Now is not the time to talk about gun control (3 Viewers)

[brandon]

T&P

10 killed in Boulder shooting: Victims identified, suspect charged

Police said 10 people were killed, including an officer, after a shooting at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, Colorado.

www.google.com

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

One thing about the AR line of weapons is they're not very durable.

............................................................


Focus on killing the parts supply for those weapons as well as stopping the sale of new ones in our market.

That's an interesting point. A lot of the AKs are junk as it is.

 

[brandon]

Just saw the body cam videos etc at the Louisville press conference.

This is probably going to be controversial, but I don’t like this now the second press conference glorifying the police officers in these heroic moments.

Now, don’t get me wrong - these officers are ABSOLUTELY heroes and saved lives. But I think the problem with this is two-fold.

One, I think it potentially provides even more infamy for the shooter. Now, every shooter knows that their blaze of glory is not just going to be talked about on the news, but will be shown in minute-by-minute detailed video.

I think this also puts officers in more danger than before. This incident might be a turning point - the shooter killed a few civilians and then posted up on an angle specifically waiting on the police to arrive to shoot at them. With shooters knowing their final moments are going to be shown all around the world, they’re going to be more likely to prepare to fight officers rather than getting killed while still hunting civilians.

Second, it puts the focus on the heroism of the officers rather than highlighting the disgusting murder itself. It’s like watching an action movie where you know the hero kills the bad guy, rather than watching a horrific, senseless slaughter of civilians for the millionth time.

I’m worried that instead of getting new gun laws, we’re just gonna stop with “hey, look, now we’re really good at responding so only a few people will die in these shootings now!”

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Regarding the weapon used in the Louisville bank shooting:

Not all of this has been verified but it appears to be what happened. The weapon was an AR15-style long rifle. It was bought recently, within the last week, at a local gun store.

I post this because more often than not this appears to be the modus operandi of these mass-killing shooters. They use a recently legally acquired AR-15 style weapon, usually new, bought at a local gunshop.

To me that just underlines the need to stop selling these weapons at gun shops to civilians. What we do with all those currently in the hands of private gun owners is a different question. But, for crying out loud, stop selling these AR-15s, and the like, in gun shops to civilians.

 

[Optimus Prime]

……The solutions aren’t simple, but we can fix this problem. By some estimates, there are nearly 400 million guns in circulation in the United States, meaning we have more guns than people.

A good incremental step would be for Kentucky to embrace gun laws similar to California’s. But ultimately, we need the United States to have gun laws more like Australia’s.


If the United States severely restricted AR-15’s and other such weapons, there would be fewer mass killings in which one person shoots dozens. But to truly reduce the number of homicides, we have to restrict handguns, too.


So we need Americans to voluntarily give up their guns en masse — or be required to do so. That would require numerous, aggressive pieces of gun-control legislation, judges upholding those laws in court — and potentially a constitutional amendment stating that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to gun ownership.

I don’t think that’s impossible. Australia did something similar in the 1990s after a mass shooting there.


But we all know the problem. Such massive policy changes would require Republican politicians, powerful right-wing institutions such as Fox News and many hard-line conservative voters to stop acting as though radical gun freedoms are essential to a free society. In our current political environment, Fox and other conservative entities regularly suggest that conservatives are under mortal threat and that owning a gun is both good and necessary.

Republican politicians also whip up pro-gun sentiment. And many rank-and-file Republicans both have fairly extreme views on guns and are pushed even further right by party leaders.
This makes for a self-reinforcing cycle of fervent opposition to gun control.

Just last month here in Kentucky, for example, the GOP-dominated legislature adopted a provision declaring the state a “Second Amendment sanctuary” barring local law enforcement officials from enforcing some federal gun laws.


For the United States to make progress on guns, the Republican Party has to change direction. That would require powerful parts of the Republican coalition, such as former president Donald Trump and Fox News, to start telling Republican voters that conservatism doesn’t require opposition to gun regulations.

But it would take even more than that: You would also need some agreement among candidates to not outdo one another in demagoguing gun control during Republican primaries, and some major donors and groups to spend money boosting pro-gun-control candidates…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/10/louisville-shooting-mass-gun-violence-republican-party/

 

[brandon]

A good incremental step would be for Kentucky to embrace gun laws similar to California’s. But ultimately, we need the United States to have gun laws more like Australia’s.


If the United States severely restricted AR-15’s and other such weapons, there would be fewer mass killings in which one person shoots dozens. But to truly reduce the number of homicides, we have to restrict handguns, too.


So we need Americans to voluntarily give up their guns en masse — or be required to do so. That would require numerous, aggressive pieces of gun-control legislation, judges upholding those laws in court — and potentially a constitutional amendment stating that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to gun ownership.

I don’t think that’s impossible. Australia did something similar in the 1990s after a mass shooting there.

This is my entire position in a nutshell. Yes, we have to restrict future sales, but we also have to reduce the number of guns already in circulation - handguns included.

Anything else is placebo.

 

[DaveXA]

Just saw the body cam videos etc at the Louisville press conference.

