pray for the victims

[Hawktawk]

Here we go again. 3 mass shootings within the last week, 2 in 16 hours, all with AR style weapons.The guy in El Paso hated mexicans because he said they were invading our country and would create a permanent democratic majority, went row by row seeking out mexicans. So many mexican citizens who had come across the border to shop were killed that Mexico is seeking to extradite the shooter.The guy in Dayton Ohio shot his own sister and was killed within 35 SECONDS of opening fire and still was able to kill 9 people and wound 20+ more due to the lethality of his weapon.The kid at the garlic festival in california was a white nationalist sympathiser. Heavy police presence at that shoot as well as in Ohio, so much for good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun, not fast enough anyway.


Now the predictable political game. Dem pres candidates grandstanding at a podium talking about how we need to remove everyones guns, republican politicians sucking the NRAs tit saying dont politicize these tragedies, just pray for the victims. Trump not even bothering to show his face but sends out a tweet in support of the victims and law enforcement and 15 minutes later he's tweeting about a prizefight and how much black support hes getting since he's so awesome..

We are truly the frog in the pot of boiling water. Not sure what the answers are but I know this current crop of politicians doesn't know either.. Beam me the F up scottie. there's no intelligent life left on this planet..

[c_hawkbob]

Agree with every word of that first paragraph.

[RiverDog]

Agree with every word of that first paragraph.

I'll call and raise you two paragraphs.

[idhawkman]

Yep, this will be a raw subject for a few weeks again because the news will focus on it more. The sad reality is that more people are killed each year by hands, feet and fists (almost double that of rifles). Additionally, blunt objects like hammers and clubs kill more people than rifles each year. I wonder when we'll ban those items and make people register their hands and feet. I say that with some sarcasm but the reality is that if someone wants to kill, they'll find a way to do it. England has a problem with people throwing acid on people as an example of finding a way to kill.

Of course none of this could be a result of kids playing Doom, Combat or any other video game all day and when they die, they just hit the reset button, right? They have no idea how to communicate with each other or take disappointment either so how many are using this as an excuse to "be heard"?

Over 10 million people in the US own an AR-15 (I'm not one of them for full disclosure, I have other guns though) and its the most popular rifle in America. Out of those 10 million how many incidents have happened with the AR-15 over the last number of years?

I wouldn't be opposed to gun legislation as long as the legislation could show a direct causal impact on incidents like this. What I fear more though, is a over zealous government taking away citizen's rights to own and bear arms. No, I don't buy into the "how many rounds do you need to kill a deer" argument either. That's not why we were granted the right to own and bear arms. The real question is how many rounds do I need if my home or family is threatened by gangs, government or anyone else? The "Government" shouldn't fear me since they way out arm me, right? The government might fear a 10 Million man army owning AR-15s though and that is more than likely the real reason the dems want them banned. We the citizens are a direct threat to their imperial rule over us.

[RiverDog]

Just a few observations: We could repeal the 2nd Amendment tomorrow and it would have little effect on mass shootings like these for years, if not decades. Since Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK with a $12 mail order rifle, we've been passing laws aimed at preventing gun violence but it still continues. As was the case with prohibition, banning guns would simply create and enhance organized crime. There's just too many guns already in circulation for any legislation to have a meaningful effect on these types of incidents. As cold hearted as it sounds, there are many, many more times the number of people killed by cars than by guns. It is not an epidemic.

The shooter in Dayton, OH supposedly bought his weapon legally and there was noting in his background that would have prohibited him from purchasing such a weapon. It's also been reported that there were some that knew the shooter and reported to local police a number of odd things in his background that in retrospect might raise a red flag but apparently no action was taken.

In Dayton, the shooter had less than 30 seconds before he was shot and killed by police. In that amount of time, he killed 9 people, or an average of about one every 3 seconds. So much for tight security and superior LE presence being a deterrent.

The incident in El Paso is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism. Apparently the suspect made a number of white supremist statements indicating his anger at immigrants and was supposedly targeting Hispanics. Early interviews of the subject indicate that he developed this resentment well before DJT took office.

Bottom line is that there's not a whole lot in terms of measures to prevent both of these incidents from happening unless we want to become a police state like China or Russia, something I have no desire to live in. I look at those people that died this weekend as hero's that sacrificed their lives so that the rest of us could enjoy our freedoms, including much more than the freedom to keep and bear arms.

[idhawkman]

Just a few observations: We could repeal the 2nd Amendment tomorrow and it would have little effect on mass shootings like these for years, if not decades. Since Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK with a $12 mail order rifle, we've been passing laws aimed at preventing gun violence but it still continues. As was the case with prohibition, banning guns would simply create and enhance organized crime. There's just too many guns already in circulation for any legislation to have a meaningful effect on these types of incidents. As cold hearted as it sounds, there are many, many more times the number of people killed by cars than by guns. It is not an epidemic.

Totally Agree with this. Not to mention those of us who know how to make our own guns from scratch.

[/quote]The shooter in Dayton, OH supposedly bought his weapon legally and there was noting in his background that would have prohibited him from purchasing such a weapon. It's also been reported that there were some that knew the shooter and reported to local police a number of odd things in his background that in retrospect might raise a red flag but apparently no action was taken.
[/quote]

This is the scary part. How many of the laws we already have are being ignored or not followed that allow for these types of incidents? What good would passing a new law that isn't going to be followed do?

