Shooting at GOP Baseball practice - page 9

Suspect James Hodgkinson Dies After Shooting At GOP Baseball Practice; Rep. Steve Scalise Is Wounded : The Two-Way : NPR Twitter What a story to wake up to this morning. The FBI is taking... Read More

  1. by   Avid reader
    But another major difference is that we have a very extensive social safety net. If you want to identify reasons for why you have so many more shootings than we do (apart from your liberal access to guns), that's a good place to start. Poverty and despair breeds crime. Social marginalization breeds crime.

    Hear! Hear!
  2. by   PMFB-RN
    "I'm not sure I understand? Who would issue the license? Would that someone have access to police databases to check if a person has a criminal record? Would they check proficiency before issuing a license? Would the friend who wants to give or sell a weapon to his/her buddy be responsible for checking that the friend had a valid license before gifting/selling the weapon?"

    *** Sorry about only using quotation marks, but after the last AN update my quote button, and all the other options at the top of my messages went away. I guess to make the site better. I know it makes it more difficult to read. I'm including "***" in front of my comments to make them easier to find.
    A license to possess firearms is what I have proposed. What I would like to see is a federally issued license that is issued after passing a background check and evidence of training & proficiency. It needs to have certain features, for example there needs to be a way to introduce new people to shooting without getting a license first. The state of Wisconsin requires hunter's safety class before one may get a hunting license, but allows new hunters to hunt without it the first year IF they are mentored by licensed hunter. The idea is to allow people to try the sport out before making a large investment first. A firearms license would need to have something like that. The way to sell it to firearms owners (and you have to do so as they are very powerful politically) is to exempt them from many of the burdensome and limiting regulations currently in place once they have a license. If a license holder committed a crime, or otherwise became ineligible to possess firearms, the license could be suspended and/or revoked. In private sales the seller would have the responsibility to ask to see the buyer's license, and (maybe?) retain a photo copy of it for a specified time. The license demonstrates that the buyer is legally eligible to posses firearms. Evidence of secure storage of firearms would also be a good idea, as long at it's flexible to allow people to be creative and use their DIY skills and doesn't require them to purchase commercially built gun safes. Police should have access to the list of license holders.
    There are other features I think would be a good idea and I'm very open to other's ideas as well. This idea has quite a bit of support among firearms owners and has been proposed by state level gun owners groups.
    One thing I would like to remind people of. We can have these talks all we want, but every proposed regulation assumes that firearms are only available from firearms makers, and maybe from a few highly skilled do-it-yourselfers. Meanwhile 3D printing technology is rapidly advancing and we already have examples of 3D printed sub-machine guns and handguns being used in crimes in countries where possession of firearms is heavily regulated. Today the technology is available to 3D print firearms. When this technology gets better and cheaper, I predict it will render all gun regulations in all countries obsolete as people will be able to print guns at will on their kitchen table for minimal cost.


    "It's been quite a few years, but I remember driving through several Southern states with a couple of friends. On our journey we saw many traffic signs peppered with bullet holes. Friday night drive-by fun after a few beers? Sorry to be a party pooper, but that's not responsible gun ownership either. I'm hoping things have changed."

    *** They haven't.

    "My point is that you have a large amount of weapons in society, and what seems to be subpar background checks and/or proficiency tests and/or mental "suitability". You have an insane amount of mass shootings. Something needs to change."

    *** The large number of guns in society is a fact and not one that can be altered in anything like a short time period. It simply isn't possible. Proposed regulations often seem to ignore this fact. Proposals that ignore reality will be, and are, met with the contempt they deserve.

    "My neighbor and the traffic signs are anecdotal (and the shooting at traffic signs phenomenon exists in other countries too),"

    *** I know, I saw the same thing in Sweden, Australia, Mexico and Africa.

    "but what isn't anecdotal is the available research. It points to the large number of guns you have making society less safe, rather than more so."

    *** I haven't made that argument.

    "Are you arguing the point that someone who hasn't received any substantive training and doesn't have any experience at all of high stress confrontational situations and who doesn't practice regularly, will handle a firearm safely and proficiently in a life or death situation with a complex scenario unfolding? I disagree, and I know several HRT dudes (former work mates) who would also beg to differ. This is just my opinion, but I stand by it."

    *** No I'm not. My point was that we simply don't have much in the way of examples of law abiding gun owners mowing down bystanders when using their legally possessed firearms to defend themselves. This makes sense since in the vast majority of cases where a gun is legally used in defense it's not fired. I have written about the two times I used a firearm to defend my life as a civilian and in neither case did I fire it, and in one case I never even removed it from it's holster.

