Mass Shootings in America

[Gene]

40% (see page 7) isn't "most," but still.

It's not a walled city. Hammond, IN is 15 minutes away.

From page 10 of the referenced document.... most of the firearms by a single source coming from Illinois. Proof that the FOID doesn't work.

gunsource.JPG (106.64 KiB) Viewed 1204 times

Hammond Indiana is across State Lines. How does someone with an Illinois FOID or Illinois Driver's license pick up a handgun, tote it across State Lines? You gotta show Government ID at the gun dealer, Gramps.

Let's hear what the BATF&E has to say about such a thing.

"May a licensee sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who is a resident of another state?

Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensee to a nonlicensee who resides in a state other than the state in which the seller’s licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensee whose business is in the purchaser’s state of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the licensee in his or her state of residence.

In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the state where the licensee’s business premises is located in an over–the–counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with state law in the state where the licensee is located and in the state where the purchaser resides."

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-lic ... ther-state




We'll see if the new gun law passed last week handles this problem. Allegedly it creates a new category of crime called Straw Purchasing. Let's see if it's used on gun runners, or just on dumb people who get their "truck guns" stolen from them.


Alternately, what? Should all 57 States should adopt Illinois's FOID? How is the FOID working for Chicago?

Gun Registration? So that Congress can fuck that up like they fucked up the NFA transfer registry?

[Grandpa's Spells]

From page 10 of the referenced document.... most of the firearms by a single source coming from Illinois

I think you're conflating "most" with plurality. 60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago came from out of state.

Hammond Indiana is across State Lines. How does someone with an Illinois FOID or Illinois Driver's license pick up a handgun, tote it across State Lines? You gotta show Government ID at the gun dealer, Gramps.

There are firearms and mags you can't buy in Cook County. If you know somebody, you can get them through extremely nearby jurisdictions with different laws either via straw purchase or someone willing to sell privately.

How is the FOID working for Chicago?

My experience has been pretty solid and lack of a FOID will stop a commercial transaction cold. They are reasonably easy to get if you aren't a felon or have a protection order against you. The fact that most guns come from out of state is a clue.

Alternately, what? Should all 57 States should adopt Illinois's FOID?

Federal laws are what it will take.

I shoot recreationally and would strongly prefer to see a workable solution come from the right, because they're really not going to like the solution the left comes up with. The argument for repealing the Second Amendment is stronger than "thoughts and prayers" and nonsense about mental health. Every country has crazy people.

You may be more plugged into the right wing solutions than I am. Highland Park shooter appears to have been shooting 5.56 from a high-capacity mag (but not necessarily an AR) from on top of a building. How is this supposed to be prevented?

[Grandpa's Spells]

A good summary from Twitter:

Think of it this way: You have a stern “No Dog Shit In My Yard” policy. And your neighbors on both sides have a lax “My 20 Dogs Are Free To Roam And Shit Wherever They Want To” policy. How long do you think it’s going to take before you step in some shit?

[nafod]

The argument for repealing the Second Amendment

I’d settle for not ignoring the “well regulated militia” preface that the right is predicated on.

[j-cubed]

The argument for repealing the Second Amendment

I’d settle for not ignoring the “well regulated militia” preface that the right is predicated on.

What specifically does that mean to you?

[nafod]

The argument for repealing the Second Amendment

I’d settle for not ignoring the “well regulated militia” preface that the right is predicated on.

What specifically does that mean to you?

The 2nd amendment was predicated on the need for a well regulated militia to defend the country and put down rebellions, which was driven by the deep desire to avoid a standing army. It was the citizenry that was to defend the country.

Any discussion of the 2nd amendment should begin with a discussion of whether the predicate still holds true. Hard to argue it does, when we have a little shy of 3,000,000 active and reserve military, I.e., a huge standing army.

[Gene]

The argument for repealing the Second Amendment

I’d settle for not ignoring the “well regulated militia” preface that the right is predicated on.

What specifically does that mean to you?

