Steve_Jones said:Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:You can always find one person who lost their leg in a freak curling iron accident on Oprah,
Hey, hey, hey, I shared that in confidence, in a moment of weakness. Way to put it out there for everyone to know about .....
Oprah still hasn't apologized by the way.
Yeah, but you got a free car from her, so there's that.
It's getting more and more difficult to keep track of all the incidents involving schools. This is from today's news.
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN - Police recovered two handguns on three men at Brooklyn Center High School's graduation ceremony on Wednesday.
The Brooklyn Center Police Department said it responded at 6:38 p.m. on June 8 to a "large disturbance" during the graduation ceremony, a news release on Thursday said. School officials told police they removed three men and believed they may have been armed with guns.
Police, who were already at the high school, located the three men walking away from the school. They matched witnesses' descriptions, police said.
During police's interaction with the men, officers recovered two handguns. One gun was reported stolen in Brooklyn Park and the other did not have a serial number on it.
Someone mentioned closed/locked doors on the last page, they also menitoned walking in with classmates/students too.
Agree - if we could keep the doors closed and locked then the risk goes down.
Here is the issue that I see/face daily though - kids dont THINK very often. Oh, theres a rule for safety reasons? Nah, doesnt pertain to me and this place, we're too rural...
I see kids at the door all the time holding the door for people, when they shouldnt be. Hell, we've had kids order food from doordash or similar and delivered to the school - kid just opened the door and got their food.
I see more than most because my room is right by the door leading to one of our parking lots.
I try to tell the kids all the time that we arent immune just because we're a suburban school in the county. We had a threat a few years ago, kid had made plans. Genius kid, and Im being serious, he was one of the smartest kids in the school, a brilliant mid, but a broken mind.
I taught this kid in Psychology the year before. I am thankful that a student had the 'nerve' to alert an adult when they heard this kid talking about stuff. Kid called his mom while on the bus, mom called the school. He had nothing on him when he got there that day, like almost nothing at all. A guitar and a sheet of paper or something (guitar was in a case).
as someone who just got out of 8th grade schools definitely need more security, i've been to 3 different schools in the past few years with a very wide variety of kids. in 6th i went to a private school with pretty decent security. we always had at least 4 security guards in campus but they weren't armed and obviously no school resource officer because it was a private school. none of the students there had any real mental issues because all of the kids there came from wealthy families and they were able to get the help they needed if they needed it. they had some things in place for taking your kid to school, they had the list of parents and they knew a lot of the parents by name so they knew who's kid was who's .
7th grade i went to a charter school that very simular things to the private school but no security other than the school resource officer so not much difference there.
8th grade i went to a public/ magnet school. this school really concerned me. they had 1 school resource officer for easily 600 students. we only had searches twice the whole school year. they had school ids but they never checked them. there were a lot of kids there that did live in poverty and a lot of kids with very aparent metal issues but they weren't able to get the help they needed because they didn't have the money to get it. the security was so bad that i could walk into school by myself, walk to the office write my name down and get a pass for class. never asked my name, never asked for my id. i could just walk in the front door and nobody would question it. and with guns being so readily available it was a real concern for me. its so easy now to get 80% ar's and polymer 80's and not only that you can 3d print these lowers. that any kid with a decent knowledge could buy a parts kit and make a gun themselves and walk into the school un noticed. i dont beleive that we should ban guns in the us because they are very interesting and fun when used in the right way, but there is always those people that dont have good intentions. i think the real problem is mental health, alot of families dont have the money for therapy or medicine for their kids. and these kids get bullied and made fun of and it just pushes them into a state of mind that isnt stable or healthy and the school just lets it happen and ignores it. please pay attention to your kids mental health and try and get them the help they need.
Antihero said:I remember hearing a news story about a guy that had " almost 100 rounds" in his safe and 2 guns. It was basically said to try to make the viewer think that 100 rounds is an absurd amount of ammo.
A hundred rounds is a minimal supply of ammunition for any sort of regular practice.
pheller said:I also think we need to track and tax ammunition sold in the retail setting just like we do nasal decongestants.
There is already a Federal level tax of 11% on all ammunition.
Other points you make also display a bit of a knowledge gap in the way things work today and terminology. It may be hasty typing where your fingers got ahead of your brain. Some have been mentioned.
Magazines, not clips.
Rifles are considered small arms.
.22 and bird shot are NOT designed to kill large targets. I suspect that is what you meant to say.
100 rounds is one practice session for many people.
