We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

before i get blasted for my "post count", please note i'm a log-time lurker who came here from across the hall many years ago. i don't post often....but i check here daily as i enjoy the generally informed folks who frequent here.

having said that...it takes a fair amount to get me to post on a forum. so here goes... to be clear, i am as disgusted and torn up about the near daily shootings as anyone. it breaks my heart to see the devastation and abuse within our society.

i'll state up front that i am a gun enthusiast who enjoys a variety of shooting sports - enthusiast, not a so-called "gun nut". i support 2A, but see myself as a supporter of personal freedoms and individual civil liberties first and foremost. and that means supporting those rights that may or may not apply, or even appeal to me. this is the thing that confounds me most when it comes to the gun issue and restrictive legislation - so often, those folks who want this legislation neither participate in shooting sports nor have any interest in firearms. yet they want to either severely limit or remove all access to a hobby that millions of americans enjoy lawfully on a daily basis. as citizens of our democracy their voice is equal, of course, but i am amazed at how few people who are against 2A and guns have such little understanding of the tool. this tends to limit any truly productive discussion on how best to manage gun control and maintain civil liberties, while ensuring safety for the populace. "ALL GUNS BAD! ZERO AR's!" is not a practical battle cry in the US.

i can assure you the vast majority of gun owners are all for better background checks, training, controlling person-to-person sales via FFL's, etc - but we are extremely concerned as to how those things will be implemented. the devil is in the details... gun owners and the NRA don't always push back "just because all legislation is bad", but more often than not it is one-sided and does not take into account the lawful gun owners. if i could be assured new regulations would limit access to folks at risk, but make it easier for law-abiding folks to move forward (for example: sbr's and suppressor purchases), then i'd be all about it. if you want my support i need to know some of the arcane and intricate laws of states like CA and NY won't be coming my way. you can't have it both ways: stricter laws on one hand and then re-shape the AR / pistol platforms in to unusable / unrecognizable tools for the end-user on the other. for nearly everyone i know screaming for red flag and background check laws i can't find a single one of those same people willing to discuss ways to make lawful ownership easier and more accessible. not one. in their second breath after more laws, they discuss ways to distort the platform in intentional ways to make it even more burdensome for lawful owners.

these are tragic killings done by remorseless monsters, no doubt. but if every time we encounter evil, abhorrent death and destruction and choose face it with cries to abolish civil liberties, where will that leave us? i'd like to pose 2 scenarios by which we could limit death and destruction (both to folks who do these things intentionally and who happen to impact innocent bystanders) and tell me if you'd be ok to limit these personal freedoms:

1. according to national stats on average 29 people die by DUI (alcohol specifically - not including drugs) each day. this is over 10,000 people, of which ~17% are <14yrs of age. clearly, we are not going to get rid of alcohol. BUT - would you be ok making it mandatory to have a breathalyzer in each and every vehicle which must be enacted for the car to start? would this really be ok with you as a law-abiding driver? or even as someone who may have 1-2 drinks at a friends house, but now have to use this tool to get home - even though you are in all likelihood "fine" to drive? (it's your judgement call, after all...)

2. nobody NEEDS a car that can accelerate from 0-60mph in under 4 seconds. or have a top speed of 150mph (or even 100mph). would you be ok limiting future car manufacture to simple, low horsepower autos that are truly safer and easier to control on our roads, especially cities? better yet, what if we installed simple software that governed your vehicles speed based on the speed limit in the area? we have that tech now - my WAZE app always tells me the speed limit for the road i'm on. it would be simple to tie that to my car so that no matter what i tried i could not speed - especially helpful when in those "pesky" school zones... here's a stat: from 1999 to 2017 199 people (50% under 20) died in high-speed street racing in LA county alone - the # of kids killed in school shootings for roughly the same period was 211 (before i get called on this, yes i think school shootings are especially horrific). speed kills. it's a fact. especially, when high powered vehicles are given to "children" and or other reckless adults. how many of the porsche enthusiasts on here speed daily? i know i do. but when i'm honest with myself, when i speed, i do open the possibility to take myself and others out. we don't NEED fast cars. but, we sure do enjoy the personal freedom and liberty they bring us.

i'm sure we could all find many other ways to limit abhorrent and needless deaths. but again, at what cost to personal freedom and civil liberty? it is not that i think gun-deaths are ok. but i do recognize no matter how true and just we feel our intentions are, we cannot legislate zero death in any arena of life. at least not without seriously affecting how we view the human necessity for choice, even if that choice often leads to violence.

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbill

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

---

I can't "Like" this post enough. 1000x is not enough. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbill

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

---

First - meant completely sincerely - I completely agree.
Second, and related to first - it would be really awesome if serious epidemiological research for this pressing issue could be funded without NRA influence and dollars used to block it (see the Dickey amendment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbill

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

---

The USA has been class leader in killings by guns for many many decades.

Two points:

First (at the risk of conjuring DeGrasse Tyson): The real problem with gun violence is not these horrific mass murders. It's the day-to-day carnage of homicide and suicide. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. There are plenty of other shocking statistics here if you're interested in gun violence in the United States.

Unfortunately and perversely, it takes a mass murder to get the USA to pay attention to the issue. And confused about exactly what the issue is.

