3 3
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

Seems fairly simple to do a study on where the shooters in all of these incidents got their weapons and attack that problem first.  There must be a pattern somewhere.

Hi air,

I think you will find that the vast majority of these mass killers obtained them legally.

Now what?

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jerry,

Good question.  Seems as though there are 2 distinct problems here

Mental health and access to firearms.

I don't believe you'll have much success with a Constitutional Amendment.  I can hear the hue and cry about the government coming to take your guns. Of the past attempts at legislation of a federal level the Brady Bill seemed to have the most teeth and yet it only addresses handguns and hasn't been very effective.

From the inception of the NICS system in 1998 through 2014, more than 202 million Brady background checks have been conducted.[20] During this period approximately 1.2 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or about 0.6 percent.[21] The most common reason for denials are previous felony convictions.[21]

Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[22]

A 2000 study found that the implementation of the Brady Act was associated with "reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."[23]

While it's a good soundbite I don't think the Feds can pass a bill that is effective, or at least as effective as it need be.  AR ban?  What happens to the ones already in circulation?

Mental health issues need to be looked at harder.  Here in my little part of Ohio there is little help available to those who need it.

Let's remember that there is no perfect answer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Hi Jerry,

Good question.  Seems as though there are 2 distinct problems here

Mental health and access to firearms.

I don't believe you'll have much success with a Constitutional Amendment.  I can hear the hue and cry about the government coming to take your guns. Of the past attempts at legislation of a federal level the Brady Bill seemed to have the most teeth and yet it only addresses handguns and hasn't been very effective.

From the inception of the NICS system in 1998 through 2014, more than 202 million Brady background checks have been conducted.[20] During this period approximately 1.2 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or about 0.6 percent.[21] The most common reason for denials are previous felony convictions.[21]

Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[22]

A 2000 study found that the implementation of the Brady Act was associated with "reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."[23]

While it's a good soundbite I don't think the Feds can pass a bill that is effective, or at least as effective as it need be.  AR ban?  What happens to the ones already in circulation?

Mental health issues need to be looked at harder.  Here in my little part of Ohio there is little help available to those who need it.

Let's remember that there is no perfect answer.

 

Hi air,

I defy you to show me one piece of legislation that is a 'perfect answer.'

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Seems fairly simple to do a study on where the shooters in all of these incidents got their weapons and attack that problem first.  There must be a pattern somewhere.

There is quite a pattern on the type of weapon used for the most deadly of mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

There is quite a pattern on the type of weapon used for the most deadly of mass shootings.

You mean as in 30 dead in a weekend in Chicago from mostly 9mm Glocks, Or the number of Black men shot with 9mm by cops, or do you mean those nasty scary looking "Assault Weapons" specifically AR15's - which of ALL weapons used is the one that kills the least, but gets the headlines for a shooting event??? 

And, so here we go again - a non-solution solution, but I feel better legislation. 

I love when you guys talk of banning "AWs" and rescinding the 2nd Amendment - guarantee for a republican takeover in the next election. The left continues not to learn from it's previous mistakes.   

I'm at the point where I really don't think you want to solve the problem - you just want to complain about it again, for awhile, until the next one, and the next, and the next  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You mean as in 30 dead in a weekend in Chicago from mostly 9mm Glocks, Or the number of Black men shot with 9mm by cops, or do you mean those nasty scary looking "Assault Weapons" specifically AR15's - which of ALL weapons used is the one that kills the least, but gets the headlines for a shooting event??? 

And, so here we go again - a non-solution solution, but I feel better legislation. 

I love when you guys talk of banning "AWs" and rescinding the 2nd Amendment - guarantee for a republican takeover in the next election. The left continues not to learn from it's previous mistakes.   

I'm at the point where I really don't think you want to solve the problem - you just want to complain about it again, for awhile, until the next one, and the next, and the next  

Where in my post did you see a solution. Do you really want to argue there is a clear pattern in the type of firearm used in the deadliest mass shootings?

Yes, handguns are use din the most number of mass shootings. However 4 out of the 5 deadliest mass shootings were all committed with semi-automatic rifles.

I am not talking about banning weapons at all.

According to Wendy you are a reasonable person to discuss this with. The way you are jumping to all kinds of conclusions is far from reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The left continues not to learn from it's previous mistakes.

Deadly mass shootings aren't a mistake from the left. Deadly mass shootings shouldn't be something that politics are played with.