In Dayton, the shooter had less than 30 seconds before he was shot and killed by police. In that amount of time, he killed 9 people, or an average of about one every 3 seconds. So much for tight security and superior LE presence being a deterrent.

This I don't agree with in that, how many would have died or been shot if LE didn't respond in 30 seconds? That kid had 100 round magazine drums for his AR. "IF" LE didn't prevent him from going inside that night club where he could barricade himself in and just plink away like ducks on a pond, this could have been much worse.

That being said, I'm at a real weird crossroad on this topic in that I wonder how many (especially in the Ohio case) is copycat because of the notoriety of the shooter on TV news reports. The only thing on the news all weekend was these shootings. They are terrible but giving them wall to wall coverage begs kids who "want to be heard" a reason to copycat the incident. I'd much rather the news be unencumbered but c'mon, 48 hours of non stop shooting coverage as if nothing else is happening in the world is a bit much. They should regulate themselves. Then I get to thinking maybe the progressive news media knows that this will create more copycats and increase the pressure on the legislature to pass gun control. That is a weird reverse psychology place to be on this subject but there has to be a reason the news is doing this.

The incident in El Paso is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism. Apparently the suspect made a number of white supremist statements indicating his anger at immigrants and was supposedly targeting Hispanics. Early interviews of the subject indicate that he developed this resentment well before DJT took office.

I've tuned out the news on this already but it wouldn't surprise me if he has been grieved in some way by a hispanic to give him is stance. This is the problem with the younger generation where they can't verbalize their issues but instead revert to violence. Either way, we can't blame anyone but the perpetrator for the acts they commit. We didn't blame Bernie for the shooter at the Republican softball practice and we can't link these acts to Trump. (I know you didn't link them River I'm just making an observation.

Bottom line is that there's not a whole lot in terms of measures to prevent both of these incidents from happening unless we want to become a police state like China or Russia, something I have no desire to live in. I look at those people that died this weekend as hero's that sacrificed their lives so that the rest of us could enjoy our freedoms, including much more than the freedom to keep and bear arms.

I don't view them as heroes that made a choice unless you are talk about the cops that ran toward the gun fire. I do view them as victims in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm starting to wonder how much these kids would want to copycat the crime if they showed the dead bloody body of the shooters on T.V. or showed the execution of them to the public (the El Paso shooter). We used to do this in the old west days and back in the 30s when they would do public hangings and viewings of Electric Chair executions. I know it sounds barbaric but as it stands now, the only thing the public sees is a shooter getting the notoriety for committing the crime on T.V. without any consequence other than a courtroom in shackles.

[idhawkman]

I've been thinking about this issue more as it is plastered all over every channel.

We've had this issue many times in the past within the U.S. and everytime, at some point the US Govt finally gets a belly full of it and takes serious actions. Let me explain my thinking and let me know where I'm flawed.

1. Past history is strewn with outlaws that take over little towns by force by killing and shooting and being the bullies. Even in more modern times, the mafia and gangsters did the same thing with sub machine guns. Gangs in the 60's and 70's were a big problem too.

2. What stopped all of this was the education of the public that "if you are part of #1, you die and not a pretty death either!"

Old west - public hanging in town square
Gangsters - hanging in federal prisons and electric chairs with public witness rooms
Gangs - Lethal injections which used to be aired when walking the person into the room with the arm rest extended.

So my question is, when will the US Govt start to display the not so glorious/notorious portion of these hateful acts and show what happens to you when you do them? I know someone will claim cruel and unusual punishment but believe me, there's 80 affected families over the last weekend that feel these are cruel and unusual times. I'm just seeking justice for them and life in prison with a chance of parole or TVs, soccer fields, 3 meals a day, etc. isn't really a deterrent to their current behaviors.

I've always said that the punishment must be more costly than the crime to deter the activity and that's where my mind is on this. I used to use the example of drugs in a school zone = death penalty. Sexually assaulting a child = death penalty. I'm now adding that mass shooting or domestic terrorism = death penalty by the most heinous way possible.

I apologize for not having much forgiveness in my heart for these people and I'll ask my maker for his forgiveness for not having it, I guess I'm just really ticked at this time about all of this nonsense

[Aseahawkfan]

The usual has been said. All I can add is you can't stop crazy. We have a lot of crazy in the United States. Sometimes it gets hold of guns and kills people. Not sure how we stop it while maintaining important rights. I been waiting for a mall or store to get hit. Surprised it took this long. Best you can do at the moment is arm up and prepare to defend yourself and your family if you bring them out. There are a lot of ticking human timebombs out there. Law enforcement catches most, but one evil scumbag crazy always seems to slip through.

[RiverDog]

Speaking of praying for the victims, here's some reassuring words from our POTUS:

Trump said one of the shootings happened in Toledo, Ohio, rather than Dayton. The cities are about134 miles apart.

"If we are able to pass great legislation after all of these years, we will ensure that those who were attacked will not have died in vain. May God bless the memory of those who died in Toledo. May God protect them," Trump said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 920763001/

Is this failure to get the city in Ohio right due to:

A. Dementia
B. Stupidity
C. Head up ass
D. All of the above

If the topic wasn't so tragic, it would make a great skit for SNL as is. Alec Baldwin couldn't do a thing to improve on it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Waiting for IDhawkan, the human Trump excuse machine, to provide his favorite president with protection from your criticism Riverdog.

Calling Idhawkman, calling Idhawkman, Trump has been criticized for his stupidity. Please provide your most appropriate excuse as soon as possible.