Second: I can't quickly find any really long-term statistics, but from 1999-2017 the CDC shows that the death rate had been pretty constant, although rising beginning around 2013. So please don't be mislead by the nauseating upswing in sensational mass murders.

We've been consistently killing ourselves and each other for a long time. Because in the USA, we die from guns at a much, much higher rate than comparable countries. We pretend we don't know why.

Attachment 112758

There is no second amendment right to semi-automatic assault weapons, any more than there is a right to own mortars or hand grenades or other weapons that can kill hundreds of people in less than a New York minute.

All of this teeth-gnashing about mental illness, and a culture of violence, and bullying, etc. is just noise at the margins. The truth is that in other countries where guns of this type have been eliminated, gun deaths go down. Go figure.

...so what's the justification for allowing them. It's not the second amendment, it's not for hunting, and the slippery slope argument, that next they will come for your shotgun or handgun pales in comparison to the bodies that are heaped up each year from the barrel end of these weapons.

Good. Run your mouths, keep your weapons, search for week justifications, find excuses, and let the bodies pile up. Until it's your loved ones.

Our capacity for ignoring the suffering of others is almost beyond belief. Except that it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbill

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

---

You propose that we don't have a higher concentration of center fire cartridge semi autos in society? I'd like to see the data. I knew nobody who had AR type hardware when I was young; I know a bunch now. That the AR15 is not used by the military is a specious argument (so is the "what's an assault weapon" argument); you know full well that it's as close to the same thing in every meaningful way as is possible and legal. You also know that any semi of war fighting caliber is a vastly more quick, easy to rapid fire accurately and efficient weapon than shotguns, wheel guns and bolt action weapons. If not you'd be carrying a 38 snubbie.

Societies are often in flux and certainly we're a different country than 50 years ago but one thing appears constant in epidemiological studies: Higher concentrations of firearms = higher rates of firearms deaths. While change and stresses certainly contribute (like the stress of marginalized white males having an issue with seeing non-white people competing for a piece of the pie), blaming the carnage on that is a cop out. And it only makes the case for removal of such weapons from society stronger since, clearly we cannot handle the combo platter. This isn't a boiler in a complex process line and control scheme that ruptured, requiring a root cause analysis. It's quite straight forward though I'm all for addressing the stressors of life where we can...like healthcare for all, diverting $ from the military towards education and infrastructure improvements, that sort of thing.

Comparisons with cars is also specious in more ways than one. DUI? If people got drunk and then mowed down scores of folks at a whack, when they otherwise wouldn't do so, then we might have to consider prohibition but I don't think that's happening. I'm good with alcohol and cars being legal and our continuing attempts to reduce vehicular homicides; I'd like to see the consequences get vastly more severe but I don't feel the need to attempt redress via prohibition. Semi autos serve no useful purpose in civil society and are a serious public health issue.

Personal liberties? I'd like to own some grenades and maybe a howitzer or an Exocet. It's an an unreasonable infringement on my personal liberty for society to decide that it's not such a good idea? Cmon guys.

And with that, I'm going to quietly slip off the back and go do something productive. Maybe write my state representative to express my anger at Florida allowing folks on 2 acres to set up firing "ranges", aka using a pile of dirt in your yard as a range. It's insanity.

/\/\/\/\/\
i hope this doesn't come out too harshly, but the above comment is what concerns me....

that is a purely emotional response (to what is a highly emotional issue, to be sure). pure lip service as to the "why" of the issue, with complete focus on the "how" to eliminate guns as the only possible solution. and...coming from the place of a non-user. and...scariest of all, hinting at no "need" for such firearms. there are many things in our lives we don't "need", but from which we take enjoyment, and limiting them simply to hope for an outcome (which may or may not occur) that statistically affects a small portion of our population does not make sense to me.

i don't like gun deaths. especially, deaths from homicidal maniacs on a rampage. but, this occurrence of mass shootings (schools, malls, etc) is still very statistically small given all gun violence. pointing this out does not make me a heartless bastard, btw. it doesn't make me any less saddened when these events occur. but, it does make me a practical person when it comes to dialogue to curtail civil liberties - especially, when i'm not convinced removing these items will dramatically reduce these occurrences.

at the risk of sounding cold and harsh, while these events do occur, i don't sit around worrying about this happening to my loved ones - again, not because i'm a heartless asshole, but rather because statistically i have a better chance of winning the lottery. and i recognize that civil liberties, of whatever flavor and nature, don't always come free.

I think central planning by the government is a form of tyranny but I would be in favor of all cars having to breathalyze before driving and lower HP cars (and I am a racer at heart also but not on public streets).
But we all have to play in the same sandbox and need some rules to go by.
I do not own any guns but would support limiting magazines to 7 rounds that takes 5+ seconds to reload. Obviously if we tried to ban all firearms only criminals would have them.
Having said all of this these changes might make society feel better in the short term but will not change much if at all the amount of Drunk or other auto fatalities and attempts at mass shootings.

I think if anyone had an idea that would actually work we would already be heading that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

/\/\/\/\/\


i don't like gun deaths. especially, deaths from homicidal maniacs on a rampage. but, this occurrence of mass shootings (schools, malls, etc) is still very statistically small given all gun violence.

---

And this only buttresses the point for getting rid of all guns. If spree shootings are just a small section of a much, much larger problem, then the problem is the guns. If it's used across a variety of scenarios, purposes and mental states to cause harm to someone else, then yeah, they've gotta go.

