Sensible Gun Safety

[cradleandshoot]

If we meander back to the beginning of this thread...what defines sensible gun safety??

This certainly doesn't. It better defines STUPIDITY.

So in your opinion gun safety is defined as stupidity? Got it, duly noted.

was referring to the article on the silliness around disposing of re-possessed firearms by state and local governments I posted.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. My original question still stands...how is sensible gun safety defined? It's not a complicated question and there probably is no wrong answer. The likelihood is I will be excoriated for even asking the question.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.wkyc.com/amp/article/news/l ... aa866f0316

Leave the boy alone…..

[CU88a]

Sandy Hook Anniversary yesterday.

Are the r's celebrating?

Thoughts and Prayers

https://www.tiktok.com/@mothersagainstg ... 6540657962

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Sandy Hook Anniversary yesterday.

Are the r's celebrating?

Thoughts and Prayers

https://www.tiktok.com/@mothersagainstg ... 6540657962

Registered D here, and that's a rather toxic hot take. If you feel compelled to point fingers and place blame, how about focusing on the litany of lost opportunities (including law enforcement, mental health professionals, internet boards, educators, family, and students) to intercept and off-ramp the perpetrator in the days, weeks, months and years BEFORE the day he drove to Sandy Hook Elementary. In terms of the day itself, the 20 year old man left his mother's house that morning having committed her cold-blooded murder, the felony theft of legally owned guns which he stole from her locked gun safe, and utilized those firearms to commit his atrocity.

As horrific as the day itself was, the fact our politicians, our media, our lobbying groups, and our citizenry cannot come together to demand the deployment of the effective research and fact based "playbook to intercept tomorrow's potential mass public killer" which has been developed for exactly that purpose is what has earned and deserves our indignation, scorn and censure.

The video link above takes us to a "policy based evidence making" cupcake designed to incite emotional "reasoning", as brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects. The CDC on its website lists children in its "killed by drunk driving" statistic as being aged 1-14. But for "gun violence" it becomes an elongated time frame definition of 1-19 years old for what constitutes a "child", assuring the numbers add up in a manner which "validates" the desired narrative. Disingenuous, and especially disgusting when the reason the numbers escalate to such a level is primarily based on 15-19 year olds caught in an epidemic of "child on child" murder in our most underserved, undervalued, and fraying neighborhoods nationwide.

Thoughts and Prayers

[MDlaxfan76]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

[MDlaxfan76]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, the #1 cause of death of teenagers is car accidents. That includes teenagers driving. The stat waffle cited is of children under the driving age.

The numbers get cut a lot of ways and advocates for one thing or another cut them in various ways, but if we're talking about ways kids get killed, guns are a huge problem, a problem other developed nations don't have to nearly the same extent. Cars are rarely the means of murder, and also rarely used for suicide. But they are indeed a major source of accidents. Guns too. A lot of those are young children finding guns unattended, unsecured.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Sandy Hook Anniversary yesterday.

Are the r's celebrating?

Thoughts and Prayers

https://www.tiktok.com/@mothersagainstg ... 6540657962

Registered D here, and that's a rather toxic hot take. If you feel compelled to point fingers and place blame, how about focusing on the litany of lost opportunities (including law enforcement, mental health professionals, internet boards, educators, family, and students) to intercept and off-ramp the perpetrator in the days, weeks, months and years BEFORE the day he drove to Sandy Hook Elementary. In terms of the day itself, the 20 year old man left his mother's house that morning having committed her cold-blooded murder, the felony theft of legally owned guns which he stole from her locked gun safe, and utilized those firearms to commit his atrocity.

As horrific as the day itself was, the fact our politicians, our media, our lobbying groups, and our citizenry cannot come together to demand the deployment of the effective research and fact based "playbook to intercept tomorrow's potential mass public killer" which has been developed for exactly that purpose is what has earned and deserves our indignation, scorn and censure.

The video link above takes us to a "policy based evidence making" cupcake designed to incite emotional "reasoning", as brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects. The CDC on its website lists children in its "killed by drunk driving" statistic as being aged 1-14. But for "gun violence" it becomes an elongated time frame definition of 1-19 years old for what constitutes a "child", assuring the numbers add up in a manner which "validates" the desired narrative. Disingenuous, and especially disgusting when the reason the numbers escalate to such a level is primarily based on 15-19 year olds caught in an epidemic of "child on child" murder in our most underserved, undervalued, and fraying neighborhoods nationwide.

Thoughts and Prayers

I wonder why crazy people don’t use knives more often?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/us/virgi ... index.html

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

Allow me to elaborate. My reply was to the original poster sending his/her sweeping and in my opinion unproductive snark grenade at "R's". This type of comment has as its generative core - on THIS topic (and in my GRANULAR reply on this thread) the "usual D suspects" which I chose to broadly generalize (and add a few more here) as the Left/Democrat "Bloomberg, Giffords, White House, Brady, Mom's Against, Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg again) David Hogg, et al" anti-gun chorus.

