The Anthony Brown shooting situation continues to be alarming. Based on what facts are known at this time, I would stand with the family and peaceful protesters demanding answers and accountability.
The Anthony Brown shooting situation continues to be alarming. Based on what facts are known at this time, I would stand with the family and peaceful protesters demanding answers and accountability.
X2, & at the same time, while the most recent one, in Alameida, Calif, looks at 1st like another George Floyd situation, it isn’t - the officers ask him to please not fight them & they can be heard saying don’t put any weight on him as they put him on the ground when he declines to be handcuffed -
almost certainly looks like what killed him was a medical episode
his family is claiming police murdered him
on & on the madness goes - “gunman opens fire at Va. apt complex - mother, 3 month old child dead, 3 others hit”
this is sheer stupidity imo - 4 year old in NJ accidentally killed when playmate got ahold of a loaded rifle - unbelievable
The Anthony Brown shooting situation continues to be alarming. Based on what facts are known at this time, I would stand with the family and peaceful protesters demanding answers and accountability.
X2, & at the same time, while the most recent one, in Alameida, Calif, looks at 1st like another George Floyd situation, it isn’t - the officers ask him to please not fight them & they can be heard saying don’t put any weight on him as they put him on the ground when he declines to be handcuffed -
almost certainly looks like what killed him was a medical episode
his family is claiming police murdered him
on & on the madness goes - “gunman opens fire at Va. apt complex - mother, 3 month old child dead, 3 others hit”
this is sheer stupidity imo - 4 year old in NJ accidentally killed when playmate got ahold of a loaded rifle - unbelievable
The challenge with 400 million guns in America, how do you stop the shooting at the Virginia apartment building? The 4 year old in New Jersey? What new law would have prevented it? I'm not familiar with NJ but some states have laws where an adult can be charged if a child has access to a firearm...assumption in this case, the adult owner of that gun broke the law - would a new law have done anything different? Require it to be unloaded and locked - doesn't mean the adult owner will follow that law and we're still left with a tragic accidental death.
Too many guns owned by too many people and many of the wrong people.
Lots of proposed laws on how to improve or change the purchase process or transfer of gun ownership. But what about the guns that are already out there? Not saying "throw up your hands there is nothing that can be done" but am asking what can be done?
Good point. Unfortunately you can't legislate common sense.
The American Society of Pediatrics recommended that pediatrician ask parents if there are any guns in the house, and if so are they kept safely. To put it in perspective, they also ask about car seats, bike helmets. The purpose of the question wasn't to limit guns, but to prevent kids from accidentally getting killed.
The state of FLA passed a law banning that question, with big fines and possible prison terms for the docs who asked it. It went to court, I honestly don't know the outcome of it.
There needs to be messaging about gun safety, in addition to laws preventing shady gun sales etc. Most of the college age kids I know are very aware about drunk driving and call an Uber if they need it. We need to have a public education campaign, perhaps with graphic images, to get people to do the right thing in their house.
sad what's happening of late. I have fond memories of my pop taking me shooting out in the backyard trying to hit cans and bottles. I love my .38. I spent my youth roaming the woods with it on my 4-wheeler. Always wanted to get a shotgun, but never thought I'd handle one well. Point is, surely there's a way we can make sure only the competent can obtain one legally. I have no solution, but I hate to see guns get thrown through the mud only because of loopholes that let crazy people buy them legally, and give the firearm a bad name. I do believe in sensible gun control, such as a merit-based system to obtain high-powered firearms such as the AR-15. My comments are out of a love and respect for the object. It's incompetent people who ruin the 2nd amendment right we've all been given. I'm tired of hearing how deranged lunitics, with not one ounce of merit to their name, legally obtain something that I had to study, train, and master before I was given one by my parents.
Too many guns owned by too many people and many of the wrong people.
