Sensible Gun Safety

[Typical Lax Dad]

It would have been last year - PSU ran out of gas in a few games and that was one;
The prior home PSU game was the blocked field goal that PSU ran back for a TD - watching Urban Meyers face - now that was priceless.......
PSU then goes and wins the B1G yet OSU goes to the final 4 - best part is Urban Meyer quote, "if you cannot win your conference you should not be allowed to play in final 4".
Should be a good game this year.

Ah yes. Barkley ran back some kicks...hoping for another good game this year. I like the PSU coach. Seems like a good guy to play for.

[foreverlax]

Typical, you haven't had time to read it.

Will this tick off the ammo-sexuals more than the abolitionists? My idea was to dissapoint everyone, which is the mark of good legislation....

I can easily accept your suggestions...

[Typical Lax Dad]

Oh well....

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/05/us/roa ... cnn.com%2F

[LandM]

TLD,
Unfortunately this trend leads to the same issues - the guy was not a choir boy and he could have obtained his gun in multiple ways. How does a felon get access to a gun? I am guessing he did not waltz in and responsibly buy it. I believe most rationale and responsible gun owners agree that more thorough background checks are required, a safety and welfare check is required (like renewing a drivers license), and taking care of mental health issues. You are never going to get rid of guns - easy to get them in Mexico.

3Putt,
You might want to narrow your views to things that have a shot at passing. Many of what you suggested sounded like a military state - does this mean we have to follow Dear Leader

Some of you might want to move to SF, needle up all you want but a gun, nah.

[Typical Lax Dad]

TLD,
Unfortunately this trend leads to the same issues - the guy was not a choir boy and he could have obtained his gun in multiple ways. How does a felon get access to a gun? I am guessing he did not waltz in and responsibly buy it. I believe most rationale and responsible gun owners agree that more thorough background checks are required, a safety and welfare check is required (like renewing a drivers license), and taking care of mental health issues. You are never going to get rid of guns - easy to get them in Mexico.

3Putt,
You might want to narrow your views to things that have a shot at passing. Many of what you suggested sounded like a military state - does this mean we have to follow Dear Leader

Some of you might want to move to SF, needle up all you want but a gun, nah.

Hard to tell how he got it because they are so easy to come by and the supply is inexhaustible. Maybe we should have a war on illegal guns.

[DMac]

Yup, but more laws will fix all of that, right?
My friend's son had a little incident at his house a couple of days ago with what he and his buddy call a couple of B team rookie robbers. I don't have all the details but the rookies chose the wrong house and wrong couple of fellas to screw around with. While the B teamers managed to escape, it wasn't before one of their heads was put through the sheetrock or without leaving a lot of blood on the wall. Both of the rookies apparently took a pretty good beating, while the two good guys suffered minimal damage. Cops were called, came to the house, and are aware of the incident but when they asked the good guys if they wanted to file a report they said no....in the grand scheme of things, odds are it's an effort in futility anyway.
My son's buddy now has a pistol. You think he bought that pistol or someone just lent it to him? People who want guns can get them, so what to do? You see any of that changing in the next 50 years?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yup, but more laws will fix all of that, right?
My friend's son had a little incident at his house a couple of days ago with what he and his buddy call a couple of B team rookie robbers. I don't have all the details but the rookies chose the wrong house and wrong couple of fellas to screw around with. While the B teamers managed to escape, it wasn't before one of their heads was put through the sheetrock or without leaving a lot of blood on the wall. Both of the rookies apparently took a pretty good beating, while the two good guys suffered minimal damage. Cops were called, came to the house, and are aware of the incident but when they asked the good guys if they wanted to file a report they said no....in the grand scheme of things, odds are it's an effort in futility anyway.
My son's buddy now has a pistol. You think he bought that pistol or someone just lent it to him? People who want guns can get them, so what to do? You see any of that changing in the next 50 years?