I get where you're coming from, but the train left the station a while after about the 9th or 10th attempt to get through expanded background checks or anything "reasonable" in terms of gun control that would ensure access to responsible users and try to limit access to those looking to do harm to others. Ye Gods, the latest attempt at reform on this issue this week is reviving a six-year old bill from Toomey and Manchin on the subject. Six years!

Time for all guns to go. We've proven incapable as a society in enjoying them responsibly. But if your argument boils down to the odds of it happening to me are low, so I'm fine with the status quo when the status quo is a mass shooting a day, then it's a pretty weak sauce argument.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer - The New York Times

Occam's Razor anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theflashunc

We've proven incapable as a society in enjoying them responsibly.

---

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

From the above article in the NYT: "Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence."

Short answer: We're only befuddled because we want to be.

As to the claim that it's not statistically likely to impact any one of us, yes indeed that does seem "harsh." (Pro tip here: when you start your argument with, "I hope this doesn't come out too harshly..." it will be viewed that way.) I know that the chances of my family being killed by Boeing's faulty software is small, yet oddly I'm still in favor of them fixing it. Call me crazy (go ahead, I don't care), but I tend not to view our problems only in the context of the likelihood that I (or my loved ones) will be impacted personally, particularly when the results are so terrible for those who are.

...sorry if that came off harshly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Tollefson

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

---

Do you have a solution?

Or do you not see a problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Tollefson

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

---

Right. Agreed that most gun owners are responsible.

I'm sure that these responsible gun owners should not be concerned then about background checks to ensure that the unreasonable gun owners don't cast a false light on them. Better to weed them out, don't you think?

I'm sure, as well, that these responsible gun owners aren't interested in semi-automatic weapons, as most profess an interest in self-defense, or hunting. ...so they should support a ban on these weapons as well. Responsible gun owners don't want to be associated with mass murderers, after all.

If you want those of us who don't have any interest in these weapons (yes, I was taught how to use them when I was younger but had no interest when I discovered bikes, books and women) to take the viewpoint of responsible gun owners into account, then the latter need to appear responsible. They need to support reasonable legislation that has worked elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodworker

From the above article in the NYT: "Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence."

Short answer: We're only befuddled because we want to be.

As to the claim that it's not statistically likely to impact any one of us, yes indeed that does seem "harsh." (Pro tip here: when you start your argument with, "I hope this doesn't come out too harshly..." it will be viewed that way.) I know that the chances of my family being killed by Boeing's faulty software is small, yet oddly I'm still in favor of them fixing it. Call me crazy (go ahead, I don't care), but I tend not to view our problems only in the context of the likelihood that I (or my loved ones) will be impacted personally, particularly when the results are so terrible for those who are.

...sorry if that came off harshly.

---

ha! point well taken regarding the "pro tip".
but you truly missed my point. i'm not nonchalant regarding the safety or outcome of others, rather i don't sit in hysterical fear on a daily basis on this issue - nor should you or anyone else. and that "fear" does not lead me to believe we should create new laws or limitations in order to protect a very small set of people each year. again, i just tend to put personal liberty high on my list, even if allowing this liberty may cause multiple injuries or death each year.

i take heart with your boeing example and it is an extremely good point. i too agree we can't ignore this issue even though it is statistically small - we just appear to disagree on the best way to fix this. as i said earlier, there are many things with which we live on a daily basis that puts us at risk...and we don't tear our hair out and scream hysterically to fix each and everyone of them. this issue is just so horrendously tragic and graphic that it gets top billing on our fear chart.

to the gent above who mentioned he'd get concerned about my DUI reference "If people got drunk and then mowed down scores of folks at a whack...", i ask - so, it's ok if this occurs on a onesy-twosy basis?? tell that to the family of 4 here in TX hit head-on by a teen txting. or any of a myriad of families that are impacted daily by drunks on a one-on-one basis. we shouldn't need a massive drunk-kill-on-a-sidewalk spree to get serious about stopping drunk driving (breathalyzers in EVERY car??), if we are truly concerned about saving lives. i'd say we are far more inured to drunk driving than to shootings, if that is the case.

it's not that i've got a hard on for drunk driving, but rather at what point in a society do we pull out all the stops to curtail poor decision making and bad, erratic behavior? from many of the responses here, i'd say it occurs only when a particular right doesn't pertain to them... i say we should protect each and every right of the individual, no matter the personal impact it may have on us, until such point it impacts a significant portion of the population. which this just hasn't as the statistics point out time and again.

One would think that the responsible gun owners would, being good law and order types, be first in line to provide solutions to solve the issues of suicide, crimes committed with guns or mass shooting events. To protect their good name and all.

Crickets...

Or perhaps they don't care?


Oh that's right it is the video games...

Couple of points:
how many of these atrocities were committed by previous "criminals"?
How many of the guns owned by the shooters were illegal? how many were legal?

