Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

In reply to Javelin :

n reply to Turbo_Rev :

It's useful in this context because of a gun's ability to kill 4 people. Especially when we are discussing people that do not have the right to possess these weapons like minors and felons. Your statement reads that that if a felon kills 4 gang members, it shouldn't be included in a discussion about gun control? My position is the opposite, even with a motive at hand, there's 0 reason why that person should have had access to the firearm in the first place. 

The gun wouldn't be killing anybody without the felon pulling the trigger. As others have previously said- enforce the laws already on the books, prosecute crimes, and stop letting criminals out early. Make prohibited possession of a firearm a long prison term. Then we can talk about gun control in this context. Actually, call it gun control. Pretty easy to control guns inside a prison. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Javelin :

n reply to aircooled :

Does that matter though? We're talking about guns. If kids are getting access to a gun, that's a problem. It doesn't matter if they shot 1 person or 100, it's still a minor in possession of a deadly weapon and using it on school grounds (and yes I realize a few of the ones this year are adults on school property, which is another problem). There's been 304 fatal school shootings since Columbine, and over 1,000 school shootings total including thwarted attempts and accidental discharges. We all agree that 2A doesn't apply to minors, so how are they getting them? Clearly it's too easy. 

There's also been 818 mass shootings in the US in 2022 so far. That's insane. There's only been 148 days. So every day there has been over 5.5 shootings on average with 4 or more victims. That shouldn't happen. That's 22 people dead per day in mass shootings. Think about that. 
 

Yes it matters, it matters a lot. Please read the articles that 02Pilot linked, and I specifically mentioned. I was talking about the specific example that drove this and the national conversation. While I understand why you want tie it to gun violence in general, doing so can appear opportunistic to the very people you need to convince and you will lose them. When two high school kids get in a fight in a parking lot and one pulls a gun, that is tragic. But there are already a number of solutions to that problem and it is incomparable to a mass shooter targeting a grade school at random. I don't want to rehash the whole article, but it breaks down the various types of mass shootings. Domestic related that usually are contained to a family. Crime related which is criminals shooting other criminals or in the commission of another crime. And the rarest, the indiscriminate mass shooter who is looking to kill as many as possible and does not usually plan to survive the event. All tragic, but there are very different ways to address all three. My post specifically addressed the third. 

You're so close. That's what I'm getting at, there's not already a number of solutions. If a minor gains access to a gun for any reason, the solution either failed or never existed. That's the point. We're not talking about infringing on gun owner's rights, or taking guns away, or anything like that in this specific point. We're taking about keeping firearms out of a minor's hands, no matter what they do with it. We all agree they don't have the right and shouldn't have them, yes? So how do we actually fix that? 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Javelin :

n reply to Turbo_Rev :

It's useful in this context because of a gun's ability to kill 4 people. Especially when we are discussing people that do not have the right to possess these weapons like minors and felons. Your statement reads that that if a felon kills 4 gang members, it shouldn't be included in a discussion about gun control? My position is the opposite, even with a motive at hand, there's 0 reason why that person should have had access to the firearm in the first place. 

The gun wouldn't be killing anybody without the felon pulling the trigger. As others have previously said- enforce the laws already on the books, prosecute crimes, and stop letting criminals out early. Make prohibited possession of a firearm a long prison term. Then we can talk about gun control in this context. Actually, call it gun control. Pretty easy to control guns inside a prison. 

Until there's a universal background check that checks federal and state felony databases in all 50 states, there is no laws already on the books to enforce. That's the point I'm trying to make. Felons absolutely can and do "legally" buy guns every day with our current patchwork failure of a law. There is nothing to enforce. 13 states don't check federal, 49 don't check other states,  and anybody can get a pass if it takes 3 days to get back. So if the felon in Washington buys a gun in Montana legally (or heck, let's get into private sales and gun shows too) and commits another crime, what are you going to enforce?

Turbo_Rev said:

https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/

There were 3. But I think you meant gun control laws. 

Bingo. 3 laws since 1994 and all 3 actually expanded gun owners rights or protected the gun industry. So when you have people say things like "not one more inch" when an inch has never been taken, and in fact 3 were given, it makes it really difficult to keep accepting the status quo or what they say. 

If you want to talk state laws, I'm all ears. I only know of Washington's comprehensive 2014 law that seems to be having a pretty positive effect. 

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/states/washington/

Javelin said:

We're not talking about infringing on gun owner's rights, or taking guns away, or anything like that in this specific point. We're taking about keeping firearms out of a minor's hands, no matter what they do with it. We all agree they don't have the right and shouldn't have them, yes? So how do we actually fix that? 