Are there easily generalized "usual suspects" on the R side of America's gun debates? Of course. The NRA (remember, only 1/20 gun owners in America are members, and that number is shrinking) is of course public enemy #1.

In terms of my being a registered "D" from day one of my voting life being brought up - as I have mentioned in previous posts - I am very flexible in my positions on issues social, economic, legal, societal, educational, etc. I agree with quite a bit of the "R" side of the aisle positions (less nowadays than a decade or more ago), while abhorring much. And same for the D's. I remember (with some rose colored lenses I'm sure) the good old days when members of both parties would granularly "switch sides" and vote for bills they felt the opposition was presenting that would benefit the people. It's a rare event these days.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

Allow me to elaborate. My reply was to the original poster sending his/her sweeping and in my opinion unproductive snark grenade at "R's". This type of comment has as its generative core - on THIS topic (and in my GRANULAR reply on this thread) the "usual D suspects" which I chose to broadly generalize (and add a few more here) as the Left/Democrat "Bloomberg, Giffords, White House, Brady, Mom's Against, Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg again) David Hogg, et al" anti-gun chorus.

Are there easily generalized "usual suspects" on the R side of America's gun debates? Of course. The NRA (remember, only 1/20 gun owners in America are members, and that number is shrinking) is of course public enemy #1.

In terms of my being a registered "D" from day one of my voting life being brought up - as I have mentioned in previous posts - I am very flexible in my positions on issues social, economic, legal, societal, educational, etc. I agree with quite a bit of the "R" side of the aisle positions (less nowadays than a decade or more ago), while abhorring much. And same for the D's. I remember (with some rose colored lenses I'm sure) the good old days when members of both parties would granularly "switch sides" and vote for bills they felt the opposition was presenting that would benefit the people. It's a rare event these days.

Gun regulation isn’t Anti-Gun. Airline regulation isn’t anti-airline.

[MDlaxfan76]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

Allow me to elaborate. My reply was to the original poster sending his/her sweeping and in my opinion unproductive snark grenade at "R's". This type of comment has as its generative core - on THIS topic (and in my GRANULAR reply on this thread) the "usual D suspects" which I chose to broadly generalize (and add a few more here) as the Left/Democrat "Bloomberg, Giffords, White House, Brady, Mom's Against, Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg again) David Hogg, et al" anti-gun chorus.

Are there easily generalized "usual suspects" on the R side of America's gun debates? Of course. The NRA (remember, only 1/20 gun owners in America are members, and that number is shrinking) is of course public enemy #1.

In terms of my being a registered "D" from day one of my voting life being brought up - as I have mentioned in previous posts - I am very flexible in my positions on issues social, economic, legal, societal, educational, etc. I agree with quite a bit of the "R" side of the aisle positions (less nowadays than a decade or more ago), while abhorring much. And same for the D's. I remember (with some rose colored lenses I'm sure) the good old days when members of both parties would granularly "switch sides" and vote for bills they felt the opposition was presenting that would benefit the people. It's a rare event these days.

I quite agree about your sentiments for the good ole days when partisan uniformity was not demanded on every single issue.

But the "usual suspects", when none were actually involved (far as we know) or prior mentioned, betrays an animosity that definitely doesn't feel "D".

You, whether NRA or not, have staked out a rather extreme position on guns.

By contrast, most of us on here, including gun owners like me, are quite comfortable with various "common sense" restrictions on the types of guns we can acquire and use, when and where they can be used, the qualifications to own and use, the storage and handling of them, and when and how the privilege of gun ownership and use can be removed or constrained, temporarily or permanently... etc.

These are not extreme positions but they are restrictions.

None of those restrictions needs to be in conflict with other efforts regarding mental health, poverty interventions, youth interventions, etc. No one aspect of these efforts is likely to be sufficient in and of itself.

Most legal gun owners would have little difficulty abiding by such restrictions with little impingement upon their prior behaviors. Indeed, most legal gun owners are highly responsible and respectful of the deadly capacities of their guns.

Unfortunately, not all legal gun owners are careful or respectful of such. Some are very sloppy in their handling or storage, enabling accidents, suicides and the guns to be used by family inappropriately...or stolen easily. Some use weapons while drinking (anathema to how I was raised). And some glorify the weapons and imagine their usage in violence against others.

Restrictions remind us all of the deadliness of the weapons and the importance of training and care in handling and storage. In my upbringing, we emphasized that even the most experienced gun user/hunter benefited from reminding...we all, young and old, reminded one another of the little things, making sure the gun was on safety again and again and again...always...and cleared, how to carry the gun, go over a fence, etc, etc. We all benefit, even the most careful.

