OT: Gabe Kapler

[fsg2_rivals]

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I see no value whatsoever in this legislation.

Something like 99.999999999% of people out there, gun lovers and gun haters alike, are never going to commit a mass murder. When 0.000000001% do, it can be horrifying. But trying to apply a rule to the 99.999999% who aren't doing anything wrong in order to "fix" the problem with the 0.00000001% makes no kind of sense whatsoever. If we used that logic for everything, we'd all be ensconced in plastic bubbles our entire lives and given electric shocks when we try to leave our homes.

And banning something that was invented to prevent one from being easily shot because a bunch of people just got shot? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

So even you, a fairly creative guy, doesn't want to touch the question of wtf the gen public would ever use body armor for. That last bit is pure cop-out. Should all schoolchildren and anyone going into public wear body armor now because that's what you've implied.

And the reason for that restriction wasn't at all what you said. It was because the actual shooter was the one wearing it, making him more difficult to stop. I just don't see how, in a normal everyday situation, body armor will help the innocent, law-abiding citizen over the criminal. And apparently, you don't either because it's the only part of my post you didn't respond to.

And since armor is not part of the second amendment by any definition, ban away.

 

[Kodiak Bear]

I'd probably make it 16 which is when kids start drinking anyway.

Wanna be really safe, why not ban driving altogether at any age? Ban alcohol. Hell, let's ban leaving our homes for any reason. Statistically speaking, there would be a nearly 100% drop in automobile deaths and DWI and deadly accidents and public shootings and all kinds of stuff.

Ban life. That way we can all live safely forever.

Can you picture yourself saying that to a parent who just lost an elementary school kid?

 

[MADHAT1]

I don't think drugs should be illegal and I think the drinking age should be 18 or even 16.

The current SCOTUS will never permit a national ban on semiautomatic weapons. And there's a very good chance any state or city ban would be overturned. So any discussion along those lines is purely academic.

But I'll say it again. Before asking all the folks out there, who do not shoot up any schools or anybody else, to give up their guns, first get the millions upon millions of illegal guns out of the hands of the criminals that own them. Otherwise, it's just a very dumb idea because all it can do is prevent something that isn't happening from happening. Law abiding people are not the problem. Taking guns away from people who commit no crimes with them prevents no crimes.

taking guns away from everyone isn't the answer , making it harder for those who can legally purchase a weapon, but really shouldn't be able to, because of cracks in the law is trhe answer.
To often the cry is : "they want to take our guns away" is wrong when the only change will be those who shouldn't possess a weapon won't be able to legally obtain one because the cracks that had allow them to buy have changed and now they can't unless the prove worthy .like an ex-felon who has his/her rights restored.
Longer background check time so people that shouldn't own a gun don't fall though the cracks in the law because of rushing the check to fit a small time frame to check isn't taking the right to buy a gun away, just taking sure one has that legal right.
Being inconvenienced isn't the same as being denied, yet some will try to make others think that it is.

Weapons and clips that are mass murder helpers are the exception, restrictive buying rules should apply, so there's your " they want my guns cry being a valid one.
That cry shouldn't top :" I want my child to go to school and come home safely" plea .
Especially because there isn't a ban being placed on sales, just sale of them will be restricted to stricter qualification for those who can purchase them from most of the other type of guns on market
So there's no taking guns away, just some gun purchases will be a little more inconvenient

 

[Kodiak Bear]

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I see no value whatsoever in this legislation.

Something like 99.999999999% of people out there, gun lovers and gun haters alike, are never going to commit a mass murder. When 0.000000001% do, it can be horrifying. But trying to apply a rule to the 99.999999% who aren't doing anything wrong in order to "fix" the problem with the 0.00000001% makes no kind of sense whatsoever. If we used that logic for everything, we'd all be ensconced in plastic bubbles our entire lives and given electric shocks when we try to leave our homes.

And banning something that was invented to prevent one from being easily shot because a bunch of people just got shot? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. It would actually make more sense to give the kids in schools body armor to put on during a lockdown. It'd still be a stupid overreaction, but less ridiculously ineffectual. Doors that can be secured and withstand automatic weapons fire would be much more sensible.

Exce

Talking about other nations is pointless and even disingenuous. Those other nations are not the United States, do not have the same cultural issues as the United States, nor the same massive illegal gun issues as the United States. And when it comes to mass shootings, the evidence right here at home strongly suggests that solutions that may have worked elsewhere will not work the same way here. Not when a state like WV, with it's extremely permissive gun laws has so few mass-shootings, and a state like CA with the most restrictive gun laws in the country ranks has so many.

