Sensible Gun Safety

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... r-warning/

[Typical Lax Dad]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

[Typical Lax Dad]

How did I miss this?

https://apnews.com/article/harford-jopp ... 4d81f7352e

The problem is the other kid should have been packing.



It’s amazing that we have people that support this kind of violence.

[Kismet]

Interstate 75 shut down in both directions near Laurel KY south of Lexington - possibly multiple active shooters on/near the highway in elevated position and possibly concealed - Numerous people have been shot near I-75 in Laurel County, Kentucky. Kentucky State Trooper has confirmed the shooter is still at large

Here we go again.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://youtu.be/aE15RqnwRrs?si=0kJPVMbupTfzkEli

I wonder if he is related to Tim Couch? My brother lives in
Lexington…the shooting is south…. He has a 2A right. Our pro gun violence wing is ok with this. It’s a small price to pay for the right to wage violence.

[ggait]

It is not brought up with any intent about a sincere discussion about it. After the topic is given a brief glance y'all move back along the path of banning AR 15 type weapons.

Instead of silly doofus hysteria, let's do a little history on this topic.

In November 1993, the US Senate passed the AWB by a vote of 95-4. Only two Dems and two Reps voted against it.

The law was supported by former Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. And by pretty much all police and law enforcement groups. Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, John McCain, Al D'Amato, Orrin Hatch, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond all voted for it.

It was non-controversial, reasonable legislation supported by the broadest bi-partisan coalition possible. President George W. Bush pledged to sign an AWB extension during the 2000 campaign and throughout his first term in office. Because most agreed the legislation was working, would work better if it were extended and kept in effect, and did not impose any meaningful restrictions on gun owners.
At the time, 75% of voters supported a renewal of the federal AWB.

The AWB was challenged in court on a number of grounds. All the court cases failed. Most interestingly, none of those challenges were on 2A grounds. Back then the meaning of the 2A had been 110% settled law for decades (US v. Miller (1939)). And so pro-gunners would not even waste their time arguing the 2A.

Oh for the good old days when the GOP was a reasonable governing party. Back before it got hijacked by the NRA, and then later by the Tea Party, and then later by the MAGAs and Russians. Back when you could expect SCOTUS to call balls and strikes fairly. Crazy -- it wasn't all that long ago. We all remember that GOP -- heck many of us (including me) voted regularly for that GOP.

Fast forward to today. On 8/21/2024, Trump appointed Judge John Broomes in Kansas ruled that, under recent SCOTUS decisions including Bruen (2022), individuals have a constitutional right to own fully auto machine guns. Full on bat shirt crazy these days.

[cradleandshoot]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

That reality also carries over to people who possess illegal weapons. They sure as hell aren't advocating for non violent solutions.

[Kismet]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

That reality also carries over to people who possess illegal weapons. They sure as hell aren't advocating for non violent solutions.

Because weapons are ubiquitous and relatively easy to acquire why are you surprised at the volume of illegal firearms?

This country is drowning in weapons and firearms - last night some perp shot up an interstate highway in Kentucky injuring 5 people randomly shooting at vehicles from an elevated position.

https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-sho ... 856201f572

He is still at-large this morning

[PizzaSnake]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

That reality also carries over to people who possess illegal weapons. They sure as hell aren't advocating for non violent solutions.

Because weapons are ubiquitous and relatively easy to acquire why are you surprised at the volume of illegal firearms?

This country is drowning in weapons and firearms - last night some perp shot up an interstate highway in Kentucky injuring 5 people randomly shooting at vehicles from an elevated position.

https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-sho ... 856201f572

He is still at-large this morning

Laurel County KY is an interesting place. Home of KFC. Recently, until 2016, apparently "dry." Hilly and Republican. Judging by the election history, I'd say the shooter is a Republican voter. Could be a shooting tourist though, I guess.

The interstate system really opened up the highways and bi-ways, didn't it?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

It is not brought up with any intent about a sincere discussion about it. After the topic is given a brief glance y'all move back along the path of banning AR 15 type weapons.

Instead of silly doofus hysteria, let's do a little history on this topic.

In November 1993, the US Senate passed the AWB by a vote of 95-4. Only two Dems and two Reps voted against it.

The law was supported by former Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. And by pretty much all police and law enforcement groups. Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, John McCain, Al D'Amato, Orrin Hatch, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond all voted for it.

It was non-controversial, reasonable legislation supported by the broadest bi-partisan coalition possible. President George W. Bush pledged to sign an AWB extension during the 2000 campaign and throughout his first term in office. Because most agreed the legislation was working, would work better if it were extended and kept in effect, and did not impose any meaningful restrictions on gun owners.
At the time, 75% of voters supported a renewal of the federal AWB.

