We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

response for you and davids: no way can you truly read what i posted and go here...seriously?!?

please re-read my statement where i specifically say, "i get the difference". not playing what-aboutisms here or even justifying one vs the other. was simply pointing out that there are many risky things we accept (have accepted for decades) as a way of life. the benefit for the majority of these things (pills - pools - cars - booze, etc) vs the risk to a very small minority is tacitly understood and accepted by our society. does not mean i accept mass shootings as a way of life. it does mean i try and keep a bit of perspective when going through the decision process for legislation to control / restrict personal freedoms. the gist of my post was simply that we can't, nor should we expect, legislation to provide us with zero-death results.

but go ahead and continue to play the Moral Outrage Olympics game as you race to a podium spot. we're all human here. and we're all outraged. just because you are more outraged, does not make you more right.

---

my point was the comparison isn't really a comparison. car, drugs and booze, cigarettes, pools, so on and so forth are not things that are literally designed to kill as many people as possible, as efficiently as possible.
from what i understand, some of these "assault rifles" really only fire a common hunters rifle cartridge. so what makes them so much more efficient? i guess it would be expiring so many rounds in such a short amount of time.
i would think it would be in everyone's interest to put some kind of regulation on mag capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallas Tex

I know you are better than that.

Think of the point he is making this way: The risk of you dying in an airplane related incident increases 100% if you choose to travel on airplanes.

You've got to think through these 'studies' a bit and not just accept the 'findings' as gospel.

---

No, his point is that people do all sorts of risky things. So leave his guns alone.

His argument is specious. It's in the same ballpark as his argument about how people die in cars (which are, as we all know, highly regulated in their construction; in their security; in the evaluation of operator competence; and in their operation) (We also know that the number of deaths per mile traveled has plummeted as cars became safer.) So leave his guns alone.

As far as "zero-death results"... C'mon moondog. That's a strawman argument. I never would suggest that fewer guns, prohibitions on semi-automatic & automatic weapons, and higher barriers to ownership, will eliminate gun deaths. I'd just like to see the US's rates drop 50-75%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallas Tex

Rape: life in prison, no parole. A rape victim should never have to worry about seeing her rapist on the subway on her way to work...The more accepting we become of bad behavior, the more bad behavior we encourage...I’m a firm believer of what we allow, we teach. Anyway, the more accepting we become of all crime, the more the fabric of our society breaks down.

---

Glenn, how would your recommendations apply to our president Trump? More than 20 women have accused him of sexual impropriety including rape. He himself is on tape boasting of taking and not asking 1st. I bet there are a lot more than those 20. I think the problem of an absolute final punishment is that the definition of rape is on a sliding scale of badness and good lawyers can make good witnesses seem unreliable. And what about our supreme court justice Kavanaugh? A credible witness said he raped her. Does he get some kind of pass because he was only in high school? How much evidence is necessary? When do the scales of justice get tipped to being guilty for the final life in prison solution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davids

No, his point is that people do all sorts of risky things. So leave his guns alone.

His argument is specious. It's in the same ballpark as his argument about how people die in cars (which are, as we all know, highly regulated in their construction; in their security; in the evaluation of operator competence; and in their operation) (We also know that the number of deaths per mile traveled has plummeted as cars became safer.) So leave his guns alone.

As far as "zero-death results"... C'mon moondog. That's a strawman argument. I never would suggest that fewer guns, prohibitions on semi-automatic & automatic weapons, and higher barriers to ownership, will eliminate gun deaths. I'd just like to see the US's rates drop 50-75%.

---

regarding a drop in gun deaths...me, too. absolutely, me too. but...i believe there are <1,000 deaths due to long-guns each year. of that, in 2017 ~550 were d/t AR's specifically. that is a little over 3.5% of all homicides, and roughly 1.5% of all firearm deaths of any kind. banning / re-shaping AR's will hardly dent these #'s. the intentions are great, but

davids: somehow, no matter how i try to express myself (lack of eloquence?), you and other take the stats and issues i raise as some way to try and deflect from gun violence - that somehow i'm trying to convince you gun deaths are trivial in relation to other risky behaviors. truly i am not. i'm trying to gauge how we in society, and more specifically the good folks in this forum, are willing to react to any given issue in order to try and change a societal behavior and move towards a more desired outcome (using enforced legislation and taxes, for example) how far are we willing to go on this issue (or other risky behaviors) in terms of bans, laws, taxes is pretty telling to me in how we react to something on an emotional level, rather than a more logical approach.

