American gun follies: 10 years running

[Taichiliberal]

I wrote this in March of 2021. What a sad turn of events the SCOTUS decision on the recent NYS RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION,
INC. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NYS POLICE,


Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetrator comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetrator for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidentally hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetrator, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

VICE is anything but conservative. I am a regular, if minor, contributor when they e-mail me.

What this shows is that sane people aren't the problem. The problem is crazy people and criminals and the anti-gun people aren't focused on that.

 

[Taichiliberal]

VICE is anything but conservative. I am a regular, if minor, contributor when they e-mail me.

What this shows is that sane people aren't the problem. The problem is crazy people and criminals and the anti-gun people aren't focused on that.

So what? That STILL doesn't change the FACT that gunners don't want any gun control laws of worth. Doesn't change these updates to last year screed:

Police chief hails ‘good guy with a gun’ after officer kills him in tragic mistaken identity


https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/



Black Man Who Was ‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Shot By Police

https://www.bet.com/article/eokrmr/black-man-kaun-green-disarm-shooter-shot-by-police


From 3 years ago

The same day as the school shooting, police shot a good guy with a gun | Opinion

https://www.nola.com/opinions/article_56d9b7ad-cc3b-5748-8340-e70cb830e17c.html

And then there's this:


THE 'GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS' KEEP FAILING TO STOP MASS SHOOTINGS

https://time.com/6182970/good-guys-guns-mass-shootings-uvalde/

Just to let you know, the current GOP has been the stumbling block to any proposed legislation aimed at improving nation wide mental health facilities and availability if it's attached to the slightest gun control proposal. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

You can't fully legislated against crazy, but you can make it much harder (if not impossible) for them to obtain guns. The OP stands valid.

 

[leaningright]

The link you won’t follow leads to 496 pages with several stories per page where armed citizens use firearms to deter, detain, disable or even kill perpetrators. It happens every day in places throughout the US and can’t be denied.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

Yes, the source for the links to these news reports (usually written in local news publications) is an organization supportive of availability of firearms to citizens in good standing with their government that actively lobbies to keep things that way. Of course they are going to highlight these incidents and frankly I am surprised they are kept available on the web. But none of that makes these incidents less true.

Sources that would prefer more stringent gun laws are going to keep general public exposure to these to a minimum. And they are going to highlight incidents where the good guy with a gun is less than successful. They will spend lots of air time telling about crimes and killings where the perpetrator uses a gun. That’s what we see with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN et al. A pro-gun person wishing they wouldn’t highlight such stories doesn’t make those types of incidents less true either.

You said this:

…the current GOP has been the stumbling block to any proposed legislation aimed at improving nation wide mental health facilities and availability if it's attached to the slightest gun control proposal.

I agree. Here’s a thought: How about not attaching any gun control proposals to mental health legislation and see if that will allow it to pass on its own?

I remember a friend of mine who was a state representative then a state senator, an Oklahoma democrat. He is dead now but his name was Mike Mass if you’d like to look him up. He and I were talking about his job and he said, “[Leaningright], they (republicans) try to get you on record of voting for/against anything by attaching all kinds of riders onto a bill. We spend so much unnecessary time parsing out the bad stuff.” The particular incident he was being attacked for at the time was voting for legislation which would allow homosexual couples to adopt, which he was not in favor of at the time but was attached to some sort of legislation he supported and they needed his vote to get it out of committee or something like that. Remember, it was the early 90’s and there was a particularly strong bunch of Blue Dogs left here and the republicans wanted them gone. This was but one of the tactics they used to get the Blue Dogs defeated. Still makes me mad. But I digress…

Let’s talk about red flag laws. These types of restrictions might get passed if the language wasn’t so broad. “Mr. Simpson, I see your neighbor said you had an argument with your wife so you won’t be able to,purchase this weapon until you get a full mental evaluation … at your expense.” Hearsay isn’t allowed in a court or law. But several proposals I have read allow just that type of scenario.