I don’t know how loud it has to be said. I don’t want to take your guns away. Want to reduce the supply and change the culture. Too many senseless firearm deaths but it’s just my opinion. Would love to make guns harder to come by for criminals. Not sure what is wrong with that. I don’t know the answer but I know what we are doing now isn’t working. Not my job to come up with a plan.

[DMac]

You don't have to say it loudly at all, don't know about others but I've never suspected that you wanted to take everyone's guns. You do like to point out everytime someone gets killed by one though (although not when one was protecting him/herself) and I guess I just don't understand the point of that.
There are a whole bunch of charts and stats out there about gun deaths in the US and they all are pretty close to the same. Ultimately we end up with about 15K homicides, minus suicides and criminal activity, per year from the nearly four hundred million guns and millions upon millions of gun owners we have this country. Does that equal a huge gun problem, or focusing and making a whole lot of noise about every one of those gun deaths?
Your answer is easy, repeal the second amendment and confiscate all of the guns. Trouble is, I think the liklihood of that happening is about as great as your seeing a unicorn today. Once again, do you figure the gun situation is going to change much in the next 50 years?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You don't have to say it loudly at all, don't know about others but I've never suspected that you wanted to take everyone's guns. You do like to point out everytime someone gets killed by one though (although not when one was protecting him/herself) and I guess I just don't understand the point of that.
There are a whole bunch of charts and stats out there about gun deaths in the US and they all are pretty close to the same. Ultimately we end up with about 15K homicides, minus suicides and criminal activity, per year from the nearly four hundred million guns and millions upon millions of gun owners we have this country. Does that equal a huge gun problem, or focusing and making a whole lot of noise about every one of those gun deaths?
Your answer is easy, repeal the second amendment and confiscate all of the guns. Trouble is, I think the liklihood of that happening is about as great as your seeing a unicorn today. Once again, do you figure the gun situation is going to change much in the next 50 years?

15K homicides a year is a huge waste of life and talent. That is 150k people in 10 years. That is just the deaths. Other civilized countries don't have that problem. Would not mind seeing that number cut by 75%. I will be dead 50 years from now but It would be nice if there are less senseless deaths and less of a drug and gun culture in this country. Smoking and drinking and driving were huge problems. We got a handle on that. I posted last week a guy that killed two trespassers on his property. I don't see those stories that often. When I do, I will post. I am not looking for stories. I just post what I run across in the daily news. Blame the media.

EDIT: Here is an update to the story I posted a link to last week: https://www.wdtn.com/news/local-news/ma ... th-murder/

Something is odd about the story and I have been waiting for more information to become available. Like the Smollet story....something doesn't add up. Time will tell. That is a tough town. Would not shock me at all if the homeowner was defending his property but something about the story seemed off. I am not defending the two kids that were killed. You take risks, you get what you deserve. There are just some odd elements to the story.

[DMac]

Legalize drugs and take the criminal element out of the picture, I think you could deal with the drug problem more effectively that way. JMHO.
As for drunk drivers, I'm not convinced we've made all that much progress with that. Yes, there has been a decrease in alcohol related deaths with drunk drivers over the past three decades or so, but there's also been huge progress made in car safety. You're much less likely to get killed in the same kind of accident today than you were 20-30 years ago. There are still a whole lot of drunk drivers on the road.

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes—that's one person every 48 minutes in 2017. These deaths have fallen by a third in the last three decades; however, drunk-driving crashes claim more than 10,000 lives per year.
Drunk Driving | NHTSA

https://www.nhtsa.gov › risky-driving › drunk-driving

[Typical Lax Dad]

Legalize drugs and take the criminal element out of the picture, I think you could deal with the drug problem more effectively that way. JMHO.
As for drunk drivers, I'm not convinced we've made all that much progress with that. Yes, there has been a decrease in alcohol related deaths with drunk drivers over the past three decades or so, but there's also been huge progress made in car safety. You're much less likely to get killed in the same kind of accident today than you were 20-30 years ago. There are still a whole lot of drunk drivers on the road.