i'll try one more approach to see if this resonates: in the environmental and wildlife protection world they used to have a phrase called "the fusby effect". why was it that pandas and lions and other cute cuddly animals got all the attention and the doated $$$, and newts, frogs and insects....well, did not. of course, it's cause they ain't cute and cuddly. i think AR's elicit the REVERSE fusby effect - the carnage, the images, the hyper-media attention draw us in and shake us to our very core. the response is "black rifles = bad!! black rifles = evil!!" i totally get this response. my point in raising all the other issues is actually simple - no matter how small the # of AR deaths each year is in relation to nearly everything else in our world, they are deemed evil. and by extension, their users are evil, insecure, lacking enlightenment. even though AR's kill relatively few people each year they are the very personification of evil in our modern world and "must go", even though from a logical standpoint there are many more ways we could preserve human life. but hey, most of us want our booze, our speeding, our drugs, pools, etc (our freedoms!). i'd bet my very life that the impact of opioid dumping by pharma companies will more than surpass whatever tragedy guns bring about, whether it be actual death, the economic toll in many neighborhoods, destruction of the family...the list is long. i know we as a society are fighting this in the courts now and we are more aware, but this is truly causing "mass casualties" and is creating pools of dead bodies "en masse". AR deaths, as tragic as they are, pale in comparison to many things.

doesn't mean, "but, but, but... what about XYZ??? leave my guns alone" it means...why all the focused outrage on this one area day after day after day, when carnage exists all around us and nary a change is enacted. because...hey...for many on this forum, guns aren't part of YOUR culture, so who gives a fuck if that right has to go. i'm sure someone will read this and still not try and understand my concern. when we base all of our decisions, especially decisions that involve millions of law abiding citizens, no matter how well intentioned those decisions are, if they come primarily from an emotionally based viewpoint, i don't see that as good for our society. if we did, then we could/would limit many, many aspects of our lives. are you truly ok with that approach??

if i have offended, i apologize. after following this thread for 19 pages and for posting more in 3 days than the past 11 years, i realize, like i always do, that there really is no end to this argument, no middle ground to be had because...."black rifles are evil!" will always get you top spot on the podium of the Moral Outrage Olympics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

regarding a drop in gun deaths...me, too. absolutely, me too. but...i believe there are <1,000 deaths due to long-guns each year. of that, in 2017 ~550 were d/t AR's specifically. that is a little over 3.5% of all homicides, and roughly 1.5% of all firearm deaths of any kind. banning / re-shaping AR's will hardly dent these #'s. the intentions are great, but

davids: somehow, no matter how i try to express myself (lack of eloquence?), you and other take the stats and issues i raise as some way to try and deflect from gun violence - that somehow i'm trying to convince you gun deaths are trivial in relation to other risky behaviors. truly i am not.

---

The second line seems to directly contradict the first where you explain with your cold, hard logic and stats that it'll make no difference.

Can you see how any common reading of that first would come across as completely trivializing, by your own estimate, ~550 deaths. (Which grossly undersells the problem, but let's stick with that.)

How else but through a high capacity semi automatic assault rifle could a 64 year old man wound 422(!) people and kill 58 in under 10 minutes by firing 1,100 rounds into a shitty country concert? Fertilizer bomb? We track and limit the sales volume of that stuff post-Oklahoma City. U-Haul? Highly unlikely with on-site security. Knife? That man better be Beatrix Kiddo with a katana to do that. Are at least some of those Las Vegas deaths, to use this sole example, preventable through smaller magazine sizes, semi-automatic restrictions and tracking of ammo sales? Absolutely.

Your "logic-based" arguments are ignoring the very real notion that we have people in this country who've survived multiple mass shootings, and "only" 550 people is still a untold number of family, friends, coworkers, bystanders and others who are permanently scarred by what seems to the rest of the industrialized world as completely unnecessary and preventable violence.

Of course emotion is involved. People are dying horrid and brutal deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastupslowdown

I think its changing. With each new shooting the odds increase that someone knows someone or knows someone who knows someone who got shot. That's the difference between not caring and caring for many people. Most of these people who care more about their guns than other people's lives will change their tune when its someone they know. -Mike G

---

Per Fox News' most recent polling, public opinion is clearly behind greater regulation: Fox News Poll: Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down | Fox News

Quote:

---

On specific measures to reduce gun violence, there’s broad support for requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (90 percent) and passing “red flag” laws that allow police to take guns from people shown to be a danger to themselves or others (81 percent).

Fewer, although still a sizable 67 percent majority, favor banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. That’s up from 60 percent in 2018. Support includes over half of those living in a gun-owner household (53 percent). Over half of independents (58 percent) and an overwhelming majority of Democrats (86 percent) favor a ban. Republicans split 46-46 percent, which is a shift from 2018 when it was 41 favor vs. 56 oppose.

---

Fox News is telling us that 67% of the electorate is ready to ban all semi-autos.

We don't have a public opinion problem, we have a problem translating public opinion into policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caleb

We don't have a public opinion problem, we have a problem translating public opinion into policy.