Will there be scofflaws? Sure. Just as there are scofflaws in other public health restrictions like seat belts. Many people railed against such restrictions and most all of us at least chafed a bit at needing to learn a new behavior that was to our own benefit and most importantly to the benefit of our passengers. We grumbled. But we adapted and it's been a huge success. Fewer and fewer scofflaws over time. But without the rules and the small penalties attached, many people would not have adopted the behavior.

I've suggested some restrictions on assault-style high capacity weapons and ammo, when where and who can use them, that I think would move the needle on a specific type of gun crime. It's nowhere near the "extreme" confiscation sort of regime that some "enthusiasts" fear, but it does change the paradigm markedly.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

The numbers get cut a lot of ways and advocates for one thing or another cut them in various ways, but if we're talking about ways kids get killed, guns are a huge problem, a problem other developed nations don't have to nearly the same extent. Cars are rarely the means of murder, and also rarely used for suicide. But they are indeed a major source of accidents. Guns too. A lot of those are young children finding guns unattended, unsecured.

Agree on the individual issues (inner city violence, domestic violence, accidents, etc.) needing intelligent people addressing each issue individually - and working together at the grown ups table.

Suicide: yes. But let's remember some of the realities I pointed out in a thread (no responses) a week ago in one of my "quick asides": America has lower suicide rates than heavily gun restricted "first world peer" nations including France, Switzerland, Hungary, Japan, Belgium, South Korea, Austria, Poland, India, and Finland, among others. Should these nations (and thus America) count “rope violence” and “plastic bag violence” for hanging/suffocation/asphyxiation deaths? “Pill violence” and “Poison violence” suicides? “Gravity violence” suicides for bridge and building jumpers? “Knife and razor blade violence” suicides? Hmmm. Back in America, per the CDC, women use suffocation and pills/poison in 66% of suicides. For men, 43% of suicides are via suffocation and poison. Suicide is not a crime in America. When politicians and lobbying groups (*my "usual suspects in this case on the left/D side*) single out suicide by gun and lump it into the “Gun Violence” tally they are being patently disingenuous and guilty of more policy based evidence making. How can we have serious discussions regarding serious issues in search of serious solutions when this is what our leadership is knowingly doing? .

Storage education: All for it! Storage requirements that have at their core a need for gun registry? Nope, no thanks, thanks for playing.

Cars you mention above are rarely used for suicide, but they are regularly used to kill innocent victims: TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 37 (CDC statistics) people will be killed by "drunk driving criminal car violence" incidents (I made that up). Of these deaths caused by the criminal actions of the drunk drivers, approximately 14 were innocent vehicular homicide victims: pedestrians, motorists, passengers. ANNUAL FIGURES: 13,505* drunk driving deaths. 5,130 innocent victims of criminal behavior. That is a bloodbath, folks! In related news, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) didn’t blame a single “Assault Vehicle” (I made that up) for the criminal behavior of the drunk drivers wielding these two ton weapons which killed innocent victims. Where is our collective outrage? Where's the viral "thoughts and prayers" video?

And over in the Mass Public Shooting clubhouse, we are so stuck in the weeds with target fixation on scary black rifles that NO reasonable discourse is possible. My post yesterday - mentioning the dusty playbook for intercepting and off-ramping future mass public shooters before they act - is one which has at its core a real enmity by myself towards the politicians, leaders, lobbying interests, and citizenry who refuse to acknowledge the playbook's existence and proven efficacy, and demand we get serious about utilizing it! We have the g*ddam tools, but let's focus on disarming 85mm law abiding citizens. It's a clown car parked in a dumpster fire. And it feels like that's exactly where both sides - and I'm going to posit one side more than the other - seem to want the discourse to be stuck.

Every single Mass Public Shooting - AR-15 used or not - when assessed forensically for "actionable warning signs" in the post-incident reports - sheds light on a series of missed opportunities to intercept. Sandy Hook is an especially grievous and maddening example of "epic missed opportunities". Parkland? Check. Uvalde? Check. Maine? Check. Virginia? Check. You name the "thoughts and prayers" incident, and it's a long line of check, check, check and more check. Where's the outrage? The demands for implementation of effective and known strategies. You know, the ones Obama's commission after Sandy Hook began to research, assess, and formalize. Joe Biden was on that commission. Does he even remember? Serious question!

I'm not sure if the "usual suspects" on the left/D side of this issue know just how much their chosen approach to "gun violence solutions" (ie: feels like poking law-abiding non-criminal legal gun owners in the eye with a stick) are inspiring more and more American's to purchase firearms. First time owners are skyrocketing. Minority owners are skyrocketing. Existing owners are "spite buying" just for fun. Awesome stuff as we try to find common ground and bipartisan solutions!

That now viral Thoughts and Prayers video is not geared toward working together to implement real solutions, but rather incite emotions and sway the opinions of those who will never scratch beneath the surface of the issues at hand. In my opinion it is disingenuous, counter productive and actually serves as a contributor to the problem because it obfuscates available paths towards potential tenable and agreeable to both sides solutions.