The AWB was challenged in court on a number of grounds. All the court cases failed. Most interestingly, none of those challenges were on 2A grounds. Back then the meaning of the 2A had been 110% settled law for decades (US v. Miller (1939)). And so pro-gunners would not even waste their time arguing the 2A.

Oh for the good old days when the GOP was a reasonable governing party. Back before it got hijacked by the NRA, and then later by the Tea Party, and then later by the MAGAs and Russians. Back when you could expect SCOTUS to call balls and strikes fairly. Crazy -- it wasn't all that long ago. We all remember that GOP -- heck many of us (including me) voted regularly for that GOP.

Fast forward to today. On 8/21/2024, Trump appointed Judge John Broomes in Kansas ruled that, under recent SCOTUS decisions including Bruen (2022), individuals have a constitutional right to own fully auto machine guns. Full on bat shirt crazy these days.

You left out the middle chapters of the story. Why was the AWB allowed to sunset in 2004? No, it's not because of NRA pressure and "following the money" as a poster on this topic suggested previously, but rather:

Our own government agencies commissioned to study the ban found it's effectiveness to be inconclusive/negligible. Hence the sunset. Obama picked up the ball when he was in office, and commissioned three letter agency assessments which confirmed and reported negligible effectiveness. He memory holed those reports, as they contradicted the desired narrative. Need additional highly respected, platinum grade and vetted researchers? How about the Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, or the principal fellow of George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (and the co-author of the Department of Justice’s OWN similarly inconclusive review of the 1994 assault weapons ban). Both authored papers which echoed previous findings that the AWB’s effectiveness was statistically inconclusive (minimal/negligible). RAND Corp conducted an exhaustive assessment titled the “Assault & Magazine Bans Effects which was updated January 10, 2023. That highly respected institution’s summary findings? “Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings is inconclusive. Evidence that high-capacity magazine bans may decrease mass shootings is limited”. And yet, despite all of this, we continue to see the gun control debate energized, polarized, and framed around 50 rifles (out of an estimated 44 million in civilian hands) which over the past 60 years have been used criminally by mass murderers, while the majority of criminal murder - more than 99% of them - won't be mitigated by a new AWB.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

Excerpt from the abstract: "This paper utilizes an online forum to critically analyze...." Hey, let's do that for all governance, jurisprudence, and policy making for all issues facing the country.

I read it. A few food for thought tidbits on the way to sweeping generalizations stretched over a broad swath of people guilty of legally and responsibly owning firearms. The activist angle is blatant. Even mainstream media wouldn't touch this one, although you'd think they'd be all over it. Surgeon General, too. Grasping at straws and tilting at windmills can be fun, though, for some amongst us.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

Excerpt from the abstract: "This paper utilizes an online forum to critically analyze...." Hey, let's do that for all governance, jurisprudence, and policy making for all issues facing the country.

I read it. A few food for thought tidbits on the way to sweeping generalizations stretched over a broad swath of people guilty of legally and responsibly owning firearms. The activist angle is blatant. Even mainstream media wouldn't touch this one, although you'd think they'd be all over it. Surgeon General, too. Grasping at straws and tilting at windmills can be fun, though, for some amongst us.

It’s not changing the mind of anyone that is pro killing.

[cradleandshoot]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

Excerpt from the abstract: "This paper utilizes an online forum to critically analyze...." Hey, let's do that for all governance, jurisprudence, and policy making for all issues facing the country.

I read it. A few food for thought tidbits on the way to sweeping generalizations stretched over a broad swath of people guilty of legally and responsibly owning firearms. The activist angle is blatant. Even mainstream media wouldn't touch this one, although you'd think they'd be all over it. Surgeon General, too. Grasping at straws and tilting at windmills can be fun, though, for some amongst us.

It’s not changing the mind of anyone that is pro killing.

Now why did you have to drag your love of abortion into the conversation?

[OCanada]

The reality is we have people that are pro gun violence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

Excerpt from the abstract: "This paper utilizes an online forum to critically analyze...." Hey, let's do that for all governance, jurisprudence, and policy making for all issues facing the country.

I read it. A few food for thought tidbits on the way to sweeping generalizations stretched over a broad swath of people guilty of legally and responsibly owning firearms. The activist angle is blatant. Even mainstream media wouldn't touch this one, although you'd think they'd be all over it. Surgeon General, too. Grasping at straws and tilting at windmills can be fun, though, for some amongst us.

It’s not changing the mind of anyone that is pro killing.

Now why did you have to drag your love of abortion into the conversation?

Now why did you have to mischaracterize supporting a woman’s choice for love. I support your right to post even thought many are from la la land but i don’t love what you do with it

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Food for thought regarding perception and reality in the never ending partisan "control the gun control narrative in America" tug-of-war played out in the press, and recirculated by politicians, lobbyists, and a sharply divided citizenry. This one focuses on the reportage regarding mass public shootings, of which school shootings are a part. The information is shared by none other than Katherine Schweit, arguably one of the top five leading experts on planet earth when it comes to Mass Public (and subset school) Shootings.