---

Because most politicians, especially the lifers in congress, don't really work for the people who vote them in. They work for the lobbyists who support their campaigns and their party, who in turn tell their voters what is important. Then the voters blindly follow their favorite politician. It should be the other way around.

I read in these discussions that there is a "people problem", a society problem and not a gun problem. Well.. people are problematic everywhere since the beginning of times. There is no idyllic age or place when it comes to people. America shares the same wealth numbers as Germany and other european countries. Same numbers as Japan. And yet, the violent death stats of America rival 3rd world countries. There are way more guns circulating in America. If you do the math, more access to guns> more gun deaths.
Mass shootings are not "rare"; mass shootings should not exist. We are talking massacres. Slaughter of dozens of people. No nation can absorb this kind of thing on a regular basis. There is a huge psychological damage not only to those closer to the dead but a nihilistic shadow covers everyone. Not doing anything about it is beyond obscene.. it´s self destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Fattic

Glenn, how would your recommendations apply to our president Trump?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Fattic

When do the scales of justice get tipped to being guilty for the final life in prison solution?

---

When there is evidence of a crime. That’s when. Sort of the best part of living in a free society is that mere accusations don’t equate to guilt and the need for a punishment.

Sort of like when Bill Clinton abused that intern that was basically a teenager. Imagine the difference in power in this ‘relationship’: The employer? Just the most powerful man in the world... The employee: a girl barely out of her teenage years. And how does Clinton handle the situation? Admit his shortcomings? Make the best interest of his young victim the priority? No, his decision was to lie under oath and try to destroy this young girls life to hide his indiscretion.

Does that answer your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallas Tex

When there is evidence of a crime. That’s when. Sort of the best part of living in a free society is that mere accusations don’t equate to guilt and the need for a punishment.

Sort of like when Bill Clinton abused that intern that was basically a teenager. Imagine the difference in power in this ‘relationship’: The employer? Just the most powerful man in the world... The employee: a girl barely out of her teenage years. And how does Clinton handle the situation? Admit his shortcomings? Make the best interest of his young victim the priority? No, his decision was to lie under oath and try to destroy his his young girls life to hide his indiscretion.

---

Rape evidence relies mostly on testimony. The US legal system has the "plead guilty" (?).. and this possibility is abused by the prosecution against those who cannot afford a long trial. When it comes to rape and sex offences extra care is needed to make justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colker

I read in these discussions that there is a "people problem", a society problem and not a gun problem. Well.. people are problematic everywhere since the beginning of times. There is no idyllic age or place when it comes to people. America shares the same wealth numbers as Germany and other european countries. Same numbers as Japan. And yet, the violent death stats of America rival 3rd world countries. There are way more guns circulating in America. If you do the math, more access to guns> more gun deaths.
Mass shootings are not "rare"; mass shootings should not exist. We are talking massacres. Slaughter of dozens of people. No nation can absorb this kind of thing on a regular basis. There is a huge psychological damage not only to those closer to the dead but a nihilistic shadow covers everyone. Not doing anything about it is beyond obscene.. it´s self destruction.

---

Indeed.

The way I read these discussions is there is no serious defence or justification for the right to bear arms as it exists in the amendment. In 2019 the well-regulated militia is an anachronism. No one can seriously argue that its not.

Instead, having the right and exercising that right has delivered zillions of guns to the people. No one appears willing to give up that right (despite the anachronism) for reasons that have nothing to do with why it was instroduced in the first place and instead range from self-defence to enjoying sport shooting to because we can (despite the obvious risk of harm). The self-defence and because we can seem to be the greater driver here.

People do seem to think there needs to be greater regulation in order to try and avoid the horror and dis-belief that goes along with these mass slaughters.

There is a contradiction between a constitutional right and conditions on the ground in 2019. Until that is dealt with it would seem that what is possible, sadly, is band-aid solutions to some very complex issues.

There are some very smart people in the room. Over to you.

But, (in my view of course) I would suggest the words of the Vietman Vet and Richard Sach's Mum should be a useful guide. Best of luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saab2000

Because most politicians, especially the lifers in congress, don't really work for the people who vote them in. They work for the lobbyists who support their campaigns and their party, who in turn tell their voters what is important. Then the voters blindly follow their favorite politician. It should be the other way around.

---

People in political science refer to that dynamic as "democratic inversion." Howie Levine, one of the people who has worked in it, recently described it in an interview like this:

Quote:

---

“The way things should work is that you form policy preferences. Those should come first -- substantive political preferences. ‘I want the government to move to the left or the right in this or that policy area.’ Then their party identification and candidate choices should reflect their substantive policy preferences,” Lavine explains.

The idea of “democratic inversion” suggests that it’s working the other way around.

