Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Here’s an example of gun laws working.
After the massacre of 26 people (20 little children) in Sandy Hook, Connecticut was one of the few states to successfully tighten gun laws. This included a ban on high-capacity magazines.
That law was used recently to arrest and detain a man, a young white man, who certainly appears to be a white supremacist domestic terrorist. FBI and police seized a weapons cache, ammo, laser sights, body armor, etc. Warrant: ’I’ll make Virginia Tech look like nothing,’ Norwalk man warned as a child - The Hour
His social media posts included threatening a mass shooting, which got him arrested. These threats date back to 2010, incredibly. Other posts were anti-immigrant, anti-LGTQ (one references gas chambers), racist (the n-word figures prominently), and anti-FBI. That language is reprehensible but not illegal.
They’re detaining him on the charge of illegally obtaining high-capacity magazines.
I’m all for a ban on high-capacity magazines. And if you are too, consider signing this.
Tell Congress: Make Large-capacity Gun Magazines Illegal!
Tell Congress: Make Large-capacity Gun Magazines Illegal!
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King Of Dirk
You may fairly call me a right-wing dude (much more conservative that anything on Fox, that's for sure, since I actually prize small government unlike the GOP
"much more conservative than anything on Fox" and "small government".
Very conservative?
Here we are, the beneficiaries of some of the most radical and progressive ideas in human history (representative democracy, abolition of slavery, attempts at passing the ERA, equality for women and racial/ethnic minorities, the Civil Rights Act, our judicial system, collective bargaining as a counterbalance to the concentration of the power of big industry/money, public education for all, regulations for clean air and water, freedom of speech and a gynormous whole bunch of other stuff that resulted in an unusually large and comfortable middle, and even lower class (on a percentage basis)) and folks choose to self identify (and vote) as “conservative”?
Conservative as opposed to progressive? Have we got everything figured out that well? Not much room for improvement or areas where we really need to do a lot better, i.e. progress? We're pretty much squared away, ship shape and Bristol Fashion? I'm thinking not.
Small Government?
What functions or agencies of government would you ditch? EPA, OSHA, FDA, CDC, FAA, FCC, BLM, National Park Service, military, police, fire? Obviously I left out a a lot.
In which country, having your idea of small government, would you have chosen to have rolled the parental socio-economic selection dice in and been born in, raised in, educated in, had to work in, raise your family in, get your health care in, depend on airplanes not falling out of the sky in, depend on timely response from the fire department and EMTs in, bank in, drink the water and breath the air in, and so on?
I can't think of one for me. I can think of plenty of other advanced/Western countries with extensive governments that I'd choose but not one with small, limited government. Am I missing an exemplar?
The life enjoyed by unprecedented swathes of people in advanced countries wouldn't exist without a long history of expensive, broad spectrum human progress and a very large management & organizational component, aka government. With the challenges facing humanity the need for necessarily large, complex and extensive government will only increase; we won't solve complex impending (or existing) problems with small or hobbled government.
When I hear anyone who lives in an advanced country proclaim their conservatism or small government stance it makes my head spin with wonder. You can't have what we have without progress and extensive government. And we're not finished; at least I hope not.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jclay
"much more conservative than anything on Fox" and "small government".
Very conservative?
Here we are, the beneficiaries of some of the most radical and progressive ideas in human history (representative democracy, abolition of slavery, attempts at passing the ERA, equality for women and racial/ethnic minorities, the Civil Rights Act, our judicial system, collective bargaining as a counterbalance to the concentration of the power of big industry/money, public education for all, regulations for clean air and water, freedom of speech and a gynormous whole bunch of other stuff that resulted in an unusually large and comfortable middle, and even lower class (on a percentage basis)) and folks choose to self identify (and vote) as “conservative”?
Conservative as opposed to progressive? Have we got everything figured out that well? Not much room for improvement or areas where we really need to do a lot better, i.e. progress? We're pretty much squared away, ship shape and Bristol Fashion? I'm thinking not.
Small Government?
What functions or agencies of government would you ditch? EPA, OSHA, FDA, CDC, FAA, FCC, BLM, National Park Service, military, police, fire? Obviously I left out a a lot.
In which country, having your idea of small government, would you have chosen to have rolled the parental socio-economic selection dice in and been born in, raised in, educated in, had to work in, raise your family in, get your health care in, depend on airplanes not falling out of the sky in, depend on timely response from the fire department and EMTs in, bank in, drink the water and breath the air in, and so on?
I can't think of one for me. I can think of plenty of other advanced/Western countries with extensive governments that I'd choose but not one with small, limited government. Am I missing an exemplar?
The life enjoyed by unprecedented swathes of people in advanced countries wouldn't exist without a long history of expensive, broad spectrum human progress and a very large management & organizational component, aka government. With the challenges facing humanity the need for necessarily large, complex and extensive government will only increase; we won't solve complex impending (or existing) problems with small or hobbled government.