"Perfectly reasonable" is what is hotly contended by both sides of this argument. As I mentioned before, if 60% of the people from either side of the argument wind up unhappy, that may be reasonable compromise.
This is the thoughts that are going through my head.
"What kind of. E36 M3hole country have we become where people say that the deaths of kids in their school dosent move them to action".
that's sad. Like terribly sad.
anyways. Stil need to think about balance here. I'm not aware of a situation where you need more than three rounds to go hunting. The key word is need. Sure you can slaughter a E36 M3 ton of pigs from a helicopter with an ar but you don't need to.
All just random thoughts
I'm looking to start deer hunting this year. Since no one in my family hunts I'll be joining a mentorship program. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gohunting/learn-hunt-opportunities.html
In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
Leave the semantics out of it. It's a tactic debaters use to tire their opponents.
Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:Antihero said:I remember hearing a news story about a guy that had " almost 100 rounds" in his safe and 2 guns. It was basically said to try to make the viewer think that 100 rounds is an absurd amount of ammo.
A hundred rounds is a minimal supply of ammunition for any sort of regular practice.
I typically buy 2000 rounds at a time. I did buy 200 rounds of 7.62 NATO with the rifle I bought Thursday. Shot all of that today. I will order a couple of thousand rounds tonight since I like how well the gun runs.
I currently have around 5000 rounds in the house.
In reply to stroker :
Curious if anyone else checked into this that was posted a few pages back. I was waiting to see if anyone had a response.
I made my position clear several pages ago. Nobody chose to argue the point that per the Supreme Court in US v Miller (1939), military rifles (and their magazines) are Constitutionally protected. Period. End. Full Stop. Any non-felon US male from the age of 18 to 60 is a member of the unorganized militia per Federal statute. As such their right to own a firearm similar to that used by the US military is plain text law. You guys can talk about any changes or any laws you want passed but it's irrelevant.
I find it interesting that none of the talking heads (that I've seen) have wondered whether the reason most states are not passing laws banning "assault rifles" is because if when it goes to the Supreme Court it could end up with the Gun Control Act of 1937 being negated in its entirety. At that point any citizen considered to be a member of the unorganized militia would be able to purchase or manufacture fully automatic weapons without Tax Stamps or BATF approval.
I could not find anything to refute this, and found much to support it. It appears to me that the politicians understand this too, which is why there is so much more talk than action- they understand that if they take it too far, they are likely to lose everything if it makes it all the way to the Supreme Court. But the topic carries a lot of political currency, so they milk it for all it's worth. Now- both sides understand this. And people on both sides want reasonable gun control. They just differ on what is reasonable. To say gun rights advocates don't compromise is unfair. Legally, pretty much every gun control law on the books is a compromise, and could be ruled unconstitutional. But they stay because the advocates realize the need for some basic laws. There is not much desire for every citizen to own a machine gun, even if constitutional. But they also, understandably, worry that more laws can lead to what they feel is overreach. Compromise is also an interesting concept. It assumes that two people or groups with opposing views can reach a solution that is equally agreeable or disagreeable. If they are 10 steps apart, they both take five steps forward and meet in the middle. But what if one side has already taken 4 steps in the direction of the other? The other side wants to compromise, but from where? If the other side ignores the previous compromises and calls to meet in the new middle, one side will have taken 7 steps to the other's three. That isn't compromise. It also isn't compromise if the solution proposed is objectable to the other side. If I want to have 2 girlfriends and my wife doesn't want me to have any, one girlfriend is not an acceptable compromise.
Short version- most talk about gun control is political theater, and pushing too hard is likely to backfire. If we really want meaningful changes, they need to be reasonable compromises that take into account previous compromises.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Oh, I desire to have an MP5. Preferably a PDK, but the SD is pretty cool, it has a built in suppressor that uses the gas pressure before the bullet leaves the barrel, working like a Tesla valve, simultaneously killing sound and reducing a standard round to subsonic.
OTOH, full auto airsofts are legal, also rather quiet, and there are some really good replicas out there, and I haven't bothered to buy one, so....
Every now and then I wonder if there are ranges that will rent full auto rifles/SMGs. Would be worth it for the experience.
Agreed that most hot button issues turn into no action, because how can you run on a platform of fixing X if X gets fixed?
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Oh, I desire to have an MP5. Preferably a PDK, but the SD is pretty cool, it has a built in suppressor that uses the gas pressure before the bullet leaves the barrel, working like a Tesla valve, simultaneously killing sound and reducing a standard round to subsonic.