And please don't for a second believe our politicians care about root causes and solutions. Most recent Exhibit A is Maine's Angus King with his recent politically expedient flip flop. I bet if I walked into his office and asked him to name just three tools in the "Off-ramp/Intercept" playbook he'd look furtively to an aide. That's the type of leadership we want on the path toward solutions?

Maine is destined to become a text book example of not utilizing the playbook, and REPEATED interception opportunities fumbled bigly. US Military. Fail. NY State Police. Fail. Maine county Sheriff. Fail. Family. Fail. Mental health professionals known to perpetrator. Fail. Big Pharma. Fail. Last week the perpetrator's brain was sent to pathology to see if he suffered from CTE due to his position as a grenade/ordinance trainer. Gun free zones. Fail. A witness/survivor said at the beginning of his onslaught his gun jammed and it took him a full minute to clear the jam. Who knows what might have happened if law abiding citizens who carried in Maine were not busy obeying the law and were carrying at that time. Food for thought. Pardon me, but barf. I get a little worked up and rant-y on these topics because of how deep in the weeds the discourse is. More like slowly disappearing in quicksand, actually.

A final note, and then I'm off for a ride. A new book is out and an insightful review by someone smart researching "gun culture in America", Wake Forest professor David Yamane, is perhaps worth a read to some here:

https://thereload.com/review-american-g ... 15s-story/

No one is in favor of mass public shootings and everyone wants to protect everyday people from them. The challenge we face as a society is not on the ends but on the means. Addressing the issue of mass shootings is made all the harder because guns in general have become a wedge issue in US politics. Even worse, “Half a century after Eugene Stoner invented the rifle, [the AR-15] had arrived as the fulcrum of America’s great gun divide”. Invoking a perfect image, McWhirter and Elinson characterize the AR-15 politically as “just a cultural chew toy for angry partisans”.

Be well.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

Allow me to elaborate. My reply was to the original poster sending his/her sweeping and in my opinion unproductive snark grenade at "R's". This type of comment has as its generative core - on THIS topic (and in my GRANULAR reply on this thread) the "usual D suspects" which I chose to broadly generalize (and add a few more here) as the Left/Democrat "Bloomberg, Giffords, White House, Brady, Mom's Against, Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg again) David Hogg, et al" anti-gun chorus.

Are there easily generalized "usual suspects" on the R side of America's gun debates? Of course. The NRA (remember, only 1/20 gun owners in America are members, and that number is shrinking) is of course public enemy #1.

In terms of my being a registered "D" from day one of my voting life being brought up - as I have mentioned in previous posts - I am very flexible in my positions on issues social, economic, legal, societal, educational, etc. I agree with quite a bit of the "R" side of the aisle positions (less nowadays than a decade or more ago), while abhorring much. And same for the D's. I remember (with some rose colored lenses I'm sure) the good old days when members of both parties would granularly "switch sides" and vote for bills they felt the opposition was presenting that would benefit the people. It's a rare event these days.

I quite agree about your sentiments for the good ole days when partisan uniformity was not demanded on every single issue.

But the "usual suspects", when none were actually involved (far as we know) or prior mentioned, betrays an animosity that definitely doesn't feel "D".

You, whether NRA or not, have staked out a rather extreme position on guns.

By contrast, most of us on here, including gun owners like me, are quite comfortable with various "common sense" restrictions on the types of guns we can acquire and use, when and where they can be used, the qualifications to own and use, the storage and handling of them, and when and how the privilege of gun ownership and use can be removed or constrained, temporarily or permanently... etc.

These are not extreme positions but they are restrictions.

None of those restrictions needs to be in conflict with other efforts regarding mental health, poverty interventions, youth interventions, etc. No one aspect of these efforts is likely to be sufficient in and of itself.

Most legal gun owners would have little difficulty abiding by such restrictions with little impingement upon their prior behaviors. Indeed, most legal gun owners are highly responsible and respectful of the deadly capacities of their guns.

Unfortunately, not all legal gun owners are careful or respectful of such. Some are very sloppy in their handling or storage, enabling accidents, suicides and the guns to be used by family inappropriately...or stolen easily. Some use weapons while drinking (anathema to how I was raised). And some glorify the weapons and imagine their usage in violence against others.

Restrictions remind us all of the deadliness of the weapons and the importance of training and care in handling and storage. In my upbringing, we emphasized that even the most experienced gun user/hunter benefited from reminding...we all, young and old, reminded one another of the little things, making sure the gun was on safety again and again and again...always...and cleared, how to carry the gun, go over a fence, etc, etc. We all benefit, even the most careful.

