I never post about Issues…this has me pissed off
- Thread starter woodlandpoke
- Start date
You mentioned it directly in response to a comment about automatic weapons in response to your initial comment about automatic weapons.
I agree, but it's kind of hard to get change when you have people in this thread and legislators at the Capitol wrongly claiming "shall not infringe" is an absolute and that there are no limits to 2nd Amendment rights.
Even Justice Scalia....the most ardent 2nd Amendment protector to have sat on the SCOTUS....recognized that there are limits to 2A rights and reasonable, constitutional, legal regulation is possible.
Yeah. But doing ‘something’ without thinking of all the ramifications is just foolhardy. JD gave a great example of something that would be legal and effective. Your example, not so much. When the policy you advocate gets someone killed because they couldn’t get a firearm in time to defend themselves are you going to count that?
Well, I actually voted D in the last state senatorial election since I despise the R who was running (and got elected). She’s a horrible person now in OKC.
All we can do is support the candidates and advocate for effective policies.
Yes. Homeowners with firearms purchased legally and within the existing waiting period sometimes still don’t get to their guns in time. Or there’s household accidents. Life happens. Can’t account for every eventuality.
I just grow so tired of the Dale Gribble types hollering “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” as soon as reports of another tragic mass shooting hits the news wire.
I agree, but it is particularly disheartening to me...as someone in the public safety field....that there seems to be absolutely no room for reasonable rational discussion like we are having amongst a huge majority of the body politic.
I mean, I've got other proposals that I believe would be constitutional surrounding amending the Brady Act with regard to disqualifiers for possession primarily in the mental illness/mental disability arena....but what's the point when a good chunk of our society is of the "muh guns....unlimited right...shall not be infringed is an absolute" ilk?
I don't think ANYTHING real is ever going to get done about the problem.
Like I said in my original post, its effectiveness on mass shootings would be minor at best.
I am simply for anything that promotes responsible gun ownership as currently the system is void of such emphasis. The number of guns stolen annually is mind blowing if you are to believe the ATF data and I cannot be convinced that those stolen guns aren’t fueling violent crime. I also believe that many of those thefts are preventable with proper storage and security.
I know it the impact of such a system would be anything but immediate. However, I think reducing the number of stolen guns on the street would eventually pay some sort of dividends. I also think it would help to somewhat curb the whole “girlfriend bought it for her felon boyfriend” scenarios.
Again, I’m all for gun ownership. I just think it should be more systematic than what it is now. It’s harder to get a drivers’ license than it is to get a gun.
You could allow them to get a shotgun or pistol on the same day, but have a longer waiting/vetting period for anything with high capacity magazines. Shotguns are better home protection anyway.
I do agree with making sure guns, which are not being used, should be locked up in a safe. Any responsible gun owner should do that. In my old neighborhood, my neighbor David started Bear Safes out of his garage. I used to watch him and his foreman/now owner cut and weld the safes together. They are awesome.
Way back, gangs initiated new members by having them break thru a front door at night and they had to kill and or rape. Some raped women and children in front of the husband when they entered with multiple members, and killed the husband last. Literally right thru the front door, complete random act. People scared to death. It happened in Oklahoma at least once. And they also killed random car drivers at night. So, I took home security real serious.
Regular Shotgun loads widen pretty fast. I would never shoot a regular load with someone coming down a hallway with people sleeping in bedrooms attached to that hallway. Perhaps a slug would be best, but better not miss. I have a defense shotgun round that has sheath that goes down range with the pellets and keeps a tight pattern. You probably know this but some may not.
Hollow points some use to call a cop killer round way back. But they are safer than a hardball load because they expand and usually do not exit the body with a solid body hit. Hardball load could go thru someone and strike an innocent.
When my girls were younger, I had furniture positioned in a manner that might shield them from shrapnel or an errant shot coming down the hallway. I also instructed them if they heard me yell intruder at night to get under their beds immediately.
I also had heavy furniture full of clothes positioned by the entrance to my bedroom door that I could take cover behind with the wife, and hopefully survive any shots fired and get a clean shot if I had to. Wife has a gun as well, they would have to take 2 of us out and I also had a shotgun available. Secured the weapons each morning, and got them out at bed time. You get use to it and don’t think about it. And we provided gun safety lessons to our girls and we took them both to shoot at age 14 with a 22 handgun. One still likes to shoot, the other does not. Cool.
Our bed was positioned to provide some cover from glass doors that lead to the back patio.