12 minute podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/s ... 0662969398

Episode Summary: In this episode, we dive into the complex and often misleading world of mass shooting statistics. Katherine and I discuss the challenges of interpreting data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive, and how media headlines can distort public perception. We also touch on the broader trends in violence in the United States, offering a more nuanced view of the numbers that frequently make headlines.

Key Points Discussed:

The origin and methodology of the Gun Violence Archive and its influence on media reporting.
The distinction between different types of shootings and how they are categorized.
The historical trends in violence in the United States, emphasizing the overall decline since the 1970s.
The importance of understanding the context behind the numbers to avoid misinformation.
Important Quotes:

"The media often pull data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive without fully understanding the context, leading to sensational headlines."
"Violence in the United States has been on a steady decline since the 1970s, contrary to what some might believe based on current headlines."

For those interested, rummaging around on her website is illuminating. Has she forgotten more about Mass Public Shootings since her morning cup of coffee than this thread's combined users have ever know?

https://www.katherineschweit.com/about

Trigger warning: fixation on banning AR's (and/or any weapons utilized in Mass Public Shooting events) is very much a back burner thing for her. When that angle is introduced, it is done so in the context of that being just one tool - and not a primary one - in a robust solution filled toolkit with at least a dozen more tools. She does this with the belief that intervention and off-ramping BEFORE an event is the most effective and powerful mitigation strategy - and that our policies should be focused on the tools that will have the best opportunity to accomplish this goal.

BREAKING NEWS: As the result of the content of Ms. Schweit's podcast above (and a bunch of other stuff on her website which qualifies her) a user on the internet is furiously typing a post which accuses one of the world's leading experts of mass public shooting mitigation strategies of being "pro gun violence".

[Typical Lax Dad]

Food for thought regarding perception and reality in the never ending partisan "control the gun control narrative in America" tug-of-war played out in the press, and recirculated by politicians, lobbyists, and a sharply divided citizenry. This one focuses on the reportage regarding mass public shootings, of which school shootings are a part. The information is shared by none other than Katherine Schweit, arguably one of the top five leading experts on planet earth when it comes to Mass Public (and subset school) Shootings.

12 minute podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/s ... 0662969398

Episode Summary: In this episode, we dive into the complex and often misleading world of mass shooting statistics. Katherine and I discuss the challenges of interpreting data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive, and how media headlines can distort public perception. We also touch on the broader trends in violence in the United States, offering a more nuanced view of the numbers that frequently make headlines.

Key Points Discussed:

The origin and methodology of the Gun Violence Archive and its influence on media reporting.
The distinction between different types of shootings and how they are categorized.
The historical trends in violence in the United States, emphasizing the overall decline since the 1970s.
The importance of understanding the context behind the numbers to avoid misinformation.
Important Quotes:

"The media often pull data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive without fully understanding the context, leading to sensational headlines."
"Violence in the United States has been on a steady decline since the 1970s, contrary to what some might believe based on current headlines."

For those interested, rummaging around on her website is illuminating. Has she forgotten more about Mass Public Shootings since her morning cup of coffee than this thread's combined users have ever know?

https://www.katherineschweit.com/about

Trigger warning: fixation on banning AR's (and/or any weapons utilized in Mass Public Shooting events) is very much a back burner thing for her. When that angle is introduced, it is done so in the context of that being just one tool in a robust solution filled toolkit which has at least a dozen more tools. She does this with the belief that intervention and off-ramping BEFORE an event is the most effective and powerful mitigation strategy.

BREAKING NEWS: As the result of the content of Ms. Schweit's podcast above (and a bunch of other stuff on her website which qualifies her) a user on the internet is furiously typing a post which accuses one of the world's leading experts of mass public shooting mitigation strategies of being "pro gun violence".

People like that and people that support that position are pro school shooting and pro spree killing. A weapon serves no purpose other than killing.

[Kismet]

Food for thought regarding perception and reality in the never ending partisan "control the gun control narrative in America" tug-of-war played out in the press, and recirculated by politicians, lobbyists, and a sharply divided citizenry. This one focuses on the reportage regarding mass public shootings, of which school shootings are a part. The information is shared by none other than Katherine Schweit, arguably one of the top five leading experts on planet earth when it comes to Mass Public (and subset school) Shootings.

12 minute podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/s ... 0662969398

Episode Summary: In this episode, we dive into the complex and often misleading world of mass shooting statistics. Katherine and I discuss the challenges of interpreting data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive, and how media headlines can distort public perception. We also touch on the broader trends in violence in the United States, offering a more nuanced view of the numbers that frequently make headlines.