Gun laws can work to limit ordinary gun violence. But they cannot and do not help when it comes to mass shootings. And gun laws would work a whole lot better if they were actually enforced, which time after time in most cases of criminal activity, it's a failure of enforcement. We don't need evidence from anywhere but our own country to see that.

No amount of police training can eliminate the threat of criminals with guns. Because in most parts of the country, the police are much too far away at the moment they're needed. It's a simple time and space problem. The police cannot be everywhere all at once. Every bit of violence, committed by criminals, and every mass shooting is unbelievably obvious evidence of one absolutely unarguable truth: the police, the government, cannot protect us from criminals 24/7 everywhere.

Which leaves good guys with guns to protect themselves. So go ahead, try to demonize away the acts of good people in defending themselves and others. Go ahead and point out that it's imperfect (because perfection is so common with everything else humans do).

But ultimately, while you are free to choose to not take steps to protect yourself from violence, you are not free to choose for the rest of us. Wanna ban criminals from having guns (which is pretty much already banned everywhere), then feel free. I'm right there with you on that. Wanna ban guns from innocent law abiding people seeking to protect themselves from criminals?

Ain't gonna happen. Get the illegal guns from the criminals first. Then we can talk about the rest.

why do you think we have a “massive illegal gun issues”? Illegal guns start as legal ones. People aren’t making them in the basement.

 

[RUschool]

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I see no value whatsoever in this legislation.

Something like 99.999999999% of people out there, gun lovers and gun haters alike, are never going to commit a mass murder. When 0.000000001% do, it can be horrifying. But trying to apply a rule to the 99.999999% who aren't doing anything wrong in order to "fix" the problem with the 0.00000001% makes no kind of sense whatsoever. If we used that logic for everything, we'd all be ensconced in plastic bubbles our entire lives and given electric shocks when we try to leave our homes.

And banning something that was invented to prevent one from being easily shot because a bunch of people just got shot? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. It would actually make more sense to give the kids in schools body armor to put on during a lockdown. It'd still be a stupid overreaction, but less ridiculously ineffectual. Doors that can be secured and withstand automatic weapons fire would be much more sensible.

You are in the small minority. Most people think this may reduce gun violence. It’s not affecting 99% of gun users.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Since the government is an impotent puppet of big industry, I want to see more tech proposals like this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...n-guns-drones-stop-school-shootings-rcna31723

If the gun industry/lobby wasn't such a POS, it would be hard at work on its own proposals. Just like the auto industry.

 

[mildone_rivals]

So even you, a fairly creative guy, doesn't want to touch the question of wtf the gen public would ever use body armor for. That last bit is pure cop-out. Should all schoolchildren and anyone going into public wear body armor now because that's what you've implied.

And the reason for that restriction wasn't at all what you said. It was because the actual shooter was the one wearing it, making him more difficult to stop. I just don't see how, in a normal everyday situation, body armor will help the innocent, law-abiding citizen over the criminal. And apparently, you don't either because it's the only part of my post you didn't respond to.

And since armor is not part of the second amendment by any definition, ban away.

I didn’t imply that people ought to wear body armor in public. I made an intentionally very ridiculous fake suggestion, the ridiculousness of which is greatly exceded by the even more ridiculous body armor ban. My ridiculous suggestion has the added benfit of having potential to work to protect kids to some small degree. Whereas the body armor ban will very obviously do absolutely nothing to prevent even a single school shooting. One doesn’t need to wear body armor to shoot a kid.

I am not actually suggesting that anybody, outside of folks told to do so by their security people, wear body armor.

Earlier in the thread, you ranted about how car manufacturers spend billions on protecting their car’s occupants. I didn’t understand the point of the rant, but whatever. Now, all of a sudden, you’re championing the ban of body armor, which was designed to protect it’s occupants just like cars, because it’s not protected by the constitution?

You understand that people in this and other countries use cars as weapons, right? But nobody uses body armor as a weapon. It‘s used to protect lives.

Let’s try to be at least a little self-consistent here.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

I didn’t imply that people ought to wear body armor in public. I made an intentionally very ridiculous fake suggestion, the ridiculousness of which is greatly exceded by the even more ridiculous body armor ban. My ridiculous suggestion has the added benfit of having potential to work to protect kids to some small degree. Whereas the body armor ban will very obviously do absolutely nothing to prevent even a single school shooting. One doesn’t need to wear body armor to shoot a kid.