    "I haven't seen any reliable criminological research or statistics from reliable law enforcement sources that suggests that "armed civilians successfully protect themselves and others" on a regular/statistically meaningful basis."

    *** Nor will you. There are several possible reasons for this. My personal view is that, as our media is so extremely biased against firearms (except when they can make a buck from them like in entertainment), even if such studies were done they would never see the light of day. As evidence for this I observe that nearly everything said about firearms my the news media is lies.

    " I know it's a popular talking point among gun advocates, but looking at the research it still looks a higher number of available guns in society = more gun-related deaths. If I actually thought that more guns made people safer, I'd be all for it."

    *** Whether or not more guns make people safer is irrelevant. We already have "more guns". it's a fact of life and can't be easily or quickly changed.

    "I'm not arguing that the majority of the world's conflicts aren't caused by religion, because they are."

    *** I'm not making that point at all. For example one of those conflicts is in Mexico between their government and drug cartels. That is definitely not a religious war, but it IS occurring in a devoutly religious country, as all wars currently are.
    I'm pointing out that all wars, and all countries with high violent crime rates, are devoutly religious.

    " However, I think it's more complex/multi-faceted than that. It's basically intolerance, a desire to push your beliefs on others and of course the major factor; the omni-present power & money lust. If it weren't for religion, mankind would probably find some other excuse to justify wars."

    *** Maybe, but it's hard not to notice that war is practically non existent among the highly secular countries and they have the lowest violent crime rates.

    "My ancestors were Vikings. We were all about rape and plunder, certainly violent enough. I don't think that Americans are innately more violent than us."

    *** Oh I very much disagree. In my view Americans as a people are innately violent. I think they will continue to be so until/when secularism becomes the norm. Look at your ancestors now. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland & Finland are among the most peaceful countries on the planet and among the lowest violent crime rates, and also among the most secular.

    "If I'm to generalize a bit, some of you seem to retain a bit of the Wild West mentality but I don't think that you're inherently more violent."

    *** Once again I very much disagree.

    "A bit of a tangent, but what's that stuff about a well-regulated militia? I mean, in modern day terms, what does that even mean?"

    *** This is a whole other discussion. But suffice as to say many people, including me, see widespread civilian possession of firearms as a deterrent to government tyranny. While my neighbors and I being armed is not a deterrent to the federal government, is certainly could be to, lets say, a rogue local law enforcement official and we have plenty of examples of THAT.
    While certainly no match for the forces the federal government can bring to bear, being armed does mean that a tyrannical government would not be able to enforce tyranny secretly.
    I don't have much trust in my government. My experience in the military where I observed what happened in war zones and then heard what the government had to say about it, and especially observing my government lie their asses off and use propaganda to gather support for the aggressive invasion and occupation of a small, non-threating country destroyed it.

    "The city I live in was founded back in 1252. Yes, that was a while ago. We had laws then too, most (I would guess all) of them have been modernized."

    *** As I said, this is a whole other conversation that I would be happy to have

    "I do live in a highly secular country, so that is a difference. But another major difference is that we have a very extensive social safety net. If you want to identify reasons for why you have so many more shootings than we do (apart from your liberal access to guns), that's a good place to start. Poverty and despair breeds crime. Social marginalization breeds crime."

    *** YES!!! Absolutely! I meant to include that point in my last message.

    "I admit I haven't checked the following statistics recently but I have no reason to expect that things have changed drastically. If they haven't, you have more people incarcerated than any other "first world" country. I think it's the social issues that you need to address."

    *** Once again YES! Absolutely!

    "Listen, I don't hate guns."

    *** Never suspected you did.

    " But as I said, what (the collective) you are doing, isn't working."

    *** But solutions must take reality into account.

    " Too many people are killed each year."

    *** I agree, that is why I'm dismayed at the various proposals that would do nothing to change that.

    "And while the details of various types of ammo and the capacity of different firearms is a factor, it isn't the only one or the most important one."

    *** It's important to me to not allow misinformation to go unchallenged.





    Edited to add: PMFB, you've caught a lot of flak for your "grateful" comment. I took it to mean (and hope you meant!), that it's a good thing that perpetrators haven't figured out a more efficient way to rack up the maximum number of casualties, not that someone who manages to survive a mass shooting (with or without injuries), should be grateful. No one who has ever experienced that particular brand of hell on earth, has much reason to be grateful. They have all the reason in the world to be angry and saddened by lax gun laws.