[RiverDog]

The usual has been said. All I can add is you can't stop crazy. We have a lot of crazy in the United States. Sometimes it gets hold of guns and kills people. Not sure how we stop it while maintaining important rights.

We can't stop it even if we gave up important rights, at least not right away. There's just too many weapons already in circulation for any legislation to have a significant effect.

That doesn't mean I'm against all types of gun control. For example, I can be talked into legislation that would try to prevent mentally ill people from acquiring assault weapons, but who determines who is mentally ill? And I'm for putting pressure on some of these social media giants to monitor their platforms and prevent the distribution of some of this sick, macabre crap that's being posted.

But we shouldn't fool ourselves. It's not going to stop it and it's going to happen again. Every 6-12 months, there's going to be a mass shooting. The fact is that you have roughly the same chance of getting killed by a mass shooter as you do getting killed by a lightning strike.

What I would like to see happen is a full court press of some of these hate groups, which would require support from the POTUS. I'd also like to see pols make a pact amongst each other not to comment about these types of events for at least a week. They're nothing more than a pack of glorified ambulance chasers attempting to prey on people's emotions in order to make some political hay.

[RiverDog]

Waiting for IDhawkan, the human Trump excuse machine, to provide his favorite president with protection from your criticism Riverdog.

Calling Idhawkman, calling Idhawkman, Trump has been criticized for his stupidity. Please provide your most appropriate excuse as soon as possible.

Idahawkman's excuse will be:

A. It was raining and the teleprompter went out.
B. Fake news. You're being manipulated by the mainstream media.
C. Toledo, Dayton, what's the difference? 134 miles is close enough for government work.

[Aseahawkfan]

We can't stop it even if we gave up important rights, at least not right away. There's just too many weapons already in circulation for any legislation to have a significant effect.

That doesn't mean I'm against all types of gun control. For example, I can be talked into legislation that would try to prevent mentally ill people from acquiring assault weapons, but who determines who is mentally ill? And I'm for putting pressure on some of these social media giants to monitor their platforms and prevent the distribution of some of this sick, macabre crap that's being posted.

But we shouldn't fool ourselves. It's not going to stop it and it's going to happen again. Every 6-12 months, there's going to be a mass shooting. The fact is that you have roughly the same chance of getting killed by a mass shooter as you do getting killed by a lightning strike.

What I would like to see happen is a full court press of some of these hate groups, which would require support from the POTUS. I'd also like to see pols make a pact amongst each other not to comment about these types of events for at least a week. They're nothing more than a pack of glorified ambulance chasers attempting to prey on people's emotions in order to make some political hay.

This discussion has always been a philosophical argument as far I'm concerned. One that anti-gun activists never seem to address and love to avoid discussions of or just say we would lose anyway. That's never been the point.

I know that countries that have banned guns have seen reduced gun violence, but it works the same way as banning cars would reduce car deaths. You get rid of something and of course it will happen less. Just like if they banned language, they would have fewer people getting offended by words.

I'm not interested in removing rights that 99.99999% are able to practice responsibly because of extreme acts by crazy people. As we've already discussed, the 2nd Amendment is our right of violent revolution which I don't think we should ever give up. That includes being able to own up to the small arms employed by the citizen soldier. I already know we're likely to lose against a well-equipped and trained military intent on defeating a citizen army just as the revolutionaries should have lost to The British, the greatest army of their time. That's never been the point of the 2nd Amendment so much as always providing the people with the means to fight whether or not they win. A disarmed population is one that relies on the restraint of the government to not employ excessive violence against an unarmed population to quell rebellion, which as we have seen many times does not happen when real tyrants take over. Even now in China the Chinese people have no means of violent revolution within their population and they get run over by tanks or jailed indefinitely when they rebel. That's not anything I want in America.

Even if they proved that taking guns away would reduce mass shootings by civilians to zero forever, I would not agree with the removal of the right. The 2nd Amendment is not just about owning the weapon itself, but about having the skill and the will within your population to use it to oppose tyranny or predation from forces of oppression be they local criminals or an invasive government. And all those that study government know that force is what establishes government power otherwise no one would pay taxes, follow laws, or honor the vote. With that being a clear and established truth the removal of arms from the populace removes from them the power of governance. They would merely have the illusion of governing until someone decided to shatter that illusion and show them clearly they have no real power and will do what they are told. I for one never want America to be put in that position.

That being said. I would be amenable to tightening up gun laws and moving to a Swiss model of gun ownership. If I moved anywhere else in the world as far as culture, Switzerland is where I would go. A nice quiet land that is about as close to America as it gets.

[c_hawkbob]

Not sure how we stop it while maintaining important rights

What I would do:

Strict mental health and criminal background checks. Not just of the state of purchase, but nationwide checks for all gun sales. End sales at gun shows other than to dealers.

Training and licensing. Mandate gun safety courses and periodic proficiency training/checks for gun owners. It shouldn't be easier to buy and drive a car than to own a gun. That's not part of the 2nd.

Don't ban, but control assault weapons: treat them as the Thompson submachine gun was treated in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, which was enacted because of all of the blood spilled during the prohibition. It didn't outlaw Tommy guns as most think, rather it imposed a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of them and mandated their registration. The government for all intents and purposes knows where every Tommy gun in the US is and if you want to go buy one it'll cost you up to thirty grand to do so. Do the same with assault weapons, suppressors and magazines over 10 rounds.