This to me sums up boiled-down, the gist of the problem, & why tragedies like the current situation in Boone, NC (5 dead including 2 sheriffs deputies in home standoff) occur so frequently
as was said, you can’t legislate common sense - no gun control law has ever made a bit of difference & never will - not when they’re readily available to whoever wants one, whether legally or on the black market
——-
“Egyptian Mummy Was A Pregnant Woman, Not A Male Priest”
You just can’t make this stuff up - wattaworld - sometimes you just gotta say WTF✌️
Now it seems the drug dealer in Elizabeth City, North Carolina tried to hit deputies with her car as he didn't not want to go to jail. Still did they have to shoot him in the back of the head. Shoot out the tires? They couldn't let a man go racing off into the general population who is wanted by police for being a drug dealer. This man has a rap sheet over 100 pages long which makes one wonder how he was not already in jail. But clearly he didn't need to die. Drug dealers aren't executed in this country.
Now there are five dead in Boone, North Carolina! A man killed his parents, then SHOT AND KILLED TWO DEPUTIES WHO RESPONDED the committed suicide! FIVE DEAD including the shooter and two deputies.
no gun control law has ever made a bit of difference & never will - not when they’re readily available to whoever wants one, whether legally or on the black market
I have kind of made a similar argument on your later statement - if somebody wants to get a gun, they can get a gun. If I want to get heroin, I can get it. Just because something is made illegal does not mean that it is inaccessible. So if somebody is determined to commit violence and kill, where there is a will there is a way.
However, I think it is fair to say that making it harder for that person to get their weapon of choice is helpful either in creating more time (and maybe also creating more time for the violence to be averted) and also it might save lives in the way that instead of say 12 people being shot, perhaps fewer people get shot if a certain weapon or certain magazine capacity isn't as available as it might otherwise be. Saying that no gun control law has ever made a bit of difference and never will isn't accurate.
Re the last sentence, Have never once read/heard/seen anything saying the passage of this or that gun control law, has helped to reduce gun death rates/incidents/accessibility to/manufacturing of them etc....
how is it not accurate? new laws have been passed for every Columbine, Las Vegas & in between....& now it’s worse than ever
.....keeping it friendly, this is why I feel it’s entirely accurate to say that no gun control law has ever made a bit of difference & never will
Re the last sentence, Have never once read/heard/seen anything saying the passage of this or that gun control law, has helped to reduce gun death rates/incidents/accessibility to/manufacturing of them etc....
how is it not accurate? new laws have been passed for every Columbine, Las Vegas & in between....& now it’s worse than ever
.....keeping it friendly, this is why I feel it’s entirely accurate to say that no gun control law has ever made a bit of difference & never will
Keeping it friendly, of course 😉
I don't have time to expand upon these thoughts, but I will throw out the low hanging fruit, because really when anybody talks in an absolute terminology it is pretty easy to provide some contrary evidence.
What would you say about the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 (specific features of specific weapons banned until sunset allowed sales to resume)? The Brady Bill of 1993 (waiting period for handgun purchases)? Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (related to fully automatic weapons)?
Just because we are still having waves and waves of gun violence and mass shootings does not mean that those laws when they went into effect did not have a positive impact on the situation...unless you are still saying they had no difference?
This undated article (info stops in 2017) reviews the effectiveness of various laws. In a few instances, there were significant drops in handgun-related deaths after the laws went into effect. One of the main problems with national laws is the inaccuracy of databases, particularly where military services failed to report felons (army failed to report convictions at 41% rate), & confusion/purging of databases. Two big problems for me w/the research are that suicide is included as a gun-related death (irrelevant to murder) and the conclusion of the report is "more research needed."
https://www.center4research.org/does-gun-control-really-work/
https://www.center4research.org/does-gun-control-really-work/
Some good information in there about legal gun sales that were blocked because of the Brady Bill and some statistics. Just because somebody is blocked on the Brady Bill, that gun buyer could still buy at a gun show or black market - so it doesn't make it impossible to buy a gun, but does make it harder, extra steps and maybe delays in buying.
Which gun control measures work...people on one side cite their information, people on the other side cite their information and they both claim they're right!
