Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :

Yes, I meant banning guns and committing vigilante justice. It does read a bit oddly looking at it the way I originally wrote it. Vigilante justice, and even many forms of "legal" justice carried out in the old west were unconstitutional. 

Hmmmm.... grammar....    Not sure that was written correctly, but it certainly could be taken both ways.

And we wonder why people misunderstand other people on the internet!

(so, vigilantism bad... right?)

It reminds me of the time I was helping my uncle Jack off a horse..... 

In reply to aircooled :

It would have been pretty funny if I spent 36 pages defending the constitution, then called for vigilante justice, which violates about half of the first 10 amendments.

In reply to aircooled :

So... this is the perfect time to mention Ernst August Wagner.
In 1913, Mr. Wagner was a teacher in Germany.  And he had acquired two C96 Mauser pistols.  Which he used to shoot 20 people (killing 9).
At that point in time, the C96 had a fixed 10-round internal magazine reloaded by stripper clips.
(Wikipedia explains the tie-in to your uncle...)
Also, earlier in the same year in Germany there had been another mass shooting by a teacher.

Obviously this is conclusive proof that: arming teachers is bad; magazine capacity does not matter; mass shootings have always happened everywhere; the problem is always mental illness; and social media has nothing to do with anything.  (I am NOT being serious about any of that: single incidents can never prove anything).

In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :

I believe the lack of Oxford Comma makes you and Boost Crazy 100% correct.      

Not just a white guy problem

https://twitter.com/DEB79654703/status/1525881932776624135

Another shooting yesterday in a city that's strict on gun laws. Maybe if we just get MORE laws it'll finally fix this...

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Maybe it's not guns. Maybe it's mostly a 18-25 year old white guy incel problem. 

Nice try though.  

spitfirebill said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Maybe it's not guns. Maybe it's mostly a 18-25 year old white guy incel problem. 

Nice try though.  

Dylan roof.  Uvalde guy. Newtown. This guy.  Three + points  make a trend.  This dude in Il was 4chan out the Butt.   

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

So you pick 3 out of that wall of faces and think that proves a trend? The other 241 show a different trend.....

Below is a map of mass shootings Jan 1 to July 5th 2022....

...not sure the number, but looks to be well over 100(?)....

...and you are using 3 as your dataset to draw your conclusion?

(BTW - pretty sure the Uvalde guy would not be considered a "white guy")

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Somewhat interestingly (although not surprising), the distribution is pretty similar for most of the data.  Here is the map for gun deaths, which is basically a higher res version of the above.

And, for a bit of balance (again, pattern not shocking):

There have been numerous reports on this and the statistics show that mass shooter's race roughly reflects the average cross section of US race.  Its not a race issue.

If you look at the subset of mass shootings that are driven by racism, that's a different story.

You know how I've been railing on about loopholes?

https://news.yahoo.com/highland-park-parade-shooting-robert-crimo-police-suicide-attempt-knives-guns-214216232.html

Highland Park weapons were all legally purchased thanks to loopholes. Can we please have universal background checks to close that now?

aircooled said:

Below is a map of mass shootings Jan 1 to July 5th 2022....

...not sure the number, but looks to be well over 100(?)....

...and you are using 3 as your dataset to draw your conclusion?

 

(BTW - pretty sure the Uvalde guy would not be considered a "white guy")

 

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

Somewhat interestingly (although not surprising), the distribution is pretty similar for most of the data.  Here is the map for gun deaths, which is basically a higher res version of the above.

And, for a bit of balance (again, pattern not shocking):

I am no expert, but those look like population distribution maps.

Javelin said:

You know how I've been railing on about loopholes?

https://news.yahoo.com/highland-park-parade-shooting-robert-crimo-police-suicide-attempt-knives-guns-214216232.html

Highland Park weapons were all legally purchased thanks to loopholes. Can we please have universal background checks to close that now?

That's not a loophole. That's a failure of the system in place to do what it was supposed to do. A loophole is a family member gifting their nephew/child/grandchild a gun. This is the state of Illinois once again being negligent in its duties. Surprise surprise. 

bobzilla said:

Javelin said:

You know how I've been railing on about loopholes?

https://news.yahoo.com/highland-park-parade-shooting-robert-crimo-police-suicide-attempt-knives-guns-214216232.html

Highland Park weapons were all legally purchased thanks to loopholes. Can we please have universal background checks to close that now?

That's not a loophole. That's a failure of the system in place to do what it was supposed to do. A loophole is a family member gifting their nephew/child/grandchild a gun. This is the state of Illinois once again being negligent in its duties. Surprise surprise. 

Do you have reading comprehension? And I quote, 

"Since Crimo didn’t have a FOID card at the time of the September 2019 threat to ‘kill everyone’ there was no FOID card to revoke. In Illinois, a FOID card is required to purchase a firearm. Spokesperson did not explain why he wasn’t flagged to prevent the future issuance of a FOID card."

