Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

[highfigh]

I'm fine with collecting if they are responsible.

My point with full-auto was it isn't just people but the weapon that is the problem. A dumb weapon to be going around with as a hobby.

Here we are 23 years since Columbine and fairly regular pattern of school shootings IMO and someone over there in Congress goes 'I know. We need stricter gun control laws.' Pretty sad.

Full auto is illegal if it involves mods like the switch that can be installed on a Glock and heavily regulated if it involves military weapons. The bump stock used in the Las Vegas massacre shouldn't have been available, but apparently, it slipped under Congress' nose or they chose to avoid action on it.

I don't know how the turds who were behind most mass shootings slipped past their families- most were a bit 'off', if you know what I mean and some were known to have mental health problems but those didn't make it into the NICS system, which should have prevented them buying their guns.

Gun control people are looking at one type of weapon that is responsible for more deaths per event but in the grand scheme, those are a very small percentage of the annual death toll. Banning AR-style rifles won't do anything but allow people to pat themselves on the back for 'getting it done' and preventing trauma that's associated with AR-style weapons that are scary-looking to some people. Emotional reactions are a bad way to legislate, but it's done all the GD time and it needs to stop.

Once again, the need to point out that schools are a common place for mass shootings because they're supposed to be a 'safe space' but there's almost nothing making that possible. In Uvalde, a door that was supposed to be closed and locked, wasn't. The police who showed up didn't do a GD thing to stop him and the suicide and shooting threats Crimo made didn't make an impression on the cops who should have filed a damned report but apparently, it was too much work for them! The failures of PEOPLE caused this, not just the gun.

You think collecting is fine if people are responsible, but separate that from gun ownership even though the need for responsibility is EXACTLY the same, if not more for the latter. Why? Being responsible is needed- I don't have a problem with requiring practice and testing, either. Gun owners wouldn't need to take their own gun(s) to the range where testing would occur, they could rent one so their paranoia could be assuaged. Besides, it's not the gun's responsibility to make the shooter more accurate, it's the shooter's responsibility to find a way to shoot accurately with whatever is available IF their reasons for gun ownership is 'self defense'. Criminals don't give a shyte, they just want a gun for their crimes. The problem with crazy people: They can often make others think they're not crazy but in many cases, the ones who might have detected some level of crazy were too clueless to see it and/or couldn't be bothered to say something about it.

 

[highfigh]

Does anyone here agree with the grand jury on this?

Mom blasts TX grand jury for DECLINING to indict man who killed girl

Gwen Alvarez said she didn't understand Tony Earls' 'innocence' while her daughter Arlene, 9, lays in a grave. 'He gets to see the light my daughter doesn't, my daughter is still dug down underground.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

"His attorneys and his wife said he was 'not a monster' but was defending his right to property"-

Depending on where this happens, it should have led to his prosecution by the DA but in the article, it shows "The DA also said that deadly force can be sometimes excused when it comes to property protection."- it's property, not a life. Let it go.

. ALL ATMs have a camera- that and other cameras in the area should have shown the guy who robbed Earls and if he has insurance, he should have let that provide reimbursement. He should have known this, but his anger may have taken over. Seeing some of his criminal history, I'm not sure he's a big believer in insurance.

He fired at the wrong vehicle- here, that might be a case of involuntary homicide or manslaughter but he should have been penalized.

 

[Trell]

Does anyone here agree with the grand jury on this?

Mom blasts TX grand jury for DECLINING to indict man who killed girl

Gwen Alvarez said she didn't understand Tony Earls' 'innocence' while her daughter Arlene, 9, lays in a grave. 'He gets to see the light my daughter doesn't, my daughter is still dug down underground.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

In Sweden we call it murder and I would like to believe that a majority of Americans thinks so as well.

I feel so sorry for parents having to raise children in places like Texas where they have to fear for their lives. It should not have to be like this.

 

[highfigh]

In Sweden we call it murder and I would like to believe that a majority of Americans thinks so as well.

I feel so sorry for parents having to raise children in places like Texas where they have to fear for their lives. It should not have to be like this.

Does it need to be intentional, as in, killing a specific person from the outset, or just an act of rage, like this one?

