“How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

[Amp]

This guy makes some good points:

https://thewriterinblack.com/2019/08/14/how-do-you-propose-to-end-mass-shootings-then/

[RoyGBiv]

An armed society is a polite society.

"Self-Defense" cannot be outsourced.

[Bart Carter]

There will always be evil. Restrictions on the law abiding is stupid to stop evil is stupid.

[Michpatriot]

Excellent! I for one like the public school class elective training.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Some good points, except for his belief that the military is qualified to teach firearms skills and safety. Tier 1 units, yes. The others, not so much.

[WobblyPossum]

Some good points, except for his belief that the military is qualified to teach firearms skills and safety. Tier 1 units, yes. The others, not so much.

If the suggestion was to teach students in high school and college the basics of safe firearms handling, most NRA instructors should be able to handle it. If the plan is to give students the same kind of training you’d receive in the average two day handgun class, then you’re completely right.

[UniSol]

Some good points, except for his belief that the military is qualified to teach firearms skills and safety. Tier 1 units, yes. The others, not so much.

I agree with the spirit of your statement, but there are plenty of non-Tier 1 units like vanilla Army SF that have this capability. Not trying to snipe you, just feel like that's a significant distinction. Vanilla SEAL, SF, MARSOC, et al are not Tier 1.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I agree with the spirit of your statement, but there are plenty of non-Tier 1 units like vanilla Army SF that have this capability. Not trying to snipe you, just feel like that's a significant distinction. Vanilla SEAL, SF, MARSOC, et al are not Tier 1.

I should've clarified that. Those folks are good to go.

[BehindBlueI's]

There's no hardware solution. You can minimize casualties, maybe, although look how quick the Ohio shooter was taken down and still managed some decent damage. Particularly if the attacker assumes it's a suicide mission, the notion that more armed people are going to make them rethink it is foolish.

To prevent mass murder, you'll have to reboot society. You can't, of course. Too many people at all levels invested in it the way it is.

1) We make them famous and glorify them in the media. The media makes money, the masses enjoy gory entertainment and/or revenge/white knight fantasies.
2) We reward them with attention for their fucked up agendas. See #1. We take loser nobodies into someone we all need to care about.
3) Politicians, the media, social media, etc. thrives on this Balkanization of the US. Anyone who disagrees with me on "X" is an enemy of the nation/"my people"/etc. They are "them", not "us", and are barely human. Someone on the edge anyway sees that as society's green light authorizing them to go kill "them".
4) Purposeless people will look to find a purpose. There are fewer and fewer real relationships in modern life. People are more mobile and transient, largely due to the nature of the economy. We have fewer real connections and very few long term connections. That disconnect, especially for someone already a social outsider, makes #1 and #2 all that much more attractive.

I find it odd that folks who argue that mass murderers will find a way to kill even if guns are outlawed don't think they are also clever enough to adapt to an armed populace. IED or VBEIDS, vehicle assaults, arson of occupied structures, etc. Shit, anyone remember "killdozer"? If every swinging dick walked around with a carbine, we'll see more dickweeds with pressure cooker claymores and fuel truck bombs. It's not a hardware access issue. It's a society issue. I don't see it getting better, either. Too many people enjoy the divide.

[UniSol]

I should've clarified that. Those folks are good to go.

Forgive me for the "Well ACTUALLY..." tone of the post, if it came off that way.

[Robinson]

1) We make them famous and glorify them in the media. The media makes money, the masses enjoy gory entertainment and/or revenge/white knight fantasies.
2) We reward them with attention for their fucked up agendas. See #1. We take loser nobodies into someone we all need to care about.


The above points are the things that piss me off and exactly why these things keep being repeated IMO.

[the Schwartz]

"How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

Since we live in a (reasonably) "free society" where, by definition, nothing, not even our collective safety can be guaranteed, I would suggest that it is not possible to end mass shootings except through Draconian means (e.g. suspension of 4th amendment protections and door-to-door gun confiscations with summary executions for those unwilling to comply). Human behavior, both normal and abnormal, is incredibly complex and difficult to predict. While I am sure that there are efforts to do so they will be far from perfect in their predictions and predictive errors (misses, false positives, false negatives) will inevitably result, leading to the unintentional violation of constitutional rights as well as failing to predict future incidents.

Unless we are willing to give up a significant portion of our freedoms and live with those sacrifices knowing full well that they will never entirely prevent these tragedies, I do not know that there is a way to prevent these horrific events.

This-


An armed society is a polite society.

- is probably the best that we can do.

[RoyGBiv]

...... clever enough to adapt to an armed populace. IED or VBEIDS, vehicle assaults, arson of occupied structures, etc. Shit, anyone remember "killdozer"? If every swinging dick walked around with a carbine, we'll see more dickweeds with pressure cooker claymores and fuel truck bombs. It's not a hardware access issue. It's a society issue. I don't see it getting better, either. Too many people enjoy the divide.

Of course, but, the (tiny) upside to that might be some pressure taken off "gun control". Then we might be able to have a conversation about real fixes (if they exist), instead of pointing to shiny black objects and "doing something" about them that won't fix anything except help bring about Socialism faster, which is probably the real goal anyway.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I hate to be a wet blanket but one has to be analytical.

1. I'm not sure his gun free zone analysis is correct. I'm not going to look it up now but I recall other figures. There are certainly enough shootings in gun allowing situations. The Karl Rehn study indicates that the lack of carry and training is probably more significant.

2.May issue - most of the country is shall issue. If you look at a map of mass shootings (note this has definitional problems, confounded with urban crime), there are many, many in shall issue areas. NY with its tough may issue - not that many at all.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1KlYjylg9_0PxX3FLRkuwnSylgmdz5eRG&ll=37.0712843596675%2C-97.27514690000004&z=5

So may issue is not a significant factor. Of course, may issue laws are clearly unconstitutional but SCOTUS won't touch that.

3. Teaching tactics and fighting in HS? Ok, do we propose that every urban school in a high crime area teach that? They will demand the same access. Is that a good idea? Who pays for this? School funding is really teetering on the brink. To do this for significant numbers of schools would be expensive. Of course, we could get rid of the sports emphasis that wastes money in the colleges. Sounds good with surface validity but useless in reality. So after training, affluent kids can afford a nice gun. We demand that poorer kids get Federally supported firearms.

4. Cut down the PR - criminologist and psychologists have said this for years. Fat chance that media will give up the bleeding edge newsreport or social media can be controlled.

5. Rewards for taking out active shooters. Well, let's be a tactical timmy, and go to WalMart after this passes. Seriously, I don't think this has motivational power to make folks engage in gun fights with rampagers. The reasons to avoid are much stronger than simple money for most. You might kick off unstable folks to be over-reactive.

6. Reciprocity - Hell, yes. Tell it to the cowards of the GOP who folded on that as soon as they could.

[Borderland]

If every swinging dick walked around with a carbine, we'll see more dickweeds with pressure cooker claymores and fuel truck bombs. It's not a hardware access issue. It's a society issue. I don't see it getting better, either. Too many people enjoy the divide.

I wouldn't care to see everyone walking around with a carbine anyway. How is your average patrol officer going to ID someone bent on shooting up a crowd at a fair or a neighborhood soccer game?

I'm sure someone will say that's just plain AG and against someone's RKBA but I'm looking at it from LEO's perspective. No, I don't think LE can solve all of the problems but their job is becoming harder everyday just trying to make it home for dinner.

Excellent post.

[archangel]

I hate to be a wet blanket but one has to be analytical.

1. I'm not sure his gun free zone analysis is correct. I'm not going to look it up now but I recall other figures. There are certainly enough shootings in gun allowing situations. The Karl Rehn study indicates that the lack of carry and training is probably more significant.

The numbers do vary depending who you ask, but the latest from the CPRC (who I trust more than, say, Everytown) says 94%.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

To get that number, Lott excludes shootings that are related to gangs, drugs, domestic issues, robberies, etc (ie, not the typical "just going to try to kill as many people as I can" spree shootings.) It all depends on what you consider a "mass shooting."

[Jay Cunningham]

Isn't it typically a good idea to identify a problem first before coming up with solutions? I mean the real root cause.

"How do we end mass shootings?" isn't the same question as "Why are mass shooting occurring?"

[Poconnor]

Anti gunners already think they answered the “why”. They think it’s because of guns. No guns- no shootings. Maybe the better question is do you really want to stop this? Let’s use common sense, the police can’t stop the import or sale of illicit drugs. The police can’t stop these shootings. We need more sheep dogs. Mandate armed security at large gatherings.

[GardoneVT]

Ending mass shootings is impossible. Further- and I admit at the beginning this is a macabre and unhappy topic- if someone is disposed to attempt killing a lot of people at once we are better off with them using guns.

Victims attacked with a firearm have a much higher recovery probability versus alternatives, such as bombs or cars/trucks. Firearms also permit rapid response of the situation by armed citizens or LEO; an off duty LEO or civilian can’t do jack against an explosive attack.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Forgive me for the "Well ACTUALLY..." tone of the post, if it came off that way.

No worries, brother!

[Bergeron]

As “gun people”, the topic of this thread is something that seems like a challenge that we frequently have tossed at us.

My current response is that mass shootings are prevented by the same way that our military plans to prevent missile attacks. That is, “break the chain” “left of launch”. An attack is, in my mind, best prevented before a person shows up in a crowded area intending to do harm.

I try to back to FBI guidance and data in these conversations, because it seems to generally be accepted as unbiased. So:

Don’t say the perp’s name, don’t show their picture, don’t mention their political affiliations or beliefs. Don’t say if they have a manifesto, don’t describe their life. They should become smaller, more inconsequential, and more obscure after the event than before. This can be done while focusing on the victims and communities.

I think that this approach gives an opportunity to beat on most forms of media for making the problem worse.

Is there a consistent message on addressing mass shooting from a pro-gun position that has been shown to be most effective with general audiences?

[the Schwartz]

"How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

Since we live in a (reasonably) "free society" where, by definition, nothing, not even our collective safety can be guaranteed, I would suggest that it is not possible to end mass shootings except through Draconian means (e.g. suspension of 4th amendment protections and door-to-door gun confiscations with summary executions for those unwilling to comply). Human behavior, both normal and abnormal, is incredibly complex and difficult to predict. While I am sure that there are efforts to do so they will be far from perfect in their predictions and predictive errors (misses, false positives, false negatives) will inevitably result, leading to the unintentional violation of constitutional rights as well as failing to predict future incidents.

Unless we are willing to give up a significant portion of our freedoms and live with those sacrifices knowing full well that they will never entirely prevent these tragedies, I do not know that there is a way to prevent these horrific events.

This-

Originally Posted by RoyGBiv:
An armed society is a polite society.

- is probably the best that we can do.

And as if right on cue:

O’Rourke Announces Support for Federal Confiscation of Assault-Style Weapons
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/beto-orourke-announces-support-for-federal-confiscation-of-assault-style-weapons/

It will be interesting to see how the other 20+ Dem candidates in the field rush to "out-Left" him (not that he is really a serious contender for the nomination) in the next few days.

[Darth_Uno]

Anti gunners already think they answered the “why”. They think it’s because of guns. No guns- no shootings.

They're not strictly wrong - if you could Thanos snap all the guns away, you'd immediately end all gun violence.

Problem is, as you pointed out, there's more effective and even easier ways to rack up the numbers if that's all you wanted to do.

[Inspector71]

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was some discussion concerning the creation of a national retired LE reserve force. Kinda of patterned after the military’s reserve components. I think FLEOA supported it at the time. The idea seems to have fizzled out. But, personally as a retiree now myself, I would donate some free protection duty to nearby schools if a well designed program were in place.

[the Schwartz]

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was some discussion concerning the creation of a national retired LE reserve force. Kinda of patterned after the military’s reserve components. I think FLEOA supported it at the time. The idea seems to have fizzled out. But, personally as a retiree now myself, I would donate some free protection duty to nearby schools if a well designed program were in place.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but is that not what motivated (at least partially) LEOSA 2004?

[JohnO]

If it were possible to completely end mass shootings wouldn't some other method of killing people in mass quantities be utilized? Be careful of what you wish for for you may not be pleased with the new circumstances.

[GardoneVT]

As “gun people”, the topic of this thread is something that seems like a challenge that we frequently have tossed at us.

My current response is that mass shootings are prevented by the same way that our military plans to prevent missile attacks. That is, “break the chain” “left of launch”. An attack is, in my mind, best prevented before a person shows up in a crowded area intending to do harm.