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes—that's one person every 48 minutes in 2017. These deaths have fallen by a third in the last three decades; however, drunk-driving crashes claim more than 10,000 lives per year.
Drunk Driving | NHTSA

https://www.nhtsa.gov › risky-driving › drunk-driving

That would help too. Like I said, I want to change the drug and gun culture. 17/18 year olds with easy access to weapons is a bad combination. Glorifying guns in popular culture doesn’t help. Don’t want to take your guns away. Been around plenty of guns. I am not about confiscating all guns.

[RedFromMI]

In the roaring 20s and into the 30's there was a device that made life pretty hard for the public and police: the Thompson submachine gun and similar devices. The passage of the 1934 National Firearms act, which did several things (some of which have been overturned by the Supreme Court) did have a lasting effect.

All of the following became subject to regulation: machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices (like bombs as well as shotguns with a bore of over half inch with exceptions for 10 and 12 gauge devices used substantially for sporting purposes). The legality of the regulation of who can possess items like this has been found OK by the courts, while a registration feature of the original NFA was not.

But this sort of regulation did get rid of a bunch of criminal shootings, and made life safer for police.

So in principle certain additional weapons could be regulated in this sort of way. The difference now from then is mostly the NRA and its evolution into a gun manufacturer lobby from a gun safety organization.

You could certainly remove the legality of the ability to shoot more than a certain number of rounds without reloading. In fact there used to be hunting limits in many/most states that banned high capacities from hunting (usually 5 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle, for example). If you were found hunting with say a Russian/Chinese SKS (which was a dirt cheap substitute for a 30-30 back a few decades ago) you had to modify the rifle to limit the load to that 5 or face a substantial fine for hunting with the wrong equipment.

Certainly that would not take all of the capacity out of the system, because there will be some who insist on violating the law (just like there are those who will file down certain parts of semiautomatic rifles to effectively create machine guns) but if you make the violation painful enough, you begin to remove the exceptions from general use. And thereby reducing the capacity for immediate carnage, giving the authorities/others a chance to stop a massacre before it gets further along.

The worst school disaster in the US was not a shooting - it occurred in Bath Township, Michigan in 1927 with multiple bombings (including the largest at an elementary school) that killed 44 and injured 58. You don't generally see bombings at that scale anymore (although there was McVeigh) because explosives manufactured as such generally have tracers and fairly strict controls, and we track large scale purchases of anything that can be used to make a bomb (like ammonium nitrate).

[Brooklyn]

Right wingers tell us that we need the 2d Amendment to protect free citizens from repressive government. Yet, for some reason, they fail to apply this principle in situations where people want to free themselves from criminal police. In fact, over the years many such delusionals screamed "support your local police" (a motto created by the John Birch Society) to reinforce their idea that police departments (which are government agencies) do not constitute repressive government. This is why so many righties applauded the NRA when it approved of Reagan's signing of the Mulford Act. Such hypocrisy does not go unnoticed but it is rarely criticized and the right wing news media fail to challenge righties in this regard.

You may recall the unfortunate situation where an innocent black man was shot and killed by an off duty cop who mistook his apartment for her own. After a year, this matter is finally going to trial:


https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/6 ... nniversary


One year ago, Botham Jean was killed in his home. The ex-officer who shot him is preparing to go on trial.
Friday is the first day of jury selection in the trial against former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger.


''...the Jean shooting was initially handled like an officer-involved shooting, and Guyger only began to be treated like a civilian after it was clear that she shot Jean while off-duty. But the fact that she wasn’t immediately taken into police custody, and that she was allowed to remain free on bond, led Jean’s family to argue that she was being given preferential treatment.''




Cops tried to smear the victim by saying they found marijuana in his apartment. I remember a tv interview in which a family member said he never used that stuff and was a weekly church goer. I'm betting the court will do all it can to save the cop's butt and she will go off scot free. Am also betting no right winger will say this case is proof that an armed citizenry is a free citizenry and that the government needs to be disarmed.

Anyone taking bets?

[DMac]

In the roaring 20s and into the 30's there was a device that made life pretty hard for the public and police: the Thompson submachine gun and similar devices. The passage of the 1934 National Firearms act, which did several things (some of which have been overturned by the Supreme Court) did have a lasting effect.