The 2nd amendment was predicated on the need for a well regulated militia to defend the country and put down rebellions, which was driven by the deep desire to avoid a standing army. It was the citizenry that was to defend the country.

Any discussion of the 2nd amendment should begin with a discussion of whether the predicate still holds true. Hard to argue it does, when we have a little shy of 3,000,000 active and reserve military, I.e., a huge standing army.

We have nuclear weapons that can reach any place on Earth. Why do we need a 3,000,000 person military for defensive purposes?

44 States have Right to Keep and Bear arms clauses in their Constitutions. Some are constrained. Six States lack such language in their Constitutions. Many of these affirmations of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms were written after Slavery was abolished in the US but before the NRA ILA promoted such stuff.

https://gun-control.procon.org/state-co ... ar-arms-2/

Any discussion of the 2nd amendment needs to focus on the role of government. Is Government meant to be balanced by an Armed people - a Constitutional Republic - or do we want an Administrative Dictatorship with the trappings of a Democracy?

Armed people make an Administrative Dictatorship "noisy" and unpleasant when the bureaucrats step out of line. Bureaucrats need a SWAT team instead of an email. This forces bureaucrats to account more for their behavior.

Honest bureaucrats do their work. Crooked politicians and Executives on vacation from their employers (like Big Tobacco execs working at the FDA) have to toe the line.

I think that Wall Street wants "gun control" so that they can use regulatory capture to squeeze more money from ordinary people. Wall Street firms give a lot of money to these movements, both in direct aid and "In Kind" aid through the Media and Entertainment Industry. They're not charitable outlets, they have a business reason.

Do guns work in embarrassing bad actors in government?

One example was the Bundy Ranch fiasco. Nobody got shot, but Senator Reid wailed like a child. His son, who was an attorney with the US Bureau of Land Management, had to answer embarrassing questions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 6D20120831

The Bundy Ranch defendants were acquitted.

Another example was the Battle of Athens, which was fought with weapons of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)


Before the Progressive era gun control was mainly applied against African Americans and Native Americans. To control them.

If firearms were 'just tools' why were both peoples disarmed? Cause they needed controlled.

Today the System doesn't discriminate - we all need controlled.

[Gene]

What I'm talking about above could be considered "terrorism".

The Founders of the US would be considered terrorists. They used armed force to achieve political ends. Abraham Lincoln terrorized the Southern US to make it stay in the Union. We terrorized the Native Americans to push them off of their land.

When does self defense become terrorism, and is a Bureaucrat's edicts, rules and regulations a political action?

[nafod]

Any discussion of the 2nd amendment needs to focus on the role of government. Is Government meant to be balanced by an Armed people

That is not part of the 2nd amendment, as is made clear by the opening predicate, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

If you feel there should be an amendment guaranteeing free access to weapons by everybody predicated on the need to oppose your own government, to allow successful rebellions, then propose one. But that is not what the 2nd amendment says, at all.

No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

HIGHLAND PARK, IL—In the hours following a violent rampage in which a lone attacker killed at least six individuals and injured more than two dozen at a Fourth of July parade, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Monday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Faye Perkins, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep shooters like this from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

[j-cubed]

That is not part of the 2nd amendment, as is made clear by the opening predicate, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

Some people think the 2nd Amendment is vague.
Some people think "well regulated" through the glasses of govt regulations of today, not the late 1700's.
There are many that say because all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual right, then the 2nd is also.

However, the question of whether the right of the person to possess firearms versus only the militia orgs like the National Guard was never asked until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted. Many in the Founders generation believed governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress people, because there were plenty of more recent examples of it. One way around the fears is to allow the the govt to raise an army only for fighting foreign adversaries, and relying on the militia for sudden invasions or other emergencies.