I hear the argument that criminals will just go find a gun, yet it seems to me, these folks were not "criminals" until the act... so. how many of these cats got legal guns and were the type of "safe gun owner" that every gun owner claims to be? lets not discount the psychological affects of holding a gun in your hand. its literally an injection of mental confidence and machismo. your brain chemistry changes with one in your hand.

one cat in here stated that folks who react with emotion against guns are coming from a place of inexperience. could it not be a place if disgust? or inability to understand loving a gun (or some human made up right or whatever you think you have here) more than civil society? might it be some of us have owned guns in the past, have fired them safely, and still see no use for them in civil society? im personally against all guns, but would not go so far as vote to disallow hunters and those who feel a need for home protection to have 1 or 2 reasonable firearms for this purpose. but lets not pretend for one minute that the majority of guns owned by people aren't simply for entertainment, because they are very dangerous toys for most people. and for this i cannot get behind your right to entertain yourself with a semi auto show gun. thats selfish. i too prefer my right to feel safe in public spaces from men with semi autos to your right to own a semi auto weapon. whose right is righter? find a new healthier hobby that doesnt contribute to unnecessary death. its not asking much.

this problem is uniquely american, and the way we justify is one of the big reasons why, just look at all of the excuses. most sane people from other societies would already have laughed at this conversation as uniquely american and totally mental.

now samurai swords, im all for those, pretty useful in the home invasion fantasy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Tollefson

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

---

A rotten apple spoils the bunch. 33,000 gun deaths a year. A mass shooting a day.

Are you saying the level of bloodshed due to guns in this country is fine because the statistics bear that out? That even those who don't die and are maimed for life by a weapon of war sold to civilians is okay because they drew the short straw for going to the movies/school/church/Wal-mart/a garlic festival/a shitty country concert in Vegas/their job/etc etc etc on a given day?

That's a callous calculation.

Couple of points:
how many of these atrocities were committed by previous "criminals"?
How many of the guns owned by the shooters were illegal? how many were legal?

I hear the argument that criminals will just go find a gun, yet it seems to me, these folks were not "criminals" until the act... so. how many of these cats got legal guns and were the type of "safe gun owner" that every gun owner claims to be? lets not discount the psychological affects of holding a gun in your hand. its literally an injection of mental confidence and machismo. your brain chemistry changes with one in your hand.

one cat in here stated that folks who react with emotion against guns are coming from a place of inexperience. could it not be a place if disgust? or inability to understand loving a gun (or some human made up right or whatever you think you have here) more than civil society? might it be some of us have owned guns in the past, have fired them safely, and still see no use for them in civil society? im personally against all guns, but would not go so far as vote to disallow hunters and those who feel a need for home protection to have 1 or 2 reasonable firearms for this purpose. but lets not pretend for one minute that the majority of guns owned by people are simply for entertainment. and for this i cannot get behind your right to entertain yourself with a semi auto show gun. thats bullshit, find a new hobby.

this problem is uniquely american, and the way we justify is one of the big reasons why, just look at all of the excuses. most sane people from other societies would already have laughed at this conversation as uniquely american and totally mental. i dont get how owning a gun equates to freedom and liberty. one can be more free without

now samurai swords, im all for those, pretty useful in the home invasion fantasy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mzilliox

now samurai swords, im all for those, pretty useful in the home invasion fantasy too.

---

Tell that to the families of the 4 dead in southern California today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theflashunc

A rotten apple spoils the bunch. 33,000 gun deaths a year. A mass shooting a day.

Are you saying the level of bloodshed due to guns in this country is fine because the statistics bear that out? That even those who don't die and are maimed for life by a weapon of war sold to civilians is okay because they drew the short straw for going to the movies/school/church/Wal-mart/a garlic festival/a shitty country concert in Vegas/their job/etc etc etc on a given day?

That's a callous calculation.

---

i don't know a single gun owner who would say that, although i see how we are misunderstood that way. in my above post i can see how even i sound that way. i do believe there is no possibility to legislate zero death in any given issue or problem, though.

i think the main issue at hand is the HOW to solve or approach this problem, not whether or not we should.

as i said above, i'm all for common sense legislation, as are most responsible gun owners, but when you drill down on the details of most proposed federal and state legislation you will see it is not always "common-sense" and can be quite draconian for the average enthusiast. many of the things going on in CA are not common-sense, but rather aimed at turning your firearm into a concrete square that can fire 1 round every 10 minutes and shoot bubbles... (said sarcastically, of course).

i believe in the middle ground...but right now with all the emotions flaring, there is no middle ground to be discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

i don't know a single gun owner who would say that, although i see how we are misunderstood that way. in my above post i can see how even i sound that way. i do believe there is no possibility to legislate zero death in any given issue or problem, though.

i think the main issue at hand is the HOW to solve or approach this problem, not whether or not we should.

as i said above, i'm all for common sense legislation, as are most responsible gun owners, but when you drill down on the details of most proposed federal and state legislation you will see it is not always "common-sense" and can be quite draconian for the average enthusiast. many of the things going on in CA are not common-sense, but rather aimed at turning your firearm into a concrete square that can fire 1 round every 10 minutes and shoot bubbles... (said sarcastically, of course).

i believe in the middle ground...but right now with all the emotions flaring, there is no middle ground to be discussed.