Waiting periods, magazine restriction, banning certain scary looking rifles … I’m pretty sure those things aren’t constitutional but that can be debated. But attaching these to health bills is bogus, IMO.

Which reminds me why I am for line item veto … no matter who the president is.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The OP here is really just a massive logical fallacy in the form of Appeal to relative privation. It presents and artificial "What-if" scenario, setting it up so the reader is pushed towards agreeing with a "What could be worse" scenario.

One solution is what I'd call "Sensible" red flag laws.

Right now, red flag laws have been set up as an all-or-nothing proposition. That is, it's difficult to put someone on such a list to protect their individual rights, but if they are put on the list it's damn near impossible for them to get off.
What we need is something that's more shades of grey. That would be a list that's fairly easy to put someone on, but also fairly easy for that person to get off of if they are so inclined. It would also make it possible that those putting you on this list (since it's fairly easy to do) could be sued or held criminally libel for putting someone on it frivolously.
So, this sort of list combined with the current ones sets up a two-tier system.

An example of the second list would be say, an ex-spouse complains to authorities that the other ex- is hostile and dangerous. The person reported is put on the red flag list that's easy on, easy off. That person is also notified they're on the list. They can't buy a firearm or ammunition. They can't carry or use a currently owned weapon either--at least legally. They also can go down to the authorities and demonstrate they aren't the threat claimed and get off the list.

It would take more than hearsay or just asking for someone to be put on such a list, but it also wouldn't require numerous court and legal hearings either. By making it possible for someone put on this list to legally go after the person(s) who got them on the list for frivolous or malicious reasons also gives the person recourse to make those who did it libel for their actions.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The link you won’t follow leads to 496 pages with several stories per page where armed citizens use firearms to deter, detain, disable or even kill perpetrators. It happens every day in places throughout the US and can’t be denied.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

Yes, the source for the links to these news reports (usually written in local news publications) is an organization supportive of availability of firearms to citizens in good standing with their government that actively lobbies to keep things that way. Of course they are going to highlight these incidents and frankly I am surprised they are kept available on the web. But none of that makes these incidents less true.

Sources that would prefer more stringent gun laws are going to keep general public exposure to these to a minimum. And they are going to highlight incidents where the good guy with a gun is less than successful. They will spend lots of air time telling about crimes and killings where the perpetrator uses a gun. That’s what we see with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN et al. A pro-gun person wishing they wouldn’t highlight such stories doesn’t make those types of incidents less true either.

You said this:



I agree. Here’s a thought: How about not attaching any gun control proposals to mental health legislation and see if that will allow it to pass on its own?

I remember a friend of mine who was a state representative then a state senator, an Oklahoma democrat. He is dead now but his name was Mike Mass if you’d like to look him up. He and I were talking about his job and he said, “[Leaningright], they (republicans) try to get you on record of voting for/against anything by attaching all kinds of riders onto a bill. We spend so much unnecessary time parsing out the bad stuff.” The particular incident he was being attacked for at the time was voting for legislation which would allow homosexual couples to adopt, which he was not in favor of at the time but was attached to some sort of legislation he supported and they needed his vote to get it out of committee or something like that. Remember, it was the early 90’s and there was a particularly strong bunch of Blue Dogs left here and the republicans wanted them gone. This was but one of the tactics they used to get the Blue Dogs defeated. Still makes me mad. But I digress…

Let’s talk about red flag laws. These types of restrictions might get passed if the language wasn’t so broad. “Mr. Simpson, I see your neighbor said you had an argument with your wife so you won’t be able to,purchase this weapon until you get a full mental evaluation … at your expense.” Hearsay isn’t allowed in a court or law. But several proposals I have read allow just that type of scenario.

Waiting periods, magazine restriction, banning certain scary looking rifles … I’m pretty sure those things aren’t constitutional but that can be debated. But attaching these to health bills is bogus, IMO.

Which reminds me why I am for line item veto … no matter who the president is.