“What many people are doing is identifying with a party first, or perhaps a particular candidate,” Lavine said. “Then they find out what the party, or the candidate’s, preferences are; then change their own minds, to move into alignment with a candidate or partisan position. That’s the ‘inversion.’”

It’s called an “inversion” because it flips the traditional understanding of how one’s voting behavior should be connected to one’s belief about what policies would be best for themselves, or their state, or the nation. “Inversion” suggests that “more and more, people are sticking with the team,“ says Lavine. “Their higher priority is ‘beating’ the other team,” which is the other party.

---

With this explanation, the problem is at least in part with the public, rather than entirely with elected officials and elites.

It would also explain why public opinion about an issue like guns could have little effect on candidate choice in an election. The critical point is not policy at all, it's tribal identification and affinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBB

Indeed.

The way I read these discussions is there is no serious defence or justification for the right to bear arms as it exists in the amendment. In 2019 the well-regulated militia is an anachronism. No one can seriously argue that its not.

Instead, having the right and exercising that right has delivered zillions of guns to the people. No one appears willing to give up that right (despite the anachronism) for reasons that have nothing to do with why it was instroduced in the first place and instead range from self-defence to enjoying sport shooting to because we can (despite the obvious risk of harm). The self-defence and because we can seem to be the greater driver here.

People do seem to think there needs to be greater regulation in order to try and avoid the horror and dis-belief that goes along with these mass slaughters.

There is a contradiction between a constitutional right and conditions on the ground in 2019. Until that is dealt with it would seem that what is possible, sadly, is band-aid solutions to some very complex issues.

There are some very smart people in the room. Over to you.

But, (in my view of course) I would suggest the words of the Vietman Vet and Richard Sach's Mum should be a useful guide. Best of luck.

---

I don't disagree with much of what is stated here. I'll say that up front.

But.... how am I, a sport shooter (and not a very good one at that), contributing to "the obvious risk of harm?" I transport my firearms to the range in a locked box (although as mentioned previously, they've been collecting dust for years). When they're not in use, they are kept in a safe, as I've mentioned before. The odds that these would be used to harm someone aren't zero, but it's pretty close.

What would I feel if this was taken away from me? I don't know. I'd be bummed for sure, likely not outraged. It would be a source of a lot of fun that I could no longer participate in.

Meh.

Why do I even bring this up? I'd again caution against painting all owners with a broad brush. If you want to make the argument that my ownership contributes to some greater negative societal force, well, OK, I have no argument against that which can be backed up with data. But we're not all who you think we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookietruck

as far as home protection, seems a pistol would be ok, not sure why you'd need some kinda semi auto with a 20,30 or 100 round magazine.

---

It is impossible for me to argue with this in good faith, except to point out that my pistol is a semi-auto, as virtually all pistols are. Seven rounds in a pistol is fine by me. Five for a rifle.

I wasn't here. I'm not participating. I'm only going to say nice things. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monadnocky

I don't disagree with much of what is stated here. I'll say that up front.

But.... how am I, a sport shooter (and not a very good one at that), contributing to "the obvious risk of harm?" I transport my firearms to the range in a locked box (although as mentioned previously, they've been collecting dust for years). When they're not in use, they are kept in a safe, as I've mentioned before. The odds that these would be used to harm someone aren't zero, but it's pretty close.

What would I feel if this was taken away from me? I don't know. I'd be bummed for sure, likely not outraged. It would be a source of a lot of fun that I could no longer participate in.

Meh.

Why do I even bring this up? I'd again caution against painting all owners with a broad brush. If you want to make the argument that my ownership contributes to some greater negative societal force, well, OK, I have no argument against that which can be backed up with data. But we're not all who you think we are.

---

The obvious risk of harm comment was in relation to the 'because we can' point.

We have pretty strong regulation in Australia, but people still have guns (sport shooting, hunting, for use on the land). We don't have a right to have them, but we still have them.

This happened yesterday, do you think this 75 year old man was wise to have a gun for protection?

Homeowner shot a 14-year-old during burglary attempt. The 5 other teens with him were charged with murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallas Tex

This happened yesterday, do you think this 75 year old man was wise to have a gun for protection?

Homeowner shot a 14-year-old during burglary attempt. The 5 other teens with him were charged with murder

---

Not particularly. His gun ownership led him to escalate the situation, place himself in further danger, and kill a 14 year-old. There's nothing positive to take from this outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallas Tex

This happened yesterday, do you think this 75 year old man was wise to have a gun for protection?

Homeowner shot a 14-year-old during burglary attempt. The 5 other teens with him were charged with murder

---

You think a 14 year old boy deserved to die for trying to steal a car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallas Tex

As soon as you scrub out the data related to mentally ill folks, folks in physically abusive relationships, and drug users i would consider looking at that data. Until then its meaningless disguised as meaningful.