Unfortunately, lawyers in the US have made careers out of making up new and more elaborate names for minute differences in the definitions of crimes, making it possible to avoid conviction due to technicalities. The legal dictionary is so bloated that it's very difficult to know all of it and if someone can't afford an attorney, there's no guarantee that the one provided by the state will know enough to do an adequate job. OTOH, some people who have been accused hire lawyers who do a great job of avoiding conviction when the accused has done something terrible, is known to have done it and uses tactics that could be called 'shady' or 'sleazy' to use the system against itself. The guy who killed a 19 year old young woman who was trying to find a graduation party is a good example- the prosecutors couldn't find the witness who had made a statement when the accused was arrested for a previous shooting death during the 11 months he was held in jail, so the court let him go because we have the right to face our accuser(s). He was released in May, he killed this woman only a couple of months later, when he was only 17. That means he was 16 when he allegedly killed the other person.

I would be surprised if he didn't contact the witness and make a deal to avoid being convicted. It happens too often to make it unlikely.

No, it should not be like this.

 

[GO-NAD!]

"His attorneys and his wife said he was 'not a monster' but was defending his right to property"-

Depending on where this happens, it should have led to his prosecution by the DA but in the article, it shows "The DA also said that deadly force can be sometimes excused when it comes to property protection."- it's property, not a life. Let it go.

. ALL ATMs have a camera- that and other cameras in the area should have shown the guy who robbed Earls and if he has insurance, he should have let that provide reimbursement. He should have known this, but his anger may have taken over. Seeing some of his criminal history, I'm not sure he's a big believer in insurance.

He fired at the wrong vehicle- here, that might be a case of involuntary homicide or manslaughter but he should have been penalized.

The grand jury, which decided not to indict the accused, is made up of local citizens. My gut reaction is that these citizens would look upon such a charge as an impingement on their own right to use their own firearms as they see fit - "Hmmm, if we indict this guy and he's convicted, it would set a precedent that could limit my own right to shoot at bad guys as I see fit, no matter how stupid it may be to do so. I reserve the right to shoot some kid in the face for having the temerity to knock on my door to ask for directions".

While he can no longer be criminally charged, I hope there's a civil suit. When you are pursuing someone to shoot at, you are no longer acting in self-defence. It's pure vigilantism.

 

[highfigh]

The grand jury, which decided not to indict the accused, is made up of local citizens. My gut reaction is that these citizens would look upon such a charge as an impingement on their own right to use their own firearms as they see fit - "Hmmm, if we indict this guy and he's convicted, it would set a precedent that could limit my own right to shoot at bad guys as I see fit, no matter how stupid it may be to do so. I reserve the right to shoot some kid in the face for having the temerity to knock on my door to ask for directions".

While he can no longer be criminally charged, I hope there's a civil suit. When you are pursuing someone to shoot at, you are no longer acting in self-defence. It's pure vigilantism.

There was a case years ago, where a guy called 911 to say someone was breaking into his neighbor's house and while the call was ongoing, he told the operator that he was going to get his gun and shoot the burglars. He was told to wait, but he didn't and the operator heard the gunshots. He wasn't convicted.

I saw a photo on Facebook yesterday- it was a sign like someone would put outside of their home with ADT or some other security company's info, but this one had "Protected by 'F&ck Around And Find Out Surveillance".

At some point, the lessons about messing with people and suffering the consequences were lost. Some people have no conscience, no regard for the lives of others and no regard for the right of others to be left alone.

 

[Trell]

While he can no longer be criminally charged, I hope there's a civil suit. When you are pursuing someone to shoot at, you are no longer acting in self-defence. It's pure vigilantism.

Civil suits are very expensive, though, and I’m sure that the defendant will be well supported by the pro-gun crowd.

I don’t know if it’s possible for the federal government to act if state laws does not permit a new grand jury.

This lack of any indictment at all sets a bad precedent as well as giving a very bad signal to the public.

 

[highfigh]

In MKE, someone went to a grocery store and because of his activities, was followed to the parking lot where a confrontation with two security guards occurred. This guy pulled a gun and shot one of the guards, killing him. The second guard pulled a gun and while being shot himself, killed the first shooter. Now, the 'victim's' family is filing a lawsuit, based on their questions about whether the guard could legally carry a gun (many security guards can, and do) and whether the security company can use armed guards.

If this is the same guy I looked up (his age agrees with the link about the open felony case) in the WI CCAP system (Circuit Court case website), he was a walking drug crime spree- a long list of felonies, going back to 2004. The link shows "Court records show Lorenzo was wanted for an open felony drug case. He was court-ordered to not have any dangerous weapons or firearms. ". His family is deflecting blame so they can have a big payday, nothing more. Two are dead because, once again, a felon had a gun. The case files only have one person with that name, so.....