I think it is no different than planning for an active shooter in your school or business.
You have to have a plan and go thru scenarios in your head. And nothing usually goes to plan during these things, but you want to disrupt the shooter’s plan.
I no longer have to worry about people sleeping down the hall way other than an occasional granddaughter spending the night.
Last edited:
I referenced full auto weapons being illegal. Never said anything about an AR being full auto.
You do realize that many shotguns and most pistols have ‘high capacity’ options? You are basically trying to limit the range someone could fire. You’d not reduce the number of bullets being fired in a specific time frame.
But how many killers actually kill at range? The DC sniper comes to mind. But most of these are close up.
Again, I’m open to effective solutions. Your’s isn’t that.
I'm glad you asked.
To the best of my ability, I walk the walk. I practice all of the things I listed.
Exactly, hell one poster that responded to a post of mine admitted that he thought it was more important for us not to infringe on the right to bear arms for the shooter than the liberty and right to life of the 8 people he killed. Pretty grim outlook on life in my opinion.
Last edited:
Any concrete suggestions for getting the rest of the world to be as fabulous as you and I are in walking the walk?
Those are concrete to the people involved, and that extends from them to others.
I don't claim to be fabulous; it's the right thing to do.
"No," I don't have concrete thoughts about how to have others treat others better?
When I see you say "concrete," I read compel. Is that a fair interpretation?
1. AR’s have been around in the civilian market since the 1950’s.
2. Over 100 years ago you could order full auto Tommy guns and BAR’s out of the SEARS catalog.
3. A pump action 12 gauge would be a far more efficient choice for soft targets in an enclosed “gun free “space
4. Handguns, not rifles, get the body count but not the headlines. There’s a reason and it’s not firepower or some new gun tech.
This is 100% a mental health issue that’s only been a ubiquitous cultural phenomenon since the 1990’s. Yet gun tech is virtually unchanged over the last 120 years.
Anyone pushing gun control as a solution is a fool. It won’t work and that’s exactly the point.
2. Over 100 years ago you could order full auto Tommy guns and BAR’s out of the SEARS catalog.
3. A pump action 12 gauge would be a far more efficient choice for soft targets in an enclosed “gun free “space
4. Handguns, not rifles, get the body count but not the headlines. There’s a reason and it’s not firepower or some new gun tech.
This is 100% a mental health issue that’s only been a ubiquitous cultural phenomenon since the 1990’s. Yet gun tech is virtually unchanged over the last 120 years.
Anyone pushing gun control as a solution is a fool. It won’t work and that’s exactly the point.
No. It is not a fair interpretation.
Maybe read it as "convince" others to treat others better....maybe "encourage" or "incentivize" would be as accurate.
You said:
"Single variable solutions, like "ban X" or "restrict y," seem to me as either simple minded, disingenuous, or not well though out. They don't tell a fraction of the story nor address the issues in the comprehensive way it ought to be addressed, which is mostly societal/cultural vs policy.
(Repeat of intro) My humble opinion is that we need to start treating each other better. We need to start looking for who is hurting. We need to invite the awkward kid or office mate to the team event or weekend outing. Everybody desires to feel the option of being included. Everybody has the desire to feel that they matter in some way."
I agree that single variable solutions are simple minded, etc. I agree that they aren't the end all be all. I agree that they don't tell the totally of the story or address the issues fully. I do think they are useful as a portion of a comprehensive addressing of the problem which I agree is also societal/cultural in nature.
I was just wondering if you had any other plans or suggestions to address the societal/cultural issues in a comprehensive manner beyond you being nice to people because it's the right thing to do (which I also agree with). Because, IMHO....JUST saying we all "need" to be nicer is largely a meaningless platitude without more.
Well it doesn’t involve an easy button fallacy. Let’s start with reopening mental institutions instead of throwing psychotropics at everyone.
What won’t work is guilting people who don’t do this kind of thing into some kind of masochistic self immolation.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - Ohio Capital Journal
Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.
ohiocapitaljournal.com
“We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active.”
I guess I’m a fool for believing in data backed evidence.
Also cited in the article….Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - Ohio Capital Journal
Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.
“We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active.”
I guess I’m a fool for believing in data backed evidence.
Cause or correlation?
“It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.”
We had experts saying the data and science said if you get the vax you can’t get COVID or pass it on to Grandma and kill her as well.
Data backed evidence; HAHAHA!Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - Ohio Capital Journal
Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.