---

Did you read the link? the NE Journal of Medicine did that. Take your head out of the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murphy

You think a 14 year old boy deserved to die for trying to steal a car?

---

and all of his friends get charged with murder. by my count that's 7 lives ruined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

"...Not particularly. His gun ownership led him to escalate the situation, place himself in further danger, and kill a 14 year-old. There's nothing positive to take from this outcome..."

---

Incorrect.
The six assailants (armed with knives) who sought to victimize an elderly man got themselves charged with murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murphy

"...You think a 14 year old boy deserved to die for trying to steal a car?..."

---

Incorrect.
He died because he and his fellow knife-wielding criminals advanced towards the elderly man rather than fleeing.

They arrived in a stolen vehicle and later led police on a high-speed chase.
They were apprehended after a foot chase when their stolen vehicle ran out of fuel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Jays

Incorrect.
He died because he and his fellow knife-wielding criminals advanced towards the elderly man rather than fleeing.

---

Oh so they should have fled instead of the old man? He gets to escalate the situation by bringing a gun outside with him when he thinks people are stealing his car, but they should have fled? Until he went outside (towards them) with a gun, he wasn't in any danger.

The 75 y.o. elderly man heard a noise. He walked onto his front porch.
He is allowed to be armed in his own house. The half-dozen armed thug youths opted to confront him.

The smart criminal should use that golden opportunity to jump into their other stolen car and flee.
Do you think the six youths with knives had good intentions for the old man? Why carry knives while stealing cars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Jays

The elderly man heard a noise. He walked onto his front porch.
He is allowed to be armed in his own house. The half-dozen armed thugs opted to confront him.

The smart criminal should use that golden opportunity to jump into their other stolen car and flee.
Do you think that the six youths gripping knives had good intentions for the old man?

---

He opted to confront them and escalate the situation when he walked out with a gun. He didn't call the police, he walked out with a gun. A smart homeowner would call the police, lock and barricade multiple doors and make sure themselves and their family is safe rather than getting closer to criminals in the middle of a felony. You seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions about how this went down. One knife was found and only two of them were walking towards this old man, but yeah keep saying thugs and paint pictures of all of them gripping knives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

regarding a drop in gun deaths...me, too. absolutely, me too. but...i believe there are <1,000 deaths due to long-guns each year. of that, in 2017 ~550 were d/t AR's specifically. that is a little over 3.5% of all homicides, and roughly 1.5% of all firearm deaths of any kind. banning / re-shaping AR's will hardly dent these #'s. the intentions are great, but

davids: somehow, no matter how i try to express myself (lack of eloquence?), you and other take the stats and issues i raise as some way to try and deflect from gun violence - that somehow i'm trying to convince you gun deaths are trivial in relation to other risky behaviors. truly i am not. i'm trying to gauge how we in society, and more specifically the good folks in this forum, are willing to react to any given issue in order to try and change a societal behavior and move towards a more desired outcome (using enforced legislation and taxes, for example) how far are we willing to go on this issue (or other risky behaviors) in terms of bans, laws, taxes is pretty telling to me in how we react to something on an emotional level, rather than a more logical approach.

i'll try one more approach to see if this resonates: in the environmental and wildlife protection world they used to have a phrase called "the fusby effect". why was it that pandas and lions and other cute cuddly animals got all the attention and the doated $$$, and newts, frogs and insects....well, did not. of course, it's cause they ain't cute and cuddly. i think AR's elicit the REVERSE fusby effect - the carnage, the images, the hyper-media attention draw us in and shake us to our very core. the response is "black rifles = bad!! black rifles = evil!!" i totally get this response. my point in raising all the other issues is actually simple - no matter how small the # of AR deaths each year is in relation to nearly everything else in our world, they are deemed evil. and by extension, their users are evil, insecure, lacking enlightenment. even though AR's kill relatively few people each year they are the very personification of evil in our modern world and "must go", even though from a logical standpoint there are many more ways we could preserve human life. but hey, most of us want our booze, our speeding, our drugs, pools, etc (our freedoms!). i'd bet my very life that the impact of opioid dumping by pharma companies will more than surpass whatever tragedy guns bring about, whether it be actual death, the economic toll in many neighborhoods, destruction of the family...the list is long. i know we as a society are fighting this in the courts now and we are more aware, but this is truly causing "mass casualties" and is creating pools of dead bodies "en masse". AR deaths, as tragic as they are, pale in comparison to many things.

doesn't mean, "but, but, but... what about XYZ??? leave my guns alone" it means...why all the focused outrage on this one area day after day after day, when carnage exists all around us and nary a change is enacted. because...hey...for many on this forum, guns aren't part of YOUR culture, so who gives a fuck if that right has to go. i'm sure someone will read this and still not try and understand my concern. when we base all of our decisions, especially decisions that involve millions of law abiding citizens, no matter how well intentioned those decisions are, if they come primarily from an emotionally based viewpoint, i don't see that as good for our society. if we did, then we could/would limit many, many aspects of our lives. are you truly ok with that approach??

if i have offended, i apologize. after following this thread for 19 pages and for posting more in 3 days than the past 11 years, i realize, like i always do, that there really is no end to this argument, no middle ground to be had because...."black rifles are evil!" will always get you top spot on the podium of the Moral Outrage Olympics.