 

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, wmw999 said:

" ... Adding a new amendment that possibly clarified the meaning of "militia" would be the only possible start in my view, and I'm not legal scholar. It'd have to get past the current Supreme Court.

Piecemeal is the way to go.

Wendy P."

Good point 

Wendy,

I simple solution would involve Washington clarifying the definition of "militia."

I served 5 years in the Sherbrooke Hussars, a Reserve regiment in the city of the same name. While serving I learend how to drive AFVs (M113.5 Lynx) plus a variety of trucks, firing machine guns and rocket launchers, spent a summer in the high arctic, toured Western Europe, etc.

Even simpler is for 'Merica to adopt the Canadian definition of "militia." In Canada, "militia" is slang for the Canadian Army Reserves. They wear the same uniforms, same rank structure, use the same weapons, drive the same vehicles, etc. as the Regular Army. An important point is that ALL Canadian Army Regiments report up the same chain of command all the way to National Defense Headquarters in Ottawa.

Over the last 30-or-more years, whenever the Regular Army found themselves short-handed to UN Peace-Keeping missions, or thumping terrorists in Afghanistan, they contract in reservists for 6 months or a year. Some of the Canadian units serving in Afghanistan were half reservists ... not much different than 'Merican Army Reservists or National Guard.

Mind you, if "Merica adopted the Canadian definition of "militia" they would automatically ban hundreds of right-wing, amateur "militias.

Edited by riggerrob
add a paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Where in my post did you see a solution. Do you really want to argue there is a clear pattern in the type of firearm used in the deadliest mass shootings?

Yes, handguns are use din the most number of mass shootings. However 4 out of the 5 deadliest mass shootings were all committed with semi-automatic rifles.

I am not talking about banning weapons at all.

According to Wendy you are a reasonable person to discuss this with. The way you are jumping to all kinds of conclusions is far from reasonable.

My apologies, it sounded like you were headed in the direction of ban "assault weapons." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Over the last 30-or-more years, whenever the Regular Army found themselves short-handed to UN Peace-Keeping missions, or thumping terrorists in Afghanistan, they contract in reservists for 6 months or a year. Some of the Canadian units serving in Afghanistan were half reservists ... not much different than 'Merican Army Reservists or National Guard.

Mind you, if "Merica adopted the Canadian definition of "militia" they would automatically ban hundreds of right-wing, amateur "militias.

Hey Rob, But, we're not Canada and it's been defined as the exact intent our forefathers meant many times:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 4:05 PM, gowlerk said:

Inflammatory? It is simply the plain truth. Americans are just plain blinded and you personally are among the most blind. 

Another mindless accusation that is incorrect.

Check the stats on injury and death with knives. Perhaps those should labeled as assault weapons and be banned.

Check the stats on death from prescription drugs. Hmmm....close down the pharmaceutical companies.

The only thing blind is people saying that certain types of guns should be banned while ignoring other types of weapons. A 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #2 buck shot is just as or more deadly than a typical semi auto rifle.  And then there are the semi auto pistols that hold 20+ rounds. And the list goes on and on. Once the facts are fully evaluated it's easy to conclude that banning guns won't work.

Anyone that thinks it works should look at how well banning illegal drugs is working.

I'm all for sensible legislation and have discussed this in the past. Training, background checks on flea market and gun show sales is needed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Another mindless accusation that is incorrect.

Check the stats on injury and death with knives. Perhaps those should labeled as assault weapons and be banned.

Check the stats on death from prescription drugs. Hmmm....close down the pharmaceutical companies.

The experience of the Rest Of The World says you are wrong. America is an outlier in all statistics involving firearms. You are not only blinded, you are willfully blinded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I love when you guys talk of banning "AWs" and rescinding the 2nd Amendment - guarantee for a republican takeover in the next election. The left continues not to learn from it's previous mistakes.   

Changing the constitution would not ban anything. And eventually it will be changed, but likely not anytime that I am still alive. Sooner or later the powerful people will come to fear having an armed population and change will happen. In the meantime you will just live with the on going damage. And you are correct, the issue will drive voters. Most Americans think the 2nd amendment is a positive thing at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Check the stats on injury and death with knives. Perhaps those should labeled as assault weapons and be banned.

How many mass killings in the US have been carried out with knives?  A rough number is OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billvon said:

How many mass killings in the US have been carried out with knives?  A rough number is OK.