---

The middle ground is being rejected out of hand. Nonstarters include:

-- Universal licensing requirements and testing
-- Limits on magazine size
-- Insurance requirements for firearms owners
-- Tracking of ammunition sales
-- Curbs on semi-automatic weapon sales
-- Civil and criminal liability for manufacturers and gun sellers
-- End of the gun show loophole and mandating background checks for all private sales
-- Mandatory waiting periods for firearms purchases

None of these is "no guns" for a responsible gun owner, and yet all are DOA. So then what is the middle ground as the Overton Window on this seems to be "the middle ground but really nothing changes."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theflashunc

The middle ground is being rejected out of hand. Nonstarters include:

-- Universal licensing requirements and testing
-- Limits on magazine size
-- Insurance requirements for firearms owners
-- Tracking of ammunition sales
-- Curbs on semi-automatic weapon sales
-- Civil and criminal liability for manufacturers and gun sellers
-- End of the gun show loophole and mandating background checks for all private sales
-- Mandatory waiting periods for firearms purchases

None of these is "no guns" for a responsible gun owner, and yet all are DOA. So then what is the middle ground as the Overton Window on this seems to be "the middle ground but really nothing changes."

---

i'll try and tackle just one of these issues to give you the perspective from a gun owner, and why we get concerned:

-- End of the gun show loophole and mandating background checks for all private sales (i'm 100% for this kinda of thing, btw)

(i admit beforehand my recollection on this is inexact and i can't google-fu the deets right now)
so, there was a House Resolution put up about a year ago to address this very thing. it would require all private and gun show sales to go through a FFL dealer (federal firearms license) and require a full background check. basically, what happens when you go to purchase a firearm is they open a ticket with your info to be submitted into their dbase (NCIS or some similar acronym) and the process begins. the key detail is this "ticket" request can only remain live for 30 calendar days, after that it expires and you go back to start.

the HR that was proposed said that the government could take up to 10 business days to approve your "ticket" (whereas right now it can be done in 10 minutes or so, in most cases). once the 10 business days passed and you did not receive go-ahead notification to your FFL, you had to submit an appeal to determine why you either didn't get approved, or why it took longer than 10 days. The appeal process allowed for, you got it, 10 business days. Once that 2nd round of 10 days elapsed and you still weren't approved, well you had to ask nicely once again (2-3 days for response was possible). here, the devil is in the details...after 30 days your "ticket" in the NCIS dbase (or whatever the specific acronym is) expired if you were not approved. again, expired due to timing, not because you failed the approval process. it could've just been ignored and then expired. either way, given this timing of 20 business days +2-3 more on the back end meant that it is very likely your 30 day ticket could / would expire before you were approved and then you had to start all over again.

see the potential for abuse here? See how an already existent process got bogged down by the government and adds unnecessary timing to solid citizens? see why law-abiding gun owners might care about this particular wording? yet, the press sold it as, "gun idiots don't want common-sense background checks". yes, yes we do. we want it a bunch. but not at the expense of our own rights.

now the gun-side of the lobby asked for one inclusion to mitigate the potential for abuse of this: no answer within the 20 business day window? FFL dealer gets to make the call across his business counter on whether to sell or not. "fair-minded and sensible people" on the other side of the aisle said, nope. all or none. HR died - and it was a political win in that they could point back to gun owners and call them heartless bastards... and therein lies our political system - all or none, no matter the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theflashunc

The middle ground is being rejected out of hand. Nonstarters include:

-- Universal licensing requirements and testing
-- Limits on magazine size
-- Insurance requirements for firearms owners
-- Tracking of ammunition sales
-- Curbs on semi-automatic weapon sales
-- Civil and criminal liability for manufacturers and gun sellers
-- End of the gun show loophole and mandating background checks for all private sales
-- Mandatory waiting periods for firearms purchases

None of these is "no guns" for a responsible gun owner, and yet all are DOA. So then what is the middle ground as the Overton Window on this seems to be "the middle ground but really nothing changes."

---

i would also tackle some of the others as they do, in-fact, lead to something similar to "no guns" (at least in shape, form, purpose and enjoyment as we currently know them), but i realize i'm posting too much here today.

last note: many of the items above tackle guns in the same way we here in TX tackled abortion. while it may still be legal here, our sweet powers that be made it so onerous, so difficult for clinics to stay open, that for many women it's basically gone. it's still legal...but not really doable for a huge chunk of folks. they didn't have to outlaw it, but they sure could change the face of it such that it doesn't exist in huge parts of the state. and i am 100% opposed to this type of subversion of the law (even though i am personally opposed to abortion). it's not right what they did trumping up false issues to close clinics and circumvent what has already been approved by our country.

and much of what you outline above, when put into actual resolutions and enacted into law, will change the face of shooting sports for enthusiasts. not really outlawing guns per se, but definitely redefining them into oblivion. is that ok to circumvent my freedoms in order to achieve your goal??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

/\/\/\/\/\
i hope this doesn't come out too harshly, but the above comment is what concerns me....

---

It didn't come out harshly at all; it came out nonsensical. Feel free to parse what I wrote (I think you were referring to me) and point out my errors.

As to "non-user": Although I haven't been to a range in a very long time I was taught to fire rifles by WWII combat vets. I am modestly studied in modern combat hand-gunnery though I don't have any recent range work. I don't really get a big kick out of blasting caps, it's damned expensive these days and I don't feel like being a participant in the perpetuation of our gun culture. But there was a time when an M1 and something on the order of 8,000 rounds of military 30-06 ammunition lived underneath my bed. It wasn't for personal defense but for CAP/ROTC range practice.