Will there be scofflaws? Sure. Just as there are scofflaws in other public health restrictions like seat belts. Many people railed against such restrictions and most all of us at least chafed a bit at needing to learn a new behavior that was to our own benefit and most importantly to the benefit of our passengers. We grumbled. But we adapted and it's been a huge success. Fewer and fewer scofflaws over time. But without the rules and the small penalties attached, many people would not have adopted the behavior.

I've suggested some restrictions on assault-style high capacity weapons and ammo, when where and who can use them, that I think would move the needle on a specific type of gun crime. It's nowhere near the "extreme" confiscation sort of regime that some "enthusiasts" fear, but it does change the paradigm markedly.

We have cross posted. Respect your take. Don't feel extreme. Passionate.

Show me a Red Flag law that has SEVERE penalties for misuse (disgruntled exes, activist DA's/Judges/Law enforcement/Defense attorneys, and neighbors who just feel like it) and I'll show you a bunch of gun owners who can get on board. Haven't seen any Red Flag Laws incorporating a check against abuse and misuse, and studies of them on state level have "oopsie, sorry, we blew it" batting averages of 10-30% estimated. Not acceptable.

I do appreciate your willingness to engage. Believe in your positions. And offer ideas. Endeavoring to do the same from what is a definitively unpopular side of the issue on this specific thread.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

But the "usual suspects", when none were actually involved (far as we know) or prior mentioned, betrays an animosity that definitely doesn't feel "D".

You, whether NRA or not, have staked out a rather extreme position on guns.

Not NRA at all, ever. And in terms of the "none involved" I'd suggest you peek at the websites and social media posts of the "Usual suspects". Past two weeks have been an epic vortex of just what I am pointing out. Ymmv.

I do upon further reflection take slight umbrage (I'll get over it) regarding being pegged as extreme.

Okay, outta here. Gonna ride like the wind.

[a fan]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

Allow me to elaborate. My reply was to the original poster sending his/her sweeping and in my opinion unproductive snark grenade at "R's". This type of comment has as its generative core - on THIS topic (and in my GRANULAR reply on this thread) the "usual D suspects" which I chose to broadly generalize (and add a few more here) as the Left/Democrat "Bloomberg, Giffords, White House, Brady, Mom's Against, Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg again) David Hogg, et al" anti-gun chorus.

Are there easily generalized "usual suspects" on the R side of America's gun debates? Of course. The NRA (remember, only 1/20 gun owners in America are members, and that number is shrinking) is of course public enemy #1.

In terms of my being a registered "D" from day one of my voting life being brought up - as I have mentioned in previous posts - I am very flexible in my positions on issues social, economic, legal, societal, educational, etc. I agree with quite a bit of the "R" side of the aisle positions (less nowadays than a decade or more ago), while abhorring much. And same for the D's. I remember (with some rose colored lenses I'm sure) the good old days when members of both parties would granularly "switch sides" and vote for bills they felt the opposition was presenting that would benefit the people. It's a rare event these days.

I quite agree about your sentiments for the good ole days when partisan uniformity was not demanded on every single issue.

But the "usual suspects", when none were actually involved (far as we know) or prior mentioned, betrays an animosity that definitely doesn't feel "D".

You, whether NRA or not, have staked out a rather extreme position on guns.

By contrast, most of us on here, including gun owners like me, are quite comfortable with various "common sense" restrictions on the types of guns we can acquire and use, when and where they can be used, the qualifications to own and use, the storage and handling of them, and when and how the privilege of gun ownership and use can be removed or constrained, temporarily or permanently... etc.

These are not extreme positions but they are restrictions.

None of those restrictions needs to be in conflict with other efforts regarding mental health, poverty interventions, youth interventions, etc. No one aspect of these efforts is likely to be sufficient in and of itself.

Most legal gun owners would have little difficulty abiding by such restrictions with little impingement upon their prior behaviors. Indeed, most legal gun owners are highly responsible and respectful of the deadly capacities of their guns.

Unfortunately, not all legal gun owners are careful or respectful of such. Some are very sloppy in their handling or storage, enabling accidents, suicides and the guns to be used by family inappropriately...or stolen easily. Some use weapons while drinking (anathema to how I was raised). And some glorify the weapons and imagine their usage in violence against others.

Restrictions remind us all of the deadliness of the weapons and the importance of training and care in handling and storage. In my upbringing, we emphasized that even the most experienced gun user/hunter benefited from reminding...we all, young and old, reminded one another of the little things, making sure the gun was on safety again and again and again...always...and cleared, how to carry the gun, go over a fence, etc, etc. We all benefit, even the most careful.

Will there be scofflaws? Sure. Just as there are scofflaws in other public health restrictions like seat belts. Many people railed against such restrictions and most all of us at least chafed a bit at needing to learn a new behavior that was to our own benefit and most importantly to the benefit of our passengers. We grumbled. But we adapted and it's been a huge success. Fewer and fewer scofflaws over time. But without the rules and the small penalties attached, many people would not have adopted the behavior.