Now the discussion has degenerated to responding to trolling. The weight of his entire post had the weight of a atom.

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Wow. Not well-schooled on the history of repressive regimes, are we.

I know you can do better. The US has well armed police, a well equipped reserve with F-16's and the powerful military in the world.

To give a like to the post by billeisele is detrimental to your strong reputation of intellectual integrity on this matter. Don't fall back on the nonsensical reasoning's of  those who can't find a bone within the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
49 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

I know you can do better.

Now, you're sounding all skydekkerish. I am not some petulant school child with a C grade in Algebra. Do better - geez. 

49 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The US has well armed police, a well equipped reserve with F-16's and the powerful military in the world.

So this + Ken's comment just goes to show that you guys don't get it. Our constitution was written with the express intent of NOT having a government of the minority. Britain, King, taxation w/o representation, etc., etc. Statements like this cause me grave concern - you all just watched as Trump tried to take power away from the legitimate president-elect.  Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Noriega, all of them - first thing - take the guns from the people. Castro even said while taking their guns, [paraphrase] Why would the people object to the people's party. We just had a revolution.[/paraphrase]

Repressive regimes - Brother I have lived it. What's the second thing to happen after they take the people's guns - imprison enemies of the state IOW: those who speak out against the government. You've heard the phrase regarding our Bill of Rights, "Well, you can't have one without the others." I believe that. 

Having said that, please don't confuse my position with the constitution with not being in favor of well-written legislation that prevents the number of murders by gun in the US. But, what's going to happen is the same old bullshit of the last 30 years. There'll be some legislation banning AWs and/or LCMs and this and that - which will pretty much be a dusting off of the same old legislation the Democrats used the last time, there'll be an election cycle, the pendulum will swing back to the Republicans, etc. etc. And in the end? In the end, we'll have this same fucking conversation five years from now.  

49 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

To give a like to the post by billeisele is detrimental to your strong reputation of intellectual integrity on this matter. Don't fall back on the nonsensical reasoning's of  those who can't find a bone within the issues.

I'll give a "like" to whomever I feel when I feel "like" it and for good reason. I've given "likes" to people that I've had opposing positions with on here for years, but, when the substance of their missive warrants a "like" - I give it.

Let me know when you're ready to get back on topic and we can discuss the substance of change, rather than the noise surrounding it. .        

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 8:52 PM, Phil1111 said:

 

Is the fact that he is a US citizen relevant? Muslim? Or do facts matter? Of which "anger management issues" is the sole comment you've made in this thread with a basis in fact.

It is also worth mentioning, although a US citizen now, he was born in Syria and has family in Syria.  He purchased his AR pistol, just days after the Biden administration bombed his home country.  Coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was also a young man with anger management issues, who bought his gun the same day as the Atlanta shootings. Could just as easily be characterized as a copycat at the moment.

Hopefully the right people will find out in the future, and it will come out at trial.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

It was also a young man with anger management issues, who bought his gun the same day as the Atlanta shootings. Could just as easily be characterized as a copycat at the moment.

 

He purchased his firearm before the shooting in GA was reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kallend said:

The data are clear and obvious to all who choose not to turn a blind eye:

May be an image of text that says 'Gun Deaths and Gun Ownership by Population 125 Gun deaths per million residents 100 U.S. 75 50 25 Italy France Canada Russia Japan Germany Australia 0 20 40 60 Civilian-held guns per 100 residents 80 100 100 Gun deaths comprise suicides, homicides and accidents. All data is from 2017. 120'

 

18 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

There is quite a pattern on the type of weapon used for the most deadly of mass shootings.

There will ALWAYS be the most used weapon for mass shootings. If he had two Colt Dragoons he could have killed twelve people.  Slippery slope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, kallend said:

The data are clear and obvious to all who choose not to turn a blind eye:

May be an image of text that says 'Gun Deaths and Gun Ownership by Population 125 Gun deaths per million residents 100 U.S. 75 50 25 Italy France Canada Russia Japan Germany Australia 0 20 40 60 Civilian-held guns per 100 residents 80 100 100 Gun deaths comprise suicides, homicides and accidents. All data is from 2017. 120'

The American gun culture is willing to accept facts like those and even far worse. This discussion is pointless. Nothing will change until the majority of the American people want it to change. I know the majority is in favour of background checks. But that won’t be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3