I try to back to FBI guidance and data in these conversations, because it seems to generally be accepted as unbiased. So:

Don’t say the perp’s name, don’t show their picture, don’t mention their political affiliations or beliefs. Don’t say if they have a manifesto, don’t describe their life. They should become smaller, more inconsequential, and more obscure after the event than before. This can be done while focusing on the victims and communities.

I think that this approach gives an opportunity to beat on most forms of media for making the problem worse.

Is there a consistent message on addressing mass shooting from a pro-gun position that has been shown to be most effective with general audiences?

Blacklisting the perp will never happen. Media channels make too much $ with the status quo. “If it Bleeds, It Leads”.

Insofar as a pro gun advocacy position goes, that’s logistically unworkable. Any incident addressed by armed intervention (whether by LE or a private citizen) is by nature averted. So you can’t objectively claim a pro gun policy saved lives. Making the relevant point mass shootings are a human nature problem which can’t be solved by laws alone won’t work either. They’ll just argue taking away the guns just makes sense...followed by the knives, pencils, all the way until you need ID to buy a lighter.

The way to fix this unfortunately requires nonexistent technology; a time machine, followed by basic education about guns at the grade school level and up. Then ordinary people would know what we do; that there are more effective ways to commit mass murder then with firearms, and the subjects who seek to kill en masse won’t be deterred by a law.

[Pistol Pete 10]

You shoot the shooter is how you end mass shootings. Oh, you could pass a law against guns, it has worked in stopping DWI,
drug abuse, Prostitution, Child Abuse, Extortion, etc. You see see where I'm going with this????

[the Schwartz]

You shoot the shooter is how you end mass shootings. Oh, you could pass a law against guns, it has worked in stopping DWI,
drug abuse, Prostitution, Child Abuse, Extortion, etc. You see see where I'm going with this????

Yep.

Laws only describe prohibited acts; they prevent nothing.

Enforcement can only occur during or after violation of a law; not prior to (via confiscation of firearms) as the Left insists.

[Nephrology]

w/r/t AWBs, I always gently remind the person that I am talking to that Columbine happened under the 94 AWB, and was perpetrated with compliant weapons.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IIRC, the most successful technique is having someone turn the potential shooter in when they show signs of isolation , threats , weapon stock piling. I think more than 50 have been stopped in one study.

[OMWAG]

If the Bible is correct when Caine killed Abel he destroyed 25% of the world population. Now that is mass murder.
There have been about 250 people killed in so called mass shootings in 2019. There have been about 280 people killed in Chicago in 2019. You wnt to get rid of mass murder? stop using the term. Dead is dead whether you are killed alone or with a group. You want to stop murder? Good luck. I want to stop possibly being murdered. My guiding principle in that quest is simple: I would rather go on trial for killing someone than have someone go on trial for killing me. I carry a gun.

[Cookie Monster]

No one has mentioned the crazy picture of the author? Dude looks like a lunatic. Elective CQB training in high school? Please say we as men proficient in guns and war have more capable advocates.

[willie]

Schools will not teach gun safety or anything else about shooting to include self defense. Mass shooting will continue.

We need to develop answers to questions like this: if AR15's and high capacity magazines are repeatedly being used in mass shootings with tragic results, how do you justify allowing future sales of either? A second exercise for us is justifying 30 shot magazines. Explain why a 10 shot magazine would not suffice in either rifle or handgun. I have the guns and the mags. I'm not trolling.


A non shooter will not accept our reasoning.

Some shooters will not accept our reasoning.

[Tabasco]

Schools will not teach gun safety or anything else about shooting to include self defense. Mass shooting will continue.

We need to develop answers to questions like this: if AR15's and high capacity magazines are repeatedly being used in mass shootings with tragic results, how do you justify allowing future sales of either? A second exercise for us is justifying 30 shot magazines. Explain why a 10 shot magazine would not suffice in either rifle or handgun. I have the guns and the mags. I'm not trolling.


A non shooter will not accept our reasoning.

Some shooters will not accept our reasoning.

AR-15's have been available to the public since 1964. No background check needed. Why now?

[willie]

Unless I'm wrong, dealers are required to submit buyers' names to undergo background checks--for any firearm that is not black powder or not made before a pre 1900 date. Exceptions exist when buyers hold carry licenses in states with certain eligibility requirements.

My post does not address what should or should not be done. It points out that we need to develop answers for questions that will be asked. About requiring universal background checks. This requirement is the least that we should fear. We are very near the point of being subjected to New York, Mass, NJ, or Calif type gun laws.

Assault rifles including AR's may soon face severe restrictions. Ditto for so-called high capacity magazines. In my area I see 18 year old gang bangers buying AR's and 30 shot magazines. I see a steady stream of these folks buying such. All I will say is that they have no business with the guns or the magazines. I do not have a recommendation. I do not know how to correct this problem.

We need to prepare to discuss the gun problem in ways that allow us to defend our position. The gun problem refers to the vast number of criminals, crazies, and incompetents that are causing the shit that we see in the news--from negligent deaths to robberies to homicides. I think that consumerism fuels purchasers by some who are stupid and irresponsible. No fix for this. Then we have large numbers of criminals owning guns. There is a fix for this, but society is unwilling to take steps to fix it. We have described the rabid and rage filled nuts who are carrying out mass shootings. Politicians will use their actions to justify more gun control. We will lose certain freedoms. I would prefer to restrict sales between individuals and require that all sales proceed through dealers. Do I want this change? No. But I would accept it if I could continue to own and use my current mags.

We must develop a dialogue to use when defending our position. Our lobbyist must have a strategy

[Cypher]

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was some discussion concerning the creation of a national retired LE reserve force. Kinda of patterned after the military’s reserve components. I think FLEOA supported it at the time. The idea seems to have fizzled out. But, personally as a retiree now myself, I would donate some free protection duty to nearby schools if a well designed program were in place.

The Colorado STEM school shooting has pretty much faded into the background because the students didn't want to go along with the political narrative but there was an armed security guard on campus when the shooting started and he engaged the shooters.

The bodies weren't even cold yet before the media started to vilify him and question whether or not he'd shot one of the students and go looking for information that he'd apparently been fired from some police department in Colorado.

After the new life church shooting Jeanne Assam couldn't take a dump without the media commenting on it. When she came out they were there. When she had her spat with the church they were there. Every time she got fired from a police department they were there. They also dug up the fact that she'd been fired from the Minneapolis PD.

I would say that the last thing that the media wants or the Left.wants is an actual good guy with a gun to stop a shooting.

ETA: speaking of Jeanne Assam, she has made herself very clear several times that unless you are a POST certified law enforcement officer you are not qualified to deal with a mass shooting. I actually got to ask her specifically "Is this what you believe?" and she reiterated that only cops and her are qualified to deal with this. She doesn't care how many deployment you have under your belt. She doesn't care how many times you've been to Gun Site. She doesn't care if you're Sergeant Rock. If you're not a cop you are not qualified. And if you're not a cop you shouldn't be in public with a gun anyway.

[Paul Blackburn]

Easy solution-
1. Eliminate all welfare. People work or starve. Occupations keep people occupied and out of trouble.
2. Make prison a punishment again. Convicted felons have no rights. Maximum prison sentences are not to exceed 20 years. Any crime/criminal deserving of a harsher punishment than 20 years gets executed within a month. This will thin the population of criminals and democrats, plus serve as a deterrent. Win, win, win!
Problem(s) solved.

Will it happen? Of course not. Nothing that works will come from government and here's why;

Rules of Bureaucracy

Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one's political opponents.
Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, "The emperor has no clothes."

[TCinVA]

I don't propose any solution.

I don't propose any solution because there isn't a single problem that leads to someone becoming a malevolent narcissist and acting in a manner that will kill or maim others en masse. There are a number of contributing factors that require interventions that, generally speaking, government cannot actually achieve without creating a worse problem.

The will to evil and the desire to kill to make a statement to the world are not new. Media glorification of it is and to an extent I'm sure that plays a role in the decision to act that out...but I can't come up with laws that stop media coverage of those events that don't do unacceptable violence to free speech in general.

I don't have the answers to problems that have plagued humanity for generations.

Lacking the answers myself, I'm pretty sure nobody else has them either.

You cannot reliably prevent evil before it manifests without creating a system that is oppressive. Which, of course, is the goal of many of the people "demanding action".

There are very, very few problems in this world that have answers that can be shouted through megaphones.

[OlongJohnson]

^^^What he said.


I would say that the last thing that the media wants or the Left.wants is an actual good guy with a gun to stop a shooting.

It's not about the guns or the crime. It's about the control.

The objective of gun control is to stamp out the culture that believes there are things the government simply can't do for you, and for which the individual must take responsibility. Guns are a totem to both sides because no other object so perfectly crystallizes that reality, and exposure to the crystallizing focus can change minds. All freedom can be sacrificed, and the government still won't be able to do these things. The Left cannot succeed as long as there are people who understand that.

[Jay Cunningham]

AR-15's have been available to the public since 1964. No background check needed. Why now?


Indeed.

[Suvorov]

AR-15's have been available to the public since 1964. No background check needed. Why now?

This is a question that really needs to be asked and answered before anything else.

[Robinson]

I still think that if the public media would stop sensationalizing the acts these assholes commit it would reduce the frequency of mass shootings by removing a primary motivating factor.

If the news reports were more like this:

"xxx people were killed today in a senseless act of violence in the town of xxx"
"the shooter was killed by police/armed citizens/suicide"
"the name of the killer will not be reported by this network"
"now for our next story..."

Then there would be no hope for the narcissistic losers to have their moment of fame.

I'm not arguing against freedom of the press, this would have to be voluntary. And it will never happen.

[RevolverRob]

I don't propose any solution.

I don't propose any solution because there isn't a single problem that leads to someone becoming a malevolent narcissist and acting in a manner that will kill or maim others en masse. There are a number of contributing factors that require interventions that, generally speaking, government cannot actually achieve without creating a worse problem.

The will to evil and the desire to kill to make a statement to the world are not new. Media glorification of it is and to an extent I'm sure that plays a role in the decision to act that out...but I can't come up with laws that stop media coverage of those events that don't do unacceptable violence to free speech in general.

I don't have the answers to problems that have plagued humanity for generations.

Lacking the answers myself, I'm pretty sure nobody else has them either.

You cannot reliably prevent evil before it manifests without creating a system that is oppressive. Which, of course, is the goal of many of the people "demanding action".

There are very, very few problems in this world that have answers that can be shouted through megaphones.

This is the answer. There is no answer.

Dr. William Aprill (whom I'm sure many of you know and/or follow) has some great insights into the minds of individuals who commit what are otherwise "senseless" acts of violence. One recently was this post: https://www.instagram.com/p/B05gs38ADc8/ - a large excerpt from Dr. Aprill's post:


Few criminal acts could appear as inexplicably, as much like a bolt of lightning from a cloudless sky, as a teenager suddenly and publicly hurling an unrelated 6-year old boy from a 10-story building. However, it is incorrect in most such cases to think of such an act as spontaneous or “impulsive.” Many offenders, notably youthful ones, will acknowledge having had homicidal urges from their earliest memories. Simply put, they have always known they would kill someone, and one day the urge is realized. Rather than sudden impulses, it is more correct to think of killings such as the one attempted in this case as a breakdown of the inhibitory processes that merely kept the offender from killing until this point. The homicidal ideation may be fairly constant, but it is not expressed in action until the offender’s cognitive control slips, fails, or simply runs out.

I asked Dr. Aprill in this post - "What, if any, solutions are there to rehabilitating or helping individuals with such ideations?"

His response was telling and centered in reality - "Ahhh...the $64B Question. The answers are not encouraging, by and large. The drive now is to identify “callous, unemotional” traits in children as early as possible and begin intensive treatment regimens designed to develop empathy, or at least “cognitive empathy.” So far, nothing terribly hopeful us emerged, I’m sad to say."

____

I take that to mean, that some rehabilitation and cognitive treatments can be effective. BUT we by and large have no solution for the individuals who have homicidal urges. Which means no law, no amount of tool access prevention, indeed, perhaps not even early mental health intervention can solve this problem.

____

If people wanted to "solve" the problems of mass killings, they'd do a few things. First, they would spend money training quality mental health professionals and providing easy, stigma-free, access to mental health care. Second, they would invest in mass sterilization efforts for the individuals that produce the highest number of offenders in our society. Third, we would stop talking about murderers, saying their names, etc.

But we'll never do any of those things. In fact, the current proposed construction of "Red Flag Laws" will further stigmatize mental health care. Rather than seek treatment, gun owners will instead choose not to, for fear that they will become victims of a system that is clearly designed to punish gun owners for any 'non-traditional' transgression.