I know there will be a lot of disagreement, but that's OK. This is just what I would do and am willing to support.

[RiverDog]

This discussion has always been a philosophical argument as far I'm concerned. One that anti-gun activists never seem to address and love to avoid discussions of or just say we would lose anyway. That's never been the point.

Liberals in general are more idealistic than they are practical or realistic. We're seeing that today in "the squad", where they want nothing less than revolutionary change and anything less is completely unacceptable. The gun control issue is no different.

I know that countries that have banned guns have seen reduced gun violence, but it works the same way as banning cars would reduce car deaths. You get rid of something and of course it will happen less. Just like if they banned language, they would have fewer people getting offended by words.

For better or worse, we are a much different country unlike any other in the world. We cannot use Japan or England as an example of what would happen if we adapted their laws. They aren't as big geographically or population wise, not nearly as diverse, and don't have a 250 year history with firearms. Theirs is a completely different culture.

I'm not interested in removing rights that 99.99999% are able to practice responsibly because of extreme acts by crazy people. As we've already discussed, the 2nd Amendment is our right of violent revolution which I don't think we should ever give up.

I don't agree with that rationalization. The government has any potential militia out gunned by at least 100 to 1. Militias don't have tanks, attack helicopters, etc. That portion of the right to keep and bear arms was inserted in the 18th century under the assumption that weaponry would remain static. IMO self defense and sporting uses are the only legitimate claims in defense of the 2nd amendment. However, I am steadfastly against major limitations being imposed on the 2nd amendment.

That being said. I would be amenable to tightening up gun laws and moving to a Swiss model of gun ownership. If I moved anywhere else in the world as far as culture, Switzerland is where I would go. A nice quiet land that is about as close to America as it gets.

I haven't read up on the Swiss model, but I am open to some forms of gun control, particularly as it applies to fully automatic assault weapons like the AR-15. I am skeptical of an objective form of psychological testing to determine a person's mental fitness to own a weapon. They would have to prove to me that it would not be based on some head shrinker's opinion.

[RiverDog]

What I would do:

Strict mental health and criminal background checks. Not just of the state of purchase, but nationwide checks for all gun sales. End sales at gun shows other than to dealers.

Agreed on the criminal background checks, although neither of the two suspects in this weekend's shootings had a criminal background. I am very skeptical of such a requirement having a significant effect on the types of mass shootings we've seen over the past 25 or so years. Agreed with your take on the gun show sales. But then again, would it have stopped any of these shooters?

As far as mental health checks go, as I said above, I am very skeptical of an objective means to make such an evaluation possible.

Training and licensing. Mandate gun safety courses and periodic proficiency training/checks for gun owners. It shouldn't be easier to buy and drive a car than to own a gun. That's not part of the 2nd.

Agreed 100%. But once again, will it stop these shootings?

Don't ban, but control assault weapons: treat them as the Thompson submachine gun was treated in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, which was enacted because of all of the blood spilled during the prohibition. It didn't outlaw Tommy guns as most think, rather it imposed a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of them and mandated their registration. The government for all intents and purposes knows where every Tommy gun in the US is and if you want to go buy one it'll cost you up to thirty grand to do so. Do the same with assault weapons, suppressors and magazines over 10 rounds.

I'm good with that suggestion, although it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they banned those types of weapons altogether.

I know there will be a lot of disagreement, but that's OK. This is just what I would do and am willing to support.

Actually you got more agreement out of me than you did disagreement. My biggest criticism, or rather counterpoint, is that IMO none of that is going to stop the shootings.

One thing that you didn't address was social media. Do you think that Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have an obligation to police the content on their sites? Or how about the graphic and all too real video games?

[c_hawkbob]

The Dayton shooter was suspended from school when he was 17 for having a 'hit list' of classmates he wanted to kill and a rape list of female classmates he wanted to rape.

I don't care what you call whichever background check that this red flag would pop up in: A criminal check would need to examine juvinile records as well and a mental health background check certainly would have said "hey! don't sell this psycho an assault rifle!"

That shooting at least was entirely preventable.

[Aseahawkfan]

For better or worse, we are a much different country unlike any other in the world. We cannot use Japan or England as an example of what would happen if we adapted their laws. They aren't as big geographically or population wise, not nearly as diverse, and don't have a 250 year history with firearms. Theirs is a completely different culture.

Australian had a long history of firearms ownership, they banned them. It can happen anywhere if certain philosophies start to dominate your society.

I don't agree with that rationalization. The government has any potential militia out gunned by at least 100 to 1. Militias don't have tanks, attack helicopters, etc. That portion of the right to keep and bear arms was inserted in the 18th century under the assumption that weaponry would remain static. IMO self defense and sporting uses are the only legitimate claims in defense of the 2nd amendment. However, I am steadfastly against major limitations being imposed on the 2nd amendment.

Why do you think so little of The Founders? Have you ever studied what constitutes governmental power? What you just admitted is that we are already under the sway of a benevolent tyrant with no means to counter them if they so chose to use that military force against us. Is that what you really believe? That a concerted civilian revolt of well-armed citizens exercising a strong will could not defeat an advanced military of 500,000 or so? Let's just say I very much disagree. The cost would be immense as any civil war or revolt is, but not impossible as you state even outgunned a 100 to 1 or even a 1000 to 1.