I am not actually suggesting that anybody, outside of folks told to do so by their security people, wear body armor.

Earlier in the thread, you ranted about how car manufacturers spend billions on protecting their car’s occupants. I didn’t understand the point of the rant, but whatever. Now, all of a sudden, you’re championing the ban of body armor, which was designed to protect it’s occupants just like cars, because it’s not protected by the constitution?

You understand that people in this and other countries use cars as weapons, right? But nobody uses body armor as a weapon. It‘s used to protect lives.

Let’s try to be at least a little self-consistent here.

You didn't understand autonomous cars? Or how they could ultimately prevent the type of truck incidents you're so concerned about?

You really are forgetful. We've only been talking about that topic for years, including in a 100-page thread that you particpate in on a near-daily basis. Didn't think I needed to spell it out for a self-defined car guy the way I would for one of the other lunkheads that uses the "but cars kill too!!!!" deflection, but now I know.


Body armor is not that. I'll assume that's just an "intentionally very ridiculous fake" analogy.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Can you picture yourself saying that to a parent who just lost an elementary school kid?

Would you tell the parents of the kids at the birthday party in WV who, several days ago, were saved from a mass shooter by a civilian woman with her legal handgun that you wish their kids had died instead of the woman having the right to bear arms?

The extremely understandable emotions of a parent who has lost a child cannot dictate our laws. If it did, then the law of the land would surely be “an eye for an eye” as parents of children harmed by others, even by accident, are often desirous of killing the person who committed the harm.

There is an excellent reason why our system of justice gives attorneys the ability to excuse jurors in cases where some bias may exist.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn’t tell it to a parent who just lost a child in TX or elsewhere. I would, however, argue all of it in court, or before a senates committee. Where laws are debated.

If one of my kids were shot by a mass shooter, I’d want to kill the shooter for sure. I still would not want to see feel-good useless legislation enacted that won’t do anything to protect my remaining children.

And I am all for sensible and effective gun laws. Start with getting all the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Exce

why do you think we have a “massive illegal gun issues”? Illegal guns start as legal ones. People aren’t making them in the basement.

Actually, people are indeed making guns in their basements and it’s a serious problem being confronted by the FBI and ATF and homeland security.

Also, there are lots of sources for illegal guns; not all start their lives in this country as legal guns. Check the FBI website, there is lots of information there about all this.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Would you tell the parents of the kids at the birthday party in WV who, several days ago, were saved from a mass shooter by a civilian woman with her legal handgun that you wish their kids had died instead of the woman having the right to bear arms?

The extremely understandable emotions of a parent who has lost a child cannot dictate our laws. If it did, then the law of the land would surely be “an eye for an eye” as parents of children harmed by others, even by accident, are often desirous of killing the person who committed the harm.

There is an excellent reason why our system of justice gives attorneys the ability to excuse jurors in cases where some bias may exist.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn’t tell it to a parent who just lost a child in TX or elsewhere. I would, however, argue all of it in court, or before a senates committee. Where laws are debated.

If one of my kids were shot by a mass shooter, I’d want to kill the shooter for sure. I still would not want to see feel-good useless legislation enacted that won’t do anything to protect my remaining children.

And I am all for sensible and effective gun laws. Start with getting all the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

Your exaggerated examples are getting worse.

I'd 1000 percent tell those parents that we're looking to place restrictions on the type of gun that was being pointed at their children by a crazed gunman, while not taking away legal handguns.

Think they'd be mad?

 

[Kodiak Bear]

Message boards are so dumb.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Your exaggerated examples are getting worse.

I'd 1000 percent tell those parents that we're looking to place restrictions on the type of gun that was being pointed at their children by a crazed gunman, while not taking away legal handguns.

Think they'd be mad?

And the parents, if they are well informed, would laugh at you and try, but probably fail as I've done, to inform you that WV already has laws in place to prevent the person who fired at their kids from having ANY firearms of ANY kind, as well as ANY ammunition of ANY kind. And that they're damn glad that the woman had her handgun and that they just wish they had their AR-15 style weapon with it's 30 rounds to return fire at the convicted felon firing at their kids, along with the woman and her handgun.