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?  It's a nearly impossible answer.  I don't see any way to do it without infringing on gun owners "rights" (that phrase makes my skin crawl).  My knee jerk reaction is in fact to "get rid of guns".  As I've said before, I don't think there's a reason for people to have a gun.  Period.  So get rid of them, get rid of the NRA.  However, I realize that's utopian thinking at best.  That's as likely to happen as it is for me to regrow all of my hair.  The best "somewhat realistic" solution I can come up with is make ownership laws extraordinarily tight.  Buying a gun should be 1000x harder than getting a drivers' license, which in todays' world it isn't.  Penalties for having an unregistered/illegal firearm should be very harsh...no slap on the wrist.  That's at least a start.  Then we can start working on the MUCH deeper social issues that drive a lot of gun violence.  However, for now, if you take the guns out of their hands they are far less dangerous.  I just don't see how to make effective changes without infringing on these rights that gun owners claim.  I don't see gun ownership as a right, I see it as a privelege.  

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

As I've said before, I don't think there's a reason for people to have a gun.  Period.

Although I am mostly on the same side of this argument as you, I disagree with this.

In many rural locations, a gun is legitimately a tool. You often use it to control populations of animals like woodpeckers, gophers, coyotes, and hogs. If you have an especially annoying tom turkey that wanders through your yard every morning making a racket... that's some good eatin' there.

There are legitimate uses. But there's no reason why we can't find a solution that allows for those legitimate uses and still limits other uses.

Obvious one - we don't really need restrictions on guns that fire .22 lr, .22 magnum, or 12 gauge or 14 gauge shotguns.

We get into debates about .223 for dealing with wild hogs. That strikes me as a very limited problem that people in that particular location could apply to own guns uses that round. Hunting rifle rounds would also be pretty easy to regulate. Do you have a hunting license?

Oh sure, it's not going to stop everyone. Having to get a hunting license is a relatively small impediment. But it's impressive how impactful small impediments can be.

There are now credible reports that the propped open door was closed but didn't "lock". Early they described video saying that the teacher propped it open and left it open after calling 911. The narrative is changing so much I don't trust the local officials at all. Seems like they're searching for a way to blame others instead of their own shortcomings. 

It is reasonable to ask whether or not it is appropriate to impose restrictions on gun ownership or barriers to gun ownership, and what those might be.

I evaluate regulating things from a default libertarian position. I think the default position should be to allow something, and the burden of proof should be on those who want to prevent or limit it.

That said, there are MANY situations where it is perfectly reasonable to limit something. Different people's rights come in conflict all the time. When they do, some rights are more central than others, and should take priority.

It's the adage of "my right to swing my arm ends at your face." Your right to life and health takes precedence over my right to move around how I'd like.

We see this principle all the time in things like speed limits and regulations on pollution or noise. Your right to travel and operate a vehicle you own must give way to the right over those around you to live and be uninjured. Your health requiring breathing clean air and drinking clean water supersedes my right to conduct business how I want. We had cars and traffic before traffic laws. Those were put in place after enough motorists had proven that they could not be relied on to operate their vehicles safely. I'm sure the number of motorists who caused problems was a minority, but the laws got applied to everyone.

Many people would argue that "It's already illegal to kill people." We can look to our traffic laws again. We could apply that same standard. We don't need speed limits or traffic laws, just punish people if they cause injury or damage. We don't do that though. We know that it is best for general public health and safety to proactively prevent damage instead of reacting to it after the fact. We give tickets for speeding and running red lights. Many places require safety inspections on vehicles to be sure they have decent tires, brakes, and signaling.

I operate a distillery. There are limits on how much spirit of >100 proof I can store without active fire protection. We share a building with other businesses. They would not want to have to wait for a fire to break out. They want to prevent a fire from breaking out. OSHA can be a PITA, but I'm glad we have it. I want to be able to tell my boss he has to take proactive steps to keep me from being injured, not let him gamble that me being injured is unlikely enough to be worth the risk that it could cost him money.

I presume this makes sense and that the vast majority of people here would find these standards to be reasonable.

How do these standards apply to firearms?

Firearm owners have a right to private property and to use it as they like and enjoy. However, we see this right to own items like guns conflicting with the rights to life and health of other people. The right of those children to live supersedes my right to own a gun.

I am a responsible gun owner. I am not the problem. Other people are. But a fair number of people in the general populace have demonstrate that our existing gun laws are sufficiently open to allow preventable damages to other people's rights to life and health.

It is not sufficient to wait for people to demonstrate they should not own guns. Just like we don't wait for people to prove they can't safely operate a car. It is reasonable to change the requirement to be on people who want to own a tool designed to project deadly force at a distance to demonstrate that they can safely and responsible own and operate such a tool.

Yeah... I know this is a lot easier said than done.

Stampie said:

There are now credible reports that the propped open door was closed but didn't "lock". Early they described video saying that the teacher propped it open and left it open after calling 911. The narrative is changing so much I don't trust the local officials at all. Seems like they're searching for a way to blame others instead of their own shortcomings. 

now the Uvalde school district police chief isn't responding to Texas DPS's request for interviews. 

