innocent people.  That's the frustrating part.  As long as we have gang turfwars and drug wars, we're gonna have shootings but they're almost entirely confined to others in their "game." Just like Asia and Latin America.  The uniquely American thing, is in addition to that horrendous reality, we also have this other thing over here that nobody else does where we let dangerous people get dangerous amounts of dangerous firepower and grant them the ability to enter every day America in the most innocuous towns, in the most innocuous establishments.  

Americans think they're elevating the debate after a mass shooting by saying, "What about Chicago?  What about New Orleans?  What about Saint Louis?"  

Absolutely.  Its mind blowing.  And then we get all the tweets about only country in the world!!1!.  But at the end of the day, while no less tragic, you are talking about ~5 events a year out of hundreds of millions.  Maybe billions.  Every school gathering.  Every church gathering. Every time someone goes to the grocery store.  330m people doing this several times a day.  It's senseless, tragic, infuriating, and scary (I'm a parent of 3, too).   

People latch onto Chicago and think race!, but are missing the lede.  The reason it's used as an example is it's gun laws.  Same with Cali.   

 

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Your math is as bad as your personality 

You wanna tell me what hundreds of millions (billions?) of safe, uneventful gatherings divided by a few events a year is.  

[bolverk 29714]

8 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

You're probably thinking that the "John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions" must be some non-partisan, non-bias research group that is honestly looking for solutions. It's part of John Hopkins after all, and that's a prestigious organization, right. 

Well, that happens to be the new name for the "Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence" which is the non-profit branch of the advocacy group called "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence".  That coalition was formerly known as "National Coalition to Ban Handguns", but they changed their name because they decided they wanted to ban more than just handguns. The organization was founded on the idea of banning private gun ownership.

They fact that their 'research' just happens to align with, and recommend steps toward, their founding principals should surprise no one.

 

 

 

 

 

That's not a history I'd been aware of. Having said that, a very quick google search led me to these comments from its co-director from a while back refuting your claim that their research leads them to the conclusion that guns should be illegal. It could be that leadership changed; it might be that their mission has been altered; it's possible their research methodology has evolved. I don't know, but I'm not opposed to a sincere, scientifically sound approach to figuring out how to save more lives. If you know of a better group studying solutions, I'm all ears.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-xpm-2011-01-25-bs-md-ci-gun-lecture-20110125-story.html

Quote

 

Gun control policies should focus on restricting access to firearms for dangerous individuals or repeat offenders rather than making guns illegal, a prominent gun policy scholar told a group of public health students on Tuesday.

Daniel W. Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, touched on Baltimore police tactics and the Jan. 8 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., where six people were killed and 13 wounded, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Too often, he said, the national debate on gun control divides into groups — those claiming that guns are not responsible for people's violent actions against those who say there are far too many guns available in America.

"This discussion has gotten us to where we are today, which is nowhere," said Webster, who has served as an informal adviser to Baltimore Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III. "We get in these silly sorts of discussions about guns are good, guns are bad."

Instead, Webster and his colleagues have used crime data to try to determine which people are most likely to commit violent gun crimes. He recommended several policies to restrict those individuals' gun purchases, including prohibiting people convicted of misdemeanors from purchasing guns until they have been crime-free for a number of years and increasing the minimum purchasing age.

Thorough background checks like the ones conducted in New York, he believes, would most likely have prevented Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old accused of carrying out the Tucson shooting, from buying a gun. According to news reports, Loughner had been charged with possessing drug paraphernalia.

"It really just comes down to, let's define dangerous people," he said.

 

 

[Helobious 9464]

18 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

 

People latch onto Chicago and think race!, but are missing the lede.  The reason it's used as an example is it's gun laws.  Same with Cali.   

 

Fun fact: if you look up US cities ranked by highest homicide rate, you won’t find chicago in the top 10 usually. Or any city in Cali.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Helobious

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Fun fact: if you look up US cities ranked by highest homicide rate, you won’t find chicago on there. Or any city in Cali.

St. Louis FTW.

[Brisketexan 105276]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

No. I want to be held to the same standard as @Brisketexan   I’ve been told there are no longer any gun laws. 

