No gun problem in the US

[JohnR]

For the same reason people wait until 21 to use their real ID to buy a beer. And like most laws, people get drunk in bars before 21.

[spence]

Can someone explain to me why so few people die in this country from fully automatic weapons? I'll wait.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

Can someone explain to me why so few people die in this country from fully automatic weapons? I'll wait.

I'll take a crack at it you need Federal Firearms License

And

As a private citizen (without an FFL) you can only buy an old machine gun (over 35 years old), it’ll likely cost north of $15,000, and you’ll have to wait around a year for the transfer via an ATF Form 4.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Can someone explain to me why so few people die in this country from fully automatic weapons? I'll wait.

there aren’t 400 million of them already out there

your statement is correct, and is also apples And oranges.

i agree there are too many out there. But they’re out there. And they seriously erode any potential
benefit of prospective gun laws, don’t they?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Because laws die at Mitches feet and two democrats will not work to eliminate the filibuster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank god - what a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing disaster we'll have when bad bills - from both parties - can be passed with less resistance.

I was wrong, I though this crew here was smarter than this - even when we disagree.

Originally Posted by spence

Can someone explain to me why so few people die in this country from fully automatic weapons? I'll wait.

I really can't because of the very small amount of 300-400 people that die each year from rifles, they don't break out the automatic rifles from that number. I do know however, that the number of those that die from hammers every year is greater.

Originally Posted by wdmso

I'll take a crack at it you need Federal Firearms License

And

As a private citizen (without an FFL) you can only buy an old machine gun (over 35 years old), it’ll likely cost north of $15,000, and you’ll have to wait around a year for the transfer via an ATF Form 4.

AND pay The TAX

[Raider Ronnie]

As information has been coming out this whole thing sounds fishy.
The kid has a $70K for truck (18 years old)
Owns 2 ARs ($5k)
Body armor, tons of ammunition
WHERE DOES AN 18 year old get this kind of $$$ ?
Supposedly the grandmother worked at the school.
Door unlocked where he entered.

Then they have the police in full body armor standing around for an hr+ doing bothering but hold back kids parents while kids being shot up.

They can talk all they want about gun laws but nothing is ever going to change. It’s big business.
I’m all for gun rights & ownership & have my LYC as do my sons but unlike more gun advocates I say gun laws should be universal federally.
Makes no sense some states are almost impossible to own legally but you can go to another state, walk into Walmart and buy any gun.

[wdmso]

Where are Ron desantis comments on Texas shooting ?

I bet if it happened at Disney or by a Trans man in a women's bathroom he would have a lot to say

some will see it as political brilliance

I see it for what it is political cowardice.. and kowtowing to the far right . Who he thinks will bring him the next president nominee
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Where are Ron desantis comments on Texas shooting ?

I bet if it happened at Disney or by a Trans man in a women's bathroom he would have a lot to say

some will see it as political brilliance

I see it for what it is political cowardice.. and kowtowing to the far right . Who he thinks will bring him the next president nominee
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what, exactly, is political
cowardice wayne? what does desantis have to do with the immediate aftermath of this?

ANY excuse to bash those with whom you disagree. Pathetic. You have no idea what he has said or not said, but you know it’s wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what, exactly, is political
cowardice wayne? what does desantis have to do with the immediate aftermath of this?

ANY excuse to bash those with whom you disagree. Pathetic. You have no idea what he has said or not said, but you know it’s wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has said nothing Jim some leader!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

He has said nothing Jim some leader!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i haven’t seen that CT governor Lamont said anything either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i haven’t seen that CT governor Lamont said anything either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is he trying Hard to be the next POTUS ... Like Ron is

[Pete F.]

There have been 27 school shootings already this year. Firearms are the number one cause of death for kids in this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The NRA spent $1.8 million in 2018 to elect Ron DeSantis and Rick Scott.

Ron DeSantis has vowed to sign a “constitutional carry” into law in Florida, allowing people to carry guns in public, either visibly or concealed, virtually anywhere, at any time, without training, registration or government licensing.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The NRA spent $1.8 million in 2018 to elect Ron DeSantis and Rick Scott.

Ron DeSantis has vowed to sign a “constitutional carry” into law in Florida, allowing people to carry guns in public, either visibly or concealed, virtually anywhere, at any time, without training, registration or government licensing.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in this case, the deranged killer was in a room full of little kids for almost an hour. He could have killed them all with a pocket knife.

i’m not a big gun guy. But how much good will prospective gun laws be, when there are 400 million guns already out there? we know what happens when places like chicago and DC ban guns. it doesn’t help much.