The onset of war does not allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War taught us we could not rely solely on militias for national defense. As such, the Constitutional Convention decided that the federal govt would have the authority to establish standing armies and regulate militias. This shift of power from the states to the federal govt was one of the chief objections during the framing of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued this took aw ay their ability of defense against federal usurpation. Federalists argued that fear is overblown, in part because the American people were armed. Implicit to both arguments are the assumptions that (1) the proposed Constitution gave legal authority to the fed govt over the army and militia. and (2) that the fed govt would not have the power to disarm the citizens.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Constitution is full of checks and balances. Why is the 2nd Amendment any different?
I think it's not vague, and written perfectly. It provides checks and balances on the govt and their control of the militia.
As a brand new country, the USA was ripe to be invaded or conquered by any number of other countries at the time. So a standing army and strong militia were necessary to the security of a free State. So the people that make up the militia need to be able to keep and bear arms.
Because the well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Check and balance.

[Bram]

A friend of mine went to high school in Highland Park.

A friend of hers was at the shooting with her family. They watched people be shot and killed around them, then fled for their home and hid until the suspect was apprehended.

I would like to see a change on this shit ASAP, thank you.

[j-cubed]

A friend of mine went to high school in Highland Park.

A friend of hers was at the shooting with her family. They watched people be shot and killed around them, then fled for their home and hid until the suspect was apprehended.

I would like to see a change on this shit ASAP, thank you.

What change? Seriously, no sane person on the left, right or middle wants random mass shootings to continue.

Illinios has a red flag law, but it wasn't used. Because of threats the shooter made, he had a knife collection confiscated by the Highland Park police. This caused the police department to include him in a report to the state literally as a "clear and present danger", and yet he somehow managed to get an IL FOID card after all of that and pass all his background checks with no problem.

In Uvalde, basic safety procedures like locking doors were not followed. It's tough to keep people safe when they don't follow basic safety protocols.

In Oxford, somehow the kid was allowed back into class, after his parents were specifically told by the counselor and principal only an hour before to take him out of school and get him help.

Maybe one thing that can change ASAP is people actually following the procedures, protocols, and to take advantage of existing laws.

I mean, if the regular folk are ignoring their own safety regs, what are the chances that an actual psychopath hell bent on killing people would actually obey a new law making killing someone more illegal than it already is?

On the plus side, if people actually do the basic stuff that they should do, mass shootings can be averted - like this one. https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-teen-ar ... olice-say/

[nafod]

I think it's not vague, and written perfectly. It provides checks and balances on the govt and their control of the militia.

Not vague? You can start a fist fight among constitutional lawyers over what the commas mean in the 2nd amendment.

At the time of writing, all men 16 to 60 were expected to be in the militia and to bring a weapon. That militia was to be well regulated, and when called forth was to “ execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .” The 2nd amendment guaranteed them their weapons. At that time, people who could not serve in militia typically were not allowed to have weapons (e.g., free blacks). Not for self defense, not for fun.

Nothing in the discussions building up to the Constitution and Bill of Rights involved self defense or recreation. The Constitution was silent on it. Just the need for a militia, which is now as relevant as the 3rd amendment, keeping soldiers from being quartered in your house.

[nafod]

So…the father who signed the form so his son could buy the assault rifle.

Liability?

[j-cubed]

So…the father who signed the form so his son could buy the assault rifle.

Liability?

Should be criminally charged, like the Oxford parents were.

[j-cubed]

And a different mass shooting on July 4th in Virginia was averted.
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/vi ... ms-seized/

Everything was done correctly. No thought crime police, no red flag law was used, no rights were infringed. Just using the existing tools and actually doing the job with those tools.

[nafod]

And a different mass shooting on July 4th in Virginia was averted.
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/vi ... ms-seized/

Everything was done correctly. No thought crime police, no red flag law was used, no rights were infringed. Just using the existing tools and actually doing the job with those tools.

Saw that…a close run thing. Very close run. One single person did the right thing.

The Highlands Park shooting, that perp had a thousand red flags fluttering in the breeze. It will all come out.

[Bram]

I would like to see a change on this shit ASAP, thank you.

What change?