Read Bruen.  Then read the cascade of cases following it in just the past few months.  Read United States v. Rahimi from the 5th Circuit.  Read about USA v. Quiroz, a Texas district court case striking down the 54 year old federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying a firearm.  Read about judge Pittman's decision in Ft. Worth striking down the Texas law prohibiting people under 21 from carrying a handgun.

Bruen came out at the end of June.  In just a few months, most every gun regulation that was currently being challenged has been struck down as unconstitutional.  The ONLY thing the SCOTUS has done to the contrary is that it declined to take up a case challenging the Trump-era ban on bump stocks.  But then, it doesn't have to, as the 5th Circuit has now gutted it on statutory (not constitutional) grounds, and courts will generally opt for the least intrusive way to decide an issue.  So, if the bump-stock ban is just a bad law, they'll kill it that way.

But to be clear, functionally every gun regulation that has been challenged on a constitutional basis since Bruen has been struck down as unconstitutional.  Don't take my word for it.  Read what actually happened, in the words of the courts taking the action. 

[bolverk 29714]

Quick overview of the effects of various efforts from the RAND Gun Policy in America organization:

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

Edited February 15, 2023 by bolverk

[Brisketexan 105276]

49 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ideally implement regulations designed to proactively rather than reactively address gun violence. These would mean implement some restrictions/impediments to gun ownership. But unfortunately it appears any such laws are now unconstitutional. So I guess we start by either amending the constitution or getting the Supreme Court to change its mind again and interpret rights under the 2nd amendment the same way it interprets other rights rather than being the special exception amendment that isn't subject to any reasonable limitations (unless those exact limitations existed in 1791)

And.....this is where we are.

Age limits seem like low-hanging fruit: let's keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of the most emotionally unstable and immature group out there.  NOPE, already struck down as unconstitutional, because there were no such laws in 1791.

Safe storage laws make loads of sense, and would also prevent a shitload of accidental deaths and suicides: but I can't find such a law on the books in 1791.  UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

We are utterly fucked.  Bruen is already proving to be one of the most disastrous decisions in a cascade of disastrous decisions from this SCOTUS.   When all is said and done, the Dred Scott court ain't gonna have nothing on this court.

[BabaYaga 15305]

40 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Not sure I understand. What licensing requirement would have stopped him from buying a gun? FWIW, I have no idea how long he had the gun or where he bought it, but since it was a pistol, he was required to have ID / background check.

Quote

McRae in 2019 faced a felony weapons charge for carrying a loaded firearm without a concealed-weapons permit but ultimately pleaded to a misdemeanor. If he had been convicted of the felony, he would have been barred from legally owning a gun, according to a Michigan county prosecutor.

 

[hookemATL 11841]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

let's keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of the most emotionally unstable and immature group out there. 

Agreed, no aggie should ever have access to guns.

[TXSooner518 2438]

20 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes, I try to discuss reality and leave the dystopian fantasies clouded by emotion and tittyfits to others.  

Like the reality of the 5th Circuit having already said it is unconstitutional for a person with multiple previous violent incidents involving firearms, and now a protective order in place due to domestic violence, to be restricted from having his guns?  That fucking reality? Anyone who supports that can literally get absolutely fucked in their stupid fucking gullet. 

[956 Worldwide 34747]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Imagine being so tone deaf as to call dead elementary kids a "dripping faucet"

It’s been said before— since Newtown resulted in jack shit, it should be clear that nothing will result in change. After all, we’re Very Proud that we don’t get emotional about .223 rounds tearing through the little arms, legs, heads, and bodies of first graders as their teachers try to use their bodies to shield them.
 

That’s not a problem that calls for Emotion. 

[Brisketexan 105276]

2 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

Agreed, no aggie should ever have access to guns.

Great....now you've opened the "sword control" can of worms....

[956 Worldwide 34747]

3 hours ago, royiv said:

I get what you're saying, but it kind of missing the point of the reason for needing ultra high security measures. Imagine living in a society where those measures aren't needed and we could use those funds for educating children.

Counterpoint— imagine living in a society where you have to pay a small tax and register a pistol brace. 
 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by 956 Worldwide

[fattyflattie 4638]

54 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Fun fact: if you look up US cities ranked by highest homicide rate, you won’t find chicago in the top 10 usually. Or any city in Cali.

