A Serious Question -not sure where we go

[Twangbanger]

...The right forum for polite, reasoned discussion is in the halls of legislatures around the country...What is to be done? Let's talk about it and see what we agree about.

Try as I may: I cannot seem to recall the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 traveling through the hinterlands for "reasoned discussion" in the musty halls of the people, before becoming law.

And I can't imagine any future one that lands on President Kasich's desk for immediate signature would be any different.

We're going to get one shot, at the Federal Level, just like last time. And this time, more than ever, reasoned discussion is going to be far down the ingredient list of that sausage-making effort.

You're dispensing some really rich stuff there, even for a "process guy."

 

[cosermann]

"We've got to do something!" -

No we don't. Food for thought.

https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/weve-got-to-do-something/

 

[abnk]

First off, as already mentioned, "gun violence" is a pejorative term. That aside, this is an emotional debate. As such, I don't think that facts are sufficient or even relevant to the enemies of freedom.

It took decades for our society to devolve to this point, and I don't think we've hit rock bottom yet. The only way up is through either:
a) a benevolent dictator, which I see as a temporary solution
b) a repentant, God-fearing, moral people, which will lead to a natural order of strong families, responsible fathers, stay-at-home mothers, etc.

 

[Tombs]

I'm really asking a serious question about where do we go from here? With the two mass shootings, at least 5 killed and 42 wounded in Chicago this weekend, and the fact that a kid my son played basketball with at Notre Dame last weekend was shot and killed last week -I'm for the first time really questioning what the do we do? Does anyone have a real answer as to how to address the gun violence?

I've been a gun owner, hunter, sport pistol shooter in various forms for more than 40 years so I'm firmly on the 2nd amendment side. I've taught my two sons gun safety and they both have completed at least hunter safety. They've each shot at least one IDPA match. I write that to let you know I'm 100% pro-gun ownership and feel that teaching safety is key. My sons and I know we own whatever is sent downrange.

My son (aged 19) and I shot sporting clays on Saturday early afternoon at Deer Creek in Three Oaks Michigan. There was an event going on so there say 50-60 people all armed at least with shotguns (some of us more than that I'm sure) and no one got hurt or shot. So there can be sensible gun ownership and use. Then we heard about the El Paso shooting. Then Sunday I get up to make coffee before church and get hit with the Dayton shooting. At this point I'm at a loss.

I asked my 19 YO what he'd do. He's becoming a backer of no AR/AK's or anything like them. We went thru a list of issues from how would you confiscate, the slippery slope it starts, how do you get them all, how do you make sure the 'bad guys' give them up. etc. etc. It was a great conversation but no answer. Only more questions.

I've almost resigned myself the new normal, while looking for an answer I can support. I do think constantly about my two sons at school, my wife at work and I try to stay vigilant while carrying. I've decided I'm not going to give into any fear. While I hope that it never happens I hope that I'd not go down without a fight if the worst happened.

This forum has been a great place to share and learn over the years. So I'm asking serious question. How do we address these mass incidents without giving up all our freedoms? I don't want to allow the anti's to own this issue, and I think we as gun owners need to be vocal in an answer.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Putting guns in prison doesn't exactly accomplish much, people need to realize that first and foremost.

1.)The only thing that's going to stop mass shootings is to have the government forcibly blackout all news coverage of it. Yes it's a violation of the freedom of the press, but here's the problem. When the press publish the murderer's manifesto, when they publish their name and face, they make that mass murderer get his message out which was his entire goal in the first place.

Stopping the reporting of these actions would also stop the fear mongering, over a thing that is vastly less likely to happen to you than being struck by lightning.

2.)The second thing that is necessary is for police and and government to organize with firearms instructors and offer free active shooter training for CCW holders. Getting better working relationships between police and CCW holders, and some formalized training, would go a long way to help ensure the safety of the public at large. Gun owners need to be seen as the absolute solution to the problem when society has failed to prevent an individual like this from snapping.

3.)Lastly, we need a massive overhaul of the mental healthcare in this country, and legal protections for those seeking treatment, so that they no longer have to fear for the loss of their rights if they attempt to get help. Currently, finding even mental therapy is insanely difficult almost anywhere in the country. That's absurd because more people have various mental conditions than people who are actually sick, yet doctors are absolutely everywhere. We also need to be putting people who are legitimately nuts in an asylum until they can be sorted out and be stable enough to not be a threat to themselves or others.

Do I think any of this is really necessary, given how rare this actually happens? No, not really, but these are steps that would absolutely stop the majority of them, or at the very least, end them exceptionally fast.