So gun control is one part of this, but there are many other aspects which the left refuses to discuss, because they aren’t political winners for them,,just as gun control
is something the right avoids.

erosion of families, bullying in school ( which teachers tolerate even though they know exactly who’s doing it), erosion of faith, entertainment industry committed to desensitizing kids to graphic violence, mental health issues, americans getting less connected to each other, spending WAY too much time alone online.

It all feeds this. Neither side will admit to it all.

how many kids become killers, who are from a home ( regardless of income) with 2 parents who are dedicated to their kids and who make it very clear that they love those kids? homes where everyone eats supper together and talks to each other instead of staring at screens all day?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

in this case, the deranged killer was in a room full of little kids for almost an hour. He could have killed them all with a pocket knife.

i’m not a big gun guy. But how much good will prospective gun laws be, when there are 400 million guns already out there? we know what happens when places like chicago and DC ban guns. it doesn’t help much.

So gun control is one part of this, but there are many other aspects which the left refuses to discuss, because they aren’t political winners for them,,just as gun control
is something the right avoids.

erosion of families, bullying in school ( which teachers tolerate even though they know exactly who’s doing it), erosion of faith, entertainment industry committed to desensitizing kids to graphic violence, mental health issues, americans getting less connected to each other, spending WAY too much time alone online.

It all feeds this. Neither side will admit to it all.

how many kids become killers, who are from a home ( regardless of income) with 2 parents who are dedicated to their kids and who make it very clear that they love those kids? homes where everyone eats supper together and talks to each other instead of staring at screens all day?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last week the killer was in a building with one door and this week the cops were so scared of his weapon that they stood in the hall.
Chicago is over a bridge from a state with far looser gun laws and there’s plenty of states with higher gun deaths per capita than Illinois.

AR type firearms went from 400,000 in this country in 2004 when the assault rifle ban, that you claim did nothing, ended to 20 million today.

The US has 393 million guns in circulation (46% of all guns) or 121 firearms for every 100 residents.

Please explain how the remaining 7.4 billion people on the planet can live "FREE" with roughly the same number of guns. Aside from mass shootings, what other freedoms do we get?
I know you’ll miss the sarcasm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Last week the killer was in a building with one door and this week the cops were so scared of his weapon that they stood in the hall.
Chicago is over a bridge from a state with far looser gun laws and there’s plenty of states with higher gun deaths per capita than Illinois.

AR type firearms went from 400,000 in this country in 2004 when the assault rifle ban, that you claim did nothing, ended to 20 million today.

The US has 393 million guns in circulation (46% of all guns) or 121 firearms for every 100 residents.

Please explain how the remaining 7.4 billion people on the planet can live "FREE" with roughly the same number of guns. Aside from mass shootings, what other freedoms do we get?
I know you’ll miss the sarcasm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete those countries do t have more guns than people. we do. your facts are correct. and they are precisely why prospective gun laws won’t do
much

All you have to do, is look at places that enacted very strict gun laws, and see what the effects were.

the cops weren’t afraid as a group. you’re lying. you’re muting about this massacre if
kids, to attempt to win a political
argument.

The commander incorrectly decided it was not an active shooter, and followed the barricaded entrant protocol.

If you have evidence that cops stayed out because they were ll o sated, let’s see it.

if you don’t, then shame on you .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

It's interesting, take out the cities here and europe and compare and that stats are pretty much the same rate.

But according to Pete, Republicans are the problem.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete those countries do t have more guns than people. we do. your facts are correct. and they are precisely why prospective gun laws won’t do
much

All you have to do, is look at places that enacted very strict gun laws, and see what the effects were.

the cops weren’t afraid as a group. you’re lying. you’re muting about this massacre if
kids, to attempt to win a political
argument.

The commander incorrectly decided it was not an active shooter, and followed the barricaded entrant protocol.

If you have evidence that cops stayed out because they were ll o sated, let’s see it.

if you don’t, then shame on you .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You always believe the party line.

Change is not impossible and there’s no simple magic law, it’s going to be a long hard slog to get us out of the place we are in with all the play soldiers.

We are seeing lots of changes to the story given by officers, as they coordinate their stories.
Take every one with a grain of salt. ANY statement from police departments that uses the passive voice ("projectile impact responsible for death of man near officer-involved incident") is an attempt to hide something, if not an outright lie, and media often publish them verbatim.

Every department has training that acknowledges danger. This does not mean there is an obligation to take risks.

A common instruction around precincts is "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Which is to say, a cop should murder someone before taking risks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.
The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Pete, has anyone said the 2A is unlimited or unfettered? Who are you responding to?

Are gun control laws working in Chicago, DC?

Instead of going off on unrelated tangents, why not discuss something right at the heart of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, has anyone said the 2A is unlimited or unfettered? Who are you responding to?

Are gun control laws working in Chicago, DC?