J-Cubed,

Even if I had the solution, which probably includes things like:

less guns in general
less deadly guns in particular
quicker punishments and heavier penalties for saying shit like you're going to shoot up a school
less media coverage for the perpetrators
a better connection to our communities
better mental health services
and any other shit I'm not thinking about

I don't think it would matter. I think our country is determined to drive itself over the cliff.

I plan to be nice to others and enjoy the things that make me happy until then :)

[Gene]

Any discussion of the 2nd amendment needs to focus on the role of government. Is Government meant to be balanced by an Armed people

That is not part of the 2nd amendment, as is made clear by the opening predicate, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

If you feel there should be an amendment guaranteeing free access to weapons by everybody predicated on the need to oppose your own government, to allow successful rebellions, then propose one. But that is not what the 2nd amendment says, at all.

I think you are distorting the idea of "well regulated". The Constitution had a section about Congress's responsibility for militias, including arming and disciplining them.

How can a right not be infringed and be government controlled at the same time? Government control is an infringement. You can't have it both ways, Nafod. People owned cannon, bombs, the Puckett gun. Until 1934 the Thompson sub gun was available through the mail.

If the 2nd was about State Militias? Why not just say "The power of States to keep and arm militias shall not be infringed"? States don't have rights, they have powers. State legislatures were ratifying the Constitution. Why not use that language?

A government regulated militia? National Guard act of 1914. Nobody called the 2nd Amendment when the NGs replaced State Militias in overseas campaigns. Nobody called the 2nd Amendment dead when Dukakis vs DOD was ruled in favor of Reagan. The "State militias" no longer belonged to the States.

In Heller the USSC ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. We are debating its limits. That living Constitution cuts both ways some times.


Justification in terms of insurrection? One could appeal to the idea of "checks and balances", that Armed People are a fourth branch of government, intended to raise the costs and pain of bad behavior. An Armed people are trusted to respond to bad behavior of government agents. This is a counterpart to Juries and Voting.

Insurrections will be put down. They are noisy. They attract attention. People like Harry Reid or the machine in Athens Tennessee get checked. Insurrectionists will be punished too. Is this bad behavior worth the pain?

As Jefferson once said, "The Tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

We are freer of petty tyrants when government is uneasy and when the use of force - government power - requires consent of the governed.

Armed people are a last resort against a Stalin, Hitler or Mao. Guns in private hands discourage government over reach in its early stages. This is how they can prevent an American Hitler or Stalin.

Stalin and Mao collected guns - the Party controls the gun. The penalty for possession of a handgun in the USSR was five years in prison.

The Weimar Social Democrats registered guns. Hitler used those registries to impose control on Germany. Later Hitler put Police in charge of all gun regulation, demanding that "loyal Nazis" be allowed to get guns arm as they pleased. Salon wrote a deceitful article that Nazis were pro-gun, but did not mention that this was only true for Party Members. Jews were especially infringed upon.

Gun control is controlling people.

[Gene]

I think it's not vague, and written perfectly. It provides checks and balances on the govt and their control of the militia.

Not vague? You can start a fist fight among constitutional lawyers over what the commas mean in the 2nd amendment.

In today's jaded age people have fist fights over he/she/they/them.

That comma has been interpreted in many different ways. The preamble does not change the meaning of "right" and "people". States do not have rights, they have powers.

At the time of writing, all men 16 to 60 were expected to be in the militia and to bring a weapon. That militia was to be well regulated, and when called forth was to “ execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .” The 2nd amendment guaranteed them their weapons. At that time, people who could not serve in militia typically were not allowed to have weapons (e.g., free blacks). Not for self defense, not for fun.

Nothing in the discussions building up to the Constitution and Bill of Rights involved self defense or recreation. The Constitution was silent on it. Just the need for a militia, which is now as relevant as the 3rd amendment, keeping soldiers from being quartered in your house.

Not quite, Nafod....

Article 1, Section 8.....

The Congress shall have Power....

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript


As I mentioned above, any insurrection will be punished. The point is, are the government transgressions worth the pain of punishment.