I'm not normally the one promoting gun control measures, so this is a little of an unfamiliar place for me to argue from, but I do want to address @Stephen 's post. For the record, I do think that more regulations, more hoops to jump through will be helpful to a point, but generally I think that violent people will be violent regardless of the gun control measures. The impact I think some tighter regulations can have is more around the edges, not at the core of the problem, but even improvements around those so called edges are necessary in my opinion.
So let's take the assault weapon ban, which I honestly think was more of a visual law on gun features than function: rifles with detachable magazines could not have more than one of the following- a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, a stock with a thumb hole, a flash suppressor, threaded barrel or a bayonet mount.
In all intents and purposes, a rifle could be sold during the assault weapons ban that looks and functions just like the assault weapons that can be bought today. The only thing in common these rifles have is the pistol grip. An assault rifle doesn't need to have any of those other things to be more or less lethal in a shooting. So you could buy a rifle during the ban with a pistol grip, and you can buy one now - none of those other features matter. The gun effectively functions with exactly the same capability.
With one very big exception - the magazine. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition were banned as part of the assault weapons ban except for those produced on or before 9/14/1994.
So, if the assault weapons ban did not sunset or if it was reinstated in 2004, large capacity magazines would still be banned. Pre-ban large cap mags would be pretty expensive and somewhat scarce and sure, there would be illegal imports and black market high capacity mag...but just like I used that heroin example, I can get it if I know the right people and the right channels. That is quite different than just going to local shop or market and buying it. So while an individual could've bought a high capacity magazine illegally if they were still banned 1) there would be a lot fewer of them and 2) it would be harder to get - not impossible to get, but harder. And I know many anti-gun control advocates will express how quickly a gun can be reloaded, and it can be done very very quickly, but if we are talking about a 30 round mag and a 10 round mag, that momentary delay could save lives or create a window to take cover or even try and attack the shooter. You never know, the shooters adrenaline could make the reload a little more clumsy and delayed than calm practice reloads, the magazine could be dropped when changing, it could jam upon putting it back in.
I can't offer substantive examples of how assault rifles used in shootings with 10 round mags vs 30 round mags would've or could've save lives, but I also don't think I am making too much of a leap to say that it would've. And I believe that many so called experts and researchers would very strongly argue that magazine capacity matters when it comes to shooting, time and the number of potential victims wounded or killed. What would you say about that Stephen?
I would agree w/that nebish - it’s a sensible idea - reduce the scope of harm a gunman could do, by making smaller-caliber sidearms - it could be a start - perhaps be a more enforceable law than others - starting as it would at the mabufacuring level, before they hit the street or were offered for sale
am a bit tired (work nights - eyes get tired), but keen to read your whole post & the link
the most recent one in Michigan (Reading Township)...is a tough thing to see...as long as people have guns, bad things will happen✌️🌎
"And I know many anti-gun control advocates will express how quickly a gun can be reloaded, and it can be done very very quickly, but if we are talking about a 30 round mag and a 10 round mag, that momentary delay could save lives or create a window to take cover or even try and attack the shooter. You never know, the shooters adrenaline could make the reload a little more clumsy and delayed than calm practice reloads, the magazine could be dropped when changing, it could jam upon putting it back in."
The one example that comes to mind is the Gabby Giffords shooting. The shooter was tackled while changing magazines. There are others but unfortunately get lost in the fog of the numerous mass shootings
There have been gun sales that should have gone through, but was blocked due to a wayward keystroke.
States like Ga have what is called a "gun crime" bill. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you serve 20 years, then serve the sentence handed down in court.
Problem is that this is used to "bargain" with the lawyers to get the perp to plead guilty to a lesser crime, so it really hasn't done all that good.
Background checks, no problem. Fill out the Form 4473, run it through NICS, get your firearm. Problem is that there are people out there who lie on the form. Even if they are told about the fines and jail time for doing that. One person that has been on the news for several years decided to purchase a handgun. Went to the store, filled out Form 4473, went through the background check, got his handgun. The person had lied on the Form 4473 and checked NO to the questions about being dishonorably discharged from the military and about being a drug addict. He then went on to violate a myriad of state and local regulations of concealed weapons and safe storage.