I've suggested some restrictions on assault-style high capacity weapons and ammo, when where and who can use them, that I think would move the needle on a specific type of gun crime. It's nowhere near the "extreme" confiscation sort of regime that some "enthusiasts" fear, but it does change the paradigm markedly.

We have cross posted. Respect your take. Don't feel extreme. Passionate.

Show me a Red Flag law that has SEVERE penalties for misuse (disgruntled exes, activist DA's/Judges/Law enforcement/Defense attorneys, and neighbors who just feel like it) and I'll show you a bunch of gun owners who can get on board. Haven't seen any Red Flag Laws incorporating a check against abuse and misuse, and studies of them on state level have "oopsie, sorry, we blew it" batting averages of 10-30% estimated. Not acceptable.

Sure, but you understand that it's your view that's in the way, yes?

In other words, if you want a higher success rate for Red Flag laws, that means that they have to be at least twice as aggressive as they are now in taking away a citizen's 2nd amendment rights. Which means that they're gonna get it "wrong" on the other side of the equation: taking the right to bear arms from people who AREN'T a danger to the public.

And from what I've read? You're against that, are you not?

[cradleandshoot]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

Allow me to elaborate. My reply was to the original poster sending his/her sweeping and in my opinion unproductive snark grenade at "R's". This type of comment has as its generative core - on THIS topic (and in my GRANULAR reply on this thread) the "usual D suspects" which I chose to broadly generalize (and add a few more here) as the Left/Democrat "Bloomberg, Giffords, White House, Brady, Mom's Against, Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg again) David Hogg, et al" anti-gun chorus.

Are there easily generalized "usual suspects" on the R side of America's gun debates? Of course. The NRA (remember, only 1/20 gun owners in America are members, and that number is shrinking) is of course public enemy #1.

In terms of my being a registered "D" from day one of my voting life being brought up - as I have mentioned in previous posts - I am very flexible in my positions on issues social, economic, legal, societal, educational, etc. I agree with quite a bit of the "R" side of the aisle positions (less nowadays than a decade or more ago), while abhorring much. And same for the D's. I remember (with some rose colored lenses I'm sure) the good old days when members of both parties would granularly "switch sides" and vote for bills they felt the opposition was presenting that would benefit the people. It's a rare event these days.

I quite agree about your sentiments for the good ole days when partisan uniformity was not demanded on every single issue.

But the "usual suspects", when none were actually involved (far as we know) or prior mentioned, betrays an animosity that definitely doesn't feel "D".

You, whether NRA or not, have staked out a rather extreme position on guns.

By contrast, most of us on here, including gun owners like me, are quite comfortable with various "common sense" restrictions on the types of guns we can acquire and use, when and where they can be used, the qualifications to own and use, the storage and handling of them, and when and how the privilege of gun ownership and use can be removed or constrained, temporarily or permanently... etc.

These are not extreme positions but they are restrictions.

None of those restrictions needs to be in conflict with other efforts regarding mental health, poverty interventions, youth interventions, etc. No one aspect of these efforts is likely to be sufficient in and of itself.

Most legal gun owners would have little difficulty abiding by such restrictions with little impingement upon their prior behaviors. Indeed, most legal gun owners are highly responsible and respectful of the deadly capacities of their guns.

Unfortunately, not all legal gun owners are careful or respectful of such. Some are very sloppy in their handling or storage, enabling accidents, suicides and the guns to be used by family inappropriately...or stolen easily. Some use weapons while drinking (anathema to how I was raised). And some glorify the weapons and imagine their usage in violence against others.

Restrictions remind us all of the deadliness of the weapons and the importance of training and care in handling and storage. In my upbringing, we emphasized that even the most experienced gun user/hunter benefited from reminding...we all, young and old, reminded one another of the little things, making sure the gun was on safety again and again and again...always...and cleared, how to carry the gun, go over a fence, etc, etc. We all benefit, even the most careful.

Will there be scofflaws? Sure. Just as there are scofflaws in other public health restrictions like seat belts. Many people railed against such restrictions and most all of us at least chafed a bit at needing to learn a new behavior that was to our own benefit and most importantly to the benefit of our passengers. We grumbled. But we adapted and it's been a huge success. Fewer and fewer scofflaws over time. But without the rules and the small penalties attached, many people would not have adopted the behavior.

I've suggested some restrictions on assault-style high capacity weapons and ammo, when where and who can use them, that I think would move the needle on a specific type of gun crime. It's nowhere near the "extreme" confiscation sort of regime that some "enthusiasts" fear, but it does change the paradigm markedly.

We have cross posted. Respect your take. Don't feel extreme. Passionate.

Show me a Red Flag law that has SEVERE penalties for misuse (disgruntled exes, activist DA's/Judges/Law enforcement/Defense attorneys, and neighbors who just feel like it) and I'll show you a bunch of gun owners who can get on board. Haven't seen any Red Flag Laws incorporating a check against abuse and misuse, and studies of them on state level have "oopsie, sorry, we blew it" batting averages of 10-30% estimated. Not acceptable.

