America's Gun Violence #2

stuckinline

HughFreakingDillon said:

this is something out of the fucking walking dead. this poor kid is going to be messed up for a long, long time. this is not normal. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/robb-shooting-survivor-miah-cerrillo/index.html

Jesus

gimmesometruth27

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

so the republicans want door control. no mention of the one thing common in all of these shootings. the ar-15.

Doors are not mentioned in the Constitution so doors are OK. If I was an NRA-funded Senator, I'd advocate hard for door control. Without doors, people would be more likely to buy guns.

i am no intellectual, but can't the shooter just shoot the doorknob off? or smash it off with the rifle? or why would the shooter not just bring a hammer to break door down?

tempo_n_groove

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

I saw that conference earlier. I didn’t see that as blaming the teacher. People wanted to know how the shooter got in. They have details. He didn’t harp on that fact. Just answering a question everyone’s been asking for 3 days.
You think if he just said the shooter enter through an unlocked or propped open door people would t be asking why wasn’t it locked closed?

i want to know why they did not go in and why they waited. nothing else matters beyond that. they knew there was a shooter shooting kids inside a school. that is as big of an emergency as it gets. 

since this is texas, i wonder if they were waiting for the us cavalry to come rolling in to save the day. or the texas rangers.

the police response here was fucking inexcusable.

I heard a press conference where the cops admitted it was a “wait and barricade?” Rather than an active shooter. They said they screwed up. 

Did no one else hear that?

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

Hobbes said:

NRA is banning guns at their own convention. Laughable. I understand it’s the request of the secret service as trump will be in attendance, for his safety. Bans keep people safe, apparently. 

I think it’s horrible timing and bad taste to not move or postpone the event. But you can’t fault anyone for enforcing no guns at an event with a former president, even if it is the NRA.
Its ironic, but that’s about all.

Why should they move or postpone their event? What good would that do? The promotion of gun culture by people and organizations like the NRA causes these shootings. Whether they have the convention this week or next month makes no difference to what they believe. 

The same goes for the musicians who have pulled out of playing at the convention. Some of them have claimed it’s out of respect for the victims, but if they had any respect for victims of gun violence they wouldn’t have agreed to perform at an NRA event in the first case. They’re pulling out due to respect for their careers and their income. They don’t even have the courage to own their own bad decisions.  

I didn’t think they would, and not surprised at all that they didn’t.
It wouldn’t do any “good” or change anything. But it’s just poor taste in my opinion. 

I mean, it’s like if every year Minneapolis had a pro-cop parade. And last year it was scheduled for the same weekend the Floyd verdict came out. Would be a little poor taste to continue to hold it that weekend wouldnt you think? Would it change anything to move it? No.

I guess the difference is that I think what the NRA does is in poor taste every single day, not just when a high profile shooting occurs. 

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. 

a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders. 

I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range. 

the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it. 

At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more.
giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.

At the end of the day it’s about incentives 

isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group. 

They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.

I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners 

That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.

So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”

gimmesometruth27

tempo_n_groove said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

I saw that conference earlier. I didn’t see that as blaming the teacher. People wanted to know how the shooter got in. They have details. He didn’t harp on that fact. Just answering a question everyone’s been asking for 3 days.
You think if he just said the shooter enter through an unlocked or propped open door people would t be asking why wasn’t it locked closed?

i want to know why they did not go in and why they waited. nothing else matters beyond that. they knew there was a shooter shooting kids inside a school. that is as big of an emergency as it gets. 

since this is texas, i wonder if they were waiting for the us cavalry to come rolling in to save the day. or the texas rangers.

the police response here was fucking inexcusable.

I heard a press conference where the cops admitted it was a “wait and barricade?” Rather than an active shooter. They said they screwed up. 

Did no one else hear that?

it is not like this is an "oops we made a mistake" situation. that does not fly. 19 people died while people with guns sat around and waited. heads need to roll on this one.

joseph33

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. 

a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders. 

I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range. 

the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it. 

At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more.
giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.

At the end of the day it’s about incentives 

isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group. 

They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.

I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners 

That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.

So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”

I support and will defend the 2nd Amendment,given said that. I as a law abiding citizen can wait 30 days. I do not need high capacity magazines to protect myself and family. I don't plan to go toe to toe with my government with military grade hardware. There NEEDS to be common sense gun laws for this insanity to stop.

Halifax2TheMax

Kristi Gnome going for the hipsta Guiltyfoil look at the NRA convention. Maybe she’s got eyes for Donny, Jr.?