One big problem I have with the kneejerk reactions by politicians is that most of the "reasonable" laws they propose are actually already on the books, and aren't enforced in the first place.
Secondly, they don't (well, many of them) even know much about the firearms they want to do legislation on. Many misconceptions and false information spread by those who should have knowledge of what they are talking about.
My really big pet peeve on anti-gun legislation is that almost all of it is of a racial nature. The people that need the protection of a firearm are often blocked from purchasing one due to their city council deciding they don't need any firearms and persecute those who are trying to protect themselves and their family.
Again, I will say this, unless the law deals with the criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, from possession and use of firearms, the law isn't reasonable or sensible. Stop making laws that hinders law abiding citizens from possessing firearms.
Right Jerry, if somebody is going to break the law in order to purchase their gun, what other laws might they break? A law isn't going to prevent somebody intent on breaking said law, the law then can only be used to charge and punish the person after they commit the crime.
So on the background check and the questions on the form, wouldn't, or shouldn't the people performing the background check be able to determine if an applicant has or hasn't been dishonorably discharged? I don't know if their is a national database for individuals who have been arrested multiple times on drug charges or maybe individuals that been in drug rehab - if there was such a database available to the background checkers they could reject applicants even if they lied on the form.
There has to be so much data out there on all of us, I'd like to think it could be pulled together and used in a way that makes things like background checks more accurate. All of our data is being used by so many companies as it is, like it or not, it's the way it is, might as well have the government comb through all of it too.
I know we disagree Jerry on the red flag laws, and to that point, the Fed Ex shooting tells us that even when a red flag law is in place, that is no guarantee it is going to work as intended.
Secondly, they don't (well, many of them) even know much about the firearms they want to do legislation on. Many misconceptions and false information spread by those who should have knowledge of what they are talking about.
You're right. I'm not a legislator, but I don't know a thing about guns nor do I care to. I've supported reasonable handgun control legislation in the past, but am not naive enough to think that it keeps guns out of the hands of career criminals nor that it does more than add 1 obstacle to purchases in some locations (e.g., gun stores but not gun shows). Background checks are only as good as the quality of database being used. I've never researched mental illness as a criteria for exclusion, but it's always struck me as being unfair to law-abiding citizens & discouraging to people to seek medical treatment for mental illness - there's a big difference between a lifelong psychosis that has left someone marginalized & untreated and one bout of postpartum depression in a woman that was successfully treated 10 years ago.
Because I don't consider myself remotely knowledgeable about weapons, I'm staying on the sidelines of the debate. If there were a public referendum in my state, I wouldn't automatically be pro-gun control as I once was.
I think we mainly disagree on how they are written. If you make a report that you believe someone is a danger to himself or others, be ready to prove it and show how that person is a danger. Would you support a law that would give possibly your neighbor the right to take away your car because he thought you were a danger to other people?
There is, believe it or not, a Red Flag Law I like. I forget the state, but it is a voluntary one. You can turn in your firearms to a police agency, get a receipt, and pick them back up later when the road rage or whatever passes.
Red Flag Laws have already gotten people killed, by police going into the situation with little knowledge of what was going on.
One was where a girl's mother had requester a red flag on her uncle. The judge didn't request any more information and just issued the red flag. Two police officers knock on the man's door a 2:30 AM. Man comes to the door with a pistol because 2:30 am, somebody beating on the door, might be the girl's mother. Sees the policemen and opens the door. One officer starts explaining the situation and the man turns to place the gun on a table. As he turns, the partner fatally shoots the UNARMED man.
Later found out the girl didn't want to live with her abusive mom and was staying with her uncle. The mom had been warned to stay away from the house and did the red flag so her uncle could not defend himself and the girl from her.
Like before, prove the person is a danger, if not face the consequences of a possible lawsuit and perjury if you can't.