All of the following became subject to regulation: machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices (like bombs as well as shotguns with a bore of over half inch with exceptions for 10 and 12 gauge devices used substantially for sporting purposes). The legality of the regulation of who can possess items like this has been found OK by the courts, while a registration feature of the original NFA was not.

But this sort of regulation did get rid of a bunch of criminal shootings, and made life safer for police.

So in principle certain additional weapons could be regulated in this sort of way. The difference now from then is mostly the NRA and its evolution into a gun manufacturer lobby from a gun safety organization.

You could certainly remove the legality of the ability to shoot more than a certain number of rounds without reloading. In fact there used to be hunting limits in many/most states that banned high capacities from hunting (usually 5 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle, for example). If you were found hunting with say a Russian/Chinese SKS (which was a dirt cheap substitute for a 30-30 back a few decades ago) you had to modify the rifle to limit the load to that 5 or face a substantial fine for hunting with the wrong equipment.

Certainly that would not take all of the capacity out of the system, because there will be some who insist on violating the law (just like there are those who will file down certain parts of semiautomatic rifles to effectively create machine guns) but if you make the violation painful enough, you begin to remove the exceptions from general use. And thereby reducing the capacity for immediate carnage, giving the authorities/others a chance to stop a massacre before it gets further along.

The worst school disaster in the US was not a shooting - it occurred in Bath Township, Michigan in 1927 with multiple bombings (including the largest at an elementary school) that killed 44 and injured 58. You don't generally see bombings at that scale anymore (although there was McVeigh) because explosives manufactured as such generally have tracers and fairly strict controls, and we track large scale purchases of anything that can be used to make a bomb (like ammonium nitrate).

Hmmm, then alcohol was legalized and those machine guns weren't being used so much.
I don't see the need for people to have guns that spray lead like a weapon you'd use on the battlefield, I really don't have any problem with putting restrictions on those kind of guns (although I think pistols are a much bigger problem). I can get eight rounds in my lever action 30-30, that feels like plenty to me, and I can unload those eight rounds in a matter of seconds too. On top of that, there's a slim chance I'm missing a target the size of a human if I ever find myself in a situation where I'd have to shoot one. Really don't see the need for any more firepower than that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

In the roaring 20s and into the 30's there was a device that made life pretty hard for the public and police: the Thompson submachine gun and similar devices. The passage of the 1934 National Firearms act, which did several things (some of which have been overturned by the Supreme Court) did have a lasting effect.

All of the following became subject to regulation: machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices (like bombs as well as shotguns with a bore of over half inch with exceptions for 10 and 12 gauge devices used substantially for sporting purposes). The legality of the regulation of who can possess items like this has been found OK by the courts, while a registration feature of the original NFA was not.

But this sort of regulation did get rid of a bunch of criminal shootings, and made life safer for police.

So in principle certain additional weapons could be regulated in this sort of way. The difference now from then is mostly the NRA and its evolution into a gun manufacturer lobby from a gun safety organization.

You could certainly remove the legality of the ability to shoot more than a certain number of rounds without reloading. In fact there used to be hunting limits in many/most states that banned high capacities from hunting (usually 5 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle, for example). If you were found hunting with say a Russian/Chinese SKS (which was a dirt cheap substitute for a 30-30 back a few decades ago) you had to modify the rifle to limit the load to that 5 or face a substantial fine for hunting with the wrong equipment.

Certainly that would not take all of the capacity out of the system, because there will be some who insist on violating the law (just like there are those who will file down certain parts of semiautomatic rifles to effectively create machine guns) but if you make the violation painful enough, you begin to remove the exceptions from general use. And thereby reducing the capacity for immediate carnage, giving the authorities/others a chance to stop a massacre before it gets further along.

The worst school disaster in the US was not a shooting - it occurred in Bath Township, Michigan in 1927 with multiple bombings (including the largest at an elementary school) that killed 44 and injured 58. You don't generally see bombings at that scale anymore (although there was McVeigh) because explosives manufactured as such generally have tracers and fairly strict controls, and we track large scale purchases of anything that can be used to make a bomb (like ammonium nitrate).