Halifax2TheMax

joseph33 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. 

a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders. 

I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range. 

the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it. 

At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more.
giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.

At the end of the day it’s about incentives 

isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group. 

They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.

I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners 

That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.

So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”

I support and will defend the 2nd Amendment,given said that. I as a law abiding citizen can wait 30 days. I do not need high capacity magazines to protect myself and family. I don't plan to go toe to toe with my government with military grade hardware. There NEEDS to be common sense gun laws for this insanity to stop.

So I’ll ask you, if you can’t possess an assault rifle to defend yourself, are you unable to defend yourself and do you believe that your 2A rights will have been taken away?

brianlux

Some days I think, "Man, I really want to live in a country where people don't believe they need to have guns around to protect themselves and their families."   But at this point in my life, trying to do that would do me in, so II guess I'm stuck here.
That whole "Need a gun to protect myself and my family" is a huge part of what has created this problem in the first place.  Too bad so many Americans can't see a better way.  That in of itself kind of defines who we have become. 
Fearful, stubborn, in a rut, lacking vision, violent.  America.

DarthMaeglin

As a Canadian I increasingly feel that I don’t have a place commenting in this thread (and don’t have anything worthwhile to add besides) other than to add my deepest sympathies to all Americans dealing with these ongoing tragedies. I have no idea what the solution might be but I sincerely hope and pray you find your way there.

Edited for poor wording.

Halifax2TheMax

Cue the demands that he be fired, to cancel your season tickets, boycott MLB, the death threats and how he’s a Godless traitor that hates ‘Murica.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/sport/gabe-kapler-uvalde-national-anthem/index.html

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. 

a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders. 

I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range. 

the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it. 

At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more.
giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.

At the end of the day it’s about incentives 

isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group. 

They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.

I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners 

That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.

So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”

No. Not what I said at all.
you’re referring to fees with buying a gun. I was taking about selling guns.
If I sell mine through a gun store, they’ll usually take half for commission.
If I want to sell it at a gun show then I have to spend all weekend either waking around trying to sell it, or rent a booth for the weekend and hope someone is interested enough to offer me a fair price . Even less worth it.
most online sites don’t allow advertisement of guns.
I’m sure there’s some out there, but I’m not even aware of a local place like Craigslist that allows it, so doubtful it gets much traffic.
There are sites like gunbroker, but there are more fees, have to ship to a dealer which adds to the cost. A gun dealer isn’t going to receive and handle the gun for free. I’ve never tried shipping a gun, but there’s probably more paperwork involved.
So if I have a gun worth $350 and I’m likely going to get half that selling through a store or online, I’m more likely to keep it.
I’d be willing to bet a lot less people would sell posters if they were banned on here, eBay and almost every other website except for a few select auctions sites dedicated to posters which took 50% commission. We’d all probably just end up keeping posters we aren’t too excited about if that was the case.

pjhawks

I can’t imagine the anger I would have if i had children in that school and the cowardly law enforcement didn’t bust in to stop the shooter.  I really can’t fathom what my reaction would be.  Anyone who’s made that decision has blood on their hands and should be charged with crimes.  Fuckers 

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the problem with not seizing them means all those guns are still in circulation. all the regulation and registration won't change the fact that a certain percentage of gun owner simply do not adequately secure their firearms away from people who shouldn't have them. 

a mandatory buyback program coupled with a hefty jail sentence for anyone who is non compliant would do wonders. 

I would say a voluntary buyback program and required registration...maybe even a program where you have to let the police verify the weapon is still in your possession every few years.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of gun owners in america would voluntarily sell back their gun. I'd say in the zero point something to zero point something but slightly higher range. 

the propaganda associated with a buyback, mandatory or voluntary, by the right wing media would be like something none of us had ever seen. so I don't think that's ever going to happen. I think Biden et al are going to try to ban "assault style" rifles like Clinton did. But he'll grandfather in current owners and require registration, which will do absolutely nothing. And it will fail anyway. I'm sure even a few democrats would vote against it. 

At market rates a lot. Above market rates even more.
giving out a 20 dollar gift card per gun, not a lot.

At the end of the day it’s about incentives 

isn't "freedum from tyranny" the biggest incentive of them all amongst this crowd? or I suppose I'm overestimating the amount of nut jobs in the gun owner group. 

They may not sell all their guns, but they might get rid of half of them if it’s enough money.

I agree a buyback program is probably less effective among single gun owners 

That’s exactly what I would do if it was retail value. It’s too much of a hassle and expensive to sell a gun privately, so I end up keeping some I will probably never use. If I got fair market I’d sell them.