OTOH, full auto airsofts are legal, also rather quiet, and there are some really good replicas out there, and I haven't bothered to buy one, so....
Every now and then I wonder if there are ranges that will rent full auto rifles/SMGs. Would be worth it for the experience.
Agreed that most hot button issues turn into no action, because how can you run on a platform of fixing X if X gets fixed?
In Maryland there is. The Machine Gun Nest
Noddaz said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Oh, I desire to have an MP5. Preferably a PDK, but the SD is pretty cool, it has a built in suppressor that uses the gas pressure before the bullet leaves the barrel, working like a Tesla valve, simultaneously killing sound and reducing a standard round to subsonic.
OTOH, full auto airsofts are legal, also rather quiet, and there are some really good replicas out there, and I haven't bothered to buy one, so....
Every now and then I wonder if there are ranges that will rent full auto rifles/SMGs. Would be worth it for the experience.
Agreed that most hot button issues turn into no action, because how can you run on a platform of fixing X if X gets fixed?
In Maryland there is. The Machine Gun Nest
I've seen advertisements for similar in Las Vegas. I'm too cheap to want to buy that many bullets though.
In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :
A lot of us spend ridiculous amounts of money to build cars, and feed tires to, to drive for 180 seconds once a month...
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
Leave the semantics out of it. It's a tactic debaters use to tire their opponents.
I agree that the entire discussion can be exhausting. I also believe that terminology must be agreed upon for any meaningful compromise to happen.
It's my personal opinion that the talking points for both extremes of the sides are worded specifically to be able to talk in circles forever.
Clip versus magazine
High capacity vs standard capacity
The entire discussion around what an assault rifle is
Fully semi-automatic
Automatic
Military grade weapons vs. military style weapons vs. modern sporting rifles
Large quantities of ammunition
The list goes on. The debate is structured so that nobody CAN agree unless we agree to standardize terminology.
dculberson said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Nice straw man you've built up there. I think it might be time for a break.
Great job calling my argument bad while refuting none of it. So you have nothing to offer to refute it, but want to comment anyway. Imagine my surprise.
Maybe you can explain to the group what " shall not be infringed means," since you are so enlightened.
Fueled by Caffeine said:What the hell was that?
I hope he finds the help he needs with the right therapist.
That is reality. You are in denial. 50 million plus shot in the back of the head and pushed into ditches they dug, and you want to bury your head in the sand. And you all like to call others shiny and happy.
Duke said:Hmmm, I don't entirely agree with him, but I can sure see how someone can get to feel that way.
No one needs to agree. That's kind of the point. I'm not required to agree with the people here with bad ideas, no evidence to support their plans, no sense of history, and who's policy choices blow like the wind with Hollywood.
No one needs to agree, but if you don't agree with the hive mind here ill wishes, banning, "yellow cards," and locked threads are all in the menu.
Guess what's not on the menu? Free, open, honest, evidence based discussion, and mutual respect are all not on the menu. Conform or be cast out. So the answer is still a resounding no.
If you don't agree, prove me wrong. I'm always fine with that. Saying I'm wrong, telling me to get therapy, or telling me to die in a fire doesn't make me wrong. It all just proves you have nothing to counter my points. Since you have no easy solution to this problem that will actually work, I recommend we keep the 2nd amendment and allow law abiding citizens to be armed however they choose to be armed. That's it.
So what emotional, diversionary, or name calling tactic will you choose next? Pardon me for not bothering to check again. Per usual most of society wants to feel like they are doing something, while in reality they choose to harm others. I hope you all feel great as things continue to deteriorate, because they will. Your inaction, indecision, well wishes, and emotional pleas will fuel the fire.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Oh, I desire to have an MP5. Preferably a PDK, but the SD is pretty cool, it has a built in suppressor that uses the gas pressure before the bullet leaves the barrel, working like a Tesla valve, simultaneously killing sound and reducing a standard round to subsonic.
OTOH, full auto airsofts are legal, also rather quiet, and there are some really good replicas out there, and I haven't bothered to buy one, so....
Every now and then I wonder if there are ranges that will rent full auto rifles/SMGs. Would be worth it for the experience.
Agreed that most hot button issues turn into no action, because how can you run on a platform of fixing X if X gets fixed?