 

[Sigblitz]

I heard that the gun used in the El Paso shooting was legally bought. There's a push now to pass a background check on private sales. I don't think one has to do with the other. I agree most shootings that don't make the national news is prohibited person on prohibited person. The road is being paved for no more private sales without a background check. This does nothing to address legal owners going off the deep end, but keeping guns out of the hands of criminals because we need the government to screen private sales.

 

[2A_Tom]

A repentant, God-fearing, moral people, which will lead to a natural order of strong families, responsible fathers, stay-at-home mothers, etc.

You are so funny!

 

[abnk]

Putting guns in prison doesn't exactly accomplish much, people need to realize that first and foremost.

1.)The only thing that's going to stop mass shootings is to have the government forcibly blackout all news coverage of it. Yes it's a violation of the freedom of the press, but here's the problem. When the press publish the murderer's manifesto, when they publish their name and face, they make that mass murderer get his message out which was his entire goal in the first place.

Stopping the reporting of these actions would also stop the fear mongering, over a thing that is vastly less likely to happen to you than being struck by lightning.

2.)The second thing that is necessary is for police and and government to organize with firearms instructors and offer free active shooter training for CCW holders. Getting better working relationships between police and CCW holders, and some formalized training, would go a long way to help ensure the safety of the public at large. Gun owners need to be seen as the absolute solution to the problem when society has failed to prevent an individual like this from snapping.

3.)Lastly, we need a massive overhaul of the mental healthcare in this country, and legal protections for those seeking treatment, so that they no longer have to fear for the loss of their rights if they attempt to get help. Currently, finding even mental therapy is insanely difficult almost anywhere in the country. That's absurd because more people have various mental conditions than people who are actually sick, yet doctors are absolutely everywhere. We also need to be putting people who are legitimately nuts in an asylum until they can be sorted out and be stable enough to not be a threat to themselves or others.

Do I think any of this is really necessary, given how rare this actually happens? No, not really, but these are steps that would absolutely stop the majority of them, or at the very least, end them exceptionally fast.

While I agree that those steps may yield some results, they are reactionary to the symptoms, and do not address the root cause of the problem.

 

[Tombs]

While I agree that those steps may yield some results, they are reactionary to the symptoms, and do not address the root cause of the problem.

The root cause of the problem is that some people are broken. This is a nation of 350,000,000 people, it's a miracle it's as rare as it is.

 

[Sigblitz]

Britain has a knife problem, where guns are banned. They check your ID when you buy plastic knives at a party store.

 

[JettaKnight]

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere, but five thirty-eight has by-the-numbers breakdown of gun deaths.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

 

[abnk]

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere, but five thirty-eight has by-the-numbers breakdown of gun deaths.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

That is excellent.

 

[worddoer]

I'm really asking a serious question about where do we go from here? With the two mass shootings, at least 5 killed and 42 wounded in Chicago this weekend, and the fact that a kid my son played basketball with at Notre Dame last weekend was shot and killed last week -I'm for the first time really questioning what the do we do? Does anyone have a real answer as to how to address the gun violence?

I've been a gun owner, hunter, sport pistol shooter in various forms for more than 40 years so I'm firmly on the 2nd amendment side. I've taught my two sons gun safety and they both have completed at least hunter safety. They've each shot at least one IDPA match. I write that to let you know I'm 100% pro-gun ownership and feel that teaching safety is key. My sons and I know we own whatever is sent downrange.

My son (aged 19) and I shot sporting clays on Saturday early afternoon at Deer Creek in Three Oaks Michigan. There was an event going on so there say 50-60 people all armed at least with shotguns (some of us more than that I'm sure) and no one got hurt or shot. So there can be sensible gun ownership and use. Then we heard about the El Paso shooting. Then Sunday I get up to make coffee before church and get hit with the Dayton shooting. At this point I'm at a loss.

I asked my 19 YO what he'd do. He's becoming a backer of no AR/AK's or anything like them. We went thru a list of issues from how would you confiscate, the slippery slope it starts, how do you get them all, how do you make sure the 'bad guys' give them up. etc. etc. It was a great conversation but no answer. Only more questions.

I've almost resigned myself the new normal, while looking for an answer I can support. I do think constantly about my two sons at school, my wife at work and I try to stay vigilant while carrying. I've decided I'm not going to give into any fear. While I hope that it never happens I hope that I'd not go down without a fight if the worst happened.

This forum has been a great place to share and learn over the years. So I'm asking serious question. How do we address these mass incidents without giving up all our freedoms? I don't want to allow the anti's to own this issue, and I think we as gun owners need to be vocal in an answer.

Thanks for letting me vent.