We'll never enforce sterilization efforts, because it would be profiling on a class and racial level.

And we'll never stop talking about murderers, because we need something to feed a 24-hour news cycle.

___

Next time someone tells you that owning a gun is a "mental disease" (things I've heard before). Ask that person if they think being homosexual, bisexual, or trans is a mental disease. Do they think owning a car or a house is a "mental disease"? How about voting?

Right now the rhetoric is in favor of red flag laws because it's doing "something". Very few people ever ask the fucking question, "Is doing "something" actually better than doing nothing?"

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Easy solution-
1. Eliminate all welfare. People work or starve. Occupations keep people occupied and out of trouble.
2. Make prison a punishment again. Convicted felons have no rights. Maximum prison sentences are not to exceed 20 years. Any crime/criminal deserving of a harsher punishment than 20 years gets executed within a month. This will thin the population of criminals and democrats, plus serve as a deterrent. Win, win, win!
Problem(s) solved.

Doesn't touch the motivation of the vast majority of rampage shooters.

Article on the PR issue: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-11/mass-shooters-seek-notoriety-in-media

About access to ARs - the RKBA world does not have a coherent message on why ordinary folks owning such is a benefit that balances out the risk of crazies and criminals having them. Over them, a drumbeat of continuing rampages and criminal uses will lead to bans. Now, some will say this is because 'they' want to 'control' us and couch the debate in the left/right political debate. However, the average person just doesn't want to get shot in church, synagogue, mosque, Sikh temple, school, college, mall, restaurant, entertainment event, etc. They would regard the 'control', 'socialist wave' PR as ridiculous. They would probably feel the same way as advocating more goobers in COS play gear wandering around in the public. Nor does the average person want to carry and be a warrior. Even gun folks don't train seriously as Karl Rehn has researched.

So, a counter message is a difficult one. Even in supposed gun culture areas, the sporting crowd doesn't see the need for the Modern Sporting Rifle. It's a problem and one issue is the theory of mind. That is the ability to understand other's cognitions. The RKBA community lacks that at time and responds with rants.

[Bergeron]

Exactly, Robinson! I’m not arguing against freedom if press, at all (I like all my rights), but the “bleeds-leads” tautology could be accommodated by talking about, and emphasizing the victims and the communities while staying off the topic of the perpetrators. If government had a brain and inclination, it could publicly criticize bad actors in media who publicize the perps. I wouldn’t think many news organizations would want to be seen and recognized as increasing the occurrence of mass death, but it needs to be publicly explained to various media content producers how specific focuses on perpetrators increases the magnitude of the problem, using FBI guidance and data.

[Crow Hunter]

I was thinking about this the other day while mowing the yard.

How about some of these?

1. Add “military style semi-autos” to the NFA list and in return repeal the Hughes Amendment (most of the public already believes EBR are full auto, let’s make it so) with a market price "buyback" available for anyone that doesn't want to move their weapon onto the NFA list.

2. Magazines over 35 rounds become classified as Destructive Devices and in return suppressors, SBR and SBS are removed from the NFA and are transferred via form 4773

3. Universal background checks implemented on all firearm sales (other than friends/family) without included firearm details and in return $200 NFA tax stamp is repealed


Personally, I would be fine with any or all of these items and they would be actual COMPROMISE and a WIN/WIN versus a WIN/LOSS.

#1 Would allow true enthusiasts to have the weapon they really want while reducing the numbers "in the wild" and in the hands of average Joe people or lunatics due to the increased back ground check requirements/registration issues while still allowing people to own/shoot them.

#2 Would cover most "common" use magazine while reducing the number of magazines that are really not designed for personal weapons as much as crew served weapons although they would still be available for civilians who really wanted them to own and eliminating the silly and arbitrary barrel length laws and more importantly releasing real safety equipment for civilians to easily purchase.

#3 Would allow for background checks that "everyone" seems to want and it would lower the cost of entry for items #1 and #2.

What do you guys/gals think?

[OlongJohnson]

The NFA world is the only place in the firearms industry where I have personally witnessed truly unethical, dishonest business practices. There are at least two reasons:

First is that the regulation scheme creates "deal lock," where once the sale is started, there is no backing out of that exact deal on that serialized item, so the dealer has the customer by the balls. Even if the customer finds out that the dealer lied about something, they would have substantial losses trying to recover what they'd initially be out if they back out of the deal.

Second is that, due to the heightened focus, most customers are somewhat loath to discuss the details of a sour deal in a public forum, so dealers can get away with consistent behavior that would make them an industry-wide pariah if they were trying to slang Glocks with the same practices.

So, based on my personal experience, adding anything else to the NFA appears to be a recipe for ill health in the firearms industry.

[Suvorov]

What do you guys/gals think?

The Antis will NEVER compromise. It’s always amusing to me to listen to these “what if we give up this and get that” kind of ideas made up my well meaning gun owners. It doesn’t work that way. One of the biggest lessons learned from my 20 year internment in Kalifornia is that the Left and their AntiGun ilk will NEVER be satiated and by extension never commit to any legitimate compromise. They want the whole pie and the only reason they are pushing these buy back plans is because they feel they have the political inertia to get it done. After than they WILL be coming for our beloved pistols.

You might as well ask them for a buy back in exchange for the ability to own 40watt plasma guns or light sabers.

[WobblyPossum]

I was thinking about this the other day while mowing the yard.

How about some of these?

1. Add “military style semi-autos” to the NFA list and in return repeal the Hughes Amendment (most of the public already believes EBR are full auto, let’s make it so) with a market price "buyback" available for anyone that doesn't want to move their weapon onto the NFA list.

2. Magazines over 35 rounds become classified as Destructive Devices and in return suppressors, SBR and SBS are removed from the NFA and are transferred via form 4773

3. Universal background checks implemented on all firearm sales (other than friends/family) without included firearm details and in return $200 NFA tax stamp is repealed


Personally, I would be fine with any or all of these items and they would be actual COMPROMISE and a WIN/WIN versus a WIN/LOSS.

#1 Would allow true enthusiasts to have the weapon they really want while reducing the numbers "in the wild" and in the hands of average Joe people or lunatics due to the increased back ground check requirements/registration issues while still allowing people to own/shoot them.

#2 Would cover most "common" use magazine while reducing the number of magazines that are really not designed for personal weapons as much as crew served weapons although they would still be available for civilians who really wanted them to own and eliminating the silly and arbitrary barrel length laws and more importantly releasing real safety equipment for civilians to easily purchase.

#3 Would allow for background checks that "everyone" seems to want and it would lower the cost of entry for items #1 and #2.

What do you guys/gals think?

1. What’s a “military style semi-auto?” Does that just mean semi-auto firearms that look like full auto firearms? Does that mean all semi-auto firearms? There are several US military units and numerous foreign militaries issuing Glock handguns. Are Glocks “military style semi-autos?” Is a semi-auto shotgun?Are we going to vote on which firearms are included or are we going to let the legislators decide?

2. I’d actually be totally cool with this one. I’d bet most gun folks would happily turn in their SureFire 60 rounders and Magpul drums in exchange for being able to buy SBRs and suppressors without having to hop through the NFA hoops. I know I would. This is a compromise I’d happily get behind.

3. Will universal background checks come with a registry of firearms owners? I’ve heard great ideas for how to implement UBC checks without the government having a list of guns or gun owners but I doubt that’s how UBCs will actually be implemented.

[Bart Carter]

I feel the NFA list and tax is a means to keep poor people from their 2nd amendment rights. You can expand that to any scheme that costs people money to have guns or ammo except for normal sales tax.

[RevolverRob]

What you're going to get is -

ALL assault "weapons" will either be banned or the "compromise" all will be NFA items. Assault weapon will be as broadly defined as possible to include virtually every semi-automatic weapon that isn't rimfire or a handgun and holds more than 5 rounds or can hold more than five rounds. That can't currently include handguns, because subsequent post-Heller rulings have made it clear a handgun ban is by and large unconstitutional.

After about 30-years, because assault weapons will be greatly reduced in sales and use, because each one requires NFA approval, they will ban them. They'll be able to do that, because "common use" will no longer be common. Since magazine bans are still good-to-go they will eventually squeeze out higher capacity semi-auto handguns and force them onto the NFA list and rinse and repeat.

They won't be "infringing" on your rights, because every citizen can purchase NFA items (in theory...we'll see how it shakes out at the state level) and since technically nothing is banned, it will hold up to judicial scrutiny. You pay taxes all the time...what's another tax?

"Hunting" long arms (read: bolt, lever, pump, and break action guns) and semi-autos with tubular or box magazines that cannot hold more than 10 rounds will continue to be freely available. Revolvers and semi-automatics with 10-round of less magazines will continue to be freely available. Until these latest two waves of control get through.

If the national gun control people were smart, this is precisely what they would do. A "ban" is the kind of thing loses elections. An "expansion of regulatory powers of the NFA" is precisely something Congress is allowed to do.

By the way this idea isn't new - it's precisely what Connecticut has done post-New Haven, albeit with a state-level system. The end result has been a ten-fold decrease in AR15 sales and transfers. You can still buy them in Conn. But you have to jump through the hoops and many are unwilling to.

Look at the level of confusion regarding NFA items already. I'd wager less than 5% of all gun owners in the U.S. own an NFA item or understand how to purchase one. Hell, I've been a gun owner for multiple decades and I don't own any NFA items. Due primarily to the legal hoops and spotty state-level laws surrounding them. It's not worth the hassle. Make people jump through hoops, some will, most won't.

[willie]

Who will our lobbyists be? Will their effort be fragmented? How will a weakened NRA perform? In the past fear of voter reprisal influenced outcomes. We can expect organized grassroots movement against our position. We will see celebrities young and old proposing restriction. We can expect messages from the young pleading for congressional action to provide safety. All of a sudden a "not cool" image will be paired with guns. Airheads will become authorities. Ellen, Whoopi, Rosie, and Oprah will enlist women to the anti gun crusade. They will appeal to mothers and grandmothers to protect children. The curious can dig up and examine corporate and institutional contributors to Hillary's campaign. They might do the same for Trump's campaign. Both lists will have powerful and wealthy groups who will step forward to participate in this roll against guns. I think that the other side will out spend us, out strategize us, and at the same time take advantage of fears real or imagined about threat of mass shootings.

[OlongJohnson]

What you're going to get is -

ALL assault "weapons" will either be banned or the "compromise" all will be NFA items. Assault weapon will be as broadly defined as possible to include virtually every semi-automatic weapon that isn't rimfire or a handgun and holds more than 5 rounds or can hold more than five rounds. That can't currently include handguns, because subsequent post-Heller rulings have made it clear a handgun ban is by and large unconstitutional.

Washington state has already created a law that defines rimfire semi-auto long guns (Ruger 10/22s) as assault weapons.

CA has a rimfire exemption to the "ugly features" assault weapon definition for long guns, but not for handguns. They have an exemption list for handguns that are suitable for use in the Olympics, but a Browning Silhouette that is specifically designed for knocking over steel chickens and goats at long distance with .22LR is not eligible and therefore an assault weapon (unless you remove one screw and run it without the forend, then it's perfectly safe).

It was California's laws that first clued me into the fact that it's not about the guns or the harm they can do.


"Hunting" long arms (read: bolt, lever, pump, and break action guns) and semi-autos with tubular or box magazines that cannot hold more than 10 rounds will continue to be freely available. Revolvers and semi-automatics with 10-round of less magazines will continue to be freely available. Until these latest two waves of control get through.

Bolt guns will get defined as sniper rifles somewhere in there. I'm not sure, but I think Australia's ban may have included lever-action rifles. I'm pretty sure they're subject to a higher level of regulation in some more "advanced" countries.


If the national gun control people were smart, this is precisely what they would do. A "ban" is the kind of thing loses elections. An "expansion of regulatory powers of the NFA" is precisely something Congress is allowed to do.

They will also apply inflation adjustment to the original NFA tax amount.

[the Schwartz]

This is perhaps the most concise summation of the anti's tactics that I have ever seen.


Look at the level of confusion regarding NFA items already. I'd wager less than 5% of all gun owners in the U.S. own an NFA item or understand how to purchase one. Hell, I've been a gun owner for multiple decades and I don't own any NFA items. Due primarily to the legal hoops and spotty state-level laws surrounding them. It's not worth the hassle. Make people jump through hoops, some will, most won't.