Hmmm, then alcohol was legalized and those machine guns weren't being used so much.
I don't see the need for people to have guns that spray lead like a weapon you'd use on the battlefield, I really don't have any problem with putting restrictions on those kind of guns (although I think pistols are a much bigger problem). I can get eight rounds in my lever action 30-30, that feels like plenty to me, and I can unload those eight rounds in a matter of seconds too. On top of that, there's a slim chance I'm missing a target the size of a human if I ever find myself in a situation where I'd have to shoot one. Really don't see the need for any more firepower than that.

Completely agree.

[frmanfan]

People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[84] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[99] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[84][100]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States

Suicide is number one, this is number two for death by guns. Bad guys shooting other bad guys. Doesn't say, but drug activity is probably a big part of it.

For my money, the "red flag" laws would be huge for both suicides and many homicides. But getting by the civil liberties issue is huge, and not just from the NRA. Once you are flagged, you are flagged for life, that could ruin the lives of a lot of young people, mostly men of course, who do and say stupid things when young. It would be hard to get a job, since this will never go away from your internet record. Of course, I doubt they stop the bad guys shooting bad guys, they will still get guns and still be criminals and drug dealers.

And of course one most point out that Japan has very stringent gun laws, yet a higher suicide rate than the USA. So taking away guns may not impact suicides as much as projected.

[Typical Lax Dad]

People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[84] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[99] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[84][100]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States

Suicide is number one, this is number two for death by guns. Bad guys shooting other bad guys. Doesn't say, but drug activity is probably a big part of it.

For my money, the "red flag" laws would be huge for both suicides and many homicides. But getting by the civil liberties issue is huge, and not just from the NRA. Once you are flagged, you are flagged for life, that could ruin the lives of a lot of young people, mostly men of course, who do and say stupid things when young. It would be hard to get a job, since this will never go away from your internet record. Of course, I doubt they stop the bad guys shooting bad guys, they will still get guns and still be criminals and drug dealers.

And of course one most point out that Japan has very stringent gun laws, yet a higher suicide rate than the USA. So taking away guns may not impact suicides as much as projected.

Not a debate but suicide is a part of Japanese culture.

[DMac]

Maybe we should send them some of our guns, or is it more honorable to jump off a cliff?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe we should send them some of our guns, or is it more honorable to jump off a cliff?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... uicide?amp

[MDlaxfan76]

People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[84] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[99] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[84][100]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States

Suicide is number one, this is number two for death by guns. Bad guys shooting other bad guys. Doesn't say, but drug activity is probably a big part of it.

For my money, the "red flag" laws would be huge for both suicides and many homicides. But getting by the civil liberties issue is huge, and not just from the NRA. Once you are flagged, you are flagged for life, that could ruin the lives of a lot of young people, mostly men of course, who do and say stupid things when young. It would be hard to get a job, since this will never go away from your internet record. Of course, I doubt they stop the bad guys shooting bad guys, they will still get guns and still be criminals and drug dealers.

And of course one most point out that Japan has very stringent gun laws, yet a higher suicide rate than the USA. So taking away guns may not impact suicides as much as projected.

You may have missed DMac's and my advocacy for decriminalization of drug use as the primary aspect of reducing drug related gun violence. Indeed, that's a huge part of violence in poverty areas. Take out the profit motive.

The issue with rapid fire, large capacity weapons is mostly about reducing mass shooter deaths, somewhat the drug related violence.

I think suicides will continue to happen, but a gun is indeed the preferred choice for men in America. I doubt we're going to reduce overall gun access enough to truly limit that one, as I don't think the US is going to sign onto total gun removal (nor, as a hunter and gun owner would I want that).

But, sure, toughening up laws on what types of guns are accessible and making sure all guns are registered to a specific owner, and attaching liability to that owner for the gun's actual usage, all makes lots of sense to me.