When I hear anyone who lives in an advanced country proclaim their conservatism or small government stance it makes my head spin with wonder. You can't have what we have without progress and extensive government. And we're not finished; at least I hope not.
this one has always been somewhat a thorn in my side. do people know what conservative means? do people know what it means to be liberal? progressive? regressive? In a world with the interweb, cellphone megacomputers, self driving cars, reality tv presidents, a focus on identity, amazon, a gig economy, uber and instagram you think we should more or less stay the same culturally? we should not respond to these massive changes to society? we should lead the world in creating innovative things, just not innovative culture? we should just stick to materials and consumption goods like we know best? and the population grows, infrastructure grows, everything grows so fast thee days. therefore things which manage these things must also grow. how can you expect "less government" to accomplish more things?
We are a progressive country. regressive politics do nothing to serve us.
i feel when we vote, it is our job to vote with the best interests of society, not ourselves.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jclay
I'll say it yet again: Either we remove semi-automatics from the civilian population of our entire country or we will continue to have mass shootings. Doing so would be a very difficult task requiring consistent, long term (decades) application of large sticks and carrots, changing the narrative and changing parts our culture to a not insignificant degree. Addressing socio/economic issues would obviously be vital. Good luck to us.
It would be refreshing to have the adults in our country either acknowledge that fact (more guns = more shootings) or indicate that they think the cost in lives is worth whatever they're getting out of owning semi-autos. I won't hold my breath.
It should go without saying that I think other firearms and their owners should be heavily controlled/licensed, carry liability insurance and so on. I won't hold my breath for that either.
Is this considered a reasonable gun law? Will it apply to shotguns? Shooting sports like trap/skeet/etc? My duck gun that holds 5 rounds?
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chad
Is this considered a reasonable gun law? Will it apply to shotguns? Shooting sports like trap/skeet/etc? My duck gun that holds 5 rounds?
Semi auto assault rifles are designed for one use only: killing human beings. You don't have mass shootings where the shooter uses a shotgun, although they are effective at close range. You can't hunt with five rounds in the gun, at least not legally. No one who shoots trap and skeet competitively uses a semi auto.
Reason is as reason does. No reason to let people own a gun that has no sporting use.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
A political philosophy thread would certainly be interesting. I bet you'll find less willingness to compromise in that thread than seen in this one so far.
At the same time, I bet you'll find that (at least on a macro level) our goals are mostly consistent, but that we disagree on the best way to realize those goals. Ironically, the argument over the "how" is one of the biggest impediments to reaching goals most of us want. One often hears the lament that we should be more "bipartisan," but it seems many (at least by their actions) interpret that word as "my philosophical opponent doing it my way."
I have nothing constructive to add to such a thread, but I'll enjoy watching y'all hash it out.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ides1056
No one who shoots trap and skeet competitively uses a semi auto
That's just completely false.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ides1056
Semi auto assault rifles are designed for one use only: killing human beings. You don't have mass shootings where the shooter uses a shotgun, although they are effective at close range. You can't hunt with five rounds in the gun, at least not legally. No one who shoots trap and skeet competitively uses a semi auto.
Reason is as reason does. No reason to let people own a gun that has no sporting use.
Semi auto assault rifle is nothing like a semi auto shotgun. Yes you can hunt upland with 5 rounds, or some waterfowl seasons. You are wrong about people using semi auto guns for trap/skeet, just plain wrong.
This is the problem as I see it, "Semi Auto" is as inaccurate as "assault rifle". I don't own or want to own an "assault rifle" but when folks compare a Remington 11-87 to a AK-47 it is clear they know not of which they speak.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
I said competitive trap or skeet. Perazzi is the gun of choice, not a Beretta gas auto. We were limited to three shots in a semi-auto for dove, quail, etc in CA.
Where I live if you haven't hit it in one shot it's gone anyway.
You can buy a semi-auto assault rifle. Like any semi it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, however many bullets the clip will hold. Not the same thing as full auto. l know the difference, and call 911 when I hear it in the hills around where I live. Totally antisocial sound.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ides1056
I said competitive trap or skeet.
You did indeed. And now you've doubled down on your incorrect statement. When's the last time you attended a match?
I shoot trap/skeet/clays with a Beretta A300. I don't feel limited by the lack of price tag on my shotgun, but I appreciate the elitism intrinsic to your claim.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King Of Dirk
You did indeed. And now you've doubled down on your incorrect statement. When's the last time you attended a match?
I shoot trap/skeet/clays with a Beretta A300. I don't feel limited by the lack of price tag on my shotgun, but I appreciate the elitism intrinsic to your claim.