Sure, but you understand that it's your view that's in the way, yes?

In other words, if you want a higher success rate for Red Flag laws, that means that they have to be at least twice as aggressive as they are now in taking away a citizen's 2nd amendment rights. Which means that they're gonna get it "wrong" on the other side of the equation: taking the right to bear arms from people who AREN'T a danger to the public.

And from what I've read? You're against that, are you not?

For better or worse strict red flag laws create a potential legal nightmare in respect to due process. Confiscating someones weapons is understandable. How that person gets their weapons returned to them is also problematic and not defined in red flag laws. FTR, I need to apologize to you for a post I made recently. I was disrespectful to you in my reply. I'm not always very good at disagreeing in an agreeable manner.

[a fan]

"registered D"..."brought to us by Bloomberg and the White House, to name just a few of the usual suspects"...the "usual suspects"????

Allow me to elaborate. My reply was to the original poster sending his/her sweeping and in my opinion unproductive snark grenade at "R's". This type of comment has as its generative core - on THIS topic (and in my GRANULAR reply on this thread) the "usual D suspects" which I chose to broadly generalize (and add a few more here) as the Left/Democrat "Bloomberg, Giffords, White House, Brady, Mom's Against, Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg again) David Hogg, et al" anti-gun chorus.

Are there easily generalized "usual suspects" on the R side of America's gun debates? Of course. The NRA (remember, only 1/20 gun owners in America are members, and that number is shrinking) is of course public enemy #1.

In terms of my being a registered "D" from day one of my voting life being brought up - as I have mentioned in previous posts - I am very flexible in my positions on issues social, economic, legal, societal, educational, etc. I agree with quite a bit of the "R" side of the aisle positions (less nowadays than a decade or more ago), while abhorring much. And same for the D's. I remember (with some rose colored lenses I'm sure) the good old days when members of both parties would granularly "switch sides" and vote for bills they felt the opposition was presenting that would benefit the people. It's a rare event these days.

I quite agree about your sentiments for the good ole days when partisan uniformity was not demanded on every single issue.

But the "usual suspects", when none were actually involved (far as we know) or prior mentioned, betrays an animosity that definitely doesn't feel "D".

You, whether NRA or not, have staked out a rather extreme position on guns.

By contrast, most of us on here, including gun owners like me, are quite comfortable with various "common sense" restrictions on the types of guns we can acquire and use, when and where they can be used, the qualifications to own and use, the storage and handling of them, and when and how the privilege of gun ownership and use can be removed or constrained, temporarily or permanently... etc.

These are not extreme positions but they are restrictions.

None of those restrictions needs to be in conflict with other efforts regarding mental health, poverty interventions, youth interventions, etc. No one aspect of these efforts is likely to be sufficient in and of itself.

Most legal gun owners would have little difficulty abiding by such restrictions with little impingement upon their prior behaviors. Indeed, most legal gun owners are highly responsible and respectful of the deadly capacities of their guns.

Unfortunately, not all legal gun owners are careful or respectful of such. Some are very sloppy in their handling or storage, enabling accidents, suicides and the guns to be used by family inappropriately...or stolen easily. Some use weapons while drinking (anathema to how I was raised). And some glorify the weapons and imagine their usage in violence against others.

Restrictions remind us all of the deadliness of the weapons and the importance of training and care in handling and storage. In my upbringing, we emphasized that even the most experienced gun user/hunter benefited from reminding...we all, young and old, reminded one another of the little things, making sure the gun was on safety again and again and again...always...and cleared, how to carry the gun, go over a fence, etc, etc. We all benefit, even the most careful.

Will there be scofflaws? Sure. Just as there are scofflaws in other public health restrictions like seat belts. Many people railed against such restrictions and most all of us at least chafed a bit at needing to learn a new behavior that was to our own benefit and most importantly to the benefit of our passengers. We grumbled. But we adapted and it's been a huge success. Fewer and fewer scofflaws over time. But without the rules and the small penalties attached, many people would not have adopted the behavior.

I've suggested some restrictions on assault-style high capacity weapons and ammo, when where and who can use them, that I think would move the needle on a specific type of gun crime. It's nowhere near the "extreme" confiscation sort of regime that some "enthusiasts" fear, but it does change the paradigm markedly.

We have cross posted. Respect your take. Don't feel extreme. Passionate.

Show me a Red Flag law that has SEVERE penalties for misuse (disgruntled exes, activist DA's/Judges/Law enforcement/Defense attorneys, and neighbors who just feel like it) and I'll show you a bunch of gun owners who can get on board. Haven't seen any Red Flag Laws incorporating a check against abuse and misuse, and studies of them on state level have "oopsie, sorry, we blew it" batting averages of 10-30% estimated. Not acceptable.