You wasted time and space with the NRA link, because it does NOTHING to change the FACT that these "good guys with a gun" incidences are NOT the status quo or in significant, quantitative numbers to justify the anti-regulation stance on the NRA leadership....DESPITE THE FACT that the majority of legal gun owners and sellers in America want better gun regulations.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-end-an-attack/

https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involve...americans-support-universal-background-checks


As to what you say here; Here’s a thought: How about not attaching any gun control proposals to mental health legislation and see if that will allow it to pass on its own?


Take note:

Then: https://www.peteearley.com/2017/03/...ealth-group-claims-will-put-millions-at-risk/

Now: https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...age-to-address-substance-abuse-mental-health/

No matter how you slice it, the GOP under neocons, teabaggers and now MAGAs is against any federal legislation that does not suit privatization. So there hypocrisy in claiming mental health, not guns stands for all to see.

The rest of your supposition & conjecture is unimportant and unnecessary in light of the above. The OP stands valid as do my subsequent posts.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The OP here is really just a massive logical fallacy in the form of Appeal to relative privation. It presents and artificial "What-if" scenario, setting it up so the reader is pushed towards agreeing with a "What could be worse" scenario.

One solution is what I'd call "Sensible" red flag laws.

Right now, red flag laws have been set up as an all-or-nothing proposition. That is, it's difficult to put someone on such a list to protect their individual rights, but if they are put on the list it's damn near impossible for them to get off.
What we need is something that's more shades of grey. That would be a list that's fairly easy to put someone on, but also fairly easy for that person to get off of if they are so inclined. It would also make it possible that those putting you on this list (since it's fairly easy to do) could be sued or held criminally libel for putting someone on it frivolously.
So, this sort of list combined with the current ones sets up a two-tier system.

An example of the second list would be say, an ex-spouse complains to authorities that the other ex- is hostile and dangerous. The person reported is put on the red flag list that's easy on, easy off. That person is also notified they're on the list. They can't buy a firearm or ammunition. They can't carry or use a currently owned weapon either--at least legally. They also can go down to the authorities and demonstrate they aren't the threat claimed and get off the list.

It would take more than hearsay or just asking for someone to be put on such a list, but it also wouldn't require numerous court and legal hearings either. By making it possible for someone put on this list to legally go after the person(s) who got them on the list for frivolous or malicious reasons also gives the person recourse to make those who did it libel for their actions.

Okay, I stopped reading as soon as I read "massive logical fallacy"....because that's the neologist preamble to the sheer convoluted clap trap, conjecture & supposition laden blather spewed by ITN when he can't logically and/or factually disprove an OP or subsequent posts....one of the reasons why I have that imbecile on the "ignore" list.

The OP stands....when you at least can base your rebuttal on something other than your worthless opinion, let me know.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Okay, I stopped reading as soon as I read "massive logical fallacy"....because that's the neologist preamble to the sheer convoluted clap trap, conjecture & supposition laden blather spewed by ITN when he can't logically and/or factually disprove an OP or subsequent posts....one of the reasons why I have that imbecile on the "ignore" list.

The OP stands....when you at least can base your rebuttal on something other than your worthless opinion, let me know.

No it's not. You presented a scenario created specifically to further your position while ignoring the general case. Mass shootings are rare. Someone with concealed carry or armed with a firearm shooting a mass shooter is rare too. You then use this scenario of something extremely rare on the whole to justify your argument in the form of an appeal to relative privation. That is, you argue that the exception should be used as the rule.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Okay, I stopped reading as soon as I read "massive logical fallacy"....because that's the neologist preamble to the sheer convoluted clap trap, conjecture & supposition laden blather spewed by ITN when he can't logically and/or factually disprove an OP or subsequent posts....one of the reasons why I have that imbecile on the "ignore" list.

The OP stands....when you at least can base your rebuttal on something other than your worthless opinion, let me know.