Instead of going off on unrelated tangents, why not discuss something right at the heart of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Burgers opinion is certainly germane to a discussion about gun control.
It’s illustrative to the fact that the NRA and the arms industry have controlled the discussion for years to the detriment of Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

So far Republicans have blamed the shooting in Texas on the following instead of guns
1. FBI
2. CRT
3. Woke mobs
4. Doors that lock
5. Doors that don’t lock
6. Too many doors
7. Lockdowns
8. Cops
9. Not enough cops
10. Video games
11. Teachers
12. Ukraine aid
13. Chicago
14. Guns exist and nothing possibly can be done
15. Not safeguarding children, because Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So far Republicans have blamed the shooting in Texas on the following instead of guns
1. FBI
2. CRT
3. Woke mobs
4. Doors that lock
5. Doors that don’t lock
6. Too many doors
7. Lockdowns
8. Cops
9. Not enough cops
10. Video games
11. Teachers
12. Ukraine aid
13. Chicago
14. Guns exist and nothing possibly can be done
15. Not safeguarding children, because Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nobody said the ukraine aid prevented us from safeguarding kids.

when the facts dont support your ideology, you lie. you can never, ever admit that liberalism has any flaws. neither can wayne or spence. not once, not ever.

If liberalism is so great, why is CT ( which has been a 40 year experiment in pure liberalism) bankrupt, unbelievably expensive, home to some of the greatest income inequality on the planet, the cities are abject failures,, and people are leaving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

nobody said the ukraine aid prevented us from safeguarding kids.

when the facts dont support your ideology, you lie. you can never, ever admit that liberalism has any flaws. neither can wayne or spence. not once, not ever.

If liberalism is so great, why is CT ( which has been a 40 year experiment in pure liberalism) bankrupt, unbelievably expensive, home to some of the greatest income inequality on the planet, the cities are abject failures,, and people are leaving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nine out of the ten poorest states are Republican led and 95 out of the 100 poorest counties are also in Red States, but tell me again how Republican policies are great for Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Nine out of the ten poorest states are Republican led and 95 out of the 100 poorest counties are also in Red States, but tell me again how Republican policies are great for Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wealthy individuals lean left, poor individuals lean right.

What i asked, and which you dodged, was about CT.

CT is one of the wealthiest states, if you’re talking about the citizens. If you’re talking about the state itself, it’s bankrupt, despite having very high taxes applied to very high incomes. Meaning, we have the liberals who run the state, a ton of money. It didn’t work.

What states are people
moving to in the biggest numbers Pete? Red states or blue states?

Have fun contorting yourself like a gymnast, to avoid answering.

Therebarevolentynofnolaces in red states where I’d never want to live. But there are also places in red states which offer a great quality of life at a cheap price - Charlotte suburbs,,Nashville suburbs, plenty of places in NH where they can’t build $650,000 houses fast enough.

Can you point me to any places in blue states, which offer a high quality of life with very low taxes? Or are all of those places in conservative states?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Nine out of the ten poorest states are Republican led and 95 out of the 100 poorest counties are also in Red States, but tell me again how Republican policies are great for Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. I'm sure the states w/higher gun deaths are mostly R states. Look at health and welfare stats also - its not much different.

[Pete F.]

Now that Jim is concerned about income inequality and defines high quality of life by how you die or how little you pay in taxes and getting shot is good, here's the lowest gun deaths per capita.


California
8.5
3,449
Connecticut
6
219
New York
5.3
1,052
Rhode Island
5.1
54
New Jersey
5
443
Massachusetts
3.7
268
Hawaii
3.4

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Exactly. I'm sure the states w/higher gun deaths are mostly R states. Look at health and welfare stats also - its not much different.

are rich liberals, wealthy because of liberalism? and are poor people, poor because of conservative state government?

The people who live in Ct tend to be very wealthy. But the state itself, is in horrific financial shape. the unfounded debt, I think, is more than $75k for every human being in the state.

When you have astronomical
taxes and also have crushing debt, what does that tell you?

Take a drive through New Haven or Hartford. Are those places a lot better than big cities in red states?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

You're an actuary - Seems like there is a pretty good correlation between the states political leanings and their wealth (All people don't measure things by just the $).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're an actuary - Seems like there is a pretty good correlation between the states political leanings and their wealth (All people don't measure things by just the $).

rich people used lean right. in the past few years, that changed. now they lean left.

that doesn’t mean liberalism created that wealth. it’s harder to be wealthy in liberal states Paul. i could
move to NH and put almost $1,000 a month in my pocket, between the lack of income tax and sales tax. $1,000 a month, every month. Know what that adds up to over a few decades?

A ton.

CT is t rich because of liberalism. It’s rich, primarily, because if it’s good fortune to be next door to New York City.

And while you keep talking about the citizens of CT, for some reason you don’t seem to want to discuss the financial status of our state government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device