If he doesn't think he should be held accountable he shouldn't be in the job.

Haven't read the thread, not going to read the thread, not even going to insert my opinion.

Just wanted to say good job on getting to 12 pages without a lock, and keep up the good work. 

In reply to Javelin :

I wouldn't call those inches given to gun owners, not by a long shot. One kind of was, with Heller. If we get silencers without tax stamps, that's an inch given. 

We've actually imposed more restrictions on what firearms you can own, since the start of the country, then we've removed. 

Here's a law I would start enforcing: make the ATF prosecute straw purchasers, even if they don't think they can win. 

But, frankly, this entire conversation is nearly moot. The political atmosphere in the US means patchwork fixes that are likely to get reversed every election cycle. IF you can find a candidate that actually offers a novel solution, either side. IF they can get their hands on reliable data, which seems to be more and more difficult to do these days. 

Stampie said:

There are now credible reports that the propped open door was closed but didn't "lock". Early they described video saying that the teacher propped it open and left it open after calling 911. The narrative is changing so much I don't trust the local officials at all. Seems like they're searching for a way to blame others instead of their own shortcomings. 

The Border Patrol agent that shot the attacker was off duty, at his barber I believe, and his wife texted him about what was happening.  He borrowed the barber's shotgun, drove to the school, fended off the local cops trying to keep him out of the school, went in, and killed the attacker.    One guy with balls and the will to back them up, willing to disobey "lawful" commands, ended it.  Meanwhile all the Barney Fife's wrenched their hands and trembled in fear.

*Edit:  Fact checkers have revealed that the Border Agent did borrow the shotgun from his barber, did go to the school and helped with evacuation, but did NOT shoot the killer.  A tactical team did.   

jharry3 said:

Stampie said:

There are now credible reports that the propped open door was closed but didn't "lock". Early they described video saying that the teacher propped it open and left it open after calling 911. The narrative is changing so much I don't trust the local officials at all. Seems like they're searching for a way to blame others instead of their own shortcomings. 

The Border Patrol agent that shot the attacker was off duty, at his barber I believe, and his wife texted him about what was happening.  He borrowed the barber's shotgun, drove to the school, fended off the local cops trying to keep him out of the school, went in, and killed the attacker.    One guy with balls and the will to back them up, willing to disobey "lawful" commands, ended it.  Meanwhile all the Barney Fife's wrenched their hands and trembleed in fear

This. I keep going back to this situation and what we know failed. I understand this thread is specifically about weapons, but the discussion about uvalde should not be. Given the sickos history, given the time frame, given the lack of action by law enforcement, we have so many things that went wrong that are more responsible for what happened than whatever type of weapon was used. 
The creep could have used flintlock pistols just as effectively. He could have fired just as many lethal shots with a single-shot 22. 
I don't know the answers to how we stop something like this from happening, all I know is we need effective ways to end it if it does happen.

This isn't going to make me any friends. My opinion is the cops who refused to go in, and according to some reports also refused to let SWAT in, are responsible for the number of casualties. I'm not them, I didn't sign up for that job. That said, they knew kids were in the building with an active shooter. 
Im like Curtis in some aspects, though maybe not as good looking. There isn't a thing I own that is worth a life. Someone wants to take my stuff, I'll help them load it out before I pick up a weapon. But if someone is a danger to my kids or my wife that is a wholly different situation. 
 

barefootcyborg5000 said:

The creep could have used flintlock pistols just as effectively. He could have fired just as many lethal shots with a single-shot 22. 
 

Explain, slowly please, how many flintlock pistols and time to reload he would need to inflict that damage and still scare local law enforcement enough that they would rather wait outside...

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

How many rounds was he firing? Was he laying down suppressing fire? He had two rifles. That seems to be part of the discussion, though I'm not sure why. One guy with a shotgun stopped this monster, so why was an entire police force not able to?
 

To your question, One could carry a dozen  pistols without difficulty, and reload them at 2-3 a minute without much difficulty. Or a similar number of bp revolvers, which are similarly not recognized as firearms by ATF. 
The point isn't to argue what was possible though. Merely stating that it doesn't take any particular type of weapon to kill a large number of people if you have over 40 minutes of no resistance. 

Probably a bit of an over statement from barefoot, but I would say, based on what we know, it would not take much to scare the locals enough to keep them out, and they where very generous with their allowed "reloading time".

Also, a blunderbus (basically a flintlock shotgun) could do some pretty terrible things in close quarters.

barefootcyborg5000 said:

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

To your question, One could carry a dozen  pistols without difficulty, and reload them at 2-3 a minute without much difficulty.

So like this?

Or like this? 

In reply to Beer Baron :

More or less. Or in a backpack. 
 