No it's not. You presented a scenario created specifically to further your position while ignoring the general case. Mass shootings are rare. Someone with concealed carry or armed with a firearm shooting a mass shooter is rare too. You then use this scenario of something extremely rare on the whole to justify your argument in the form of an appeal to relative privation. That is, you argue that the exception should be used as the rule.

Newsflash for ya, toodles...the OP is 1 year old....the "scenario" I put forth there HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY SINCE. Just follow your local news, sometimes. I've linked such documentation on other threads similar to this subject. I believe YOU participated in those discussions. If you don't remember, I'll be glad to give you the links.

That's the difference between you and I....I use facts and derive logical conclusions from those facts. You think opinion, supposition and conjecture are substitute for facts.

Time and again you're proven wrong. This is why your previous screed is just a waste of time and space not to be considered. Carry on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Newsflash for ya, toodles...the OP is 1 year old....the "scenario" I put forth there HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY SINCE. Just follow your local news, sometimes. I've linked such documentation on other threads similar to this subject. I believe YOU participated in those discussions. If you don't remember, I'll be glad to give you the links.

That's the difference between you and I....I use facts and derive logical conclusions from those facts. You think opinion, supposition and conjecture are substitute for facts.

Time and again you're proven wrong. This is why your previous screed is just a waste of time and space not to be considered. Carry on.

You're really bad at math..

Since the beginning of 2022, there have been exactly 16 mass shootings (defined as 4+ killed in one incident) in the US. There were 13 in 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Even if you take the numbers here (4+ killed or wounded), which are 314 in 2022, and 343 in 2021, those are dwarfed by the number of times a gun was used in a violent crime.
https://www.insider.com/number-of-mass-shootingsin-america-this-year-2022-5

Mass shootings are rare. Use of a gun in a violent crime happens multiple times a day in the US. There are over 20,000 gun murders a year in the US alone. That puts mass shootings at around 1% or less of all criminal gun deaths per year. You have a better chance of winning a million to one jackpot in the lottery than being involved in a mass shooting. (Assumes population of 343 million in the US).

Those are facts. You on the other hand are just ranting because you don't like guns.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Newsflash for ya, toodles...the OP is 1 year old....the "scenario" I put forth there HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY SINCE. Just follow your local news, sometimes. I've linked such documentation on other threads similar to this subject. I believe YOU participated in those discussions. If you don't remember, I'll be glad to give you the links.

That's the difference between you and I....I use facts and derive logical conclusions from those facts. You think opinion, supposition and conjecture are substitute for facts.

Time and again you're proven wrong. This is why your previous screed is just a waste of time and space not to be considered. Carry on.

You're really bad at math..

Since the beginning of 2022, there have been exactly 16 mass shootings (defined as 4+ killed in one incident) in the US. There were 13 in 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Even if you take the numbers here (4+ killed or wounded), which are 314 in 2022, and 343 in 2021, those are dwarfed by the number of times a gun was used in a violent crime.
https://www.insider.com/number-of-mass-shootingsin-america-this-year-2022-5

Mass shootings are rare. Use of a gun in a violent crime happens multiple times a day in the US. There are over 20,000 gun murders a year in the US alone. That puts mass shootings at around 1% or less of all criminal gun deaths per year. You have a better chance of winning a million to one jackpot in the lottery than being involved in a mass shooting. (Assumes population of 343 million in the US).

Those are facts. You on the other hand are just ranting because you don't like guns.

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to watch gun flunky dullards like you bray their "intelligence" with their half assed research compounded with supposition and conjecture. What is also telling (and disgusting) is how you so readily try to minimize what has become a consistent body count in just one year (let alone what has transpired in the recent past)....a body count that came about with a oft used weapon that was previously on the 1994 AWB list. But to cretins like you, those lives don't matter and are acceptable so long as you can have your mental/ideological comfort zone appeased Observe and learn (remembering that this year, 2022 ain't over yet);

GUN VIOLENCE ARCHIVE 2022

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-murders

GUN VIOLENCE ARCHIVE Past Years

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

So like it or not, the OP (again) stands valid.