So up to $10.00 and waiting up to 30 days for a CBI check to come back on the buyer is “too much of a hassle and expensive?”

No. Not what I said at all.
you’re referring to fees with buying a gun. I was taking about selling guns.
If I sell mine through a gun store, they’ll usually take half for commission.
If I want to sell it at a gun show then I have to spend all weekend either waking around trying to sell it, or rent a booth for the weekend and hope someone is interested enough to offer me a fair price . Even less worth it.
most online sites don’t allow advertisement of guns.
I’m sure there’s some out there, but I’m not even aware of a local place like Craigslist that allows it, so doubtful it gets much traffic.
There are sites like gunbroker, but there are more fees, have to ship to a dealer which adds to the cost. A gun dealer isn’t going to receive and handle the gun for free. I’ve never tried shipping a gun, but there’s probably more paperwork involved.
So if I have a gun worth $350 and I’m likely going to get half that selling through a store or online, I’m more likely to keep it.
I’d be willing to bet a lot less people would sell posters if they were banned on here, eBay and almost every other website except for a few select auctions sites dedicated to posters which took 50% commission. We’d all probably just end up keeping posters we aren’t too excited about if that was the case.

My understanding is that you can sell the gun to another buyer and that the requirements are that the buyer go to a licensed dealer to facilitate the purchase by having them file the paperwork for the CBI check. Your obligation is not to transfer the firearm until the CBI check declares the buyer is legally allowed to possess the firearm. Each transaction requires this but a transaction can be multiple firearms. The dealer is allowed to charge a small fee, previously $10.00, now it appears to be $15.00. That’s from the CBI website. CBI used to have 3 days to conduct the background check but it was expanded to up to 30 because during a deluge of requests, it was taking 4 days and regardless of the background check results, the transfer was legal if it wasn’t completed within 3 days. Now the process, on average, takes 20 minutes. You’re not required to leave the firearm with the dealer so I’m not sure where you come up with a 50% commission. These requirements were passed by the legislature and, again, because of the deluge of requests and Colorado’s excess revenue law, they even reduced the fee to $7.00 for a short time. Also, there’s an online platform called ArmsList where you can advertise your firearms for sale and I’m sure state “only to legal residents of Colorado.”

Im sure you find all of this a violation of your 2A and it makes you angry at the gubmint for limiting your freedom? Why do you think the sale of guns online is more arduous than posters? Before the interwebs, there were whole glossy catalogs of firearms for sale by private folks just like the Autotrader mag that’s still around. Paper Tiger and another reason nothing changes. 

mace1229

Read through these comments. Saw several talking about people blaming the teacher for propping the door.  

But I’m not seeing anyone saying that anywhere. 

Yes, a door being propped open by a teacher was mentioned twice in 25 seconds wishing that press conference. But I think It was also only mentioned twice in that same entire press conference that lasted like 15 or 20 minutes. That’s hardly focusing on it. He was just stating all the facts as he knew them. I didn’t see that as blaming the teacher at all.
If he didn’t address that, people would just be asking how was the door left open.
Who are all these people who are blaming the teacher? I honestly haven’t seen a single person focusing on that. Other than the press conference itself I think I’ve only heard it briefly mentioned twice in the news. 

Almost all of the focus I’ve seen today has been on why did it take almost an hour to get inside the room. No one cares who or why the door was propped open. They want to know why there was such a long delay.

brianlux

DarthMaeglin said:

As a Canadian I increasingly feel that I don’t have a place commenting in this thread (and don’t have anything worthwhile to add besides) other than to add my deepest sympathies to all Americans dealing with these ongoing tragedies. I have no idea what the solution might be but I sincerely hope and pray you find your way there.

Edited for poor wording.

Much appreciated thoughts, Darth.  And I think you said it perfectly.

brianlux

Look at these again:

A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support” for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.

Preventing gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9% oppose it, a net approval of +75.

Seventy-seven percent of voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit, while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.

A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.

Banning assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.

And fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.

And yet look what we've got.  This is lunacy.

Merkin Baller

Hopefully some day America can figure out it’s locked / unlocked / propped open door issues. 

I wonder how other countries handle this great dilemma. 

tbergs

brianlux said:

Look at these again:

A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support” for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.

Preventing gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9% oppose it, a net approval of +75.

Seventy-seven percent of voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit, while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.

A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.

Banning assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.

And fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.

And yet look what we've got.  This is lunacy.

That last one is scary. I can't believe support for arming teachers is that high.