They'd tell you that it was a failure of enforcement that allowed a convicted felon to gain possession of any gun at all with any ammo at all. They might also tell you that you can make a billion new laws but if you enforce them as well as the existing laws, then what the hell is the point?

Most likely, the conversation would end at that point.

But if they were like me, and wanted to keep trying to get people to pay attention to stuff that actually might help, they might agree that better, deeper background checks and tighter controls (i.e. closing any weapon transfer loopholes that might've resulted in the convicted felon obtaining a firearm) on the sale of all guns is not an unreasonable ask.

But mostly, I'm pretty sure you'd have stopped listening because you keep not wanting to get it.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

And the parents, if they are well informed, would laugh at you and try, but probably fail as I've done, to inform you that WV already has laws in place to prevent the person who fired at their kids from having ANY firearms of ANY kind, as well as ANY ammunition of ANY kind. And that they're damn glad that the woman had her handgun and that they just wish they had their AR-15 style weapon with it's 30 rounds to return fire at the convicted felon firing at their kids, along with the woman and her handgun.

They'd tell you that it was a failure of enforcement that allowed a convicted felon to gain possession of any gun at all with any ammo at all. They might also tell you that you can make a billion new laws but if you enforce them as well as the existing laws, then what the hell is the point?

Most likely, the conversation would end at that point.

But if they were like me, and wanted to keep trying to get people to pay attention to stuff that actually might help, they might agree that better, deeper background checks and tighter controls (i.e. closing any weapon transfer loopholes that might've resulted in the convicted felon obtaining a firearm) on the sale of all guns is not an unreasonable ask.

But mostly, I'm pretty sure you'd have stopped listening because you keep not wanting to get it.

The gun zealots among them might. But nothing about what you describe is a normal human, let alone parental postraumatic, reaction.

 

[mildone_rivals]

You are in the small minority. Most people think this may reduce gun violence. It’s not affecting 99% of gun users.

I care far more about preventing children from being killed than I do about the popularity of my position. Banning body armor is pandering to the public based on the very popularity of the concept.

"Hey look at these poll results! I'll get reelected easily if I just vote for this obviously totally pointless legislation thus deflecting away from anything that actually might help but would cost me votes. Woo hoo! Thanks uninformed and unthinking electorate who keep voting for me. Love ya!"

If you want to sell me on the idea that banning body armor will prevent mass shootings, or even just explain how it had any impact on the police who took forever to even enter the building, please do so. Perhaps there's some logical connection I missed. But telling me what's popular is almost never going to sway my thinking or decision-making about much of anything.

Perhaps we should list out all the things we now believe totally suck but were, at least at one time, supported by a majority of people? You know, just to do a quick review of how valuable majority opinion is, historically speaking.

 

[RUschool]

I care far more about preventing children from being killed than I do about the popularity of my position. Banning body armor is pandering to the public based on the very popularity of the concept.

"Hey look at these poll results! I'll get reelected easily if I just vote for this obviously totally pointless legislation thus deflecting away from anything that actually might help but would cost me votes. Woo hoo! Thanks uninformed and unthinking electorate who keep voting for me. Love ya!"

If you want to sell me on the idea that banning body armor will prevent mass shootings, or even just explain how it had any impact on the police who took forever to even enter the building, please do so. Perhaps there's some logical connection I missed. But telling me what's popular is almost never going to sway my thinking or decision-making about much of anything.

Perhaps we should list out all the things we now believe totally suck but were, at least at one time, supported by a majority of people? You know, just to do a quick review of how valuable majority opinion is, historically speaking.

Well, you’re wrong. You haven’t provided anything to stop the killings. Take the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. That’s what they are trying to do for the last 20 years. You haven’t proposed anything they haven’t already tried. Raising the age requirement for rifles will make a different.

Banning the armour might not be the greatest idea, maybe they should track who purchases the armour and the age and compare to other database.

You tend to repeat the same points but please put it in simple terms what you want to implement. I still don’t know what actual steps you want or any laws you want. Most people aren’t reading your entire comment because of your rant. General ideas like getting Illegal guns out of circulation is what the police have been doing forever.

getting help for mentally unstable students. Texas already Has a program since 2019 but hadn't reach Uvalde.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/02/uvalde-lacked-texas-program-to-weed-out-potential-school-shooters/

 

[mildone_rivals]

Message boards are so dumb.

Should we ban message boards next?

 

[tom1944]

Attention does not equal meaningful changes in the law.