“We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active.”
I guess I’m a fool for believing in data backed evidence.
Last edited:
Where did that super effective “assault weapons” ban fit in this timeline?Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - Ohio Capital Journal
Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.
“We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active.”
I guess I’m a fool for believing in data backed evidence.
Gun debate aside, that’s a very sad graph.
God doesn't give a shit what we think. We can play this "what's more important than a life" all day. I'll go first, if I could save one life by doing away with cars it would be worth it! See how fun that is? What right in the Bill of Rights would you like to do away with next? How about we take away the first amendment?? You good with that swap? Actually the government would love that because the Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment included is there to limit the government and what it can do to it's citizens. The right to keep and bear arms helps insure all of the other rights for the citizenry.
Yep, that "shall not infringe" thing is so wishy washy and confusing. I wish the founders would have been more clear about what they meant.
I could get behind red flag laws as long as there are specifics around what due process looks like. I think there is room for abuse.
As someone mentioned earlier there are millions of AR style rifles and pistols in circulation. If you ban them, do you grandfather the existing ones and stop future production/sales/transfers? Give everyone 90 days to turn them in or become a felon for possessing something that was legally purchased?
ARs seem to be the weapon of choice mass shooters looking to kills innocent civilians. If ARs are suddenly no longer available, do we think the number of mass shootings plummet? Or is it more likely they just move to semi auto pistols. Would banning semi auto pistols not be the next common sense gun reform?
Who is going to fund the construction and staffing of these mental institutions that everyone is so keen on reopening these days?
As someone mentioned earlier there are millions of AR style rifles and pistols in circulation. If you ban them, do you grandfather the existing ones and stop future production/sales/transfers? Give everyone 90 days to turn them in or become a felon for possessing something that was legally purchased?
ARs seem to be the weapon of choice mass shooters looking to kills innocent civilians. If ARs are suddenly no longer available, do we think the number of mass shootings plummet? Or is it more likely they just move to semi auto pistols. Would banning semi auto pistols not be the next common sense gun reform?
Who is going to fund the construction and staffing of these mental institutions that everyone is so keen on reopening these days?
I sense sarcasm here, but I'd bet that there are "infringements" on the right to bear arms that even you as an "shall not infringe is an absolute" kind of guy agree with:
-insane people being banned from bearing arms
-convicted felons being banned from bearing arms
-people who are mentally incompetent to care for themselves being banned from bearing arms
-people incarcerated in prisons and jails and persons visiting them being banned from bearing arms while in the prison
-The right of a private property owner to bar the carrying of firearms on to their property if they see fit.
"Shall not infringe" is not an absolute statement. It isn't now, and it wasn't then.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote 26]
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Antonin Scalia....probably the greatest 2A advocate to have sat on the SCOTUS bench in modern history....in D.C. v. Heller.
Last edited:
It is absolutely clear to me that we now house our most mentally ill in prisons where we used to involuntarily commit them long term to mental hospitals.
I don't know if they were getting needed care went they were warehoused in hospitals. I absolutely know they aren't getting it in prison. I see that up close and personal.
We can model the due process requirements after what the victim protection orders process looks like very easily.
A VPO already prohibits someone from possessing firearms under the Brady Act and authorizes law enforcement to seize firearms once it is granted. VPO processes have already undergone due process attacks and been shown to constitutional.
Marshal, I appreciate you posting this. This article points to a positive outcome of the assault weapons ban (as my article I shared did as well).
"In other words, there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms that were banned, but the drop was replaced by crimes committed with other types of firearms that were not banned."
I would much rather be face to face with a psycho with a hand gun, than a psycho with an AR-15.
I am sure the data is out there, but rarely do you hear a story about a 25 year AR-15 gun owner who randomly decided to go shoot up a school. 9/10 times it is an individual that bought the gun within 10 days of the shooting. So, to answer your question, I would have no issue grandfathering in the AR style rifles currently in circulation. And, as I mentioned above, I would way rather take my changes of surviving a shooting with a semi auto pistol, than an AR. *that is such a wild sentence to even type and shows how messed up this whole thing is*
How about the RAND study? How about the fact that gun violence incidents continued to decline AFTER the “assault rifle” ban expired?
You're missing my point. If those incidents are going to continue to happen, as the article clearly states they will, why not ensure that the damage is limited to that of a smaller caliber weapon? One in which you (or your loved one) has a far greater chance of surviving.