While not an MP5 - I LOVE my HK SP5k, spent the money and got the stamp for it to be a SBR, adding a folding brace. LOVE IT.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:Guess what's not on the menu? Free, open, honest, evidence based discussion, and mutual respect are all not on the menu. Conform or be cast out. So the answer is still a resounding no.
Irony, thy name is.
There have only been 2 people in this entire thread not willing to have free, open, honest, evidence-based discussion with mutual respect and you are definitely one of them. You have provided exactly 0 contextual, meaningful data to debate any potential policy being discussed here and have resorted to strawman blusterings, self-victimization, and hysterics while mostly ranting at people who are on your side.
Which brings up a reminder:
This is a wedge issue where emotions are often intentionally invoked.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:Duke said:Hmmm, I don't entirely agree with him, but I can sure see how someone can get to feel that way.
No one needs to agree. That's kind of the point. I'm not required to agree with the people here with bad ideas, no evidence to support their plans, no sense of history, and who's policy choices blow like the wind with Hollywood.
No one needs to agree, but if you don't agree with the hive mind here ill wishes, banning, "yellow cards," and locked threads are all in the menu.
Guess what's not on the menu? Free, open, honest, evidence based discussion, and mutual respect are all not on the menu. Conform or be cast out. So the answer is still a resounding no.
If you don't agree, prove me wrong. I'm always fine with that. Saying I'm wrong, telling me to get therapy, or telling me to die in a fire doesn't make me wrong. It all just proves you have nothing to counter my points. Since you have no easy solution to this problem that will actually work, I recommend we keep the 2nd amendment and allow law abiding citizens to be armed however they choose to be armed. That's it.
So what emotional, diversionary, or name calling tactic will you choose next? Pardon me for not bothering to check again. Per usual most of society wants to feel like they are doing something, while in reality they choose to harm others. I hope you all feel great as things continue to deteriorate, because they will. Your inaction, indecision, well wishes, and emotional pleas will fuel the fire.
Awright, Anthony, let's you and I try to have a chat and perhaps we can provide some illumination. Some decades ago I read The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy which offered some comparison of gun control in different countries. If you haven't read it, you should. Anyway, the best example of cooperative gun control as national discussion the author offered was New Zealand. At that time, the firearm enthusiasts and the government worked relatively hand in hand to respect and (hopefully) enable changes desired by the other side. Since then, there appear have been significant changes as a result of mass murders. What I find interesting about the linked article is that it sounds like NZ police, despite the leeway allowed in the law for their discretion in licensing, don't appear to be abusing that discretion as have major US metropolitan police departments (like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago) into a de facto ban. If that were not the case, it would remove a significant argument from the Pro 2A side. NZ laws have tightened considerably but it sounds like there's a hierarchy of approval stages available for shooters. I have no information if that acquisition/ownership process is honest or simply a "who you know" or bribery situation now. Perhaps we have a Kiwi Hive member who can offer some information.
Now it's true this is an apples to oranges comparison because NZ doesn't have the Second Amendment to consider. But my point in writing this is to discuss if the pro 2A advocates were to start with a clean piece of paper to try and reduce/eliminate mass murders with firearms, what legal changes (if any) might be on the table. I've heard the Parkland shooter had an extensive list of warnings which were not acted upon. I'm guessing the Uvalde shooter will be no different as time goes on.
Now I've only done some online research so it's probably not worth much in terms of scientific integrity, but this article emphasizes the four main points:
These trends include that mass shootings are often:
1. Perpetrated by someone legally prohibited from possessing a firearm
2. Perpetrated by someone who displayed prior warning signs
3. Intermingled with acts of domestic violence
4. Far deadlier when they involve military-type weapons
So let's see if we can arrange a hierarchy of successively higher thresholds to prevent the perpetrator from succeeding. The thrust of the discussion centers around "assault" firearms so let's focus on that for the purposes of this discussion. To me, the key issue we need to deal with is pre-meditation. I'm not aware of any mass shooting with a military-style weapon that was spontaneous. Can anyone offer an example of one that was? Now we have to look at the intended purpose of the perpetrator. I'm not aware of any cases where the goal of the shooter was to commit murder then survive. I'm going to take that as a case so rare it fails to warrant discussion. So basically we're talking about a perpetrator who plans ahead and is willing (or intends) to die.