Every new law passed is really just another incremental reduction of the 2A that will lead eventually to an "indirect ban". If there is confusion in the interpretation of these laws, it goes to the favor of anti-2A's because pro-2A citizens and rights groups ultimately bear the cost of litigating for clarity (e.g.; Cuomo's efforts to drive the NRA to bankruptcy via litigation in New York state).

[the Schwartz]

Who will our lobbyists be? Will their effort be fragmented? How will a weakened NRA perform? In the past fear of voter reprisal influenced outcomes. We can expect organized grassroots movement against our position. We will see celebrities young and old proposing restriction. We can expect messages from the young pleading for congressional action to provide safety. All of a sudden a "not cool" image will be paired with guns. Airheads will become authorities. Ellen, Whoopi, Rosie, and Oprah will enlist women to the anti gun crusade. They will appeal to mothers and grandmothers to protect children. The curious can dig up and examine corporate and institutional contributors to Hillary's campaign. They might do the same for Trump's campaign. Both lists will have powerful and wealthy groups who will step forward to participate in this roll against guns. I think that the other side will out spend us, out strategize us, and at the same time take advantage of fears real or imagined about threat of mass shootings.

Unfortunately, this is already occurring on all fronts described above.

[the Schwartz]

The Antis will NEVER compromise. It’s always amusing to me to listen to these “what if we give up this and get that” kind of ideas made up my well meaning gun owners. It doesn’t work that way. One of the biggest lessons learned from my 20 year internment in Kalifornia is that the Left and their AntiGun ilk will NEVER be satiated and by extension never commit to any legitimate compromise. They want the whole pie and the only reason they are pushing these buy back plans is because they feel they have the political inertia to get it done. After than they WILL be coming for our beloved pistols.

You might as well ask them for a buy back in exchange for the ability to own 40watt plasma guns or light sabers.

Your post reminds of the quote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ―Benjamin Franklin

[RevolverRob]

Washington state has already created a law that defines rimfire semi-auto long guns (Ruger 10/22s) as assault weapons.

CA has a rimfire exemption to the "ugly features" assault weapon definition for long guns, but not for handguns. They have an exemption list for handguns that are suitable for use in the Olympics, but a Browning Silhouette that is specifically designed for knocking over steel chickens and goats at long distance with .22LR is not eligible and therefore an assault weapon (unless you remove one screw and run it without the forend, then it's perfectly safe).

It was California's laws that first clued me into the fact that it's not about the guns or the harm they can do.

Rimfire will get a pass, because it's a place where legislation can come swiftly and to the forefront. Because we're discussing Federal vs. State level - the Fed will have to be more careful to not write things in that will get their proposed acts overturned immediately. Rimfire definitely would be challenged.




Bolt guns will get defined as sniper rifles somewhere in there. I'm not sure, but I think Australia's ban may have included lever-action rifles. I'm pretty sure they're subject to a higher level of regulation in some more "advanced" countries.

Australia initially took the 3rd World approach and banned repeating arms in certain calibers. There is still a fairly sizeable market for lever action arms in Australia, because of lower amounts of regulation. Pump shotguns, for instance, are more regulated than lever action shotguns.

The sniper rifle thing will be tough, because bolt guns with scopes are commonly used hunting apparatus. Sure, eventually down the line, it will get there, but that'll be about the time you and I shuffle off this mortal coil. Meanwhile, AR15s will be NFA restricted before my youngest nephew is old enough to buy one.




They will also apply inflation adjustment to the original NFA tax amount.

I've wondered if they can do that. There maybe something in the language of the GCA or FOPA that prevents them from doing so. They have to be careful though, taxation that represents a "burden" can also be deemed unconstitutional.

[Crow Hunter]

1. What’s a “military style semi-auto?” Does that just mean semi-auto firearms that look like full auto firearms? Does that mean all semi-auto firearms? There are several US military units and numerous foreign militaries issuing Glock handguns. Are Glocks “military style semi-autos?” Is a semi-auto shotgun?Are we going to vote on which firearms are included or are we going to let the legislators decide?

2. I’d actually be totally cool with this one. I’d bet most gun folks would happily turn in their SureFire 60 rounders and Magpul drums in exchange for being able to buy SBRs and suppressors without having to hop through the NFA hoops. I know I would. This is a compromise I’d happily get behind.

3. Will universal background checks come with a registry of firearms owners? I’ve heard great ideas for how to implement UBC checks without the government having a list of guns or gun owners but I doubt that’s how UBCs will actually be implemented.

"Military style semi-auto" would have to be actually defined by design. Preferably written by someone who actually understands firearms design. But my thought would be any rifle that was an actual real auto assault weapon by design and not including typical semiauto designed rifles.

I originally wrote "assault weapon" but that "definition" is way too broad and I am fairly certain that when the public sees "assault weapon" they aren't thinking of an M-1 Carbine or Ruger 10-22 or a Beretta A-400 shotgun, even though by some people's "definition" those are all "assault weapons". What they are really thinking of are evil black scary rifles with banana clip magazines and shoulder things that go up.

That is what the typical non-gun owning public is afraid of. They aren't afraid of wood stocked Mini-14s or hunting shotguns or M-1 Garands. They are afraid of guns that look like what the military uses and they think they all fire full auto. Or "full semiauto"...

I think putting them on the NFA list AND allowing them to be actually full auto is a much more workable solution than banning them and significantly more likely to get actual participation without bloodshed than a forced confiscation or an "Australian style buyback".

The UBC would be by person only, no firearm identification at all. There really isn't any need to have the serial number, make or model of the firearm to determine if I am allowed to own a firearm or not. No registration.

[Guinnessman]

Many of the democratic presidential candidates favor an Australian Style Gun Buyback. There are plenty of articles out there to read on their plans.

An Australian Style buyback will only increase the number of guns on the black market in this country. I think it will be an absolute nightmare, and criminals will take full advantage of the situation. Living in a banana republic will look good at that point.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-dems-split-on-gun-buyback-idea-in-wake-of-mass-shootings

[Old Man Winter]

This was recently posted in another thread and gives some insight on what guns they hate and what guns they'll tolerate for now.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296/text?r=21&s=1

[willie]

We write as men on death row discussing our execution scheduled for an indefinite date. Are we resigned to our fate? As a group I hope that gun owners can do something, can take some action that will retard progress of the other side.

[Sal Picante]

We write as men on death row discussing our execution scheduled for an indefinite date. Are we resigned to our fate? As a group I hope that gun owners can do something, can take some action that will retard progress of the other side.

Knowing the mindset/angle of attack from your ("our") opponent is good intelligence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfHJDLoGInM

[GardoneVT]

We write as men on death row discussing our execution scheduled for an indefinite date. Are we resigned to our fate? As a group I hope that gun owners can do something, can take some action that will retard progress of the other side.

It’s not my wish to offend, but I think the collective mindset around the problem needs adjustment.

See, we view this collectively like a war. Our side vs their “side” and we duke it out in court and in legislatures . They win some, we win some, and the fight goes on. I think that’s a misapplied construct, seeing as most of the “enemy” are conscientious , voting people who aren’t total fools and simply don’t have the education to realize when they’re being deceived by agendas .

A better way to view this is a sales job; we need to sell the national public on the idea of owning guns as a social benefit. Companies like Apple successfully convince large swaths of the public their products are a necessity- from coast to coast. We need to approach gun ownership with that mindset, not one of combativeness and entrenchment. We have to set aside ancient political totems and make owning a Wilson Combat 1911 just as cool socially as a gold Apple Watch.

Keanu Reeves did more to make guns “cool” to younger folks in two movies then the NRAs done basically ever. Court cases don’t change minds. Keanu Reeves burning it at Tarans ranch does.

[the Schwartz]

This was recently posted in another thread and gives some insight on what guns they hate and what guns they'll tolerate for now.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296/text?r=21&s=1

So, from my reading of the linked proposed legislation, they're floating a "re-vamp" of the "old" 1994 AWB with....

―an updated list of prohibited and permitted firearms and prohibited features
―large capacity ammunition feeding devices still being defined as having a capacity of greater than 10 rounds
―no "sunset" provision
―additional provisions for background checks
―a "buy back" program using tax-payer dollars
―and the usual "severability" boiler plate

I think that most of it flies in the face of Heller (I and II), but of course, what do the Dems care?

It's just more of the same; encroach incrementally (and in massive strides) and see what sticks to the wall after the court challenges...

[fixer]

A better way to view this is a sales job; we need to sell the national public on the idea of owning guns as a social benefit. Companies like Apple successfully convince large swaths of the public their products are a necessity- from coast to coast. We need to approach gun ownership with that mindset, not one of combativeness and entrenchment. We have to set aside ancient political totems and make owning a Wilson Combat 1911 just as cool socially as a gold Apple Watch.

Keanu Reeves did more to make guns “cool” to younger folks in two movies then the NRAs done basically ever. Court cases don’t change minds. Keanu Reeves burning it at Tarans ranch does.


No fucking shit...I don't agree with a lot of your posts...but this is spot-fucking-on.

[Jeep]

That is what the typical non-gun owning public is afraid of. They aren't afraid of wood stocked Mini-14s or hunting shotguns or M-1 Garands. They are afraid of guns that look like what the military uses and they think they all fire full auto. Or "full semiauto"...



I think that you will find that the "typical non-gun owning public" can't tell a rifle from a shotgun, much less a mini-14 from an AK. Most have no idea what military weapons look like since they have paid no attention to them.

I think you are correct on the confusion between full auto and semi-auto, but it probably goes deeper than you think. Most probably don't know that with a full auto you just depress the trigger once--indeed many have no idea what a "trigger" is.

The amount of ignorance about firearms out there is staggering, and of course the more ignorant people are about firearms the more they want to ban them.

However, for purposes of electoral politics, the good thing is that far fewer of them are passionate about the issue than people on our side. And it is precisely that passion that allows us to win the electoral victories that so scare the other side.

[Totem Polar]

We have to set aside ancient political totems and make owning a Wilson Combat 1911 just as cool socially as a gold Apple Watch...

Keanu Reeves did more to make guns “cool” to younger folks in two movies then the NRAs done basically ever...

I can dig it.

[Old Man Winter]

It’s not my wish to offend, but I think the collective mindset around the problem needs adjustment.

See, we view this collectively like a war. Our side vs their “side” and we duke it out in court and in legislatures . They win some, we win some, and the fight goes on. I think that’s a misapplied construct, seeing as most of the “enemy” are conscientious , voting people who aren’t total fools and simply don’t have the education to realize when they’re being deceived by agendas .

A better way to view this is a sales job; we need to sell the national public on the idea of owning guns as a social benefit. Companies like Apple successfully convince large swaths of the public their products are a necessity- from coast to coast. We need to approach gun ownership with that mindset, not one of combativeness and entrenchment. We have to set aside ancient political totems and make owning a Wilson Combat 1911 just as cool socially as a gold Apple Watch.

Keanu Reeves did more to make guns “cool” to younger folks in two movies then the NRAs done basically ever. Court cases don’t change minds. Keanu Reeves burning it at Tarans ranch does.

It is a sales job. We need to convince those within our own ranks to stop doing stupid shit and we need to convince all the fence chickens that guns and the second amendment add value to their lives. Apple is a why, how, what company with an unbelievably strong understanding of human behavior. We need an Apple level approach to pull this sales job off. Wayne LaPierre's old shady self isn't capable of pulling this off. Collectively, the gun community isn't capable of pulling this off. It would take very deep pockets and people who look at solving problems like those behind Cambridge Analytica.

What Keanu Reeves has done could be replicated by taking the stick out of so many fudd asses and making ranges great again! What's more fun to a new shooter, supervised mag dumps or 1-round per second with a Fudd lecturing them? Why does a place like Battlefield Vegas have so many non-gun people walking through the door?

[GardoneVT]

What Keanu Reeves has done could be replicated by taking the stick out of so many fudd asses and making ranges great again! What's more fun to a new shooter, supervised mag dumps or 1-round per second with a Fudd lecturing them? Why does a place like Battlefield Vegas have so many non-gun people walking through the door?

An excellent point. When I walk into an Apple store they neither know nor care about who I voted for. They just want to sell me a watch/phone/computer etc.

Walk into a gun shop on the other hand.....oh the stories. I don’t want to dogpile on FFLs, but some of these shops go out of their way to discourage business.

[Mystery]

I'll vote only if they could have prevented all/most the mass shootings until now.

So before even suggesting any measure, it has to be tested against previous incidents.

Background check???
Las Vegas shooter had perfect background so that couldn't have prevented it.
You cannot read mind. One good guy with gun can be a bad guy with a gun and if you can figure that out, go buy a lottery.
However, it has potential of blocking those with history so it can prevent someone sick or bad from owning a firearm.