And why do you think the 2nd Amendment was created with the idea that weaponry would remain static when weaponry has never remained static? Do you think The Founders were unaware that weapons would continue to advance? You could not prove that in extended debate at all. The Founders were quite aware that weapons and technology would advance substantially. The Right To Bear Arms has more to do with the clear historical precedent that a disarmed populace was one without real power. They had watched the control of arms in Europe throughout their history whether it was the military class serving the nobility restricting arms ownership of the older eras or the modern restriction of arms in various places within the various colonies of the empire to ensure easier military control of populations. Where do you think the Founders come from? Some nations with static weaponry? They watched weaponry change in their lifetime and knew well the history of weapons. European advances in weaponry allowed them to dominate the world. How are you going to make a statement so clearly out of touch with the Founders experience?

You use the common excuse of the anti-gun crowd assuming a civilian revolt would lose. That is not anymore true here than it is in places like Vietnam or Afghanistan where a civilian population armed with rifles and pistols was able to outlast one of the most powerful militaries in the World to claim their freedom. Afghanistan even fought off Russia at their peak. A well-armed civilian population can fight an advanced military making the cost of tyranny far too high.

Let's just say the evidence to support your conclusion is not there. Your assumptions are historically and factually false. If I thought for a second the 2nd Amendment was there to protect recreational or sport uses of firearms, I'd be first in line pushing for it to be changed. Fortunately, I've read extensively on government and the 2nd Amendment and it is quite clearly in the Constitution as a right of violent revolution. That is the more important right to preserve. Hunting and recreation are leisure time activities and you think the Constitution would include an amendment for that reason. Ridiculous.

I haven't read up on the Swiss model, but I am open to some forms of gun control, particularly as it applies to fully automatic assault weapons like the AR-15. I am skeptical of an objective form of psychological testing to determine a person's mental fitness to own a weapon. They would have to prove to me that it would not be based on some head shrinker's opinion.

Any mental testing would likely lead down a rabbit hole we may not want to go down.

Give Switzerland gun laws and culture a read. They are probably closest to us, though not right on the mark.

[Aseahawkfan]

Strict mental health and criminal background checks. Not just of the state of purchase, but nationwide checks for all gun sales. End sales at gun shows other than to dealers.

I'd be ok with this.

Training and licensing. Mandate gun safety courses and periodic proficiency training/checks for gun owners. It shouldn't be easier to buy and drive a car than to own a gun. That's not part of the 2nd.

I'm ok with this as well.

Don't ban, but control assault weapons: treat them as the Thompson submachine gun was treated in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, which was enacted because of all of the blood spilled during the prohibition. It didn't outlaw Tommy guns as most think, rather it imposed a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of them and mandated their registration. The government for all intents and purposes knows where every Tommy gun in the US is and if you want to go buy one it'll cost you up to thirty grand to do so. Do the same with assault weapons, suppressors and magazines over 10 rounds.

Not sure I like the cost of this as it restricts weapons to wealthier folks. I'd rather have compulsory military service be required if you want to own an assault weapon. Or some kind of extensive service to nation. The 2nd Amendment is there for citizen soldiers. Maybe it should be confined to those who prove they are willing to be citizen soldiers by volunteering in the military.

As long as the Second Amendment's intended purpose is served, I will support some regulation. I'm not Mr. Wild West if we can't own guns without limit our freedom is gone. The 2nd Amendment isn't for recreation and sport. It's there so a free citizen can defend themselves from tyranny foreign or domestic, whether against a local criminal, foreign invader, or our government entities. That is what I support.

I don't even like modern hunting unless it's bow hunting or maybe a single or low capacity rifle without a scope. It's not even sporting nowadays given most folks hunt with a high-powered rifle, high-powered scope using technology to track some animal wandering in the wild. It's more like mobile shooting practice where you happen get some meat you don't even really need. Killing elephants, rhinos, and other endangered species is just sickening.

[RiverDog]

You use the common excuse of the anti-gun crowd assuming a civilian revolt would lose. That is not anymore true here than it is in places like Vietnam or Afghanistan where a civilian population armed with rifles and pistols was able to outlast one of the most powerful militaries in the World to claim their freedom. Afghanistan even fought off Russia at their peak. A well-armed civilian population can fight an advanced military making the cost of tyranny far too high.

The Afghan rebels were heavily supplied with military equipment by the United States. Specifically, the shoulder fired Stinger missile took out countless numbers of Soviet helicopters and gun ships. The CIA was heavily involved in training and support of the rebels. Same deal in Vietnam. It was equipment supplied by the Soviet Union that enabled the NVA and Viet Cong. It's the only way a US militia could have a snowball's chance in hell of going up against our own armed forces, ie intervention by a foreign government.

I haven't read up on the Swiss model, but I am open to some forms of gun control, particularly as it applies to fully automatic assault weapons like the AR-15. I am skeptical of an objective form of psychological testing to determine a person's mental fitness to own a weapon. They would have to prove to me that it would not be based on some head shrinker's opinion.

Any mental testing would likely lead down a rabbit hole we may not want to go down. Give Switzerland gun laws and culture a read. They are probably closest to us, though not right on the mark.

Perhaps science has some answers, maybe a chemical analysis of brain chemicals or something. Otherwise, you're setting up shrinks to be some sort of a God. Besides, you're punishing a person for something you think they might do. It's like a thought police.

For now, I'd be content to make an aggressive, covert attack on white supremist groups, similar to what we did to the mafia and the war we waged on organized crime. I honestly don't think any new laws will change anything other than to drive the gun culture underground like we did with alcohol during prohibition.