/\/\/\/\/\/\
what KOD said...
i shoot clays and skeet periodically so i see a variety of shooters - for women and youth, beretta semi-auto's are often the go-to choice. yes, the over/under pricey guns dominate at the top level, but to act like semi-auto's are not a big part of clay sports for the average shooter / and pro's is just nonsense. most folks who shoot clays as regular folks simply can't afford a Perazzi or Krieghoff. plus, most of the folks i shoot with down here use their bird gun - semi-auto - for their clay shoots. just cheaper that way and no need for two shotguns.
what concerns me more about this type of post is the implication in terms of NEED or justification. as in, "if you say your rifle is for hunting, then why do you NEED more than three rounds for semi-auto funciton? there's no NEED for any other type of high-capacity rifle [as in semi-auto AR's]."
i will never say i NEED an AR. i don't.
i might ask those who own a porsche GT-Three RS - basically, a racing / track car - "why do you NEED a race car for regular driving? why should this high-powered, possibly-dangerous-in-the-wrong-hands-auto be accessible to every day drivers who are just commuting, going to the grocery store, taking kids to soccer...? why, oh why? our max highway speed is only seventy-five, so this car should be limited to only tracks."
yes, i get that AR's are for more dangerous than porsche's. i get it. no need to ding me for that, please. but the minute we use NEED as the basis for allowing / disallowing something in our society we can begin to call out all kinds of items and activities and demand that people justify them in order to have or keep them. and one day, it just may be something that has meaning to you.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
The problem with gun to car comparisons is that cars are heavily regulated with licensing, testing, registration, oversight, monitoring (highway patrolling), insurance, etc. Guns are, for the most part, not. I would also bet that most people, even those few who can afford the GT3-RS, would tell you that they don't NEED it. To be honest, and I say this living in a city where image is everything and crashed supercars are a regular sighting, there should be tighter regulations on who can get behind the wheel of those things. That's also a different conversation for a different day.
While I don't fully believe that NEED should be the sole argument that gun control hinges on, I also think it's a cop out to imply that any justification of anything in society is this slippery slope to a dystopian future where insert thing people love has been outlawed by an authoritarian state because it isn't needed. If the thing that had meaning to me was a major contributing factor to a public health crisis, I would rethink my priorities. And, before anyone jumps down my throat, I spent a not insignificant portion of my life as a gun enthusiast for whom time at the range was one of my favorite pastimes (ahead of cycling, even).
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Matthew Strongin
The problem with gun to car comparisons is that cars are heavily regulated with licensing, testing, registration, oversight, monitoring (highway patrolling), insurance, etc. Guns are, for the most part, not. I would also bet that most people, even those few who can afford the GT3-RS, would tell you that they don't NEED it. To be honest, and I say this living in a city where image is everything and crashed supercars are a regular sighting, there should be tighter regulations on who can get behind the wheel of those things. That's also a different conversation for a different day.
While I don't fully believe that NEED should be the sole argument that gun control hinges on, I also think it's a cop out to imply that any justification of anything in society is this slippery slope to a dystopian future where insert thing people love has been outlawed by an authoritarian state because it isn't needed.
Matt - i respect what you state above and generally agree that we can't simply have / use whatever we want without some justification of need and purpose. rather, i tried to counter what i see as the primary, or even the sole reason to ban semi-auto's - the NEED of the thing - by most non-gun folks, and to highlight other areas, simplistic though they may be, that could come into question. without trying to sound flip...even though cars are "heavily regulated with licensing, testing, registration, oversight, monitoring (highway patrolling), insurance, etc.", they are also still heavily abused, and by folks with complete and total disregard for human life, both theirs and others. and i would in no way, shape or form be in agreement with banning supercars, high - HP SUV's, muscle-cars, etc. i accept the risk of cars as part-and-parcel of having them in our society.
i personally feel the gun debate would be better served to move away from one side forcing the other to define need, and to focus on how best to keep them out of the hands of criminals via UBC, safety/storage against theft, registration, licensing, etc. most of which i'm ok with.
i think KOD hit the nail on the head in terms of how both sides are closer in agreement that we think we are - but the HOW of the details to implement gun control are the sticking points. i agree with most suggestions throughout this thread, with the exception of an all out ban on semi-auto-'s and high capacity mags, for example.
HR. Eight comes to mind [was in the House last Feb, if i recall correctly]. as i type this i will state up front that my details may not be % accurate....but in a nutshell, many republicans were onboard with UBC and as part of that when convicted felons attempted to purchase firearms and were caught out, then the FFL would be required to notify law enforcement and provide the details [great idea, btw]. R's put in a last minute amendment to include illegal aliens in this process and a notification to ICE - D's went ballistic over this. to be clear - i make no statement here regarding immigration, but rather that a deal seems so close, yet so far in terms of execution. the "all or nothing" philosophy from both sides is the real barrier here, IMO.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King Of Dirk
You did indeed. And now you've doubled down on your incorrect statement. When's the last time you attended a match?