Banning high capacity magazines?
meh...
changing magazine takes few seconds so if someone thinks they can jump someone at the exact time of mag change and prevent mass shooting... good luck.

Banning assault rifles?
Was Dayton assault rifle? Nope. It was considered a pistol.

Ban semi automatic?
If it can be done, great but it cannot be done.
Good luck confiscating all the millions and millions of semi automatic guns from citizens.

That leaves revolvers and bolt action.
Mass shooting is defined as more than 2 victims or 4 victims depending upon whose definition you go with.
Easily done with revolvers.

So basically, only way to prevent mass shooting is remove all the guns from the country.

[the Schwartz]

I'll vote only if they could have prevented all/most the mass shootings until now.

So before even suggesting any measure, it has to be tested against previous incidents.

Background check???
Las Vegas shooter had perfect background so that couldn't have prevented it.
You cannot read mind. One good guy with gun can be a bad guy with a gun and if you can figure that out, go buy a lottery.
However, it has potential of blocking those with history so it can prevent someone sick or bad from owning a firearm.

Banning high capacity magazines?
meh...
changing magazine takes few seconds so if someone thinks they can jump someone at the exact time of mag change and prevent mass shooting... good luck.

Banning assault rifles?
Was Dayton assault rifle? Nope. It was considered a pistol.

Ban semi automatic?
If it can be done, great but it cannot be done.
Good luck confiscating all the millions and millions of semi automatic guns from citizens.

That leaves revolvers and bolt action.
Mass shooting is defined as more than 2 victims or 4 victims depending upon whose definition you go with.
Easily done with revolvers.

So basically, only way to prevent mass shooting is remove all the guns from the country.

Especially so when it seems that the present safe-guards like background checks seem to be failing to stop the madness as originally promised by the Dems.

Confiscation, if it ever comes to be, is a long, long way down the road and even then unlikely to stand on its own two legs...(major Constitutional issues and all that)

[Clusterfrack]

I have defended my family against a home invasion using a semi auto pistol. My parents were subjected to death threats from organized, politically motivated criminal actors, and bought an “assault rifle” to protect themselves. I’m sure many of you can provide similar examples, but mine feel very personal. To me it’s obvious that the benefits of these weapons for law abiding citizens outweigh the risks.

[the Schwartz]

I have defended my family against a home invasion using a semi auto pistol. My parents were subjected to death threats from organized, politically motivated criminal actors, and bought an “assault rifle” to protect themselves. I’m sure many of you can provide similar examples, but mine feel very personal. To me it’s obvious that the benefits of these weapons for law abiding citizens outweigh the risks.

This is why I take considerable comfort in Heller I and II as well as the insights offered above by Rob and Stephanie.

I might be just a semi-kinda-old retired cop with waaaaaay to much math running around in my head, but the years spent in the LE field did allow enough time for some of the basic tenets of political/legal theory to seep through the three inches of granite that I call a skull. :)

[Drang]

What do you guys/gals think?

41387

[Crow Hunter]

I think that you will find that the "typical non-gun owning public" can't tell a rifle from a shotgun, much less a mini-14 from an AK. Most have no idea what military weapons look like since they have paid no attention to them.

I think you are correct on the confusion between full auto and semi-auto, but it probably goes deeper than you think. Most probably don't know that with a full auto you just depress the trigger once--indeed many have no idea what a "trigger" is.

The amount of ignorance about firearms out there is staggering, and of course the more ignorant people are about firearms the more they want to ban them.

However, for purposes of electoral politics, the good thing is that far fewer of them are passionate about the issue than people on our side. And it is precisely that passion that allows us to win the electoral victories that so scare the other side.

I agree.

However seeing a black rifle with a pistol grip and pointy bits are enough to scream "military gun" and action movies like John Wick or others and the constant bullet spraying are the only exposure most people have to such guns. So of course they immediately assume everything is just like it is in the movies because most people really are that dumb and ignorant.

While a blued gun with wood furniture and smooth clean lines, they think western movies like Magnificent Seven or Tombstone and don't really see those as a bullet spraying threat.

I honestly don't like any of the options that I have put forth but I like them much better than some of the ban options and the resulting potential chaos.

[Crow Hunter]

41387

You are moving to Siberia via troika?

;)

[willie]

Call it whatever, I view a struggle to maintain gun rights. The effort is convincing elected officials to vote to support 2nd Amendment rights. Politicians have only one concern which is being elected or re-elected. Nothing else matters. Certainly I support a public relations program to encourage others to have a kinder view of guns. Right now, though, the question is what do we do now? Congress convenes Sept 1, and as my uncle said about jumping into Normandy, "Willie, it got down to the nut cutting."

[Clusterfrack]

I'm very much not ok with making ARs and the like NFA-only. In the personal account I posted (see below), my parents were in a situation where:
-Organized criminals were making death threats, and trying to discourage my parents from their political activities (preserving open space and opposing large-scale development).
-The local city mayor, city manager, and likely the police chief were complicit.
-Law enforcement had told my family "We can't guarantee your safety. You should move out of town."
-My family couldn't afford a personal security detail
-They needed an "assault rifle" right fucking now, not after waiting for a 3-9 month NFA tax stamp.

Fortunately we were living in the USA where we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Virtually anywhere else in the world, they would have had to give up. BTW, if you've ever enjoyed the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin County CA, you can thank my folks and their Mini-14.


I was thinking about this the other day while mowing the yard.

How about some of these?

1. Add “military style semi-autos” to the NFA list and in return repeal the Hughes Amendment (most of the public already believes EBR are full auto, let’s make it so) with a market price "buyback" available for anyone that doesn't want to move their weapon onto the NFA list.


Personally, I would be fine with any or all of these items and they would be actual COMPROMISE and a WIN/WIN versus a WIN/LOSS.

#1 Would allow true enthusiasts to have the weapon they really want while reducing the numbers "in the wild" and in the hands of average Joe people or lunatics due to the increased back ground check requirements/registration issues while still allowing people to own/shoot them.

What do you guys/gals think?


I have defended my family against a home invasion using a semi auto pistol. My parents were subjected to death threats from organized, politically motivated criminal actors, and bought an “assault rifle” to protect themselves. I’m sure many of you can provide similar examples, but mine feel very personal. To me it’s obvious that the benefits of these weapons for law abiding citizens outweigh the risks.

[Crow Hunter]

I'm very much not ok with making ARs and the like NFA-only. In the personal account I posted (see below), my parents were in a situation where:
-Organized criminals were making death threats, and trying to discourage my parents from their political activities (preserving open space and opposing large-scale development).
-The local city mayor, city manager, and likely the police chief were complicit.
-Law enforcement had told my family "We can't guarantee your safety. You should move out of town."
-My family couldn't afford a personal security detail
-They needed an "assault rifle" right fucking now, not after waiting for a 3-9 month NFA tax stamp.

Fortunately we were living in the USA where we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Virtually anywhere else in the world, they would have had to give up. BTW, if you've ever enjoyed the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin County CA, you can thank my folks and their Mini-14.

Stories like that need to get into the media and be widely circulated. This will resonate with average voters where the "resist a tyrannical government" sounds like a zombie/Red Dawn fantasy to a lot of people.

This is what the NRA/GOA need to be promoting to "sell" this to people like GardoneVT mentions.

[WobblyPossum]

While the anti-rights folks don’t care about stories of regular people using rifles to protect themselves, the undecided people in the middle just might. Even the CDC estimated that Americans use firearms to defend themselves something like 2.5 million times a year. We need more of those people to get out there and tell their stories.

[FNFAN]

Many of the democratic presidential candidates favor an Australian Style Gun Buyback. There are plenty of articles out there to read on their plans.

An Australian Style buyback will only increase the number of guns on the black market in this country. I think it will be an absolute nightmare, and criminals will take full advantage of the situation. Living in a banana republic will look good at that point.

Well, if they end selling EBR's to Joe and Jane Citizen, I think the black market from Mexico would expand to fill the vacuum supplying the criminals weapons in the same way they fulfill our sweet tooth for narcotics. Of course the cartel's mostly have access to military purposed weapons, so you'd probably hear more, "brrrrrrrrrrt, brrrrrrrrrt" than "bang-bang" on the streets. If EBR's are illegal then why would someone, as a criminal, bother taking the ride for something semi when you can have that (perceived) bad-ass full-auto?

[Ed L]

An excellent point. When I walk into an Apple store they neither know nor care about who I voted for. They just want to sell me a watch/phone/computer etc.

Walk into a gun shop on the other hand.....oh the stories. I don’t want to dogpile on FFLs, but some of these shops go out of their way to discourage business.

Because no one is trying to legislate against Iphones and Macs.

[Cypher]

Listen, and understand. Shannon Watts is out there. She can’t be bargained with.She can’t be reasoned with. She doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And She absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are disarmed

[Totem Polar]

Fortunately we were living in the USA where we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Virtually anywhere else in the world, they would have had to give up. BTW, if you've ever enjoyed the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin County CA, you can thank my folks and their Mini-14.

That is a compelling story.

[beenalongtime]

First, apologies as it is a little after three when I am posting this, and I haven't gone through everything as I have been up since 7am, and need to be up in a few hours. So I am posting my initial thoughts and reminding myself to come back to this thread.
Secondly, this makes me think of the old Archie Bunker thing on terrorists on plane and gun control.

So my response would be to flip the script.
Mass shootings happen on assemblies that are no longer peaceable. Therefore, we should stop the first amendment right of assembly, and there won't be any mass shootings. Then they have a hissy fit and scream about taking rights away and committed no crime and all that, and we say, now your getting it.

Good night.

[Bucky]

AR-15's have been available to the public since 1964. No background check needed. Why now?

Society is different. Sure, it’s an overly simplified answer, but that is the reason.

1. Attention whores. Thanks to technology, people have ways to tell the world their story, whether anyone is interested or not. Look at what people do to up the anti, get more views / “hits”, and more “likes”. Some people are even able to make a living at such things.

2. Everyone is special / a winner. Giving trophies for last place doesn’t prepare you for the real world.

3. Actions don’t have meaningful consequences. While I don’t think kids should be abused, a “time out” can’t be your ultimate punishment, especially when kids start acting violent. Oh, and labeling any kid that doesn’t behave ideally with ADD, ADHD, ADADADAD, whatever, and pumping them with drugs isn’t an answer either. It’s kicking the can down the road.

4. Lack of civil discourse, especially in media and leadership. Politics has always been a nasty game, but it just seems on a whole other level now, where nothing is off limits. Not even the children of politicians are safe from the vitriol. Also, the way the media conducts itself is shameful, and many times “hateful”.

[Borderland]

I'm very much not ok with making ARs and the like NFA-only. In the personal account I posted (see below), my parents were in a situation where:
-Organized criminals were making death threats, and trying to discourage my parents from their political activities (preserving open space and opposing large-scale development).
-The local city mayor, city manager, and likely the police chief were complicit.
-Law enforcement had told my family "We can't guarantee your safety. You should move out of town."
-My family couldn't afford a personal security detail
-They needed an "assault rifle" right fucking now, not after waiting for a 3-9 month NFA tax stamp.

Fortunately we were living in the USA where we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Virtually anywhere else in the world, they would have had to give up. BTW, if you've ever enjoyed the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin County CA, you can thank my folks and their Mini-14.

Neither am I but I think that's where we're heading. I'm actually dumbfounded that some socialist in congress hasn't introduced a bill to make SA rifles a NFA item. I think that mostly they're ignorant of NFA, GCA and Brady in general.

A carbine is about the most useful firearm a person can have in a SD situation. They're relatively easy to learn to shoot and effective. If you're only going to have one firearm that's probably the one to have. I'm sure that's one of the reasons they're so popular.

[Dorsai]

You know that the mindset is based in ignorance whenever you hear mass-shooting, mass bombing, mass.... That language emphasizes the tool, not the essential act. The largest loss of life in the US perpetrated by an individual hasn't been with a gun. The three largest were perpetrated with a fertilizer bomb, dynamite and gasoline. No guns. A terrorist in France killed 85 and injured scores more with a truck. There have been mass "stabbings" in other countries were firearms aren't as readily available, such as Japan.