Any suggested readings for the Swiss gun laws/cultures?

[RiverDog]

The Dayton shooter was suspended from school when he was 17 for having a 'hit list' of classmates he wanted to kill and a rape list of female classmates he wanted to rape.

I don't care what you call whichever background check that this red flag would pop up in: A criminal check would need to examine juvinile records as well and a mental health background check certainly would have said "hey! don't sell this psycho an assault rifle!"

That shooting at least was entirely preventable.

A lot of people write stupid sh!t like that, especially when they are 17 years old. The suspect is now 24. So you're going to tell me that if you write something stupid when you are a juvenile that you will have your rights compromised for at least 7 years? How workable is that?

You're going to have to come up with multiple, verifiable studies showing a direct link between that type of adolescent behavior and an active shooter profile to get me to buy into that logic. I could be sold on something like increased monitoring of a person's activities over stuff like that, but nothing more. You're promoting a George Orwell 1984 thought police society, punishing people for what you think they might do.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Edit: The police say that they have no records showing a suspension of the suspect for having a hit list and school officials haven't confirmed or denied it. IMO we need to wait until all the facts are in before we pronounce this incident as preventable:

In reply to requests for records about the incident, the Sugarcreek Twp. Police Department and Greene County Juvenile Court clerk both provided the Dayton Daily News with a denial (of the suspension for the hit list), citing state law that addresses records expungement. Bellbrook police said they had no records related to the incident.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/frien ... nVjd?pfr=1

[Hawktawk]

Then of course the monotone TelePrompTer delivery by trump condemning racism and white supremacy . Does anyone believe a word out of his mouth anymore? As for mental health evaluations and far stricter background checks, escalating requirements and licenses for assault weapons I’m all for it.

[RiverDog]

Then of course the monotone TelePrompTer delivery by trump condemning racism and white supremacy . Does anyone believe a word out of his mouth anymore?

I read an article that speculated that Trump never bothers to review his speeches and just goes on camera and reads what ever comes across the teleprompter and that one of his staff made the mistake of putting in "Toledo" instead of "Dayton" and Trump didn't catch it. That's certainly believable as it fits a pattern of Trump's being lazy and just winging it, but I have a hard time believing that a presumably young and relatively talented staffer would unintentionally make a mistake like that. Based on Trump's previous gaffs, it's more believable that he that made the boo-boo.

As to whether or not I believe him when he condemns racism and white supremacy, I'm glad that he's finally come out and distance himself from it, but as many times as he's done a complete flip flop from one day to the next, I'll wait awhile before I'll believe him. As was mentioned in the above paragraph, Trump doesn't write those speeches himself and many times disagrees with them while he's reading the teleprompter.

[c_hawkbob]

The Dayton shooter was suspended from school when he was 17 for having a 'hit list' of classmates he wanted to kill and a rape list of female classmates he wanted to rape.

I don't care what you call whichever background check that this red flag would pop up in: A criminal check would need to examine juvinile records as well and a mental health background check certainly would have said "hey! don't sell this psycho an assault rifle!"

That shooting at least was entirely preventable.

A lot of people write stupid sh!t like that, especially when they are 17 years old. The suspect is now 24. So you're going to tell me that if you write something stupid when you are a juvenile that you will have your rights compromised for at least 7 years? How workable is that?

You're going to have to come up with multiple, verifiable studies showing a direct link between that type of adolescent behavior and an active shooter profile to get me to buy into that logic. I could be sold on something like increased monitoring of a person's activities over stuff like that, but nothing more. You're promoting a George Orwell 1984 thought police society, punishing people for what you think they might do.

First, it's not punishing them for what we think they might do, it's protecting the public from what they've indicated they could do! It's not like you're preventing him from getting a job or buying food.

And I don't know anyone that would write a list like that on the bathroom wall at school (or whatever the detail was), and if I did I sure wouldn't want to put a weapon of mass murder in his hand! If you're stupid enough to do that when you're 17 it's on you to prove your worthiness of gun ownership. When it comes to public safety you err on the side of the public not the individual. If someone said they wanted to rape babies when they were 15 I'd call that all the reason I'd ever need not to let that guy work at a day care.

As far as developing details of this particular case, fine, we'll let them develop, but that doesn't effect my opinion on it even if only as a hypothetical.

[RiverDog]

First, it's not punishing them for what we think they might do, it's protecting the public from what they've indicated they could do! It's not like you're preventing him from getting a job or buying food.

And I don't know anyone that would write a list like that on the bathroom wall at school (or whatever the detail was), and if I did I sure wouldn't want to put a weapon of mass murder in his hand! If you're stupid enough to do that when you're 17 it's on you to prove your worthiness of gun ownership. When it comes to public safety you err on the side of the public not the individual. If someone said they wanted to rape babies when they were 15 I'd call that all the reason I'd ever need not to let that guy work at a day care.

As far as developing details of this particular case, fine, we'll let them develop, but that doesn't effect my opinion on it even if only as a hypothetical.

OK, you could probably talk me into restricting or at least making the offender jump through a few more hoops, but do you really think that the courts would allow a person that wrote that sh!t as a 17 year old and with no criminal background to be prohibited from making otherwise legal purchases for 7 years as was the case in the Dayton shooter?

I'm completely willing to discuss hypothetical situations, but the reason I mentioned that we should wait before jumping to conclusions is that you said the Dayton shooting was "completely preventable." IMO we do not have near enough facts to come to that kind of conclusion.