---

Thanks for that thoughtful and eloquent response.

I think my bias was to see your posts as reasons to do nothing, rather than attempts to gauge attitudes.

I completely agree that our national debate (such as it is...) is distracted by the horrific spectacles of mass shootings. They do not account for the vast majority of gun deaths. Despite the small number (relative to the overall number) of deaths, I'd recommend that the US take action to remove civilian access to automatic/semi-automatic weapons, accessories, and ammunition. I am not knowledgeable about the specific products, so that's as far as I'd go.

Most US gun deaths are suicides. So I would make it harder for civilians to obtain and to keep their guns. I'd require training, testing and licensing before you could purchase a gun. Much like we do with cars. I'd explore Red Flag laws that could be used to remove guns from civilians who are showing signs of mental distress that could dispose them to harming themselves or others. These removals could be temporary or permanent depending on the individuals.

I'd require gun manufactures to add more safety features to their guns. Fingerprint locks, etc. Again, I have almost no knowledge about the available technologies. We should make guns harder to use, especially guns that are not acquired legally (after the training, testing & licensing process).

I'd provide more funding for, and access to, mental health services, including suicide prevention and domestic abuse services. I'd provide more educational, job training and business development opportunities in economically depressed areas of the country.

We know that homicide rates are off the charts in certain US cities - St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and Baton Rogue are the top five in 2017. Why are their murder rates so astoundingly high, while so many other cities are quite low? I'd fund research, I'd encourage partnerships and dialog between cities that have effectively lowered their gun violence rates and those that have not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallas Tex

Any form of gun control I’d support would have to contain an equal amount of emphasis on supplying law enforcement with the tools it needs to protect the public from the folks that do the most damage.

---

And here’s somebody asking for those tools, to protect the public from a guy who did a lot of damage.

https://youtu.be/Rlsl8-t6G1k

Quote:

---

Our officers deserve protection and they don’t deserve to be shot at by a guy for hours with an unlimited supply of weapons and an unlimited supply of bullets.

So it’s disgusting and we need to do something about it, and we need to do something about it quickly.

---

Hear hear.

The elderly man should not need to call the police each time he hears a small noise.
It could be wind blowing an empty garbage can over. It is HIS house and property.

The 75 y.o. opted to be reasonably prepared while taking care of his home.
He happened upon six armed thugs (already in possession of a stolen car) who opted to attack him.

The criminal youths should have recognized they were "busted" and just immediately flee.
Nope, their warped sense that the old man’s vehicle was rightly theirs is what escalated the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Jays

The elderly man should not need to call the police each time he hears a small noise.
It could be wind blowing an empty garbage can over. It is HIS house and property.

The 75 y.o. opted to be reasonably prepared while taking care of his home.
He happened upon six armed thugs (already in possession of a stolen car) who opted to attack him.

The criminal youths should have recognized they were "busted" and just immediately flee.
Nope, their warped sense that the old man’s vehicle was rightly theirs is what escalated the situation.

---

You make it sound like he stumbled upon them by accident. He heard a noise and has said to news outlets that he knew someone was stealing or attempting to steal his car. He went out there with a gun knowing that. I am sorry, aren't you supposed to call the cops for crimes? Isn't that pretty much their purview?

No, that old man killed a 14 year old. A boy. A criminal, yes, but a boy. No judge, jury, or trial as is the norm for criminals, but a swift execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Jays

The elderly man should not need to call the police each time he hears a small noise.
It could be wind blowing an empty garbage can over. It is HIS house and property.

The 75 y.o. opted to be reasonably prepared while taking care of his home.
He happened upon six armed thugs (already in possession of a stolen car) who opted to attack him.

The criminal youths should have recognized they were "busted" and just immediately flee.
Nope, their warped sense that the old man’s vehicle was rightly theirs is what escalated the situation.

---

Is his life in danger if he steps outside his house? Most likely not.

What is the real impact to him if the youths had managed to steal the car before police arrived? He's out his ~$100 comprehensive deductible. His rates probably don't go up.

Maybe your priorities are different but I'm not inserting myself into a dangerous situation for $100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murphy

You think a 14 year old boy deserved to die for trying to steal a car?