This gets silly, quickly. It's like universal health care; there are plenty of examples of national systems that provide high quality and superior cost efficiency that we're going to keep rejecting for any number of illegitimate reasons. We're a gun culture; it's "our birthright" being parroted by the "shall not be infringed" crowd who conveniently forget the "a well regulated militia" part, penned before we had a standing, professional military to take care of "the security of a (our) free state". But you're correct about one thing; the chances of being a victim are quite small for most of us, which sort of suggests that the "need it for personal defense" argument is, virtually always, statistical hogwash.

By your logic I should be able to own a GAU-8. I mean, I'd enjoy (civil liberty) the noise and turning an acre or two into a dust bowl. If it's my two acres, why not? Kinda pricey but, why not? As long as we are swimming in a sea of firearms we will have this problem. Attempting to apply administrative controls while allowing civilian possession of semi-autos is doomed to failure, except for the folks who want to be able to point out that gun laws don't work. The only ones that will are the ones that remove them from society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jclay

You propose that we don't have a higher concentration of center fire cartridge semi autos in society? I'd like to see the data. I knew nobody who had AR type hardware when I was young; I know a bunch now. That the AR15 is not used by the military is a specious argument (so is the "what's an assault weapon" argument); you know full well that it's as close to the same thing in every meaningful way as is possible and legal. You also know that any semi of war fighting caliber is a vastly more quick, easy to rapid fire accurately and efficient weapon than shotguns, wheel guns and bolt action weapons. If not you'd be carrying a 38 snubbie.

Societies are often in flux and certainly we're a different country than 50 years ago but one thing appears constant in epidemiological studies: Higher concentrations of firearms = higher rates of firearms deaths. While change and stresses certainly contribute (like the stress of marginalized white males having an issue with seeing non-white people competing for a piece of the pie), blaming the carnage on that is a cop out. And it only makes the case for removal of such weapons from society stronger since, clearly we cannot handle the combo platter. This isn't a boiler in a complex process line and control scheme that ruptured, requiring a root cause analysis. It's quite straight forward though I'm all for addressing the stressors of life where we can...like healthcare for all, diverting $ from the military towards education and infrastructure improvements, that sort of thing.

Comparisons with cars is also specious in more ways than one. DUI? If people got drunk and then mowed down scores of folks at a whack, when they otherwise wouldn't do so, then we might have to consider prohibition but I don't think that's happening. I'm good with alcohol and cars being legal and our continuing attempts to reduce vehicular homicides; I'd like to see the consequences get vastly more severe but I don't feel the need to attempt redress via prohibition. Semi autos serve no useful purpose in civil society and are a serious public health issue.

Personal liberties? I'd like to own some grenades and maybe a howitzer or an Exocet. It's an an unreasonable infringement on my personal liberty for society to decide that it's not such a good idea? Cmon guys.

And with that, I'm going to quietly slip off the back and go do something productive. Maybe write my state representative to express my anger at Florida allowing folks on 2 acres to set up firing "ranges", aka using a pile of dirt in your yard as a range. It's insanity.

---

I made no such proposal concerning the number of rifles available. My point is that the AR style rifle has been available since the late 50's. The fact that you didn't see any growing up isn't a data point. That the military doesn't use AR weapons is a fact. It looks like a military weapon, but it lacks the features required by the military including 3 round burst or continuous.

But really, I know you want to make your points but using my post as your quote and then going off on different directions and discussing things I didn't post is a poor practice. Just make your own posts to lay out your arguments.

-- i have taken life with an assault weapon..
-- i have wounds from an assult weapon..
-- i have seen life taken by an assult weapon..
-- i will live with this nightmare within for my life's rest..

life is expendable relative to money, greed and power..
we are not at war with rights, self protection, we are at war with money, greed and power..
we have no freedom as long as we oppose what is good..

ronnie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

is that ok to circumvent my freedoms in order to achieve your goal??

---

Humans have a basic right to be free from being shot. Why does freedom to own a gun trump the freedom from being shot?

What we need more than new laws is the Govt actually enforcing the laws already on the books.

The NCIS data (background checks for the uninitiated) from 2010 shows that 72,659 applicants were denied a firearms transaction for various reason. 34,459 of those were for felony indictment or conviction and 13,862 were fugitives from justice (48,321 total)....and FYI it's a Federal crime for convicted felons to even attempt to purchase a firearm. Yet only 62 cases were referred to Fed attorneys for prosecution and 49 of those were actually prosecuted. Look at that again....49 people actually prosecuted out of 48,000. Those are miserable statistics and everyone responsible for them should be fired IMO. That data is available at NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service I've also looked at data available from other years and it is the same, many denials and few prosecutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jclay

It's real simple; either we remove autos and semi-autos from the civilian population or we'll continue to have mass shootings.

---

The people who legally own full-auto weapons don't commit crimes....in fact, since 1934, when full-auto weapons were first regulated, only two known homicides have been committed with a legally owned full-auto weapon and one of those was committed by an off-duty police officer with a Dept issued weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbill

I made no such proposal concerning the number of rifles available. My point is that the AR style rifle has been available since the late 50's. The fact that you didn't see any growing up isn't a data point. That the military doesn't use AR weapons is a fact. It looks like a military weapon, but it lacks the features required by the military including 3 round burst or continuous.

But really, I know you want to make your points but using my post as your quote and then going off on different directions and discussing things I didn't post is a poor practice. Just make your own posts to lay out your arguments.