[c_hawkbob]

I'd enact the legislation and let the courts rule on any challenges, at least then I've done what I can do. Besides, I don't think it'd have such a poor outlook in court as you might.

[RiverDog]

I'd enact the legislation and let the courts rule on any challenges, at least then I've done what I can do. Besides, I don't think it'd have such a poor outlook in court as you might.

So how long would you prevent a person that wrote those kinds of things as a minor to be subject to those kinds of restrictions? The statute of limitations for most felony crimes in a number of states can be as little as 3 years. Here's Washington's:

Felonies: 10 years for rape (if reported within 1 year of commission), arson or misconduct in office; 6 years for criminal profiteering or organized crime leadership; 5 years for Class C felonies; 3 years for lesser felonies; no statute of limitations for murder, arson causing death or any type of vehicular incident resulting in death; If a child under 14 is the victim of rape, the statutory period can extend until 3 years after the victim’s 18th birthday even if the 10-year statutory period has passed.
Misdemeanors: 2 years for gross misdemeanors; 1 year for other misdemeanors

Code Section: 9A.04.080


I can see forcing the kid to go through some type of counseling or attend some classes in order to have his rights fully restored, but I can't see the legality of legislation extending 7+ years for something that isn't even a crime as was the case in Dayton shooter.

[c_hawkbob]

We’re not talking about a conviction, we’re talking about background checks for suitability for gun ownership. I don’t think you’r statute applies. Besides, it doesn’t effect my response.

[idhawkman]

Speaking of praying for the victims, here's some reassuring words from our POTUS:

Trump said one of the shootings happened in Toledo, Ohio, rather than Dayton. The cities are about134 miles apart.

"If we are able to pass great legislation after all of these years, we will ensure that those who were attacked will not have died in vain. May God bless the memory of those who died in Toledo. May God protect them," Trump said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 920763001/

Is this failure to get the city in Ohio right due to:

A. Dementia
B. Stupidity
C. Head up ass
D. All of the above

If the topic wasn't so tragic, it would make a great skit for SNL as is. Alec Baldwin couldn't do a thing to improve on it.

Wow! I guess he can't make a mistake in your book.

[idhawkman]

Waiting for IDhawkan, the human Trump excuse machine, to provide his favorite president with protection from your criticism Riverdog.

Calling Idhawkman, calling Idhawkman, Trump has been criticized for his stupidity. Please provide your most appropriate excuse as soon as possible.

I did. I listened to the statement when he made it and didn't really catch it because I knew what he meant. River on the other hand didn't listen to the message at all, he just looked for something to criticize. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for River to have this much hate in him and as I've pointed out in the past, it must suck to go through life living like Peg did.

[idhawkman]

We can't stop it even if we gave up important rights, at least not right away. There's just too many weapons already in circulation for any legislation to have a significant effect.

Naturally I'm going to disagree with this. Through gun registration, The Govt. knows where most of those guns are and can come confiscate them whenever they want. They'll first start with a "volutary buy back" ruse before moving to more serious actions though.

That doesn't mean I'm against all types of gun control. For example, I can be talked into legislation that would try to prevent mentally ill people from acquiring assault weapons, but who determines who is mentally ill? And I'm for putting pressure on some of these social media giants to monitor their platforms and prevent the distribution of some of this sick, macabre crap that's being posted.

But we shouldn't fool ourselves. It's not going to stop it and it's going to happen again. Every 6-12 months, there's going to be a mass shooting. The fact is that you have roughly the same chance of getting killed by a mass shooter as you do getting killed by a lightning strike.

Agree with this. I heard a stat this morning that Obama had 24 mass shootings under his terms which was a 300% increase over the 3 previous administrations combinded. These do seem to be getting more and more common and I'm wondering if any of it is due to the media's exploitation of the issues. For instance there were 3 mass shootings over the weekend (4 if you count the garlic festival in California earlier in the week). Can anyone name the last one though? We all know about the El Paso one which is being linked to Trump but we hear very little about the Dayton one after that guy was linked to Pocahontas and global warming. Does anyone know about the last one over the weekend though? You have to ask yourself why not? Where's its coverage?

What I would like to see happen is a full court press of some of these hate groups, which would require support from the POTUS. I'd also like to see pols make a pact amongst each other not to comment about these types of events for at least a week. They're nothing more than a pack of glorified ambulance chasers attempting to prey on people's emotions in order to make some political hay.

Interesting because the statement that Trump made was exactly the support you are talking about when he encouraged Dems and Repubs to get together to come up with ideas about how to stop this but you only heard him say Toledo. He didn't point fingers at anyone, he didn't try to justify the acts in anyway either.

What has soured the environment for working together is the likes of Congressman Ryan's and Betoe's comments shooting blame and Pocahontas doing fund raisers off the tragedies. Their actions (Trump's and the dems) show who wants a solution and who wants the issue in my opinion.

[idhawkman]

I don't agree with that rationalization. The government has any potential militia out gunned by at least 100 to 1. Militias don't have tanks, attack helicopters, etc. That portion of the right to keep and bear arms was inserted in the 18th century under the assumption that weaponry would remain static. IMO self defense and sporting uses are the only legitimate claims in defense of the 2nd amendment. However, I am steadfastly against major limitations being imposed on the 2nd amendment.