    A reason to be happy would be if you could significantly decrease the number of firearm related deaths and homicides in general. "Only" a 50% risk of dying of something that is pretty much a daily event somewhere in the country is not satisfactory. The number/frequency of events themselves need to go down.[/QUOTE]
  3. by   PMFB-RN
    "Edited to add: PMFB, you've caught a lot of flak for your "grateful" comment. I took it to mean (and hope you meant!), that it's a good thing that perpetrators haven't figured out a more efficient way to rack up the maximum number of casualties"

    My comment was in the context of people advocating for further regulating Armalite type rifles. This is a "Be careful what you wish for" thing. Not everyone is in a position to understand what the alternative might be like I am.
    My comments were taken out of context, deliberately so I believe.
  4. by   nursej22
    Quote from PMFB-RN

    *** This is a whole other discussion. But suffice as to say many people, including me, see widespread civilian possession of firearms as a deterrent to government tyranny. While my neighbors and I being armed is not a deterrent to the federal government, is certainly could be to, lets say, a rogue local law enforcement official and we have plenty of examples of THAT.
    While certainly no match for the forces the federal government can bring to bear, being armed does mean that a tyrannical government would not be able to enforce tyranny secretly.










    .
    [/QUOTE]

    So if the majority of citizens are vehemently against say, a health care bill being passed, would that count as government tyranny? I see news clips of protesters being carried and dragged out of the Capitol and Senate office buildings. Multiple polls show less than 20% of Americans support this proposed bill, that was written in secret and denied hearings.

    I certainly would not support using arms in this case, but would this be one of those cases that Second Amendment proponents would support?
  5. by   macawake
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    But suffice as to say many people, including me, see widespread civilian possession of firearms as a deterrent to government tyranny. While my neighbors and I being armed is not a deterrent to the federal government, is certainly could be to, lets say, a rogue local law enforcement official and we have plenty of examples of THAT.

    While certainly no match for the forces the federal government can bring to bear, being armed does mean that a tyrannical government would not be able to enforce tyranny secretly.

    I don't have much trust in my government. My experience in the military where I observed what happened in war zones and then heard what the government had to say about it, and especially observing my government lie their asses off and use propaganda to gather support for the aggressive invasion and occupation of a small, non-threating country destroyed it.

    Thanks for your reply

    I really have to get some sleep soon so my response will be uncharacteristically short. I'll just address a few random points that jumped out at me.

    I guess while I can understand that a rogue local law enforcement official could do some significant damage locally, and that access to weapons might help "level the playing field" and at least partially counteract the threat, I still have to believe that the solution lies in having societal "checks and balances" in place to protect against that type of abuse of power.

    As I think you've correctly identified, firearms are a pretty useless defense against a "tyrannical" government. No matter how many guns people have, the government has bigger, "badder" ones. But that's not even the point. If a government decides to tyrannize its citizens, the threat isn't firearms. In today's world, with available surveillance techniques and society's complete and total dependence on computer technology/the internet, that's where they'd get you if they decided to target you. Your only solution if the "government" came gunning for your behind, would be to go completely off the grid, and stay there for the rest of your life. I suspect that's not a very tempting prospect for most people. I think it's better to get involved in your community and work actively to foster the kind of society that you wish to live in and either run for public office yourself or support and elect people who will lead society in a positive direction.

    My personal view is that, as our media is so extremely biased against firearms (except when they can make a buck from them like in entertainment), even if such studies were done they would never see the light of day.
    Be that as it may, but I don't look for statistics on crime in the media. Not your media, not my media, not left, right or center media. I look at the available criminological research. I look at the available statistics from various law enforcement agencies.

    If someone attempts to beat you, mug you, rape you or kill you (or do the same to someone else) and you use a firearm (whether you actually fire it, or not) to successfully stop that from happening, then it's your darn civic duty to report the attempted assault, attempted robbery, attempted rape, attempted murder (= criminal offences) to the police. That generates crime stats. (If you don't report it to the police, the assailant might have more success with their next victim, so I would assume that anyone who manages to defend themselves, would do the right thing and try to have the criminal brought to justice).

    y comment was in the context of people advocating for further regulating Armalite type rifles. This is a "Be careful what you wish for" thing. Not everyone is in a position to understand what the alternative might be like I am.
    My comments were taken out of context, deliberately so I believe.
    PMFB, I honestly don't believe that posters deliberately took your comments out of context. Other posters will have to speak for themselves to confirm if I got this right. I think that they interpreted your comments about "only 50%" as extremely cavalier. I think they thought that you were downplaying the gravity and tragedy of the many thousands of firearms related deaths you have each year. Now I don't think that you are indifferent to human suffering, so I don't think you were doing that. But I have to tell you that how you worded your argument was weird to me, and I had to make an effort to interpret your words in a more favorable light. I looked hard for a more favorable interpretation, simply because of the fact that I believe that you do in fact care about meaningless and preventable loss of life.