Funny that some here want mandatory jail time for those possessing an automatic weapon. But they also want cashless bail for violent criminals and a revolving door justice system for violent offenders.

The guns are not the main problem. It’s the people who are using them against our fellow citizens.

Did people here post they want cashless or no bail for violent offenders?

 

[Knightmoves]

Did people here post they want cashless or no bail for violent offenders?

This is happening in a number of cities. Someone must be in favor of it.

 

[RUschool]

This is happening in a number of cities. Someone must be in favor of it.

Not on this board.

 

[Knightmoves]

Not on this board.

Why don’t the Libs here talk about bail reform, DA’s and the court system? Silence is approval of what is happening in Dem cities.

 

[RUschool]

Why don’t the Libs here talk about bail reform, DA’s and the court system? Silence is approval of what is happening in Dem cities.

Mostly about mass school shooting

 

[MADHAT1]

Why don’t the Libs here talk about bail reform, DA’s and the court system? Silence is approval of what is happening in Dem cities.

maybe some you call libs don't like that bail reform , but I believe ( could be wrong) in NY the Judges still have the right to impose bail on those accused of violent crimes.
As for the extreme left liking no bail, that why there are not to be listened to by those who feel bail reform in some cases might have gone too far.
Just like some who call themselves conservatives lean in an extremely uncompromising way and believe any form of gun control is a violation of their rights and children being killed are considered ( in their hearts and not for publication) acceptable collateral damage if the right to buy an AR15s in not diminished.
This thread looks like that to me.

 

[jerseybird]

So even you, a fairly creative guy, doesn't want to touch the question of wtf the gen public would ever use body armor for. That last bit is pure cop-out. Should all schoolchildren and anyone going into public wear body armor now because that's what you've implied.

And the reason for that restriction wasn't at all what you said. It was because the actual shooter was the one wearing it, making him more difficult to stop. I just don't see how, in a normal everyday situation, body armor will help the innocent, law-abiding citizen over the criminal. And apparently, you don't either because it's the only part of my post you didn't respond to.

And since armor is not part of the second amendment by any definition, ban away.

I would have no problem wearing light body armor if I had to make deliveries or service calls in some
cities. If I had to travel with a large amount of money or expensive items, it would be wise to wear some protection. Those are legitimate reasons for using body armor.

 

[MADHAT1]

I would have no problem wearing light body armor if I had to make deliveries or service calls in some
cities. If I had to travel with a large amount of money or expensive items, it would be wise to wear some protection. Those are legitimate reasons for using body armor.

Just have it so people like you can buy body armor once a need for it is proven.
Travailing with large amounts of case would be a good reason, threats on life or protecting a threatened person would also be reasons for needing body armor.
Outright bans aren't a good idea in most situations, but restricting who can buy seems like a good idea.

 

[RUScrew85]

LOL. Like anyone in this thread matters.

I see that guy still has a typo in his name (2).

 

[tom1944]

Would you tell the parents of the kids at the birthday party in WV who, several days ago, were saved from a mass shooter by a civilian woman with her legal handgun that you wish their kids had died instead of the woman having the right to bear arms?

The extremely understandable emotions of a parent who has lost a child cannot dictate our laws. If it did, then the law of the land would surely be “an eye for an eye” as parents of children harmed by others, even by accident, are often desirous of killing the person who committed the harm.

There is an excellent reason why our system of justice gives attorneys the ability to excuse jurors in cases where some bias may exist.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn’t tell it to a parent who just lost a child in TX or elsewhere. I would, however, argue all of it in court, or before a senates committee. Where laws are debated.

If one of my kids were shot by a mass shooter, I’d want to kill the shooter for sure. I still would not want to see feel-good useless legislation enacted that won’t do anything to protect my remaining children.

And I am all for sensible and effective gun laws. Start with getting all the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

Are there proposals being made where the WV woman would not be able to bear arms?

 

[tom1944]

This is happening in a number of cities. Someone must be in favor of it.

Does that mean there are people being killed in mass shootings so someone must be in favor of it? Because it’s happening in a number of cities

 

[mildone_rivals]

Are there proposals being made where the WV woman would not be able to bear arms?

In this forum? Yes. People have suggested banning all semiautomatic weapons. There was one in this thread earlier today. And there were several in the prior thread that was moved to the CE board.