The whole thing is irrelevant and my argument is meant to be facetious. Nobody is going to do any of that. More likely modern revolvers, or a pump shotgun, or a tube fed cowboy lever gun. Or a single shot 22. 
We might also ask how this kid had the scratch to buy two Daniel Defense rifles. Either is worth more than my car. Maybe if he had used a cheap DPMS it would have malfunctioned and saved lives. 

My point is, the weapon used is irrelevant when he had so long to act. 

barefootcyborg5000 said:

In reply to Beer Baron :

More or less. Or in a backpack. 
 

The whole thing is irrelevant and my argument is meant to be facetious. Nobody is going to do any of that. More likely modern revolvers, or a pump shotgun, or a tube fed cowboy lever gun. Or a single shot 22. 
We might also ask how this kid had the scratch to buy two Daniel Defense rifles. Either is worth more than my car. Maybe if he had used a cheap DPMS it would have malfunctioned and saved lives. 

My point is, the weapon used is irrelevant when he had so long to act. 

He bought them on credit. He got the guns now, with payments due later.

On the second point, the type of weapon did not matter in this one particular instance (though there's certainly an argument that the weapons used is what caused the police, including SWAT, not to engage), it absolutely has mattered in the vast majority of them (Las Vegas, Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc, etc, etc). 

barefootcyborg5000 said:

In reply to Beer Baron :

More or less. Or in a backpack. 
 

The whole thing is irrelevant and my argument is meant to be facetious. Nobody is going to do any of that. More likely modern revolvers, or a pump shotgun, or a tube fed cowboy lever gun. Or a single shot 22. 
We might also ask how this kid had the scratch to buy two Daniel Defense rifles. Either is worth more than my car. Maybe if he had used a cheap DPMS it would have malfunctioned and saved lives. 

My point is, the weapon used is irrelevant when he had so long to act. 

I think it was only one and a DPMS.  Still, kid was pulling down way more than I was when I had a job in HS.  

I believe the federal agent referenced above that went in with a shotgun just evacuated his child and classmates, not directly engaged the shooter.  

To note, law enforcement is under no obligation to protect your life.  It might be assumed that they would but you cannot count on it.  After the Parkland mess with the SRO holding up outside waiting for backup, I would have thought every LEO would understand the problem with that strategy.  I never would have expected an agency in Texas of all states to have this occur.  

Just as a quick thought experiment for everyone that suggests the Australian confiscation model, consider the behavior of the police and government and the response of the people in the course of the past 2 years.  That is the exact reason why 2A supporters will not budge.  

Veering away from the gun issue and back to the question of root cause. This is just me thinking out loud and maybe I'm way off base. Back in the 70s and 80s there was what seems to me like an awfully large number of active serial killers. We don't seem to have those any more, the people that will commit a long string of murders on anonymous strangers in many separate crimes. They just seem to have went away. Maybe there is always a small percentage of the population that is compelled to commit atrocities, and they carry them out by whatever is getting the most attention at the time, like if the uvalde shooter had been born in 1955 maybe he would have spent a few years living like Ted Bundy isn't of doing a shooting rampage. 

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I guess it makes me think i may be looking at what causes people to do these things the wrong way. My knee jerk reaction is to be glad when I hear the shooter was killed, but after a few days I wish we had the chance to interview them and try to figure out what makes them tick.

jmabarone said:

 

I never would have expected an agency in Texas of all states to have this occur.  

Posturing is Texas' main export. Acting tough, brave, and independent doesn't make you any of those things.

Last thing to add to this thread:  Minor anecdotal experience, but experience nonetheless.  This is regarding pharmaceuticals and mental health.  

1:  My father has always been a very easy going guy.  Not someone who has had issues with mental health outwardly, cannot think of any time where I would say he was acting depressed.  He started a new medication as a sleep aid due to restless leg syndrome.  Within 2 weeks of starting it, he told me that he had suicidal thoughts and was not thinking right at all.  Immediately stopped that medication and went to something else.  Normal guy, happy life but one pill caused that quick of a change in his mindset.  

2:  I worked with a guy who killed himself very soon after starting a new antidepressant medication.  He had quite a bit of stress due to leaving a good job and starting a new one, a really crappy boss, some family financial issues, other things, etc. but the timing of the new medication and his suicide led everyone to believe it was in part due to his medication.  

gearheadmb said:

We don't seem to have those any more, the people that will commit a long string of murders on anonymous strangers in many separate crimes. 

The DC sniper in the early 2000s is the last one I remember.

Maybe it's the proliferation of cameras and tracking software that stops them before they can get a rampage going?

Not to veer wildly off-topic, but does it really make any sense to talk about passing new laws when we are growing increasingly lax about enforcing existing laws?  I would go so far as to say we are condoning, encouraging even, a lawless society.  Hardly the sort of environment that's going to have people getting the warm fuzzies about not owning firearms.