You're right, militias don't have tanks or planes or rockets or ______ (fill in the blank). What the militia does have though is numbers. The military is less than 1 million people in a country with around 350 million residents. "IF" there was a militia revolt, there's a couple things you need to consider.

1. Not all of the military will want to fire on their family and neighbors and might join the militia depending on the reason for the Military being turned on the populace.

2. In the beginning the militia will suffer heavy losses due to being out armed in every aspect and lack of guerilla skills and tactics.

3. At some point the militia would gain the captured weaponry of the Military and start to turn those bigger arms on the government

That all said, this would be a very very costly scenario that I don't support but can invision if people are pushed too far. The bigger problem would be the disarmament of the militia once the original fighting was over. In other words, there would be factions of the militia that would want to take control of governing and those factions would eventually devolve into fighting each other. There would be no "winners" for decades and from the ashes may be borne a worse nation that would have no means and no population left to rebuild.

My bottom line though is that you shouldn't under estimate the will and might of a large not so well armed militia.

[RiverDog]

We’re not talking about a conviction, we’re talking about background checks for suitability for gun ownership. I don’t think you’r statute applies. Besides, it doesn’t effect my response.

I wasn't talking about convictions, either. The statute of limitations I was referring to was the amount of time one is subject to prosecution for an alleged crime.

My point was that if the government can't prosecute a felony crime after 7 years have elapsed, it's very problematic to think that they'd be able to place restrictions on otherwise legal purchases based on some writing on a bathroom wall as a juvenile that would last equally or longer than those statutes.

The other thing would be establishing a criteria for psychiatric evaluations. It would have to be something objective in order to maintain some form of consistency from one doctor or clinic to another. It's not like alcohol or drugs where you can confirm abstinence by testing.

We do need to have these conversations, though. Sort of like brainstorming.

[idhawkman]

The Dayton shooter was suspended from school when he was 17 for having a 'hit list' of classmates he wanted to kill and a rape list of female classmates he wanted to rape.

I don't care what you call whichever background check that this red flag would pop up in: A criminal check would need to examine juvinile records as well and a mental health background check certainly would have said "hey! don't sell this psycho an assault rifle!"

That shooting at least was entirely preventable.

This is exactly why the dems and repubs HAVE TO quit infighting and start solving the issues.

1. He was a minor and take away the rights of minors is a serious thing that needs to be thoroughly worked out. I'm not against it as we charge some teens as adults but where does it stop? What is allowed to be sealed in your juvenile past and what is not? These are serious questions that can only be resolved through open honest debate and not through the media with sound bites. There has to be a trust between these folks to resolve this.

2. HIPPA laws need to be thoroughly worked out, too. What is going to be kept confidential and what is not? Who is going to be responsible for the information disclosed on the mental health checks and to River's point, who is making the determination of who is mentally stable and who isn't? If you ask progressives, you are mentally challenged just for wanting to buy a gun. Does the gun seller get a reason as to why your purchase of his gun was denied?

I will say it again but with little hope it will actually happen, the two sides have to stop squabbling and sit down together and work through this logically and get to a common ground.

Finally, I would add that most of the time, laws that are in place are not followed which leads to these incidents. In these two cases, there were no laws that would have prevented the shootings but "IF" the two sides sit down and actually start to work together, they have to consider the laws that are out there and ask if they are relevant, can they be properly implemented and if not, how to better implement them.

[RiverDog]

Wow! I guess he can't make a mistake in your book.

It was more than just some garden variety mistake like Reagan saying "millions" of dollars instead of "billions." It's more like John Belushi's "Bluto" giving a speech saying that the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor.

It would be different if it was a one time flub. How many weeks ago was it that he was recalling the capture of 18th century airports during the Revolutionary War?

DJT is one of two things: He's either senile and significantly affected by dementia, which would make him unfit for office, or he's an ignoramus. Take your pick.

[idhawkman]

The sad reality of all of this is that the two sides won't stop nit picking at each other long enough to actually get something done for the American people. Very sad.

[idhawkman]

It was more than just some garden variety mistake like Reagan saying "millions" of dollars instead of "billions." It's more like John Belushi's "Bluto" giving a speech saying that the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor.

It would be different if it was a one time flub. How many weeks ago was it that he was recalling the capture of 18th century airports during the Revolutionary War?

DJT is one of two things: He's either senile and significantly affected by dementia, which would make him unfit for office, or he's an ignoramus. Take your pick.

Actually option 3, it was a mistake. You couldn't possibly know how hard it is to do what he's doing with as many issues world wide going on and you nit pick him for 2 verbal mistakes that make no significant impact on what he's talking about. You must see boogie men behind every corner in your life especially when it concerns Trump. Its okay though, in 5 and 1/2 years, you'll be able to relax again.

[RiverDog]

Actually option 3, it was a mistake.

We know it was a mistake. The question is why did he make it?

Back to your original two options: Senile or ignoramus.

[RiverDog]

One thing that I think we can all agree on is that the police in Dayton that responded to the shooting demonstrated some of the most heroic and finest example of exemplary law enforcement work we've ever witnessed.

6 policemen, 5 with less than 3 years experience, responded to the shooting by running INTO the gunfire even though they were out gunned and under protected. They took out that POS in under 30 seconds with no collateral injuries and without a doubt saved dozens of lives. Sometimes actions like those get lost in all our debates as to how to resolve these problems.

[idhawkman]

We know it was a mistake. The question is why did he make it?

Back to your original two options: Senile or ignoramus.

Option three again. Something else on his mind. Prove me wrong.