1. So how do these perpetrators acquire their firearms? If they have no criminal record and already own them, I've seen no proposals that will work other than an outright ban. Per my previous posts that's flatly unconstitutional and will not happen. If they acquire one from a private sale, the only prevention would be a "Universal Background Check". There are two problems with that. First, it basically sets up a database for a Federal firearms registry which violates Federal Law. That's a non-starter. Second, in more than one recent shooting, the background check failed to function properly (that raises some interesting questions as to why the background check failed to identify the perp but nobody seems to want to discuss that--it's just assumed background checks actually work). I'm wondering if suspending governmental liability protection in that situation might offer some incentive for the bureacracy to work, but I have my doubts. Now what if, as a seller of a firearm, the ability for the buyer to acquire some sort of background check certification upon which I could insist they provide before the sale might be useful? E.g. I have an AK which I'm willing to sell you. You have to provide me a certified copy of a background check from your local LEO to shield me from liability. Notice I'm not required to do so, but I think anyone who didn't insist upon it might be civily liable. I'm not a lawyer, though. The other problem is that A sells to B with the background check then B sells to friend C without the background check. Would that situation be palatable to 2A supporters? Of course the other problem with addressing supply/acquisition is that 3D printing will soon be so common as to render the question of supply moot.
2. Warning signs reflects background checks. I am very loathe to appear embracing something like "social scores" but the gun control crowd do not take into consideration how in the most recent murders there were plain and obvious signs the shooter was unstable. We need some means of bringing these to the attention of LEO who will treat it with the same gravity as an Amber Alert. I do not know whether LEO are compelled to respond in that situation, but it seems to eliminate civil rights violation concerns. That reporting cannot be anonymous--I'm thinking LEO responds to both the reporter and the alleged problem simultaneously. I would think that sort of report gets an automatic top priority and anyone abusing it gets to face federal jail time.
3. Again, part of the background check. Does a completely transparent governmental process of using an algorithm scanning rap sheets for patterns violate a civil right?
4. Again, Constitutionally protected firearm--not much that can be done with that.
Okay, that's enough for this post.
In reply to stroker :
Second, in more than one recent shooting, the background check failed to function properly (that raises some interesting questions as to why the background check failed to identify the perp but nobody seems to want to discuss that
I've discussed that numerous times in this thread. The big one is the 3-day "Proceed to Sale" provision in the Federal check. Multiple shooters have purchased a firearm knowing they would not pass the check, but applied on an advantageous date in order to get a weapon before the check came back.
Second is that only federally licensed firearms dealers have to do a check at all. There are multiple areas, such as the entire state of Arizona, that are firearms sanctuaries so they have state licensed (not federal) and ergo no checks, let alone dealers that operate as "private sellers", gun shows, and 3rd party purchases.
Finally, there is no universal background check. From what I've been able to find, only 1 state even checks all of their own databases (DOC, Juvenile, court orders) AND the Federal ones before issuing a pass. 19 states don't even use the Federal system (instead relying on their own LEO's to check the databases) and NO states cross check with each other.
So unless you've been convicted of a Federal crime that results in a loss of your 2A rights AND try to buy a weapon in a state that actually checks AND happen to apply when they can actually get it back to the dealer before 3 days are up, then it's ridiculously easy to purchase a firearm in this country.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
You're reaching. But yes people run cars into crowds. And dogs bite people. Water is wet.
but you state that guns are not any more dangerous than cars and this is incorrect. More kids were killed last year by guns than by cars. Guns are more dangerous to kids than cars. which is a good problem to have as cars and child safety laws get better and better.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/23/1082564685/guns-leading-cause-of-premature-deaths
I know you don't mean it this way, but your statements are factual, yet inaccurate (and divisive).
When you say "More kids were killed by guns last year...", that not technically what the article says. The article said more kids died from "firearm related injuries".
I know those may sound the same, but they are not. And understanding the difference is key to understanding solutions.
"Killed by guns..." implies a killer. Perhaps a murder. And it's easy for a listener in a discussion like this to assume that has something to do with mass school shootings. It doesn't.
(Side note... No one is actually "killed by a gun" They are killed perhaps by a person who USED a gun)
"Died from firearms related incidents" includes EVERY accident, drug crime, gang crime, etc. The vast majority of firearms incidents were accidents.
That's an argument that can't be resolved. If we are assuming the problem is is about school shootings, we will have ENTIRELY different solutions than if we assume the problem is about safely securing firearms in the home.
As we should.
Words matter.
In reply to SV reX :
Similar to how if you run a red light, traveling below the speed limit, and T-bone someone who WAS speeding, it is listed as "speed related" because at least one person was speeding?
You'll need to log in to post.