---

I did, you just don't like what I wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guido

Humans have a basic right to be free from being shot. Why does freedom to own a gun trump the freedom from being shot?

---

but... i'm not shooting you or anyone else. i'm law abiding. that's the point. i'm not taking your freedom away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vvv321

Open it up for research, and I think we can find some real answers, causes, and solutions. Until then the argument is moot really, with out actual research, it's just a bunch of biased slanted discussions, about what I think, and what you think, and people that don't really understand the data, making sweeping allegations.

---

The idea that new research will turn anything up sorta presumes that violence done with guns is different than all of the other violences that plague our society, and that if we just look really hard we'll find some silver bullet like it's caused by the fluoride in tap water or the flavoring on Cool Ranch Doritos. But what if violence done with guns isn't much different from other types of violence about which we know more than enough to begin to take meaningful action?

To @David Tollefson 's idea that we need a cultural examination, it's been done, and it's being done. Bob Putnam's work from Bowling Alone through Our Kids tells the story of America coming apart culturally, marked particularly by a decline in civic participation, an increase in divorce, and a massive escalation in the number of boys growing up without a male role model in their lives, in part due to mass incarceration. We might also look at Anne Case and Angus Deaton's ongoing work on what they call "deaths of despair," where they identify how various forms of direct and indirect self-harm correlate strongly with white men living in geographic areas plagued by downward economic mobility. We might consider Raj Chetty's project of understanding how geography influences life outcomes. We might also look at Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson's work that traces how life experiences create a psychological framework of entitlement for one's own in-group, and an animosity toward the outgroup. And, we could look at Diana Mutz's recent study on how status anxiety arising from women's equality and immigration can radicalize men and motivate them to action.

If we as a public are presented with a first course of action between fixing all of those ^ known causes of violence by who-knows-what-measures, or just taking the ARs and their ilk, I don't see how the latter isn't the obvious first option. Sure, let's try to fix all the big stuff. But it sure seems to me that we have more than enough info to think banning semi-auto rifles and handguns with large magazines would save some lives. Put a 10 year sunset on the policy, and if it turns out that it doesn't matter after 10 years then we let it expire and we can go back to letting everyone have ARs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

ha! point well taken regarding the "pro tip".
but you truly missed my point. i'm not nonchalant regarding the safety or outcome of others, rather i don't sit in hysterical fear on a daily basis on this issue - nor should you or anyone else. and that "fear" does not lead me to believe we should create new laws or limitations in order to protect a very small set of people each year. again, i just tend to put personal liberty high on my list, even if allowing this liberty may cause multiple injuries or death each year.

i take heart with your boeing example and it is an extremely good point. i too agree we can't ignore this issue even though it is statistically small - we just appear to disagree on the best way to fix this. as i said earlier, there are many things with which we live on a daily basis that puts us at risk...and we don't tear our hair out and scream hysterically to fix each and everyone of them. this issue is just so horrendously tragic and graphic that it gets top billing on our fear chart.

to the gent above who mentioned he'd get concerned about my DUI reference "If people got drunk and then mowed down scores of folks at a whack...", i ask - so, it's ok if this occurs on a onesy-twosy basis?? tell that to the family of 4 here in TX hit head-on by a teen txting. or any of a myriad of families that are impacted daily by drunks on a one-on-one basis. we shouldn't need a massive drunk-kill-on-a-sidewalk spree to get serious about stopping drunk driving (breathalyzers in EVERY car??), if we are truly concerned about saving lives. i'd say we are far more inured to drunk driving than to shootings, if that is the case.

it's not that i've got a hard on for drunk driving, but rather at what point in a society do we pull out all the stops to curtail poor decision making and bad, erratic behavior? from many of the responses here, i'd say it occurs only when a particular right doesn't pertain to them... i say we should protect each and every right of the individual, no matter the personal impact it may have on us, until such point it impacts a significant portion of the population. which this just hasn't as the statistics point out time and again.

---

Well, at least you have sense of humor--that's always a good starting point.

I guess my point of departure comes with your comment, "i just tend to put personal liberty high on my list," and the possible assumption that underlies it, that I may not value personal liberty as much as you. In fact, I do, but I just don't value this particular "personal liberty" very highly. Take a look at our liberties. Freedom of speech, worship, assembly--these are all high on my list, as are the right to be free from self-incrimination and from unreasonable search and seizure. I also place high on the list other rights of a more societal nature, such as freedom of the press.

But the right to carry weapons, not so much. Seems like it might've been important in the 1700's or 1800's, but now it's an anachronism that we seem incapable of curing.

If I were to rank the personal liberties, this would be way down the list.

Use your utilitarian tendencies to good effect here: what's the personal liberty cost of banning guns (some or all) vs. the benefit to society? Compare that to the liberties listed above. Quite a difference in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodworker

Well, at least you have sense of humor--that's always a good starting point.

I guess my point of departure comes with your comment, "i just tend to put personal liberty high on my list," and the possible assumption that underlies it, that I may not value personal liberty as much as you. In fact, I do, but I just don't value this particular "personal liberty" very highly. Take a look at our liberties. Freedom of speech, worship, assembly--these are all high on my list, as are the right to be free from self-incrimination and from unreasonable search and seizure. I also place high on the list other rights of a more societal nature, such as freedom of the press.