---

No, but he definitely deserved to be shot for trying to stab a 75 year old man while trying to rob him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murphy

He opted to confront them and escalate the situation when he walked out with a gun. He didn't call the police, he walked out with a gun. A smart homeowner would call the police, lock and barricade multiple doors and make sure themselves and their family is safe rather than getting closer to criminals in the middle of a felony. You seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions about how this went down. One knife was found and only two of them were walking towards this old man, but yeah keep saying thugs and paint pictures of all of them gripping knives.

---

100% Agree.

My firearms instructor (who is retired state police) ran through many situations and the correct answers (mostly mine) was always -in a nutshell- Never pull a gun over any property, never confront anyone, hide, use cell phone, get away if possible, a handgun is a COMPLETE LAST RESORT for self defense.

Unfortunately, many guys in my class (many for renewals), wanted to go cowboy and be confrontational. This actually scared the crap out of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

Did you read the link? the NE Journal of Medicine did that. Take your head out of the sand.

---

Did YOU read the link?

"......Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%."

This is like 60 words in on the link you posted. Tell me how they produce a statistic on suicide in the 2nd paragraph while scrubbing suicidal people out of the data used in their study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

Is his life in danger if he steps outside his house? Most likely not.

What is the real impact to him if the youths had managed to steal the car before police arrived? He's out his ~$100 comprehensive deductible. His rates probably don't go up.

Maybe your priorities are different but I'm not inserting myself into a dangerous situation for $100.

---

No. You don't get to steal a car, while the owner watches locked inside the house, and assume that you're engaging in a safe activity.

The elderly man was not walking onto his porch to fight criminals.
He was walking onto his front porch to check the source of a sound. He can do that.

He opted to be reasonably prepared. Good thing, in this case.
Had the 75 y.o. man instead been knifed to death many would just shrug and go to the next thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corso

"...Never pull a gun over any property, never confront anyone, hide, use cell phone, get away if possible, a handgun is a COMPLETE LAST RESORT for self defense..."

---

Of course. This makes complete sense and reasonable people would agree.
Once it became clear it was a crime-in-progress and they were "busted" the thugs should have fled.
Their very entitled and fatal decision was to continue and create a confrontation where none existed.

They six teenagers instead decided to "bring the fight" to the man on his own front porch.
They obviously had the opportunity to flee straight into their stolen Lexus and drive away.
But they had knives. They wanted the old man's Audi so bad. They just needed to take it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Jays

The elderly man was not walking onto his porch to fight criminals.
He was walking onto his front porch to check the source of a sound. He can do that.

He opted to be reasonably prepared. Good thing, in this case.
Had the 75 y.o. man instead been knifed to death many would just shrug and go to the next thread.

---

Yet again, the old man knew there was a crime in progress as he saw and heard them around his car; he knew they were either stealing or attempting to steal his car. He decided he wanted to live out an old west fantasy so he went outside with his gun.

The six teenagers could have very easily avoided facing murder charges.
They instead wished to continue their felon behavior. They messed with the wrong oldster.

My bet is few would keep posting about a knifed old man.
"Dang. A random victim. Unlucky for him. Oh, well."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

and all of his friends get charged with murder. by my count that's 7 lives ruined.

---

How many lives ruined? How many lives saved? One criminal dead, five going to jail for murder. Countless crimes prevented, many lives saved.

Do we really need to pretend that these fine young men were on the path to become fine upstanding citizens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thollandpe

And here’s somebody asking for those tools, to protect the public from a guy who did a lot of damage.

https://youtu.be/Rlsl8-t6G1k



Hear hear.

---

first, as i have stated in multiple posts i support more meaningful gun control (i'm sure my position on the details of that would differ than most here on this forum) and would like to see BOTH sides be more proactive and honest on this issue.

second, let me pose a hypothetical and let me know your thoughts. again, and for the umpteenth time, i'm not trying to say "leave my guns alone". i'm truly trying to understand just how far we as a society are willing to go in terms of limiting civil liberties (on a myriad of issues, not just gun control) in order to gain security - particularly, when the issues at hand (mass shootings in this case) are enacted by an exceedingly small portion of folks out of the greater law-abiding population.