And confronting a convicted felon with an AR-15 (a semiautomatic w/30 round mags) using a revolver instead of, at a minimum, a semiautomatic handgun with at least a 19 round mag, is not realistically equipping people to protect themselves. I think we want to allow the good guys to have some hope of stopping the bad guys.

And of course there have been various ban proposals by politicians for years. Pandering because they know full well it's not going to happen legislatively and, for certain, judicially. It's just people getting out the vote, basically.

Most of this discussion is entirely academic because, regardless of how many people might talk about it, SCOTUS will never allow it. And pushing for it, forcing SCOTUS to rule on it, would likely open up challenges in states w/strict gun laws like NJ or CA where the challenges might wind up at the SCOTUS and some of the gun laws in such states as NJ and CA (which I personally think are helping w/ordinary gun violence) might be overturned.

I want to see some doable gun legislation changes as well as numerous other approaches to protecting our school children. But then stupid stuff like banning equipment meant to protect against being harmed by a gun happens. Because mostly nobody will get all that excited over it and certainly not excited enough to change their vote. And people go "yay" even though it's pretty much the opposite of helpful.

Why can't we talk about improving background checks? That's doable and could've prevented a number of mass shootings. Why can't we discuss how to convince states without built-in delays in obtaining guns to implement those delays? That could actually help, a little, with crimes of passion. Why can't we talk about holding parents of underage kids that commit crimes, using guns they obtain at home, legally liable as if the parents did the crime themselves? That might help some. And all this stuff has a hope of being enacted and upheld (maybe).

And why won't people talk about the single biggest problem we have with gun laws, which is enforcing the laws we already have. If gun laws worked, the law in WV prohibiting the sale/ownership of guns by convicted felons would've prevented the wanna-be mass-shooter from having and using a gun. And the woman w/her legal gun would never nave needed it.

I'll say it again: what's the point of making more laws when we can't even enforce the laws we already have. Fix enforcement of existing laws and get rid of the illegal guns first.

No gun ban, no magazine limit, no law at all anywhere would've prevented the felon in WV from obtaining the gun and shooting at a crowd of 40 people. Only better enforcement of their existing laws could've worked in advance. As it is now, the only thing that could stop him was someone else with a gun. And she did. Thankfully.

Instead we're banning body armor. Brilliant.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Did people here post they want cashless or no bail for violent offenders?

I think multiple conviction violent offenders (like rapists and murderers) should be given the death penalty. Screw bail of any kind. Maybe there was a mistake in one of the convictions, but more than one? Exceedingly unlikely.

 

[tom1944]

In this forum? Yes. People have suggested banning all semiautomatic weapons. There was one in this thread earlier today. And there were several in the prior thread that was moved to the CE board.

And confronting a convicted felon with an AR-15 (a semiautomatic w/30 round mags) using a revolver instead of, at a minimum, a semiautomatic handgun with at least a 19 round mag, is not realistically equipping people to protect themselves. I think we want to allow the good guys to have some hope of stopping the bad guys.

And of course there have been various ban proposals by politicians for years. Pandering because they know full well it's not going to happen legislatively and, for certain, judicially. It's just people getting out the vote, basically.

Most of this discussion is entirely academic because, regardless of how many people might talk about it, SCOTUS will never allow it. And pushing for it, forcing SCOTUS to rule on it, would likely open up challenges in states w/strict gun laws like NJ or CA where the challenges might wind up at the SCOTUS and some of the gun laws in such states as NJ and CA (which I personally think are helping w/ordinary gun violence) might be overturned.

I want to see some doable gun legislation changes as well as numerous other approaches to protecting our school children. But then stupid stuff like banning equipment meant to protect against being harmed by a gun happens. Because mostly nobody will get all that excited over it and certainly not excited enough to change their vote. And people go "yay" even though it's pretty much the opposite of helpful.

Why can't we talk about improving background checks? That's doable and could've prevented a number of mass shootings. Why can't we discuss how to convince states without built-in delays in obtaining guns to implement those delays? That could actually help, a little, with crimes of passion. Why can't we talk about holding parents of underage kids that commit crimes, using guns they obtain at home, legally liable as if the parents did the crime themselves? That might help some. And all this stuff has a hope of being enacted and upheld (maybe).

And why won't people talk about the single biggest problem we have with gun laws, which is enforcing the laws we already have. If gun laws worked, the law in WV prohibiting the sale/ownership of guns by convicted felons would've prevented the wanna-be mass-shooter from having and using a gun. And the woman w/her legal gun would never nave needed it.