But the right to carry weapons, not so much. Seems like it might've been important in the 1700's or 1800's, but now it's an anachronism that we seem incapable of curing.

If I were to rank the personal liberties, this would be way down the list.

Use your utilitarian tendencies to good effect here: what's the personal liberty cost of banning guns (some or all) vs. the benefit to society? Compare that to the liberties listed above. Quite a difference in my mind.

---

very thoughtful response - really appreciate this one, as it echoes many of my own sentiments. and i guess it really does come down to your last question. for me, gun deaths hover around 35,000/year of which 2/3 are suicide and roughly 800 come from long-guns (rifles and AR's). for me, as callous as it sounds, i don't see this as outweighing the personal liberty issue and the need that i feel we have as americans to stand armed against potential tyranny. yes, my tin-foil hat is showing... once a society feels they are so "enlightened" or complacent, anything is possible.

believe it or not, each time one of these events occur i have a real-gut check and question the NEED idea. at this point, while 35K deaths are atrocious, when i look at all the ills and potential areas for abuse and misuse in other areas of our lives which lead to death that we routinely ignore, i haven't changed my mind on the liberty issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caleb

To @David Tollefson 's idea that we need a cultural examination, it's been done, and it's being done. Bob Putnam's work....snipped....... And, we could look at Diana Mutz's recent study on how status anxiety arising from women's equality and immigration can radicalize men and motivate them to action.

---

Those general sorts of drivers seem pretty obvious to me. I'm surprised that more folks don't divine them for themselves. Academically I'd find those sorts of studies pretty interesting though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caleb

If we as a public are presented with a first course of action between fixing all of those ^ known causes of violence by who-knows-what-measures, or just taking the ARs and their ilk, I don't see how the latter isn't the obvious first option. Sure, let's try to fix all the big stuff. But it sure seems to me that we have more than enough info to think banning semi-auto rifles and handguns with large magazines would save some lives. Put a 10 year sunset on the policy, and if it turns out that it doesn't matter after 10 years then we let it expire and we can go back to letting everyone have Ars.

---

We tried it (FAWB): Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

The only way it would work is if we were able to remove virtually all center-fire semi-automatics from civilian society in much less than 10 years (so there would be time to experience and quantify the result). Largely as a result of sunsetting the '94 FAWB we are just swimming in ARs and the like. Adequate removal from our civilian population would likely take far longer than that for obvious reasons. Happy to be wrong about that but what will happen is that it would fail and then be used as evidence that gun control can't work. And it doesn't here, because we refuse to implement it in ways that would.

And now, I really am off the back. Further discussion or other back/forth is pointless. When the bloodshed reaches whatever level is required for people to quit looking at everything but the obvious then, and only then, will we take meaningful action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

but... i'm not shooting you or anyone else. i'm law abiding. that's the point. i'm not taking your freedom away.

---

Problem comes when not everyone who has a gun is law abiding. Folks are exploiting the freedom you cling to, in order to take others freedom to live away.

My suggestion in an earlier posting that it is the responsibility of law abiding gun users to be a real part of finding a solution instead of just stamping their feet and saying "no" is a way to resolve things while building respect on all sides.

But if they continue to act like two year olds, this could really come to a messy end.

Good thread from Eric Heiden on Facebook.

Quote:

---

Certainly a can of worms has been opened.
Got quite a few comments. Very polarizing this second amendment.

The idea of licensure to have a weapon keeps coming up and is intriguing.
If you want to buy a gun there would be an application process that would test you apptitude and proficiency to fire it. Bigger weapon....tougher test.
Think driver's licence
Why, why not?

Those that have a gun(s) get to keep what they already have. No question asked. You are grandfathered in.

Recertification test every 10 (arbitrary) years. We do it in medicine and we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Liability insurance for purchased wespon......deposited into a fund to finance and support the licensure testing, research and support victims of gun crime. The bigger the weapon the bigger the premium.
Why, why not?

Limiting the number of bullets you can fire at one time before you need to stop for a second to reload.
Why, why not?

Allowing the CDC to do the research. It would be nice to know the facts and be able review and perhaps implement their conclusions.
Why, why not?

(Who knows the background for why our politicians tied the CDC's hands on this?)

This is complex puzzle with many pieces (mental health, ect) but respond to the above thoughts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moondog-sparky

very thoughtful response - really appreciate this one, as it echoes many of my own sentiments. and i guess it really does come down to your last question. for me, gun deaths hover around 35,000/year of which 2/3 are suicide and roughly 800 come from long-guns (rifles and AR's). for me, as callous as it sounds, i don't see this as outweighing the personal liberty issue and the need that i feel we have as americans to stand armed against potential tyranny. yes, my tin-foil hat is showing... once a society feels they are so "enlightened" or complacent, anything is possible.

believe it or not, each time one of these events occur i have a real-gut check and question the NEED idea. at this point, while 35K deaths are atrocious, when i look at all the ills and potential areas for abuse and misuse in other areas of our lives which lead to death that we routinely ignore, i haven't changed my mind on the liberty issue.

---

It is a unique arrogance that you place your protection against what you would label tyranny over the the lives of 35k innocents... What gives you the right to make that decision? There are may different possible interpretations of tyranny at this particular moment in time. What makes you so sure you specific interpretation is the right one?