This is probably going to be controversial, but I don’t like this now the second press conference glorifying the police officers in these heroic moments.

Now, don’t get me wrong - these officers are ABSOLUTELY heroes and saved lives. But I think the problem with this is two-fold.

One, I think it potentially provides even more infamy for the shooter. Now, every shooter knows that their blaze of glory is not just going to be talked about on the news, but will be shown in minute-by-minute detailed video.

I think this also puts officers in more danger than before. This incident might be a turning point - the shooter killed a few civilians and then posted up on an angle specifically waiting on the police to arrive to shoot at them. With shooters knowing their final moments are going to be shown all around the world, they’re going to be more likely to prepare to fight officers rather than getting killed while still hunting civilians.

Second, it puts the focus on the heroism of the officers rather than highlighting the disgusting murder itself. It’s like watching an action movie where you know the hero kills the bad guy, rather than watching a horrific, senseless slaughter of civilians for the millionth time.

I’m worried that instead of getting new gun laws, we’re just gonna stop with “hey, look, now we’re really good at responding so only a few people will die in these shootings now!”

I would just say that this isn't really new. The same thing happened after the recent school shooter situation where the cops shot the shooter dead on the second floor.

I think both ended up being suicide by cop scenarios at the end.

Fwiw, I think the narrative shifted a bit because you had the absolutely horrid response of the Uvalde police to their school shooting and now we're seeing very quick responses and releasing videos within 24 hours, which I can't really recall happening on the regular before these 2 recent tragedies.

I do think you can cover both the heroism of the cops who ran towards the danger and also address the tragedy of the loss of life and trauma for survivors.

There has been discussion of legislation to address gun regulations, but it's a challenge because every state has different gun regs on the books and each is in a different political situation. I think the only way you get real minimum standards is to draw lines in the sand at the federal level.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The folks who are steadfastly against changing gun laws don't care about mass shootings because they have not been impacted by any of these mass shootings. They won't change until they themselves are the victims or their family members are. If / when that happens, I hope there is a long line of people offering their thoughts and prayers.

 

[MT15]

This is gutting:

 

[Optimus Prime]

good article
==========

...........Opponents of stricter gun laws often oppose such regulations saying it doesn’t work. They point to California’s gun laws as proof given those three nearly back-to-back mass shootings earlier this year.

Those shootings offered “a lesson in the limits of state power to stop American gun violence, even with the political will at all levels of the state government to do so,” a New York Times piece reported. Its headline: “California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?”

What critics don’t point to, aren’t able to point to, is what didn’t happen because of those gun laws. It’s what Garen Wintemute calls the Paradox of Prevention.

Wintemute is a renowned expert on the public health crisis of gun violence and director of the University of California Violence Prevention Research Program.

“California gun laws are tough,” he told HuffPost. “But you only hear about the failures. They work more often than they fail because when they work, nothing happens.”

“Nobody tells the story of the thing that never happens.”

But it turns out California’s firearm violence and firearm homicide rates are far below the national average. The state’s suicide rate is among the nation’s lowest.

“As of 2020, the most recent data, the rate in the other 49 states taken together is 60% higher than the rate in California,” Wintemute said. “If the country had California’s firearm death rate in 2020, we would have saved nearly 16,000 lives.”

“In the roughly half a dozen states with firearm violence death rates lower than California’s, every single one of those states has a legal regulatory apparatus that is as strict as ours, or stricter,” he added.

“When people say gun laws don’t work, then how do you explain this?”

That same study found there were about 1,500 more gun deaths in Texas alone than there would have been if Texas had California’s firearm death rate.

“Did those 1,500 people have to die?” asked Wintemute. “That’s a question for Greg Abbot.” (Abbot is the current governor of Texas.)..........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MT15]

This is totally normal, right?

Pregnant woman shot by Walgreens worker who suspected her of shoplifting: report

Doctors were forced to perform an emergency c-section and deliver a premature baby after a pregnant woman was shot by a Walgreens worker who suspected her of shoplifting, WKRN reported. According to police, the employee recorded two women with his cell phone as they left the Nashville store and...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Dragon]

"She had three surgeries after being shoot eight times; four times in the stomach and two times in each leg."

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/pregnant-woman-accused-of-shoplifting-shot-by-walgreens-employee

Shot EIGHT times.

 

[DaveXA]

This is totally normal, right?

Pregnant woman shot by Walgreens worker who suspected her of shoplifting: report

Doctors were forced to perform an emergency c-section and deliver a premature baby after a pregnant woman was shot by a Walgreens worker who suspected her of shoplifting, WKRN reported. According to police, the employee recorded two women with his cell phone as they left the Nashville store and...

www.rawstory.com

Well, it's totally not normal to shoot people for shoplifting. Clearly the shoplifting wasn't why she was shot 8 times. More likely this was an individual who was mentally disturbed should not have had access to a gun.

 

[MT15]

Well, it's totally not normal to shoot people for shoplifting. Clearly the shoplifting wasn't why she was shot 8 times. More likely this was an individual who was mentally disturbed should not have had access to a gun.