I'll say it again: what's the point of making more laws when we can't even enforce the laws we already have. Fix enforcement of existing laws and get rid of the illegal guns first.

No gun ban, no magazine limit, no law at all anywhere would've prevented the felon in WV from obtaining the gun and shooting at a crowd of 40 people. Only better enforcement of their existing laws could've worked in advance. As it is now, the only thing that could stop him was someone else with a gun. And she did. Thankfully.

Instead we're banning body armor. Brilliant.

I would raise the age to 21
Have meaningful background checks which means you would not get an immediate approval
I would require guns owners to carry insurance and if their gun is used in a crime they should face some type of liability

I would also push every city to combat gangs and use whatever best practices are developed



Your point about the Supreme Court not allowing it you mean this court because until 2008 the interpretation was different

Court precedent means nothing now. Once conservatives had 5 votes they ran right over precedent so I could see the same being done in future courts

 

[tom1944]

Mildone I thought the woman in WV used a pistol

 

[RU#1fan]

I see that guy still has a typo in his name (2).

You are an idiot.
Welcome to my Ignorance list.

 

[MADHAT1]

I'm for banning innocent children from being killed by guns and trying to cut down the mass murders that are happening all to frequently in our schools.
Lets find ways to stop the killing, not find reasons to make that look like Impossible Mission

 

[mildone_rivals]

I would raise the age to 21
Have meaningful background checks which means you would not get an immediate approval
I would require guns owners to carry insurance and if their gun is used in a crime they should face some type of liability

I would also push every city to combat gangs and use whatever best practices are developed



Your point about the Supreme Court not allowing it you mean this court because until 2008 the interpretation was different

Court precedent means nothing now. Once conservatives had 5 votes they ran right over precedent so I could see the same being done in

Other than the age change, I would be fine with all that.

And yes, the current composition of the SCOTUS is simply never going to uphold any laws banning semiautomatic weapons. And, for reasons that are purely pragmatic (as opposed to SCOTUS's reasoning which would be constitutional), I happen to agree with them. OTOH, I will likely vehemently disagree with them if they overturn Roe v Wade, as expected. But that's a whole 'nother thing.

When LE demonstrates that it can reliably enforce the existing gun bans, which they so far have unable to do, then maybe new gun bans could be argued for with more validity and pragmatism. But today, convicted felons and nut-jobs are already banned, by law, from having any guns at all. And yet they constantly do. And all of us are already banned from having fully automatic weapons. Yet criminals and gangs somehow constantly have them and the ATF and police have not been able to stop it.

Enforce the existing gun bans and ordinary gun violence will be drastically reduced any new gun bans at all. And it might even prevent some mass shootings, like the one in WV (although not so much school shootings by previously undiagnosed mentally unstable individuals like the one in TX). That kid was gonna kill a bunch of kids, one way or another, with or without access to guns.

 

[bac2therac]

In what situation does an average person need to wear body armor?

As for the age restriction, there's been much previous talk about impulse control and the brain not fully maturing until mid 20s. And 21 is pretty far removed from high school. Since many of the school shooters are outcasts who take their anger and resentment out on the school (with legal guns), a few extra years removed from school is a good thing.

Fine...Lets raise the voting age to 21

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Fine...Lets raise the voting age to 21

Don't you not even care about guns?

Speaking of not caring....I don't care about that enough to argue. So deal, if that's what it takes to get things done, I wouldn't argue. Today's 21-year-olds are no doubt less mature on average than 18-year-olds from a couple generations ago, anyway.

 

[RUScrew85]

Exce

why do you think we have a “massive illegal gun issues”? Illegal guns start as legal ones. People aren’t making them in the basement.

Making a gun in the basement isn't illegal. Making multiple guns in the basement for sale to others is - unless you get a manufacturer's license.

 

[bac2therac]

Don't you not even care about guns?

Speaking of not caring....I don't care about that enough to argue. So deal, if that's what it takes to get things done, I wouldn't argue. Today's 21-year-olds are no doubt less mature on average than 18-year-olds from a couple generations ago, anyway.

Deal

 

[tom1944]

Fine...Lets raise the voting age to 21

Would that be for all guns and all elections?

I thought it was only certain weapons that the age would be raised?

So you would have to be 21 before you could vote in a Board of Education election
That avoids a conflict for HS kids voting for bad candidates. That could do real damage.