    @nursej22

    So if the majority of citizens are vehemently against say, a health care bill being passed, would that count as government tyranny?
    I would say that it qualifies as a form of tyranny/abuse of power.
  6. by   nursej22
    This just occurred to me as I was reading about the shooting at the NY hospital, and it was reported that the gun used an AR15, and there was a picture of the rifle in the article.

    Doctor Opens Fire at Bronx Hospital, Killing a Doctor and Wounding 6 - The New York Times


    I really know very little about guns; most of what I do know I have learned from PFMB-RN.
    He reportedly snuck it in under his white MD coat, and after shooting several and killing one, he turned it on himself. Why is this the weapon of choice for these mass shootings? Wouldn't it be easier to conceal and bring in a pistol? Is this rifle that much easier to use? And it is that easy to use on oneself?
  7. by   tntrn
    Quote from nursej22
    This just occurred to me as I was reading about the shooting at the NY hospital, and it was reported that the gun used an AR15, and there was a picture of the rifle in the article.

    Doctor Opens Fire at Bronx Hospital, Killing a Doctor and Wounding 6 - The New York Times


    I really know very little about guns; most of what I do know I have learned from PFMB-RN.
    He reportedly snuck it in under his white MD coat, and after shooting several and killing one, he turned it on himself. Why is this the weapon of choice for these mass shootings? Wouldn't it be easier to conceal and bring in a pistol? Is this rifle that much easier to use? And it is that easy to use on oneself?
    News reports often get it wrong. But I would find it difficult to sneak MY AR-15 in under a lab coat and impossible to turn it on myself. Perhaps because I am 5'2" but just sayin'.
  8. by   chare
    Quote from nursej22
    […]
    …Why is this the weapon of choice for these mass shootings…
    I think there are many reasons. First, the AR 15 style weapon is by far the most common of the assault-style based rifles available ans is readily available through many sources. Also, in some states it is much more difficult, if not nearly impossible, to acquire a handgun. Then, factor in the widely held misconception that an assault-style weapon is inherently more dangerous.
    Quote from nursej22
    ...Wouldn't it be easier to conceal and bring in a pistol…
    Yes a pistol would be much easier to conceal.
    Quote from nursej22
    …Is this rifle that much easier to use? And it is that easy to use on oneself?
    For a trained individual such as a police officer or service member, a carbine weapon based on the AR 15 type weapon could be used in this situation as easily as a handgun, and with much more lethality. Not so for an untrained individual, as they would likely find it bulky and difficult to use.
    Quote from tntrn
    News reports often get it wrong. But I would find it difficult to sneak MY AR-15 in under a lab coat and impossible to turn it on myself…
    For someone taller than ~66 inches in a loose fitting, full-length lab coat, it would not be difficult to conceal this weapon at all.
  9. by   PMFB-RN
    So if the majority of citizens are vehemently against say, a health care bill being passed, would that count as government tyranny? [/QUOTE]

    Can this be a serious question?
    Read abut the tens of thousands of "disappeared" people in San Salvador and Chile. Read about how Stalin's KGB took people away in secret and lulled them, or sent them to be worked to death in Siberia.
  10. by   nursej22
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    So if the majority of citizens are vehemently against say, a health care bill being passed, would that count as government tyranny?
    Can this be a serious question?
    Read abut the tens of thousands of "disappeared" people in San Salvador and Chile. Read about how Stalin's KGB took people away in secret and lulled them, or sent them to be worked to death in Siberia.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, this is a serious question. 25-30 million people could lose their health insurance. For people with a chronic illness or cancer, this could be a death sentence. If this is done against the will of the majority of citizens, then yes, I call that tyranny, especially if taxes for the very wealthy are cut at the same time.

    Or if you prefer, the Republican health plan: don't get sick. And if you do, die quickly.
  11. by   Lil Nel
    The original American Revolution initially began over taxes. The Stamp Act. The tea tax, etc.

    So, it is conceivable that the second American Revolution could be started over health insurance, and the right to health care.

Must Read Topics


close