[Gene]

ANot for self defense, not for fun. Nothing in the discussions building up to the Constitution and Bill of Rights involved self defense or recreation. The Constitution was silent on it. Just the need for a militia, which is now as relevant as the 3rd amendment, keeping soldiers from being quartered in your house.

Nafod - meet the Bill of Rights. Article 10. Maybe you've heard of it?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill ... e%20people.

What you're saying up above is nonsense. Since the Congress armed and disciplined the militia per section 1 article 8 your remarks about "well regulated" are nonsense.

These were not Minutemen, Nafod. Just regular militia members. They were expected to be well regulated, to be proficient, and thus were encouraged to shoot recreationally.

At that time, people who could not serve in militia typically were not allowed to have weapons (e.g., free blacks).

You mean, they had no legitimate basis of ownership in the context of the 2nd amendment, right? The 10th Amendment says otherwise, Nafod.


Free blacks were not disbarred gun ownership in any formal way until 1848 and only in some southern states. Post Turner Rebellion abuses. Some of those States also forbade teaching blacks to read and write or to gather in groups of ten more or more without "the presence of a white pastor".

If you have a law that says otherwise you can post it here. Your "impressions" and feelings are not facts.

[Gene]

I would like to see a change on this shit ASAP, thank you.

Highland Illinois had such a change in 2013. Assault weapons were banned. Junior used a "high powered weapon". A featureless rifle like I posted earlier.

A ban of AR15s, etc, is probably doable. If not now, then after the election.

I'm going to ask you, Bram, what Nafod refuses to answer. There are 15,000,000 such rifles in private hands. How do you intend to get them out of circulation?

Assume 3,000,000 owners. One in a hundred resists and is shot dead. That's 30,000 people. Is it rational to kill 30,000 people for a firearm that is used in so few crimes? Is this a good use of law enforcement resources, or is this a power grab?

Are you willing to pay that price to end this kind of shit, Bram? I'm not.


My best friend was shot in the head when I was eleven. My dog. We got him when I was four. For a little boy whose best friend is a dog to get shot is pretty rough. Head shot. Messy and bloody. I had to help bury him. Dead weight is heavy weight.

I can only imagine how a parent feels, but I'm a grown man, not a shell shocked little kid with almost no life experience in handling death. I was fucked up for years.

My Dad is the one who shot him. I figured that I was next to get shot. I faced that shit when I was eleven.

One of my neighbors has a dog of the same breed, might be my dog's great great great grand nephew. I still feel wistful. Fifty years ago or so.

Blaming a gun is a convenient excuse and is cynical. Who did this deed? Why don't our deterrents to violence work? What happened in the 1960s when AR15s were sold in any sporting good store, without even a Form 4473? Why weren't people shooting off of buildings right and left like today?

[Bram]

Thank you for asking!

And it is a question I am happy to answer.

How would I get 15,000,000 AR's out of people's hands? I wouldn't.

I'd like to see them stop being sold, but leave people alone who already had one. Same for bump stocks, high-capacity mags, hollow tip bullets, etc. Maybe if there's something that is crazy deleterious to society we can create additional penalties for use.

Sorry to hear about that super fucked-up part of your past, Gene! I'd say the only positive from that is that you don't strike me as a person who would ever inflict that psychological torture on someone else. I'm impressed you were able to weather that awfulness and keep a good heart.

As for why are mass shootings an issue now? I'd say the culture has changed. And it makes sense to adapt to that change.

[nafod]

I'm going to ask you, Bram, what Nafod refuses to answer. There are 15,000,000 such rifles in private hands. How do you intend to get them out of circulation?

The key is illegality and/or liability.

Require insurance to own one, and you’ll see them filling landfills.

[Turdacious]

I'm going to ask you, Bram, what Nafod refuses to answer. There are 15,000,000 such rifles in private hands. How do you intend to get them out of circulation?

The key is illegality and/or liability.

Require insurance to own one, and you’ll see them filling landfills.

Insurance doesn’t cover criminal activity.