Key Points Discussed:

The origin and methodology of the Gun Violence Archive and its influence on media reporting.
The distinction between different types of shootings and how they are categorized.
The historical trends in violence in the United States, emphasizing the overall decline since the 1970s.
The importance of understanding the context behind the numbers to avoid misinformation.
Important Quotes:

"The media often pull data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive without fully understanding the context, leading to sensational headlines."
"Violence in the United States has been on a steady decline since the 1970s, contrary to what some might believe based on current headlines."

For those interested, rummaging around on her website is illuminating. Has she forgotten more about Mass Public Shootings since her morning cup of coffee than this thread's combined users have ever know?

https://www.katherineschweit.com/about

Trigger warning: fixation on banning AR's (and/or any weapons utilized in Mass Public Shooting events) is very much a back burner thing for her. When that angle is introduced, it is done so in the context of that being just one tool - and not a primary one - in a robust solution filled toolkit with at least a dozen more tools. She does this with the belief that intervention and off-ramping BEFORE an event is the most effective and powerful mitigation strategy - and that our policies should be focused on the tools that will have the best opportunity to accomplish this goal.

BREAKING NEWS: As the result of the content of Ms. Schweit's podcast above (and a bunch of other stuff on her website which qualifies her) a user on the internet is furiously typing a post which accuses one of the world's leading experts of mass public shooting mitigation strategies of being "pro gun violence".

It seems to me that dead kids and people are still dead (after being shot and killed with firearms shooting high velocity projectiles designed for a singular purpose) while quibbling about statistics about how we count the dead.

The way I look at it - if the federal politicians couldn't bring themselves to do ANYTHING after 29 elementary school kids and teachers were killed at Newtown in 2012 - likely thought is that nothing is ever going to be done

At least, out state government in Hartford banned semi-automatic rifles entirely and limited magazine size for both long guns and handguns.
We have not had a school shooting since - what a dubious accomplishment.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Food for thought regarding perception and reality in the never ending partisan "control the gun control narrative in America" tug-of-war played out in the press, and recirculated by politicians, lobbyists, and a sharply divided citizenry. This one focuses on the reportage regarding mass public shootings, of which school shootings are a part. The information is shared by none other than Katherine Schweit, arguably one of the top five leading experts on planet earth when it comes to Mass Public (and subset school) Shootings.

12 minute podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/s ... 0662969398

Episode Summary: In this episode, we dive into the complex and often misleading world of mass shooting statistics. Katherine and I discuss the challenges of interpreting data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive, and how media headlines can distort public perception. We also touch on the broader trends in violence in the United States, offering a more nuanced view of the numbers that frequently make headlines.

Key Points Discussed:

The origin and methodology of the Gun Violence Archive and its influence on media reporting.
The distinction between different types of shootings and how they are categorized.
The historical trends in violence in the United States, emphasizing the overall decline since the 1970s.
The importance of understanding the context behind the numbers to avoid misinformation.
Important Quotes:

"The media often pull data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive without fully understanding the context, leading to sensational headlines."
"Violence in the United States has been on a steady decline since the 1970s, contrary to what some might believe based on current headlines."

For those interested, rummaging around on her website is illuminating. Has she forgotten more about Mass Public Shootings since her morning cup of coffee than this thread's combined users have ever know?

https://www.katherineschweit.com/about

Trigger warning: fixation on banning AR's (and/or any weapons utilized in Mass Public Shooting events) is very much a back burner thing for her. When that angle is introduced, it is done so in the context of that being just one tool - and not a primary one - in a robust solution filled toolkit with at least a dozen more tools. She does this with the belief that intervention and off-ramping BEFORE an event is the most effective and powerful mitigation strategy - and that our policies should be focused on the tools that will have the best opportunity to accomplish this goal.

BREAKING NEWS: As the result of the content of Ms. Schweit's podcast above (and a bunch of other stuff on her website which qualifies her) a user on the internet is furiously typing a post which accuses one of the world's leading experts of mass public shooting mitigation strategies of being "pro gun violence".

It seems to me that dead kids and people are still dead (after being shot and killed with firearms shooting high velocity projectiles designed for a singular purpose) while quibbling about statistics about how we count the dead.

The way I look at it - if the federal politicians couldn't bring themselves to do ANYTHING after 29 elementary school kids and teachers were killed at Newtown in 2012 - likely thought is that nothing is ever going to be done

At least, out state government in Hartford banned semi-automatic rifles entirely and limited magazine size for both long guns and handguns.
We have not had a school shooting since - what a dubious accomplishment.

But a drug dealer shot a gang member in New Haven the other day.

[ardilla secreta]

IMG_1851.jpeg (62.19 KiB) Viewed 133 times

[Typical Lax Dad]

IMG_1851.jpeg

I thought W.T.F was taller and thinner..