Good.  But you know the "good guy with a gun" flex that is so popular here.    It's in the same vein. 

[Hermanator 7139]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

You wanna tell me what hundreds of millions (billions?) of safe, uneventful gatherings divided by a few events a year is.  

That's not legitimate probability calculation. 

There's approx 330,000,000 people in the US

There were 647 mass shootings in the US last year

Couldn't find an exact death total but let's just say an average of three per mass shooting. 1,947 deaths in 330 million people. 

That's one in 170,015. 

The odds of winning the Powerball are 1 in 292,201,338

 

Just for shits let's use your 1 billion gatherings number. 

1947 deaths out of 1 billion gatherings. That's 1 in 513,610. 

Again, the Powerball odds are 1 in 292,201,338. 

Your math is as bad as your personality 

 

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 minute ago, Hermanator said:

That's not legitimate probability calculation. 

There's approx 330,000,000 people in the US

There were 647 mass shootings in the US last year

Couldn't find an exact death total but let's just say an average of three per mass shooting. 1,947 deaths in 330 million people. 

That's one in 170,015. 

The odds of winning the Powerball are 1 in 292,201,338

 

Just for shits let's use your 1 billion gatherings number. 

1947 deaths out of 1 billion gatherings. That's 1 in 513,610. 

Again, the Powerball odds are 1 in 292,201,338. 

Your math is as bad as your personality 

 

So, 330m people attend a store, work, school, post office, etc. probably 10 times on average a week.  Please tell me, out of these literal billions of instances, what your odds are.   There are 115k schools in the US, that meet 250 times a year, with probably 200 students per.  Sports events across the country, 50-100k people at a time, 12-20 times a year.  Please tell me again how worried you really are.

[Hefeweizen 5328]

If your argument is that a few dead kids and college students are the price to pay for gun freedoms you’ve already lost the argument.  I mean, pointing to low percentages of catastrophic failure is not going to persuade anyone.  
 

In an interesting twist, all public meetings in Texas for an unnamed state agency now require the applicant to provide private security so that staff is safe.  That’s reassuring.  

[ruitxn 298]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Read Bruen.  Then read the cascade of cases following it in just the past few months.  Read United States v. Rahimi from the 5th Circuit.  Read about USA v. Quiroz, a Texas district court case striking down the 54 year old federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying a firearm.  Read about judge Pittman's decision in Ft. Worth striking down the Texas law prohibiting people under 21 from carrying a handgun.

Bruen came out at the end of June.  In just a few months, most every gun regulation that was currently being challenged has been struck down as unconstitutional.  The ONLY thing the SCOTUS has done to the contrary is that it declined to take up a case challenging the Trump-era ban on bump stocks.  But then, it doesn't have to, as the 5th Circuit has now gutted it on statutory (not constitutional) grounds, and courts will generally opt for the least intrusive way to decide an issue.  So, if the bump-stock ban is just a bad law, they'll kill it that way.

But to be clear, functionally every gun regulation that has been challenged on a constitutional basis since Bruen has been struck down as unconstitutional.  Don't take my word for it.  Read what actually happened, in the words of the courts taking the action. 

Thanks Brisket.

Fatty flattie:  No. I want to be held to the same standard as @Brisketexan 

Fatty, I want to hear your intellectual response.  No one liners please.

[Dahobbs 17655]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Not sure I understand. What licensing requirement would have stopped him from buying a gun? FWIW, I have no idea how long he had the gun or where he bought it, but since it was a pistol, he was required to have ID / background check.

He purchased two pistols in 2021. Unclear from the information where he purchased them, but private sellers aren't required to run background check. 

At any rate, a robust licensing process could have disqualified him for his prior misdemeanor, disqualified for his mental health issues, or disqualified him for failing to pass testing requirements or re-licensing requirements. Remember, your question wasn't about the laws that exist, but rather how proposed laws would have prevented the shooting. I think age limits, waiting periods, and real licensing requirements are low hanging fruit that would substantially decrease the risk of guns getting in the hands of the people who would commit these random, mass shootings.  

[fattyflattie 4638]

22 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

If your argument is that a few dead kids and college students are the price to pay for gun freedoms you’ve already lost the argument.  I mean, pointing to low percentages of catastrophic failure is not going to persuade anyone.  
 