I’d like to push back on this. We have no evidence the shooter has any mental issues, and he was an employee at the Walgreens. He thought he was witnessing a crime, followed the women to their car and accosted them. They were not shoplifters and felt threatened, so one of them sprayed him with mace, upon which he opened fire.

And my comment about this being totally normal is sarcastic about the way Republicans evidently want us to live in this country.

 

[Taurus]

Well, it's totally not normal to shoot people for shoplifting. Clearly the shoplifting wasn't why she was shot 8 times. More likely this was an individual who was mentally disturbed should not have had access to a gun.

Go to the PeopleofWalmart site and look around. Those people are loose on the streets, in a random Walmart. None of them are institutionalized and likely none could afford the therapy they obviously need.

Now imagine that every single one of them is armed.

There's Republican America.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[DaveXA]

I’d like to push back on this. We have no evidence the shooter has any mental issues, and he was an employee at the Walgreens. He thought he was witnessing a crime, followed the women to their car and accosted them. They were not shoplifters and felt threatened, so one of them sprayed him with mace, upon which he opened fire.

And my comment about this being totally normal is sarcastic about the way Republicans evidently want us to live in this country.

I dunno, employees are not allowed to have any sort of weapon at any Walgreens I've ever heard of. The shooter had to be acting contrary to any training he ever had. Which is why I say he's got some mental defect or was on something.

Go to the PeopleofWalmart site and look around. Those people are loose on the streets, in a random Walmart. None of them are institutionalized and likely none could afford the therapy they obviously need.

Now imagine that every single one of them is armed.

There's Republican America.

Yeah, no, I don't understand the nuts who think everyone and their mama should have a gun. A lot of people shouldn't own guns. And depending on the state, you can't just walk into a gun shop and walk out without going through a background check. There should be a whole lot more though. It's certainly easier to get a gun than a driver's license in most cases. But yeah, when you've got politicians saying their kids have a right to own guns, that's a problem.

I used to like Noem, but not lately. That's a pretty terrible look.

I'm generally supportive of 2A rights, but damn, people need to chill. The government isn't taking everyone's guns away. I'm getting to the point where maybe it needs to happen, lol.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

At this point, anyone who doesn't at least try to do something has blood on their hands. Each and every person that won't even discuss reasonable steps to prevent this shirt is a murderer and should rot in forking jail forever.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

The gig is up. We need to move to firearm restrictions like the United Kingdom. The 2A was tenable for generations, but no more. And I've owned many firearms, and members of my family have had gun collections worth over $400,000.

Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom​

Summary[edit]​

Fully automatic and submachine-guns are "prohibited weapons"[16] and require explicit permission from central government to own. Generally, such permits are not made available to private citizens. Semi-automatic rifles over .22 in (5.6 mm) and pistols are similarly "prohibited", although there are exceptions for pistols for use for the humane dispatch of animals (classed under section 5). There are also limited exceptions permitting pistols both to preserve firearms of historic or technical interest (classed as section 7 firearms)[17] and to enable use by elite sports teams. Semi-automatic shotguns are restricted to a magazine capacity of no more than two shots and are held under Section 2 of the Firearms Act, although a 'multi-shot' shotgun can be owned under section 1 (restricted firearms and ammunition) of the Firearms Act. Where the term 'multi-shot' is used, this refers to either a semi-automatic or pump-action shotgun with no restriction on magazine capacity.[18] All other rifles and their ammunition are permitted with no limits as to magazine size, for permitted purposes, to include: target shooting, hunting, and historic and muzzle-loading weapons, as well as long-barrelled breech-loading pistols with a specific overall length, but not for self-defence since 1968; however if a home-owner is threatened they may be used in self-defence, so long as the force is reasonable.[19] Shotgun possession and use is also controlled, and even low-power air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are controlled to some extent. A Firearm Certificate issued by the police is required for all weapons and ammunition except air weapons of modest power (of muzzle energy not over 12 ft⋅lbf (16 J) for rifles, and 6 ft⋅lbf (8.1 J) for pistols). Shotguns with a capacity of three rounds or less (up to guns with a magazine holding no more than two rounds, in addition to one in the chamber) are subject to less stringent licensing requirements than other firearms and require a Shotgun Certificate; shotguns with higher capacity require a Firearm Certificate.

Possession of live ammunition without an appropriate licence, or failure to store ammunition securely can lead to severe penalties. Ammunition for firearms may only be purchased and possessed by the holder of a Firearm Certificate relating to firearm capable of shooting that specific ammunition. Shotgun cartridges can legally be possessed by anybody over the age of 15 and no licence is required to possess such ammunition so long as the cartridges contain 5 or more shots.[20] However, a Shotgun Certificate must still be shown at time of purchase.[21]

While Scotland has had its own parliament (Holyrood) since the Scotland Act 1998, power to legislate on firearms was reserved to Westminster, which led to tensions between the British and Scottish parliaments, with the Scottish government wanting to enact stricter laws.[22]

In Northern Ireland, firearms control laws are primarily regulated by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which is slightly different from the law in Great Britain.