Focus on the tool misses the point that it is only a tool and tools can always be abused, and always will. People are not programmable robots. You can't insert a chip in everyone's brain that would prevent them from killing another, so if one tool is unavailable, a killer will find another. You can't prevent drunk drivers by banning alcohol, we tried that (though driving wasn't the focus). Impaired drivers may be impaired because of store bought alcohol, homemade alcohol, marijuana, opiates, huffing paint, etc. The list is endless. You can ban motorized vehicles and people will still be injured or killed by "drunk" driving a wagon, riding a horse, riding a bicycle, sailing a boat, etc. It isn't the tool, it's the person.

So what can you do? The same thing people have always done, you take what defensive measures you can. You pay attention, drive defensively, wear a seatbelt, etc. Even so, you won't always be successful. Wherever they can, throughout history, people have carried weapons to protect themselves against those who would do them harm. Societies created law enforcement. Police, constable, sheriff, etc. Their purpose and abilities have been corrupted by trying to make them, or at least label them, as bodyguards. To stop the personal crime as it happens. That doesn't, and has never worked. Law Enforcement is at its best when it responds to crime, apprehends the perpetrator and delivers them to the judicial system for punishment. When they can do anything more, it is a gift of circumstance. Reality, not wishful thinking, is that personal protection is best done by the individual, or if they can afford it, bodyguards (good ones). If you are depending on someone you have to call and wait for their arrival, you better be in a fortress capable of keeping them out for the requisite wait. If your door isn't strong enough, you lose. If your walls aren't strong enough (Constantinople), you lose.

No one has ever been able to prevent humans from any activity we don't want. Ever. Except on an individual basis, at the time that it takes place. Or you kill all humans. That will also work, but it has its drawbacks.

[Arbninftry]

Public Hangings of the perp. Mandatory viewing. Nothing says good order like a little longer rope than necessary. Just ask Saddam.

[JohnO]

You Cannot Legislate Morality

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-17/you-cannot-legislate-morality

[Borderland]

Public Hangings of the perp. Mandatory viewing. Nothing says good order like a little longer rope than necessary. Just ask Saddam.

First they need to have a fair trial.

Once that happens a rope that meets federal standards should be used.

[Arbninftry]

First they need to have a fair trial.

Once that happens a rope that meets federal standards should be used.

Let’s start here.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/procedure_dec-1947.pdf

[Caballoflaco]

Public Hangings of the perp. Mandatory viewing. Nothing says good order like a little longer rope than necessary. Just ask Saddam.

Doesn’t work. People in general enjoy watching other people be killed. Think about how many prime time tv shows have simulations (fairly realistic) of people being killed every. single. week. How much different is watching simulated killings to watching actual killing? I’d say the biggest difference is we can morally say “oh but it’s not real, nobody actually got hurt” but people tune in week after week to see more murders.

One of the reasons public executions in the west were banned is because they were extremely popular and led to large gatherings of people in a time when large gatherings could lead to revolutions, which were becoming a bit of a problem for the ruling class in Western Europe.

Check out this episode of Hardcore History for a good overview of execution in the west.

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-61-blitz-painfotainment/

[Borderland]

Doesn’t work. People in general enjoy watching other people be killed. Think about how many prime time tv shows have simulations (fairly realistic) of people being killed every. single. week. How much different is watching simulated killings to watching actual killing? I’d say the biggest difference is we can morally say “oh but it’s not real, nobody actually got hurt” but people tune in week after week to see more murders.

One of the reasons public executions in the west were banned is because they were extremely popular and led to large gatherings of people in a time when large gatherings could lead to revolutions, which were becoming a bit of a problem for the ruling class in Western Europe.

Check out this episode of Hardcore History for a good overview of execution in the west.

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-61-blitz-painfotainment/

The last public execution in the US was in KY in 1936.

[Caballoflaco]

The last public execution in the US was in KY in 1936.

That would be the last legal public execution in the US.

[OlongJohnson]

I'm very much not ok with making ARs and the like NFA-only. In the personal account I posted (see below), my parents were in a situation where:
-Organized criminals were making death threats, and trying to discourage my parents from their political activities (preserving open space and opposing large-scale development).
-The local city mayor, city manager, and likely the police chief were complicit.
-Law enforcement had told my family "We can't guarantee your safety. You should move out of town."
-My family couldn't afford a personal security detail
-They needed an "assault rifle" right fucking now, not after waiting for a 3-9 month NFA tax stamp.

Fortunately we were living in the USA where we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Virtually anywhere else in the world, they would have had to give up. BTW, if you've ever enjoyed the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin County CA, you can thank my folks and their Mini-14.

This point is made as well in this lengthy and well-constructed essay:

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights (http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html)

He makes the point that, in many cases in history, the core 2A principle of bearing arms against actions in which the government was complicit or failed in a duty to intervene in support of political freedom has not been all-out war, but has actually been keeping the peace and protecting those who speak, so that they can exercise their 1A rights without being grievously injured or killed.

[Borderland]

This point is made as well in this lengthy and well-constructed essay:

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights (http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html)

He makes the point that, in many cases in history, the core 2A principle of bearing arms against actions in which the government was complicit or failed in a duty to intervene in support of political freedom has not been all-out war, but has actually been keeping the peace and protecting those who speak, so that they can exercise their 1A rights without being grievously injured or killed.

Excellent article.

I like the parallel of the war on drugs with the war on guns. I guess we'll never learn that there's always a downside to simple solutions. There really are no simple solutions. Sending a large percentage of the population to prison has proven not to be a solution. Probably why more and more states are legalizing pot and the right to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. The costs outweigh the benefit of restrictions in both cases.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The extreme punishment suggestions are just for your own emotional satisfaction. It will have no impact on someone who decided to commit mass murder. They have already discounted the negative consequences of the act.

The solutions center around three principles:

1. Identifying the potential perpetrator to treat or detain such person.
2. Remove the easy access to firearms as they are the easiest path to mass murder. While other paths exist they:
a. are harder to do than just a gun incident
b. may not be as emotionally satisfying to the perpetrator as the personal 'warrior' mode.
3. Active opposition to the perpetrator.

All three have problems of actually implementing them and/or civil liberties implications.

Then cross the solutions with ideological and emotional world views to get the current mess.

[Borderland]

The extreme punishment suggestions are just for your own emotional satisfaction. It will have no impact on someone who decided to commit mass murder. They have already discounted the negative consequences of the act.

The solutions center around three principles:

1. Identifying the potential perpetrator to treat or detain such person.
2. Remove the easy access to firearms as they are the easiest path to mass murder. While other paths exist they:
a. are harder to do than just a gun incident
b. may not be as emotionally satisfying to the perpetrator as the personal 'warrior' mode.
3. Active opposition to the perpetrator.

All three have problems of actually implementing them and/or civil liberties implications.

Then cross the solutions with ideological and emotional world views to get the current mess.

1. Identifying the potential perpetrator to treat or detain such person. = federal ERPO law

2. Remove the easy access to firearms as they are the easiest path to mass murder. = federal restriction of some firearms and magazines.

3. Active opposition to the perpetrator. = more LEO's trained to intervene. Federal restrictions on open carry.

Sounds like fun. Can't wait.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. Identifying the potential perpetrator to treat or detain such person. = federal ERPO law

This doesn't have to be a Federal law. School and/or community involvement to see at risk folks and try to deal with them. There are civil liberty risk of false alarms but some of the folks should have been caught before. Folks who talk about plans and start accumulating weapons that they seemingly have no use for (sports, competition, reasonable self-defense) need a look. The mass shooting that have been prevented (and there are quite a few) have been because someone said - this person is off the rails. Balancing vendictive or over zealous false alarms can be controlled.

2. Remove the easy access to firearms as they are the easiest path to mass murder. = federal restriction of some firearms and magazines.

Already happening on state levels and will continue. A Democratic president such Gillibrand would go for national confiscation. She waffled a bit about arresting folks on the news shows today. Such restrictions will continue as the GOP are weak. SCOTUS is an unknown. Their pace is glacial and Roberts probably will cause a positive decision to be emasculated in the same way Heller was.

The ban is solution that appeals to many and despite the hidden gun mantra, the long term goal is reduce ownership by attrition and social pressure.

3. Active opposition to the perpetrator. = more LEO's trained to intervene. Federal restrictions on open carry.

Don't see how this comment makes sense. I meant having more civilians who are competent to intervene. OC is irrelevant. Competent LEOs, sure but they are after the first shooting victims. As in the Israeli stabbing video, you need competent folks right there. That means competent civilian carry. Unfortunately, as Karl Rehn points out, that isn't common. Although civilian intervention has worked quite a few times - Dr. Lee Silverman for example, we do have some fails.

[OlongJohnson]

2. Remove the easy access to firearms as they are the easiest path to mass murder. While other paths exist they:
a. are harder to do than just a gun incident
b. may not be as emotionally satisfying to the perpetrator as the personal 'warrior' mode.

In the Santa Fe school shooting last year, a little south of Houston, the punkass used a shotgun and revolver. Mas has written about a 19th-century mass shooting in which the perp used a double-barrel shotgun, executing "tactical reloads" by keeping one barrel always loaded with a fresh shell, so all he had to do was close the action to be ready to fire another round. It took the good guys awhile to get to him. Restricting access to firearms won't put an end to this until they are basically unavailable in any form. And then you'll still have acid and knife attacks.

You're right about having discounted consequences, though. The SF shooter's plan was to suicide himself before being taken by the cops, but he chickened out and couldn't pull the trigger when the gun was pointed at his own head.

------------------

Ben Shapiro's Sunday show today features Piers Morgan. Morgan likens the misuse of firearms to drunk driving. Ben fails to point out that the response that led to the successful reduction in drunk driving didn't involve restricting access to either alcohol or cars. It was accomplished by focusing on the behavior.

It's interesting that Morgan goes on to point out that in England, after they basically banned firearms, gun-involved violence actually went up for about five years. The government then began enforcing the ban with heavy prison sentences, and gun-involved violence has been replaced with knife-involved violence. There are now efforts underway to make carrying of knives similarly illegal. The futility of the project that is evident from this is not apparent to him; rather, his thinking is that they solved the gun problem, now they'll solve the knife problem the same way.

I'm not a subscriber, so I haven't heard the end of their conversation.

Note that Australia is already down the knife-ban road. An engineer friend of mine was down there working. He pulled out his EDC folder pocket knife to cut a zip-tie, and everybody freaked out and told him to put it away because it was an illegal weapon.

[Borderland]

1. Identifying the potential perpetrator to treat or detain such person. = federal ERPO law

This doesn't have to be a Federal law. School and/or community involvement to see at risk folks and try to deal with them. There are civil liberty risk of false alarms but some of the folks should have been caught before. Folks who talk about plans and start accumulating weapons that they seemingly have no use for (sports, competition, reasonable self-defense) need a look. The mass shooting that have been prevented (and there are quite a few) have been because someone said - this person is off the rails. Balancing vendictive or over zealous false alarms can be controlled.

2. Remove the easy access to firearms as they are the easiest path to mass murder. = federal restriction of some firearms and magazines.

Already happening on state levels and will continue. A Democratic president such Gillibrand would go for national confiscation. She waffled a bit about arresting folks on the news shows today. Such restrictions will continue as the GOP are weak. SCOTUS is an unknown. Their pace is glacial and Roberts probably will cause a positive decision to be emasculated in the same way Heller was.

The ban is solution that appeals to many and despite the hidden gun mantra, the long term goal is reduce ownership by attrition and social pressure.

3. Active opposition to the perpetrator. = more LEO's trained to intervene. Federal restrictions on open carry.

Don't see how this comment makes sense. I meant having more civilians who are competent to intervene. OC is irrelevant. Competent LEOs, sure but they are after the first shooting victims. As in the Israeli stabbing video, you need competent folks right there. That means competent civilian carry. Unfortunately, as Karl Rehn points out, that isn't common. Although civilian intervention has worked quite a few times - Dr. Lee Silverman for example, we do have some fails.

So it looks like you're in favor of ERPO laws. I'm not opposed to that, we have one in this state and it's already been used for interdictions. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94 The general consensus among the gun community here is the law sucks. This is a blue state so no problem getting these laws passed. What about conservative states? Some will never pass an ERPO law.

Again, some states won't pass restrictions on magazines and semi-auto rifles. There just isn't any support for that. So far in this state we don't have any restrictions other than a UBC that mandates all firearm transfers will have to be done thru an FFL and a BC will happen. Gun community here also thinks that sucks.

Only about 8% of the population of this state has a permit to carry concealed. Nobody in the metro areas here OC. So less than 10% would be available to stop a shooter. I don't think you would ever have a large civilian population in this country that would see it as their duty to be armed in public and engage a shooter. In Israel they have a saying, every citizen a soldier. I think they even have mandatory military service. I've seen pics of civilians carrying MP-5's.