let's say we do the right thing and ban semi-automatics (pistol and rifle) out of hand. done. what do you see as the next step in continuing to reduce these types of incidents? surely banning firearms, assuming we agree that this ban will have the largest impact on the issue, is not the sole way to combat this problem, correct? i can assure you that many law enforcement types at both the federal and state level would love to see many "tools" at their disposal to combat not just gun violence, but overall crime in general. to this end...would you be ok with increased surveillance on your personal data and allow the LE agencies to do their data mining (personal location, your web preferences, read your posts to understand your mental health and gauge risk, review your emails and "manifestos", basically your total digital footprint) in order to more rapidly assess and locate potential threats? i'd bet you $100 many of those good folks would contend that this would dramatically help reduce not only our traditional jihadi type terrorists, but also domestic terrorists (white nationalists, erm...white terrorists, anyone?) and if we could stop just 2-3 mass shootings a year we could save up to 100 lives. this should not worry you as you are not guilty of any crimes, right?? i mean, sifting through your info would be completely painless for you since you have nothing to hide... right? it's an important step to combat the increasing rise in domestic terrorism and this important tool would not just save civilian lives, but think of how many LEO's we could potentially protect from going blind into unknown situations? trust us, we're just going for the baddies and the vast majority of will benefit from the security this provides over a whole range of societal ills (drug dealing, organized crime, militia-insurrectionist types...) i mean, what's not to like about this kind of social uplift???

yes. this seems absurd at face value. but again, for the umpteenth-umpteenth time, if we continue to let our Moral Outrage drive us to the "by any means necessary" type of process and legislation, this is the very kind of discussion we will have in the near future. next up will be drunk driving and speeding, your carbon footprint and waste output, your family size...and ultimately, it could even be your very existence (sure, that last part was added for overly-dramatic effect. :-) ) the point being, aren't we better to go fishing with a spear gun in order to catch the specific criminal, rather than cast a huge net catching everyone up in it and then trusting the government to toss back all the innocents and only keep the "bad guys"? yes, this approach of spear fishing for criminals will result in greater risk to everyone....but that is part and parcel of a free society, in my opinion.

right now the discussion is on AR's - i get it and don't disagree with some of the points on this - but if we just let our emotions drive the process this discussion will begin to take on a whole new shape, and eventually, something that is important to you will come up on the chopping block and you'll quietly say to yourself, " but.. why can't i do that? don't i live in america?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

first, as i have stated in multiple posts i support more meaningful gun control (i'm sure my position on the details of that would differ than most here on this forum) and would like to see BOTH sides be more proactive and honest on this issue.

second, let me pose a hypothetical and let me know your thoughts. again, and for the umpteenth time, i'm not trying to say "leave my guns alone". i'm truly trying to understand just how far we as a society are willing to go in terms of limiting civil liberties (on a myriad of issues, not just gun control) in order to gain security - particularly, when the issues at hand (mass shootings in this case) are enacted by an exceedingly small portion of folks out of the greater law-abiding population.

let's say we do the right thing and ban semi-automatics (pistol and rifle) out of hand. done. what do you see as the next step in continuing to reduce these types of incidents? surely banning firearms, assuming we agree that this ban will have the largest impact on the issue, is not the sole way to combat this problem, correct? i can assure you that many law enforcement types at both the federal and state level would love to see many "tools" at their disposal to combat not just gun violence, but overall crime in general. to this end...would you be ok with increased surveillance on your personal data and allow the LE agencies to do their data mining (personal location, your web preferences, read your posts to understand your mental health and gauge risk, review your emails and "manifestos", basically your total digital footprint) in order to more rapidly assess and locate potential threats? i'd bet you $100 many of those good folks would contend that this would dramatically help reduce not only our traditional jihadi type terrorists, but also domestic terrorists (white nationalists, erm...white terrorists, anyone?) and if we could stop just 2-3 mass shootings a year we could save up to 100 lives. this should not worry you as you are not guilty of any crimes, right?? i mean, sifting through your info would be completely painless for you since you have nothing to hide... right? it's an important step to combat the increasing rise in domestic terrorism and this important tool would not just save civilian lives, but think of how many LEO's we could potentially protect from going blind into unknown situations? trust us, we're just going for the baddies and the vast majority of will benefit from the security this provides over a whole range of societal ills (drug dealing, organized crime, militia-insurrectionist types...) i mean, what's not to like about this kind of social uplift???

yes. this seems absurd at face value. but again, for the umpteenth-umpteenth time, if we continue to let our Moral Outrage drive us to the "by any means necessary" type of process and legislation, this is the very kind of discussion we will have in the near future. next up will be drunk driving and speeding, your carbon footprint and waste output, your family size...and ultimately, it could even be your very existence (sure, that last part was added for overly-dramatic effect. :-) ) the point being, aren't we better to go fishing with a spear gun in order to catch the specific criminal, rather than cast a huge net catching everyone up in it and then trusting the government to toss back all the innocents and only keep the "bad guys"? yes, this approach of spear fishing for criminals will result in greater risk to everyone....but that is part and parcel of a free society, in my opinion.

right now the discussion is on AR's - i get it and don't disagree with some of the points on this - but if we just let our emotions drive the process this discussion will begin to take on a whole new shape, and eventually, something that is important to you will come up on the chopping block and you'll quietly say to yourself, " but.. why can't i do that? don't i live in america?"

---

The slippery slope logical fallacy is exceedingly strong here.