In an interesting twist, all public meetings in Texas for an unnamed state agency now require the applicant to provide private security so that staff is safe.  That’s reassuring.  

That's not the argument.  The argument is that your odds of being affected in one of these events is extremely small, and that is not the way they are discussed, or treated for that matter. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

13 minutes ago, ruitxn said:

Thanks Brisket.

Fatty flattie:  No. I want to be held to the same standard as @Brisketexan 

Fatty, I want to hear your intellectual response.  No one liners please.

I'd like to hear back about how you can equate "open season on gun laws" within a literal fucking week of one of the largest firearm restrictions in two decades going into affect.  I asked him, it was ignored.  A law that could/will make hundreds of thousands of owners overnight felons, if they don't comply. THIS is what we spend our political will power on.  So please, tell me all about how we're super serious about stopping these events, but instead focus on silly shit like pistol braces.  I'm all ears. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

He purchased two pistols in 2021. Unclear from the information where he purchased them, but private sellers aren't required to run background check. 

At any rate, a robust licensing process could have disqualified him for his prior misdemeanor, disqualified for his mental health issues, or disqualified him for failing to pass testing requirements or re-licensing requirements. Remember, your question wasn't about the laws that exist, but rather how proposed laws would have prevented the shooting. I think age limits, waiting periods, and real licensing requirements are low hanging fruit that would substantially decrease the risk of guns getting in the hands of the people who would commit these random, mass shootings.  

Thanks for an honest answer. I agree that their needs to be a more rigorous process for licensing, but I have no idea where that line is. Unfortunately, those who abide by the rules are punished by those who don't. 

[Dahobbs 17655]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That's not the argument.  The argument is that your odds of being affected in one of these events is extremely small, and that is not the way they are discussed, or treated for that matter. 

Fortunately, as a society, we aren't limited to only addressing risks to specific individuals, but also societal risks. While the chance of any one person being a victim of a mass shooting this month is very low, we unfortunately know that the odds of it occurring in our society are essentially 100%. And we know that the odds of multiple school shootings occurring this year are near 100% as well. Saying we shouldn't address that problem because individual risk is low is well, fucking stupid. 

Also, our enacted solution of traumatizing every single child with shooting drills may be nearly or more damaging overall than the shooting incidents. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105276]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'd like to hear back about how you can equate "open season on gun laws" within a literal fucking week of one of the largest firearm restrictions in two decades going into affect.  I asked him, it was ignored.  A law that could/will make hundreds of thousands of owners overnight felons, if they don't comply. THIS is what we spend our political will power on.  So please, tell me all about how we're super serious about stopping these events, but instead focus on silly shit like pistol braces.  I'm all ears. 

What you are referring to is a very recent ATF regulation on weapons with certain braces.

That regulation has not yet faced a constitutional challenge.  It will.  Want to bet how a court following Bruen rules on the constitutionality of that regulation?  Are you aware of any such regulations in existence in 1791 (requiring registration of short-barreled weapons with a brace)?  No?  Then, we know how this goes down following Bruen.

Yes, there are plenty of laws, regulations, and restrictions that are still on the books today.  The way things work is that they don't get struck down until they are challenged.  So, I pointed you to the track record of challenges to restrictions -- many of them LONG-standing restrictions, what folks like you may have even conceded were "good, common-sense" rules -- which have succeeded in striking down those restrictions as unconstitutional in just the few MONTHS that Bruen has been the law.  

It will take time for the Bruen rule to kill almost all gun regulations, but it will happen.  It already is.

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Fortunately, as a society, we aren't limited to only addressing risks to specific individuals, but also societal risks. While the chance of any one person being a victim of a mass shooting this month is very low, we unfortunately know that the odds of it occurring in our society are essentially 100%. And we know that the odds of multiple school shootings occurring this year are near 100% as well. Saying we shouldn't address that problem because individual risk is low is well, fucking stupid. 

No one is saying it shouldn't be addressed.  It's the manner in which we should go about it.  The current brain trust figured it would be a brilliant time to piss off half the gun owning community about a fucking brace.  So, yeah.    Please add it to the list of the other 50 dangerous things that need to be addressed, for the good of society.  Should I be more concerned with being killed at HEB or the neighbors teenagers getting a laced pill?  Society indeed.