Sure, but you understand that it's your view that's in the way, yes?

In other words, if you want a higher success rate for Red Flag laws, that means that they have to be at least twice as aggressive as they are now in taking away a citizen's 2nd amendment rights. Which means that they're gonna get it "wrong" on the other side of the equation: taking the right to bear arms from people who AREN'T a danger to the public.

And from what I've read? You're against that, are you not?

For better or worse strict red flag laws create a potential legal nightmare in respect to due process. Confiscating someones weapons is understandable. How that person gets their weapons returned to them is also problematic and not defined in red flag laws. FTR, I need to apologize to you for a post I made recently. I was disrespectful to you in my reply. I'm not always very good at disagreeing in an agreeable manner.

There is NO need to apologize, my friend. None of us are perfect, myself being at the top of that long list.

And yes, you're right about Red Flag laws...which is my point: if we're going to make them more effective, it's got to be more Draconian than it is now, and err on the side of public safety versus individual freedom.

And WaffleT seems to be against surrendering that personal freedom, which is why I asked him my question.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

In other words, if you want a higher success rate for Red Flag laws, that means that they have to be at least twice as aggressive as they are now in taking away a citizen's 2nd amendment rights. Which means that they're gonna get it "wrong" on the other side of the equation: taking the right to bear arms from people who AREN'T a danger to the public. And from what I've read? You're against that, are you not?

Hello. I think I might not have been clear. I am against the current structure of more or less every Red Flag law I'm currently aware of because of: 1) the strong likelihood of some (and even ONE is too many) innocent persons being wrongly accused and denied due process. And 2) the lack of "checks and balances" written into ERPO's which provide SEVERE criminal and civil penalties for those who "knowingly and falsely inform punitively in order to harass and abuse a fellow citizen, resulting in an unwarranted Red Flag action against them". By "those" I refer to neighbors, exes, DA's, judges, law enforcement, etc. It's a slippery slope straight into Minority Report territory.

I know many here will call this NRA propaganda, but here's one against one of "the greatest generation":

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/cont ... ror-story/

So, the two opposing points above suggest an intransigent stalemate exists. How do we move forward through that state of being? My thoughts resulting from the reading and research I've endeavored to conduct on this very granular issue of the broader "gun debates have settled on the following points:

There has to be a uniform set of Red Flag Law standards. Leaving Red Flag Laws up to individual states has resulted in a patchwork quilt of what gun owners and those opposing ERPO's feel are unacceptable versions defined (my take) as follows: seemingly fair-ish (but still results in "false positives), unfair, really unfair, stupidly unfair, & toxically unfair.

As I've mentioned in numerous posts, I believe in the off-ramp / intercept "playbook" (to head off Mass Public Shootings, but for ERPO's we can add the domestic violence slice of the pie, and the suicide (many utilizing firearms) slice of the pie as very likely to benefit from what we could perhaps term "Red Flag Laws 2.0". A good read I stumbled upon was this paper the state of Utah commissioned as their legislature took up the possibility of Red Flag Laws:

https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent ... ontext=ulr

The paper has what I feel is good analysis of the "Due Process" side of the coin (my #1) above, and the "punish any petitioners 'knowingly throwing bogus red flags' with severe consequences (criminal and civil) for their toxic malfeasance (my #2 above).

The paper touches upon the methodologies of creating a petition - with checks and balances - and how petitioners would have need to (with some of the proposed approaches) sign acknowledgements in advance of a Red Flag being "thrown" in which they state they are not accusing someone falsely, and are aware penalties exist for falsely accusing someone. I's like to see wording expanded which holds elected and appointed government officials responsible legally and in civil court for abuse of ERPO's.

Those in New York are likely aware of the ongoing Red Flag debates (which for myself show a glaring lack of consequences for misapplication):
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/1 ... k-00097405

Anyways, as Red Flag Laws exist currently, they send a shudder down the spine of most law abiding gun owners, due to their finger on the scale and potential for abuse with no consequences for those who falsely accuse. Throw in 2A, 4A, 5A issues, and acceptance (trust) is tough. Really hard for a gun owner to willingly let a wedge into the door - when the broader gun control debates have shown a very clear interest by one side in utilizing wedges - including new and novel wedges (my "policy based evidence making" paranoia, right?) - all over the map in order to achieve a desired goal.

Can a bipartisan gathering of serious minds get together to create a productive dialogue which would allow all sides of the issue to feel comfortable - and thus empowering an important tool of "intercept a criminal and save a victim(s)" to come to practical life? It would take a type of cooperation and "depoliticizing" of the issue to occur that seems unlikely based on the current deeply entrenched and absolutist divide of the (I'm highly simplifying) gun rights vs. no guns camps.

[dislaxxic]

..

[CU88a]

Supreme Court refuses to block Illinois assault weapons ban.


https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... apons-ban/


Good News