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. And I can understand how you don't want to see more innocent individuals killed or injured by mentally disturbed individuals. I believe that almost every person on this forum would agree with that. However, there is a flaw in your logic.

You are under the assumption that getting rid of certain firearms would stop these incidents. Remove all AR's and AK's and related firearms, and the "mass shooters" will start using handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles. Then are you willing to ban all handguns, shotguns (just like you used on Saturday) and hunting rifles to stop those shooters? You can never remove enough "weapons" to prevent evil. You must prepare to handle evil yourself while at the same time doing our best to help those who have embraced evil in their hearts.

I want to add some information that you may not know about. I have found many gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so. Very, very rarely have we given gun rights away and received ANYTHING in return.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take more our rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 7 times, and none of them worked. The only reason the 1994 ban is gone is because of the "sunset" or expiration date in the law. If it were not for that, it would still be on the books today, and the gun control folk would still be asking for more. To top that off, there is a report from our own government that studied and confirmed that the 1994 ban was completely ineffective at controlling gun deaths.

After losing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 7 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. They hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of americans in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

We have tried 7 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to get pro gun people in office and these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

 

[Shadow01]

This is a people issue, not a gun issue. First you have to accept that some people are bad and not acceptable to be roaming society free. Next you have to be accepting to the idea of removing people from free society. The rest is downhill.

 

[bgcatty]

First of all it is NOT gun violence!!! It is people violence. It is gang violence. It is drug dealer violence. Etc., etc. The media and stupid, ignorant politicians use the term “gun violence” because they want to be politically correct and not point their fingers at any particular group or groups of people who may perpetrate the majority of crime using firearms at any given moment in time. I’m sick of hearing the term “gun violence.” Peace. Out!

 

[Indy317]

You are under the assumption that getting rid of certain firearms would stop these incidents. Remove all AR's and AK's and related firearms, and the "mass shooters" will start using handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles. Then are you willing to ban all handguns, shotguns (just like you used on Saturday) and hunting rifles to stop those....

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to get pro gun people in office and these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

The thing is, we can’t act ignorant of the physics when it comes to active shooter situations. When LE started obtaining patrol rifles after more and more shooters were using semi-auto, magazine feed rifles, LE didn’t just go with five shot capacity bolt-action rifles. They had to go with equal firepower. If a person only had lower capacity bolt or lever action rifles with fixed magazines, sure they could still shoot up a place, but they will have to reload many more times, reloading will take longer, getting a shot off will take a fraction longer, etc..

Society has changed in areas of morality, gender roles, politics, economic/job opportunities, among others. I believe some of these changes might have played a part in why some folks are going on killing rampages. I don’t see things changing in many of these areas and high capacity, magazine feed, semi-auto rifles are so easy to obtain, mass shootings will likely continue. I just don’t see why they would stop. Too many of these homicidal people with easy access to tools that absolutely make it easier to shoot as many people as possible in as short of time as possible.

More and more of the young people I know are ready for “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to go. Eventually they will have the votes. Best case scenario is no future sales/importation with everything currently owned being declared like a Class III firearm or something requiring a costly tax stamp and registration. Worse case would be an outright ban with no financial reimbursement. I’m not sure what will happen, but if these shootings continue, more and more people will start to flock to the ban side of things.

 

[worddoer]

The thing is, we can’t act ignorant of the physics when it comes to active shooter situations. When LE started obtaining patrol rifles after more and more shooters were using semi-auto, magazine feed rifles, LE didn’t just go with five shot capacity bolt-action rifles. They had to go with equal firepower. If a person only had lower capacity bolt or lever action rifles with fixed magazines, sure they could still shoot up a place, but they will have to reload many more times, reloading will take longer, getting a shot off will take a fraction longer, etc..

Society has changed in areas of morality, gender roles, politics, economic/job opportunities, among others. I believe some of these changes might have played a part in why some folks are going on killing rampages. I don’t see things changing in many of these areas and high capacity, magazine feed, semi-auto rifles are so easy to obtain, mass shootings will likely continue. I just don’t see why they would stop. Too many of these homicidal people with easy access to tools that absolutely make it easier to shoot as many people as possible in as short of time as possible.

More and more of the young people I know are ready for “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to go. Eventually they will have the votes. Best case scenario is no future sales/importation with everything currently owned being declared like a Class III firearm or something requiring a costly tax stamp and registration. Worse case would be an outright ban with no financial reimbursement. I’m not sure what will happen, but if these shootings continue, more and more people will start to flock to the ban side of things.

I believe your intentions are genuine, let's review what you said.

"Assault Weapons" can kill more people because they can shoot faster. Sure you can kill people with other weapons, but not quite as many quite as fast. Because of this, most young people want them all banned.