That's like literally the definition of a loophole. 

In reply to Javelin :

Not a loophole. Right in your quote, he should have been flagged to prevent the future issuance of the card. That's someone not doing their job.  A loophole would be if he knew he couldn't be flagged if he didn't have one so he didn't apply for one until later. 

https://clickhole.com/it-s-our-duty-to-support-the-troops-and-the-second-amen-1825124050/
 

this is funny. 

“Spokesperson did not explain why he wasn’t flagged to prevent the future issuance of a FOID card,” Bradley added.

If he was supposed to be flagged in that situation, under the law, then that is a failure.

If the law did not require him to be flagged in that situation, then that's a loophole (someone doing something,  entirely within the law, you didn't want them to do)

"looks" like a failure based on the writing, but hard to say for certain.

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Javelin :

Not a loophole. Right in your quote, he should have been flagged to prevent the future issuance of the card. That's someone not doing their job.  A loophole would be if he knew he couldn't be flagged if he didn't have one so he didn't apply for one until later. 

I think you guys are both right. It should have been flagged but wasn't becuse the law only requires him to be flag if he has the card.   No card no flag.  Bad law and a loophole. 

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Javelin :

Not a loophole. Right in your quote, he should have been flagged to prevent the future issuance of the card. That's someone not doing their job.  A loophole would be if he knew he couldn't be flagged if he didn't have one so he didn't apply for one until later. 

Yes, a loophole. There's no way for LE to flag the guy, because he didn't have a card yet! It's like trying to apply points to a DL when you don't have one yet, but the driving laws actually have mechanisms to prevent you from getting the DL if you do have offenses registered. His intent on getting a clean card is neither here nor there.

In reply to Javelin :

Yes, a loophole. There's no way for LE to flag the guy, because he didn't have a card yet! It's like trying to apply points to a DL when you don't have one yet, but the driving laws actually have mechanisms to prevent you from getting the DL if you do have offenses registered. His intent on getting a clean card is neither here nor there.

I'm not so sure. Here is the full list of things that can prevent one from getting a FOIC card...

Who is eligible for a FOID Card?

To be eligible for a FOID card, a person must be 21 years of age or have a parent or guardian sponsor that is eligible for a FOID card.

An applicant must not be prohibited from possessing firearms in accordance with state or federal law. This requires the applicant is/has: 

• Not been convicted of a felony.
• Not addicted to narcotics.
• Not been a patient in a mental health facility within the past five years.
• Not been a patient in a mental health facility more than five years ago, unless the applicant submits a Mental Health certification under 430 ILCS 65/8(u).
• Not intellectually disabled.
• Not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.
• Not subject to an existing order of protection.
• Not been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed.
• Not been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction.
• Not an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa; unless the applicant is an official representative of a foreign government or who received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3).
• Not a minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.
• Not an adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.
• Is a resident of the State of Illinois (in most cases).
• Not been adjudicated as a mentally disabled person.
• Not been involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility.
• Not a person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, or any other person or the community.
• Not developmentally disabled.
• Not renounced their citizenship.
• Not dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
• Not convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

It looks to me like the fifth from the bottom would cover the red flag law. I'd say that one agency failing to report to another is failure to act more than a loophole. It appears that the law is there, they just aren't using it correctly. There is nothing preventing them from reporting the red flag incident- that would be a loophole. It doesn't matter that he didn't have a FOIC card yet. Using that logic, a convicted violent felon with a history of domestic abuse and a restraint order could get a FOIC card because they didn't have one at the time of their offenses. Using the driver's license analogy, an the DMV most certainly gets notified if an unlicensed driver gets cited, and it affects their ability to later get a license. If an agency failed to report to the DMV, that wouldn't be a loophole. 
 

That all said, I don't believe for a second that it would have made any difference in this case. You would have to be pretty naive to think that the monster who planned this attack would have just given up without access to a legally purchased gun. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

https://clickhole.com/it-s-our-duty-to-support-the-troops-and-the-second-amen-1825124050/
 

this is funny
 

If you mean funny in that it's silly and absurd in it's lacking any intellectual integrity, I agree. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

 

I am no expert, but those look like population distribution maps.

I would tend to agree, but you would need to do a per/10,000 type map to know better.  It is pretty interesting you can get such a good distribution in only half a year (which I believe speaks to a good amount of consistency / predictability), which also seems to indicate that for gun violence, population density seems to be a primary factor.  Which also seems to indicate state laws do not affect it very much,which also of course implies only national laws might affect it (although I suspect it would take quite a long time for any noticable affect).

Here is a population density map for comparison. 

Take away:  don't live on the east coast or California.

I find this is generally good advice irrespective of the gun issue.