El Rey shooting: Security guards' gun status questioned

The family of Luis Lorenzo, one of two men killed, has a new lawyer questioning whether the security guards involved could legally carry guns.

www.fox6now.com

 

[highfigh]

Civil suits are very expensive, though, and I’m sure that the defendant will be well supported by the pro-gun crowd.

I don’t know if it’s possible for the federal government to act if state laws does not permit a new grand jury.

Grand juries are for criminal cases and if someone is acquitted of a crime, they can't be prosecuted for it again because we're protected by 'double jeopardy', in the Constitution. If a case is dismissed, it can be retried, though.

I think a civil suit should be filed, but I don't know what the family will see as the result- if someone has little money or possessions, they might garnish the shooter's wages, but that won't bring much restitution.

 

[GO-NAD!]

In MKE, someone went to a grocery store and because of his activities, was followed to the parking lot where a confrontation with two security guards occurred. This guy pulled a gun and shot one of the guards, killing him. The second guard pulled a gun and while being shot himself, killed the first shooter. Now, the 'victim's' family is filing a lawsuit, based on their questions about whether the guard could legally carry a gun (many security guards can, and do) and whether the security company can use armed guards.

If this is the same guy I looked up (his age agrees with the link about the open felony case) in the WI CCAP system (Circuit Court case website), he was a walking drug crime spree- a long list of felonies, going back to 2004. The link shows "Court records show Lorenzo was wanted for an open felony drug case. He was court-ordered to not have any dangerous weapons or firearms. ". His family is deflecting blame so they can have a big payday, nothing more. Two are dead because, once again, a felon had a gun. The case files only have one person with that name, so.....

El Rey shooting: Security guards' gun status questioned

The family of Luis Lorenzo, one of two men killed, has a new lawyer questioning whether the security guards involved could legally carry guns.

www.fox6now.com

A felon had a gun, because they're easy to obtain, because there are so frickin' many in circulation.

 

[highfigh]

A felon had a gun, because they're easy to obtain, because there are so frickin' many in circulation.

You're ignoring the fact that they're easy to get because some people don't give a crap about who they sell to. I would be surprised if the gun hadn't been stolen at least once.

There are far more parts to this problem than just the number of guns in the US. If someone is motivated and guns are in short supply, they'll be stolen and the price will be higher. It won't end until people make the decisions needed to end it.

Why can't you bring yourself to blame people for this?

 

[Trell]

Some interesting history in an opinion piece of a Texan gun owner in The Washington Post.

This must be the very definition of FUBAR.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/19/texas-gun-culture-and-uvalde/

>>>…
Many Americans, and Texans in particular, have a mythical misconception about the state: In rootin’, tootin’ Texas, this has always been the way with guns. But that simply isn’t true. Until 1870, sure, Texas was part of the Wild West when it came to guns. Yet in 1870, that all changed: The state legislature banned carrying firearms outside the home.

Texas was one of the first states to do so, leading the way on gun-safety laws into the 20th century. It also banned knives, daggers and other weapons from being carried in public. In the 1920s, Texas quadrupled fines for violations (and sent offenders who couldn’t pay them into prison work gangs), banned automatic weapons altogether and imposed a hefty 50 percent tax on gun sales.

These laws remained on the books until an initial legislative assault in the 1970s. In the early 1990s, the last Democratic governor of Texas, Ann Richards, backed by police, vetoed a bill legalizing concealed weapons. That played a big role in her 1994 downfall when she lost to George W. Bush.

The new Republican governor signed a concealed-carry law in 1995, saying it would “make Texas a safer place.” Thus was born the unofficial “Ann Richards rule” in Texas politics: Never oppose bills expanding gun rights.
Other than signing a stand-your-ground law, Rick Perry, who followed Bush as governor, mostly just talked about guns, when he wasn’t posing with them. But under Abbott today, and a Republican-controlled legislature, Texans can carry a gun pretty much any place except where a posted sign prohibits it.

You can openly carry a 9mm pistol at the grocery store, walk into a coffee shop with an AK-47 as long as there’s no sign prohibiting firearms. I can even keep my .45-caliber pistol right in the center console of my truck — without a license. …
<<<

 

[GO-NAD!]

You're ignoring the fact that they're easy to get because some people don't give a crap about who they sell to. I would be surprised if the gun hadn't been stolen at least once.

There are far more parts to this problem than just the number of guns in the US. If someone is motivated and guns are in short supply, they'll be stolen and the price will be higher. It won't end until people make the decisions needed to end it.

Why can't you bring yourself to blame people for this?