Using that premise, if we could just have firearms that load so slowly that a mass shooting is not possible, then we should be fine........right? Then law enforcement would not be "outgunned" and the ill informed masses would not want to ban it. Problem is, as far as I know, you would have to ban everything back to muzzleloaders to accomplish this.

And considering the fact that many mass shooters have not used any "Assault Weapons" but rather used handguns and shotguns.....how long do you think it would be after all the "Assault Weapons" are banned that the new mass shooting weapons of choice is deemed to dangerous and must also be banned?

England is our case study. Because of mass shootings they started banning guns segments. Now all gun segments are banned. However, now that terrorist and mass killers have started cutting people apart in public with machetes and hatchets, They are banning all knifes and sharp objects to the point of utter ridiculousness.

If you follow your beginning process to its logical conclusion, you would have to remove all the "dangerous items" on the planet. Yet, that will never stop people who have violence and murder in their heart. Banning the thing used is not the solution. If we REALLY want change, we need to address our society and why so many feel that they are entitled or have no other choice and must take these actions. That is harder and will involve everyone in the country.

But banning stuff does give some people a short good feeling.....until the next mass murder happens using a different device. And that is how the banning circle continues.....

 

[cosermann]

https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2019/08/08/lets-get-real-about-active-shooters/

 

[BugI02]

Consider how much damage a disturbed person could do with a shotgun, a lever gun in .357 or .44 and a couple of Glocks with extra magazines and a little practice at reloading

5 from the shotgun, ten from the lever gun, 17 from the first Glock, New York reload and 17 from the second Glock, followed by 17 more after say a 2 or 3 second reload

So what then, ban multi-shot weaponry? It's a graveyard spiral for the right to self defense, because the people who think murder is all about the tool will never feel safe enough

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The thing is, we can’t act ignorant of the physics when it comes to active shooter situations. When LE started obtaining patrol rifles after more and more shooters were using semi-auto, magazine feed rifles, LE didn’t just go with five shot capacity bolt-action rifles. They had to go with equal firepower. If a person only had lower capacity bolt or lever action rifles with fixed magazines, sure they could still shoot up a place, but they will have to reload many more times, reloading will take longer, getting a shot off will take a fraction longer, etc..

Society has changed in areas of morality, gender roles, politics, economic/job opportunities, among others. I believe some of these changes might have played a part in why some folks are going on killing rampages. I don’t see things changing in many of these areas and high capacity, magazine feed, semi-auto rifles are so easy to obtain, mass shootings will likely continue. I just don’t see why they would stop. Too many of these homicidal people with easy access to tools that absolutely make it easier to shoot as many people as possible in as short of time as possible.

More and more of the young people I know are ready for “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to go. Eventually they will have the votes. Best case scenario is no future sales/importation with everything currently owned being declared like a Class III firearm or something requiring a costly tax stamp and registration. Worse case would be an outright ban with no financial reimbursement. I’m not sure what will happen, but if these shootings continue, more and more people will start to flock to the ban side of things.

Yet despite what the 24/7/365 MSM would have everyone believe mass shootings are still an extremely rare occurrence and the chances of anyone becoming a victim of one is somewhere less than being struck by lightning (probably less than being struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark).

 

[chipbennett]

If a person only had lower capacity bolt or lever action rifles with fixed magazines, sure they could still shoot up a place, but they will have to reload many more times, reloading will take longer, getting a shot off will take a fraction longer, etc..

What do fractions matter, when shooters have minutes (or longer) unchallenged?

Magazine changes have zero impact on the efficacy of a mass shooting. See, for example, Virginia Tech (carried out with a .22 handgun) and Newtown (shooter was unchallenged by return fire for so long that any number of magazine changes could have taken place). See also Aurora, in which the shooter used a 100-round drum that (as they are wont to do) jammed.

...high capacity, magazine feed, semi-auto rifles are so easy to obtain, mass shootings will likely continue.

Despite what the media would have you believe, most mass shootings are carried out with handguns.

I just don’t see why they would stop. Too many of these homicidal people with easy access to tools that absolutely make it easier to shoot as many people as possible in as short of time as possible.

All the more reason for the innocent and law-abiding to maintain the ability to return force with equal force.

This was tried before. Bill Clinton's AWB was an abject failure. It had zero impact.

More and more of the young people I know are ready for “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to go. Eventually they will have the votes.

They already had the votes in New York and Connecticut. How is that working out for them? Do you think it would be more, or less, successful across the country?

I’m not sure what will happen, but if these shootings continue, more and more people will start to flock to the ban side of things.

And even if it stands, the vast majority of us won't comply.