I shoot trap/skeet/clays with a Beretta A300. I don't feel limited by the lack of price tag on my shotgun, but I appreciate the elitism intrinsic to your claim.
I stopped shooting after my Dad used his Beretta on himself.
I realize this is a cheap shot, no pun intended. I grew up with guns. NRA as a kid. Hunted from the time I was nine. Shot skeet across the bay from SF as Black Panthers shot their AR15's full auto right next to us- I was totally unafraid of them.
We live in a different world. I see mass shootings as symptoms of a larger disease.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ides1056
I stopped shooting after my Dad used his Beretta on himself.
I realize this is a cheap shot, no pun intended. I grew up with guns. NRA as a kid. Hunted from the time I was nine. Shot skeet across the bay from SF as Black Panthers shot their AR15's full auto right next to us- I was totally unafraid of them.
We live in a different world. I see mass shootings as symptoms of a larger disease.
I'm truly sorry. I am incapable of writing anything sufficient, so I'll leave it at that.
I agree with your last two sentences 100%.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ides1056
"...I stopped shooting after my Dad used his Beretta on himself.
Shot skeet across the bay from SF as Black Panthers shot their AR15's full auto right next to us- I was totally unafraid of them..."
Sorry to learn of your father shooting himself. That is truly unfortunate to hear. :-(
Black Panthers were most likely prohibited possessors (felony) especially if they somehow converted AR15 to full-auto (felony).
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ides1056
I said competitive trap or skeet. Perazzi is the gun of choice, not a Beretta gas auto. We were limited to three shots in a semi-auto for dove, quail, etc in CA.
Where I live if you haven't hit it in one shot it's gone anyway.
You can buy a semi-auto assault rifle. Like any semi it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, however many bullets the clip will hold. Not the same thing as full auto. l know the difference, and call 911 when I hear it in the hills around where I live. Totally antisocial sound.
Competitive or not - that argument doesn't justify or explain anything and is still wrong. Please show me where a "semi-auto" shooting sports gun was used in a situation similar to what we are trying to prevent.
So three is safe and five isn't because the first bird is gone? When hunting waterfowl oftentimes there are multiple birds to shoot at the same time. The number of rounds is limited to protect waterfowl numbers, until you get to snow geese where you can buy magazine extensions to hold more than 5. So there are legal, reasonable and ethical uses for a semi-automatic shotgun with more than 5 rounds.
You said yourself in an earlier post that shotguns are not used in mass shootings, this is why i cringe when non-specific terms are used in this discussion.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
moondog-sparky
yes, i get that AR's are for more dangerous than porsche's. i get it. no need to ding me for that, please. but the minute we use NEED as the basis for allowing / disallowing something in our society we can begin to call out all kinds of items and activities and demand that people justify them in order to have or keep them. and one day, it just may be something that has meaning to you.
The 20 families who sent their six and seven-year old children to school in Newtown in December 2012, it’s safe to say they NEEDED those kids to come home.
156 shots in less than five minutes.
Re: We have officially become inured to mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chad
Competitive or not - that argument doesn't justify or explain anything and is still wrong. Please show me where a "semi-auto" shooting sports gun was used in a situation similar to what we are trying to prevent.
So three is safe and five isn't because the first bird is gone? When hunting waterfowl oftentimes there are multiple birds to shoot at the same time. The number of rounds is limited to protect waterfowl numbers, until you get to snow geese where you can buy magazine extensions to hold more than 5. So there are legal, reasonable and ethical uses for a semi-automatic shotgun with more than 5 rounds.
You said yourself in an earlier post that shotguns are not used in mass shootings, this is why i cringe when non-specific terms are used in this discussion.
I don't disagree at all. Shotguns aren't generally used in mass shootings. Back when I was still shooting no one used assault rifles for anything, ever, and I knew many people who were totally into guns and hunting. We had a quarter mile range at my grandparents' ranch with a deck to shoot from made for this purpose. So I get the difference, and have no problem with anyone owning a semi-auto shotgun. Assault rifles though are made to kill people. No one I know now, and I know plenty of hunters, uses them on deer or bear or coyotes. They shoot targets. But ownership of weapons made for war should certainly merit stricter controls than are currently on the books.
I know a young Marine who is well versed in the Federalist Papers who is fond of warning of the "tyranny of the majority" when any suggestion of "infringement of rights" contained in the Second Amendment is proposed in our discussions. To which I reply that those of us who would welcome legislation to prevent easy access to weapons of war are subjected to the tyranny of the minority who think that they have a right to own whatever suits them because of some semantic debate that is currently favoring unlimited access.
I am sorry to personalize the debate here by bringing up my Dad. It's been 44 years, but this still informs my feelings because I know what the consequence can be.