I think your assessment of the problem is spot on. I don't think your solution is practical however, at least in this country. People just want LE to do the dirty work and then they scream racist and police brutality. WTF.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Being a psychologist I am in favor of empirically tested interventions with troubled individuals. That being said, I don’t support a rush to politically motivated laws based on factors that have little predictive validity. Most of the current laws may be of that order and subject to gun control motivated abuse. There is a large literature suggesting violence prediction is spotty at best. I would have any such procedures designed by qualified experts from the behavioral sciences and legal community with an express charge not to design a general control agenda.

About bans, I absolutely oppose them as the defense against tyranny is paramount. A second reason is for the extreme critical incident that can exceed the five is enough BS.

[Clusterfrack]

This point is made as well in this lengthy and well-constructed essay:

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights (http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html)

He makes the point that, in many cases in history, the core 2A principle of bearing arms against actions in which the government was complicit or failed in a duty to intervene in support of political freedom has not been all-out war, but has actually been keeping the peace and protecting those who speak, so that they can exercise their 1A rights without being grievously injured or killed.

Holy crap, is there an executive summary? Does anyone who is not a humanities professor actually read things like this? This article is unnecessarily long by about a factor of 10.

[the Schwartz]

Being a psychologist I am in favor of empirically tested interventions with troubled individuals.

Is there any such animal (assuming a package program of psychometric instruments, operational protocols, etc.) at this time that would "fill the bill"?

And, if so, in your opinion, what is/are it/they?

[Totem Polar]

Does anyone who is not a humanities professor actually read things like this?

I’ve read and reread that article multiple times over the last few years. Point taken.
:(

:D

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Is there any such animal (assuming a package program of psychometric instruments, operational protocols, etc.) at this time that would "fill the bill"?

And, if so, in your opinion, what is/are it/they?

Not yet. The best predictors for mass shooters are past violent behaviors, making of threats and large accumulation of weapons outside of normal usage (collecting, sports, self-defense needs) in a fairly short period of time.

The accumulation of weapons is like pornography, may be hard to define but you see it as a threat when you get the first two.

[the Schwartz]

Not yet. The best predictors for mass shooters are past violent behaviors, making of threats and large accumulation of weapons outside of normal usage (collecting, sports, self-defense needs) in a fairly short period of time.

The accumulation of weapons is like pornography, may be hard to define but you see it as a threat when you get the first two.

One of the factors that seems to have a significant influence upon the first component (past violent behaviors) appears to be the lack of fathers in these folk's lives. I am sure that it more complex than that as not everyone who lacks their dad ends up committing mass murder, but it does motivate me to keep improving so that I can be the best dad to my kids that I can be.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not having a stable dad is part but it is subsumed under lack of family stability in general. Lots of dysfunctional households out there. However, it isn't always it. Some of the shooters - Columbine, Kip Kinkle - had seemingly normal parents. Whitman had a father who seems like a total asshole.

Without going through all of them, family dynamics may be part of the picture but not conclusive. It's like guns, so many households with gun but most don't on a rampage. So many single family, divorced families but most don't go on a rampage. Not that this family disruption is a good thing.

[Medusa]

Holy crap, is there an executive summary? Does anyone who is not a humanities professor actually read things like this? This article is unnecessarily long by about a factor of 10.

For me the money quote, and one with which I substantially agree, is this.

“What all liberal gun-control proposals seek to do, and all they seek to do, is to reduce and eventually eliminate the right of ordinary citizens to possess firearms. These proposals treat the armed power of the state with, at best, benign indifference. They ignore, or dismiss as of no importance, the way these policies will further weaken the power of the citizen relative to the state. There is a definite ideology underlying all this: That the state – the American capitalist state we live in – should have a monopoly of armed force; that this state is a benign, neutral arbiter which will use its armed force in support of and not against its citizens, to mediate conflicts fairly and promote just outcomes in ways that the citizens themselves cannot be trusted to do.

All the liberal gun-control proposals do, and I would suggest the anti-gun-rights position in general must, rest on this premise. For reasons set forth below, I think it’s wrong-headed, and I do not see how one can deny that it is elitist and authoritarian.

This ideology is most likely to exude from those whose lived experience is that the armed power of the state does overwhelmingly act on their behalf, that the police are their friends – people who are secure in their implicit understanding that they have nothing to fear, personally or politically, from the armed agents of the state, and that when they call those agents to help them, they will come and help them, and not beat them down or shoot them on sight, “by accident.””

And

“Somehow, a lot of people have come to imagine that depreciating versus valuing citizens’ gun rights is a left-right dichotomy Only in the ridiculous political discourse of the United States, where Barack Obama is a “marxist" (or any kind of “leftist” at all), can citizens' right to gun ownership be considered a purely right-wing demand. The notion that an armed populace should have a measure of power of resistance to the heavily armed power of the state is, if anything, a populist principle, and has always been part of the revolutionary democratic traditions of the left. The notion that disarming the people in a capitalist state – and one in severe socio-economic crisis, at that – would be some kind of victory for progressive, democratic forces, something that might help move us toward an emancipatory transformation of society, derives from no position on the political left. As one commentator puts it: “I can’t imagine why anyone would expect the state’s gun control policies to display any less of a class character than other areas of policy. Regardless of the ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ rhetoric used to defend gun control, you can safely bet it will come down harder on the cottagers than on the gentry, harder on the workers than on the Pinkertons, and harder on the Black Panthers than on murdering cops."”

[Clusterfrack]

For me the money quote, and one with which I substantially agree, is this.

[I]“... ignore, or dismiss as of no importance, the way these policies will further weaken the power of the citizen relative to the state. There is a definite ideology underlying all this: That the state – the American capitalist state we live in – should have a monopoly of armed force; that this state is a benign, neutral arbiter which will use its armed force in support of and not against its citizens, to mediate conflicts fairly and promote just outcomes in ways that the citizens themselves cannot be trusted to do.

I agree as well, but the main reason I own guns (besides the shooting sports) is to protect my family from criminal individuals or organizations, not the government. Criminals often target minorities, so it always surprises me when members of those groups are not fully in support of the 2nd Amendment.

[Totem Polar]

I agree as well, but the main reason I own guns (besides the shooting sports) is to protect my family from criminal individuals or organizations, not the government. Criminals often target minorities, so it always surprises me when members of those groups are not fully in support of the 2nd Amendment.


Going further, the one flaw in the quoted line of thinking (from the polemecist) is that disarming the populace will always result in a state monopoly of force. Maybe... but the history of parts of Latin America says that control of power can also end up being split between the state and criminal factions, with Jose and Jane Q Public caught helplessly in the middle. That’s also a thing.

[Medusa]

I agree as well, but the main reason I own guns (besides the shooting sports) is to protect my family from criminal individuals or organizations, not the government. Criminals often target minorities, so it always surprises me when members of those groups are not fully in support of the 2nd Amendment.

I fully agree. And I truly enjoy shooting sports and firearms as mechanical devices.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Saw a congressdope on the tube , we need UBC. That's opposed by the gun companies because they want to sell more guns.

Oh, don't new sales go through FFLs. Never mind!

[wvincent]

Saw a congressdope on the tube , we need UBC. That's opposed by the gun companies because they want to sell more guns.

Oh, don't new sales go through FFLs. Never mind!

No, they buy them direct off the internet, shipped to their homes. Or, at least that's what most of the 2020 Dem hopeful's are saying in their stump speeches.

[Guinnessman]

Rep. Pete King supports an AWB: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pete-king-republican-assault-weapons-ban-trump-20190819-fnrwfheu3rgplbyo45no3q7soa-story.html

[Suvorov]

Rep. Pete King supports an AWB: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pete-king-republican-assault-weapons-ban-trump-20190819-fnrwfheu3rgplbyo45no3q7soa-story.html

Peter King is the epitome of a RINO (A term that pains me to use as I am a contributor to RINO Rescue and have a fondness for the 4 legged animals. Why can’t the poachers hunt RINOs in America?).

[Jay Cunningham]

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average. (US Dept. Of Health/Census)

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes – 14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]

40 percent more likely to raise children in poverty

80 percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals are fatherless

70 percent of adolescents in juvenile detention facilities are fatherless

70 percent of childhood pregnancies occur in fatherless homes



What is the root cause of fatherlessness?

[Jay Cunningham]

Yes, I’m aware that not every single mass shooter was fatherless.

There’s a side issue of poorly formed and weak fathers.

[VT1032]

Rep. Pete King supports an AWB: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pete-king-republican-assault-weapons-ban-trump-20190819-fnrwfheu3rgplbyo45no3q7soa-story.htmlI mean, he's from New York so does that even really count?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[RoyGBiv]

Is this a good place for this?

Florida Man Lost His 2A Rights, Thanks To Red Flag Laws And Mistaken Identity (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/19/red-flag-law-failure-guy-is-stripped-of-his-gunsbecause-of-another-mans-criminal-activity-n2551921)


Even though it was evident they had the wrong man, Carpenter was forced to hand over his firearms. There was no hearing or any kind of court proceeding.

[TGS]

Sounds like a good reason to get involved and ensure that a given states' Red Flag Law is written well, instead of just stomping feet in the corner and yelling, "Nanananananana!" with fingers inserted in ears.

[DC_P]

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average. (US Dept. Of Health/Census)

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes – 14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]

40 percent more likely to raise children in poverty

80 percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals are fatherless

70 percent of adolescents in juvenile detention facilities are fatherless

70 percent of childhood pregnancies occur in fatherless homes



What is the root cause of fatherlessness?

So you are saying it is the women's (Mom's) fault...

[CleverNickname]

So you are saying it is the women's (Mom's) fault...

What are the stats for kids with a father and no mother?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What is the root cause of fatherlessness?

1. Women want to have children.

2. Men want to have sex and some want to produce children.

3. Pretty good evidence that when there are economic circumstances such that the male is not a good economic contributor to the family, the women will have children but get rid of the men. The latter are an added economic burden. It has been seen across nations and cultures. You can have a place with 70% nuclear families and when economic hard times hit, the marriage rate can go down to 20 ish %.

The males produced in such families without good economic opportunities orient towards illegal activities and the associated criminality. However, most males don't want to be involved in crime or violence. However, the alpha males in such communities tend to dominate and pull the society down.

[OlongJohnson]

What are the stats for kids with a father and no mother?

I couldn't cite a source, but I've read that there are numbers indicating they are remarkably good. There just aren't a lot of data points due to our legal system generally defaulting to just giving custody to the mom unless she's in jail. Maybe that's in Glenn's lane?

[JAD]

So you are saying it is the women's (Mom's) fault...

Or the (absent) man’s fault. Or the simple ideas that two people might raise a child better than one; or that there is an effect related to the presence or absence of specific gender roles within a family; or lots of stuff. They’re statistics, from which you can draw your own conclusions.

I think a safe conclusion is that being a father is important. Don’t leave, and don’t be such an asshole that you have to leave, and marry carefully so that it doesn’t come up, and practice marriage well (I would say “rightly ordered”) so that you can keep from strangling each other. Other conclusions would want more data I think.

[willie]

Having less stability by not having two parents very likely contributes to the issue discussed. Since women and not men most often have child custody, then all the responsibility rests with them. Teen pregnancy initiates a cycle of poverty. The female then becomes at risk of being under educated and under employed. The cycle continues into the next generation and so on. I saw this repeatedly in one of the parenting programs that I worked in. Sadly some young men gleefully had many children. One obit from a 24 year old former student showed that he had 11 children. Such problems are not limited to minority communities, but my observation revealed that it is over represented there.

Recently my wife had surgery. While at the hospital I saw a young woman age 35 who had been in my class 19 years ago. She had her 8 children with her. She was pregnant with the 9th. Two of her children were teen daughters. Both were pregnant. You might ask how do I remember her age? She was an immigrant person for whom I went to bat and twisted arms to help her straighten out fubarred paperwork. I had hoped for the best for this child. Unfortunately she is married to a Lone Star card. This example is extreme, yet probability is high that the other children will enter the cycle of poverty, which may be the biggest contributor to crime issues. In her case low intelligence or lack of ability did not cause what I observed. She is smarter than her teacher.

[beenalongtime]

Is this a good place for this?

Florida Man Lost His 2A Rights, Thanks To Red Flag Laws And Mistaken Identity (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/19/red-flag-law-failure-guy-is-stripped-of-his-gunsbecause-of-another-mans-criminal-activity-n2551921)

Would be interesting to see if the ACLU gets involved for violations of his rights.