I'm not ignoring that at all. The more guns that are in circulation, the more that are available to obtain illegally. It's simple math. Of course there's more to it, but it's a huge contributor.

 

[Mikado463]

Does anyone here agree with the grand jury on this?

Mom blasts TX grand jury for DECLINING to indict man who killed girl

Gwen Alvarez said she didn't understand Tony Earls' 'innocence' while her daughter Arlene, 9, lays in a grave. 'He gets to see the light my daughter doesn't, my daughter is still dug down underground.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

no I don't ......

 

[Trell]

I'm not ignoring that at all. The more guns that are in circulation, the more that are available to obtain illegally. It's simple math.[bold added] Of course there's more to it, but it's a huge contributor.

Didn’t you know that arithmetics has a liberal slant?

 

[Dude#1279435]

Full auto is illegal if it involves mods like the switch that can be installed on a Glock and heavily regulated if it involves military weapons. The bump stock used in the Las Vegas massacre shouldn't have been available, but apparently, it slipped under Congress' nose or they chose to avoid action on it.

I don't know how the turds who were behind most mass shootings slipped past their families- most were a bit 'off', if you know what I mean and some were known to have mental health problems but those didn't make it into the NICS system, which should have prevented them buying their guns.

Gun control people are looking at one type of weapon that is responsible for more deaths per event but in the grand scheme, those are a very small percentage of the annual death toll. Banning AR-style rifles won't do anything but allow people to pat themselves on the back for 'getting it done' and preventing trauma that's associated with AR-style weapons that are scary-looking to some people. Emotional reactions are a bad way to legislate, but it's done all the GD time and it needs to stop.

Once again, the need to point out that schools are a common place for mass shootings because they're supposed to be a 'safe space' but there's almost nothing making that possible. In Uvalde, a door that was supposed to be closed and locked, wasn't. The police who showed up didn't do a GD thing to stop him and the suicide and shooting threats Crimo made didn't make an impression on the cops who should have filed a damned report but apparently, it was too much work for them! The failures of PEOPLE caused this, not just the gun.

You think collecting is fine if people are responsible, but separate that from gun ownership even though the need for responsibility is EXACTLY the same, if not more for the latter. Why? Being responsible is needed- I don't have a problem with requiring practice and testing, either. Gun owners wouldn't need to take their own gun(s) to the range where testing would occur, they could rent one so their paranoia could be assuaged. Besides, it's not the gun's responsibility to make the shooter more accurate, it's the shooter's responsibility to find a way to shoot accurately with whatever is available IF their reasons for gun ownership is 'self defense'. Criminals don't give a shyte, they just want a gun for their crimes. The problem with crazy people: They can often make others think they're not crazy but in many cases, the ones who might have detected some level of crazy were too clueless to see it and/or couldn't be bothered to say something about it.

Legalizing full auto's would be dumb. Period. It's for the military.

AR-15s are an assault rifle. If less are used in shootings, what purpose do they serve in gun ownership??? Seems they could as well disappear too.

 

[highfigh]

Legalizing full auto's would be dumb. Period. It's for the military.

AR-15s are an assault rifle. If less are used in shootings, what purpose do they serve in gun ownership??? Seems they could as well disappear too.

What purpose does a huge collection of knives, antique weapons for battle like maces, spears, etc serve? It's really the same, but those work at close range.

They can be banned again- it won't matter unless they're collected, AKA 'confiscated'. These are used in less than 600 deaths/year- what do you want to do about the 45,000 who are killed with other weapons?

 

[highfigh]

In the meantime, four more were killed in MKE in about 16 hours.

 

[MaxInValrico]

Personally, I think that if someone wants to collect guns, they could find inoperable replicas, but the vintage/historic ones need to work in order to fetch the highest prices when selling them.

Why not lift the ban on full-auto? That would only result in more deaths because people don't secure the guns that are available now. They can be bought, but only after paying a lot of money and jumping through several hoops.

FWIW- I'm not arguing against banning some weapons, but I think that more scrutiny of buyers is needed and Law Enforcement needs to report when someone threatens suicide or any kind of shooting. That needs to make it into the NICS system, so we don't see more "I guess another one slipped through the cracks".

You can own fully automatic weapons provided you can get a federal license to do so.

 

[highfigh]

You can own fully automatic weapons provided you can get a federal license to do so.

Already covered that and the scrutiny- I don't remember a gun that was designed to be fully automatic used in a mass shooting, either.

People who slipped through the cracks are the ones who can be considered the 'typical AR-style rifle mass murderer'.