[Bart Carter]

Would be interesting to see if the ACLU gets involved for violations of his rights.

Why would the American Communist Lawyers Union do that?

[Clusterfrack]

1. Women want to have children.

2. Men want to have sex and some want to produce children.
.

I think it’s more that teenage boys and girls want to have sex. Girls get pregnant.

Solutions include better education, birth control, and easy access to abortion. Freqkonomics did a podcast a while back about how crime rates declined when better abortion options became available.

[Jay Cunningham]

I think it’s more that teenage boys and girls want to have sex. Girls get pregnant.

Solutions include better education, birth control, and easy access to abortion. Freqkonomics did a podcast a while back about how crime rates declined when better abortion options became available.


Our public schools are all about "sex education".

Contraceptives are easy to obtain and in many cases free.

There is "easy access" to abortion. Planned Parenthood and the like are everywhere.


It's been like this for, oh, a few decades now. Your so-called solutions have already been implemented.

[wvincent]

Our public schools are all about "sex education".

Contraceptives are easy to obtain and in many cases free.

There is "easy access" to abortion. Planned Parenthood and the like are everywhere.


It's been like this for, oh, a few decades now. Your so-called solutions have already been implemented.

Your'e so fucking wrong, it hurts to read your post.
You are almost implying that taking personal responsibility for ones actions, either abstaining, or using birth control, or Lord help us, sticking around and being a providing parent would help the situation.
Nah, nope, no way that would help at all.:rolleyes:

[willie]

Repeatedly I saw girls continue to get pregnant even though their doctors had put them on oral contraceptives after the first pregnancy. To use an expression, they got pregnant with birth control pills in the dresser drawer. Some lacked motivation to take the pill. Some were too disorganized to take them. Some chose to get pregnant to have a baby with certain guys. Some liked the attention from peers. Many enjoyed welfare benefits. Few were violating cultural norms. Teen pregnancy lacked stigma. Their mothers and grandmothers and aunts had been teen mothers. Some had low intelligence. Because of enormous effort to provide services to teen mothers, in many cases these services enabled them to continue. When I expressed concern about teen pregnancy issues, I risked raising the ire of minority teachers who often saw my comments as an indictment of their race. I speak as I write and am neither insensitive nor dim witted. This topic is one of several that can't be discussed.

[the Schwartz]

QFT:


Repeatedly I saw girls continue to get pregnant even though their doctors had put them on oral contraceptives after the first pregnancy. To use an expression, they got pregnant with birth control pills in the dresser drawer. Some lacked motivation to take the pill. Some were too disorganized to take them. Some chose to get pregnant to have a baby with certain guys. Some liked the attention from peers. Many enjoyed welfare benefits. Few were violating cultural norms. Teen pregnancy lacked stigma. Their mothers and grandmothers and aunts had been teen mothers. Some had low intelligence. Because of enormous effort to provide services to teen mothers, in many cases these services enabled them to continue. When I expressed concern about teen pregnancy issues, I risked raising the ire of minority teachers who often saw my comments as an indictment of their race. I speak as I write and am neither insensitive nor dim witted. This topic is one of several that can't be discussed.

Moral of the story: You cannot save people from themselves.

[willie]

I advocate continuing to try to help people but become enraged that those from within the culture, those who are leaders, refuse to address issues. High incidence of teen pregnancy and high incidence of new HiV cases are never discussed. The subjects are taboo. When brought up elsewhere, they make people feel uncomfortable. Hence, they are taboo. I hear shit like, "They need love." Compassion is needed but must go beyond lip service. I don't see much guidance. I see a lot of folks who walk around and grin and draw big salaries and blow buzz words out their asses. Despite my anger, I criticize lack of action and not the people caught up in this misery. I know a great deal about buzz words. I wrote a couple.

[wvincent]

QFT:



Moral of the story: You cannot save people from themselves.

Simple, help them find the ability to break the cycle, saves them and saves every one else in the process. WIN WIN
Like willie said, glad handing and lip service isn't going to cut it.

A whole lot of promises get made during the election cycle, how many of them ever get fulfilled?

[the Schwartz]

Simple, help them find the ability to break the cycle, saves them and saves every one else in the process. WIN WIN
Like willie said, glad handing and lip service isn't going to cut it.

A whole lot of promises get made during the election cycle, how many of them ever get fulfilled?

There are those who, even if the "ability to break the cycle" exists, are simply unwilling to avail themselves of the opportunity. You cannot save them from themselves. You cannot help those who are unwilling to be helped no matter how much you want them to want that help. You may like it, but there it is.

[wvincent]

There are those who, even if the "ability to break the cycle" exists, are simply unwilling to avail themselves of the opportunity. You cannot save them from themselves. You cannot help those who are unwilling to be helped no matter how much you want them to want that help. You may like it, but there it is.

Oh, I agree. But they are a small minority of the big picture. For many, it's all they know. It's easy for us, on the outside looking in, to sit in judgement. But, when every day is a fight for survival, be it from peer on peer violence, drugs, economic captivity, or lack of a viable education, just making it Monday to Sunday is a sometimes lofty goal, let alone thinking of "breaking cycles" or personal betterment.

Public housing is as bad as the Native American reservation plan. Basically holding folks hostage in exchange for freebies. After a few generations, people just seem to forget the face of their fathers, and remain willing captives to the system. You don't need fucking chains to enslave people, just oppress them for a few generations, and make them fear getting away from the only support system they know.

And "Community Leaders", why would they want their community members to rise and succeed? If people move away to better employment and housing, their power base shrinks, and they become less relevant.

I don't know the answers, but I think they start with a better education system, and a strengthening of family values.

This whole issue is like a bacterial based skin infection. We can keep scraping off the scabs and putting on fresh bandages, or we can start administering a course of the proper antibiotics and start curing the root causes.

[willie]

When neighborhoods were stolen with token pay and bulldozed and then their inhabitants put in housing projects, cohesiveness within community disappeared. Mrs.Jones' house was on the corner. Uncle Willie lived next door, and my best buddies lived a block over. This community was similar and certainly as good and maybe better than than what the rich folks across town had. Mrs. Jones, Uncle Willie, and the white cop who came over here when he wanted to hide all had high expectations for youth. Pride was evident The men had gone to war in 1917, 1942, 1950, and 1965. They came back, contributed, raised families, and died. My scenario is not idyllic because it omitted poverty, limited opportunity, and discrimination. But today we have fewer such neighborhoods. Instead we have public housing.

For 10 years of my 16 year tenure I directed and taught an in school GED program. I was told that I had the highest pass rate in the state. When my kids did not attend, I went into housing projects alone and looked for them. I searched in nearby areas. Always I found them. After I retired, several black adults from these neighborhoods told me that the only reason that somebody didn't kill me was that they thought I was crazy and left me alone. However, many knew me and understood my mission. I had help. Always I got a passport from the guy who controlled the drug trade. I minded my business and stayed out of theirs. I digress to show that when I write about the inner city, I have personal knowledge. At night I worked at the jail.

[wvincent]

willie, your'e a good man for doing that. Wish more teachers would put forth that kind of effort.
You just became MISTER Willie in my eye's.

[Totem Polar]

You don't need fucking chains to enslave people, just oppress them for a few generations, and make them fear getting away from the only support system they know.

QFT.

There is other good stuff in your post, but this sentence deserves a spotlight, IMO.

[UniSol]

Going further, the one flaw in the quoted line of thinking (from the polemecist) is that disarming the populace will always result in a state monopoly of force. Maybe... but the history of parts of Latin America says that control of power can also end up being split between the state and criminal factions, with Jose and Jane Q Public caught helplessly in the middle. That’s also a thing.

Absolutely. To me it's not as black and white as Me vs. The Govt, it's me/us vs all the shit that starts going down when rule of law weakens, including corrupt institutions but just as likely armed gangs of all stripes, usually operating on the premise of some ideology but really going after any targets of opportunity. Venezuela is a good example.

[Sensei]

Yesterday, the cops brought a 13 year old kid to the ED in cuffs and shackles because he went berserk on the teacher and SRO when told that he could not just walk off school property because he didn’t like class. In his rage, the kid made the dreaded “finger gun” sign and threatened to “turn the place over.” The SRO supervisor told me that the kid has not been on his ADHD meds for months, a common practice in the summer, and they would not accept him back at school unless we started him back on meds. The kid sat in our ED alone for 18 hours because his mom had to go to work and his dad didn’t have enough gas to go to the hospital.

To my law enforcement colleagues, please stop dumping your adult and juvenile justice cases to the emergency department. We are already so overrun with the drunks, addicts, and the homeless in search of a sandwich that we cannot care for the truly sick people with heart attacks, sepsis, depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar (not on meth or cocaine). People who are violent when they are mad belong in jail or juvenile detention - not in an emergency department with peopling have actual medical or psychiatric emergencies.

Moreover, there is no pill or ADHD medicine that is going to keep a 13 year old kid from kicking a teacher in the nuts because they are mad. That rage comes from living in an environment where your parents can’t come get you for 18 hours in the hospital. It’s not a “mental health issue” that is going to be fixed with a pill - life is not that easy.

[CWM11B]

Sensei I wish we could do as you ask. We don't have choice. Trust me, you dont hate having them there more than I hate/hated bringing them and having to give up one of my guys to babysit, then try to cover calls for service to 1/3 of the city with three or four guys. We are just as short handed, if not more so than you guys. And are increasingly asked to do things that are not even remotely part of our duties or responsibilities. I wish you could see some of the bitch sessions we had internally about the lack of feasibility of most of what we are required to do by law or some external "policy"

Our systems just may have to collapse in order to do a reset. They are currently out of control, with no will to fix them. I absolutely believe there are those who do not want a fix and whose goal IS to cause a collapse. Just wait until December, when 16 and 17 year olds become "juveniles" for all offenses except traffic in NC. One guess as to what it's going to do to the crime rate.

[runcible]

Would be interesting to see if the ACLU gets involved for violations of his rights.


Why would the American Communist Lawyers Union do that?

http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/180302_analysis_RedFlagsLegislation.pdf

Published March 2018.

I think many forget that the ACLU is centered on Constitutionality, and has been the enemy of either major political party more than once in its history.

[JAD]

I don’t forget that at all, because it isn’t true. The ACLU is a leftist organization that uses the stalking horse of pseudoconstitutionality to accomplish leftist objectives.

[runcible]

If efforts like the canonical work of the WRP are exclusively leftist agenda, then one can appreciate why about half of the country votes in such a manner.

[TGS]

Yesterday, the cops brought a 13 year old kid to the ED in cuffs and shackles because he went berserk on the teacher and SRO when told that he could not just walk off school property because he didn’t like class. In his rage, the kid made the dreaded “finger gun” sign and threatened to “turn the place over.” The SRO supervisor told me that the kid has not been on his ADHD meds for months, a common practice in the summer, and they would not accept him back at school unless we started him back on meds. The kid sat in our ED alone for 18 hours because his mom had to go to work and his dad didn’t have enough gas to go to the hospital.

To my law enforcement colleagues, please stop dumping your adult and juvenile justice cases to the emergency department. We are already so overrun with the drunks, addicts, and the homeless in search of a sandwich that we cannot care for the truly sick people with heart attacks, sepsis, depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar (not on meth or cocaine). People who are violent when they are mad belong in jail or juvenile detention - not in an emergency department with peopling have actual medical or psychiatric emergencies.

Moreover, there is no pill or ADHD medicine that is going to keep a 13 year old kid from kicking a teacher in the nuts because they are mad. That rage comes from living in an environment where your parents can’t come get you for 18 hours in the hospital. It’s not a “mental health issue” that is going to be fixed with a pill - life is not that easy.

Cops are not medical providers, and when told that a kid has some sort of behavorial disorder, is supposed to be on medication and isn't taking it/doesn't have it, penchant for violence and made terroristic threats, they'd be negligent to not bring the kid to medical providers.


In fact, in various systems they wouldn't even be allowed to bring such a subject to jail due to the medication issue alone (without even getting into the other issues) without getting a "fit for confinement" letter from the ED.

[willie]

Accommodating angry kids with non supportive parents requires adequate facilities with appropriate staffing. This obvious statement points to an expensive solution hinging on taxpayer support.

In Sensei's example, a cop should have been sent to pick the father who had no gas. But we all know he did not care to start with. A better solution would be having a juvenile center staffed with a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who could have easily dealt with the problem. I have been hit, kicked, and scratched. Plus once a kid tried to kill me with a steel folding chair. This shit happened at school, not jail. In one way or another we all pay our dues. I paid mine.