School Shootings

[Aseahawkfan]

And like I told HT, "seriously reduce" isn't good enough. All it takes is one mass shooting and everyone will be crying for more legislation. Read the biography of Stephen Paddock, the shooter that killed 60 people from a Las Vegas high rise, and tell me how a background check, a waiting period, or an age restriction would have prevented that crime. Paddock's only previous encounter with LE was a minor traffic violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock

Let's see. Stephen Paddock.

Broken home. Fatherless. Seems to be a common trait of mass killers not having a strong, healthy male figure in the home.

Former Postal worker. Not relevant, but strangely ironic.

Seems he descended into alcoholism and taking anti-anxiety drugs.

Gun purchases spiked between October 2016 and September 2017. He purchased 55 firearms. This guy had a ton of red flags.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Gun hobbyists being able to buy far too many firearms too quickly. Waiting period alone would have slowed a lot of this. If a guy is buying this many guns, he should be flagged as a threat and investigated.

I'm for a person owning an assault rifle. I would be completely ok with a ban on the number of weapons you can own. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment in purpose or rhetoric supporting unlimited gun purchases for hobbyists.

This is the type of behavior the FBI should be flagging and investigating like they did with militias, gangs, possible terrorists attacks after those incidents. So I would say Stephen Paddock sent up a lot of red flags that should have put law enforcement on to him that we are not for some reason currently tracking.

This is when a lack of racism isn't helping us. If some Middle Easterner or some black guy on a gang list were engaged in exactly the same behavior as Stephen Paddock, he would have been flagged and investigated. But because this guy is some rich white guy he gets to buy a ton of guns while being an alcoholic taking valiums while gambling excessively, then he blows up we act surprised? C'mon now. This wasn't even a hard one. This guy had all kinds of flags that should have sent out a message to law enforcement.

This is just more of an example of people being overlooked because of a positive racial stereotype same as my mother does when she complains about every criminal act of an immigrant while making excuses for white males shooting people up or being serial killers in much larger numbers. It's just this kind of ridiculous bias to why these things slip through.

Paddock should have been investigated. His behavioral and psychological profile fit very well into a mass shooter profile. Those types of behaviors should be red flags in our law enforcement and background check system.

[RiverDog]

The population argument is used far too often without even first trying the measures taken. We're always going to be a large nation. That is no reason not to try polices from smaller nations that may work on a larger scale. We made capitalism work well for a large population. We can make other polices work as well.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try it. What I am saying is that IMO it won't work. I'm not against trying it.

I agree completely. The reason why the gun laws are so stupid and poorly written is that the authors know that they are subject to 2nd Amendment challenges. I'm not even necessarily for my own proposal. All I'm saying is that if you want to stop...not reduce, but eliminate...the use of AR's in mass shootings, you're going to have to "go big." Otherwise, it will be wash, rinse, and repeat every 4 or 5 years and would not be accepted by the public. They'll always insist that we "do something."

There is a long history of gun control measures taken in regards to the 2nd Amendment. What I believe has happened is the gun hobbyists backed by gun company lobbyists have taken over the 2nd Amendment narrative distorting it substantially.

If you look up control, plenty of cities and even in frontier areas gun control was practiced by local law enforcement. Same as freedom of speech was also checked for acts like shouting fire in a theater.

Yup. If you entered an old western town, you had to leave your gun at the city limits. Many bars wouldn't allow them in their establishments.

Times have definitely changed. Lots of people used to pack a .38, but there wasn't that many people that had the desire to own a military rifle like the M1 unless you were Al Capone or Machine Gun Kelly. There were no gun shows, at least not to the degree that they exist today. We didn't have the fascination with guns like we do now. If you owned one, you had a purpose, ie self defense or hunting. There were very few collectors compared to nowadays. It's a different society.

Bigger problem is it seems the pro-gun and anti-gun groups like to immediately jump to bans and "you're taking our guns, 2nd Amendment" argument before trying some other measures first that would fall within the Constitutional test. Lots of gun laws out there. I think the bigger problem is the Democrats don't even want to mention the rhetoric surrounding the 2nd Amendment and how to intelligently implement that and the Republicans have no motivation to do so themselves as their voters don't care as long as they get to keep their guns. So we have no new conversation to be had. Just the same one over and over and over and over again which as you realize takes us nowhere.

Agreed. Any gun law is pounced on by the pro 2nd Amendment crowd.

Democrats need to take a new line of reasoning that includes acknowledging the 2nd Amendment purpose for inclusion in The Bill of Rights while discussing intelligent ways to implement a 2nd Amendment protection that isn't a straight up ban, claiming The Founders were a bunch of idiots that didn't see assault rifles would be made, and who wants to listen to a bunch of old slavers anyway so ban all the guns. That argument isn't working, never has and likely never will. Democrats need to show more respect for the nation's Founders and the intelligent design of the Constitutional protections of The Bill of Rights and spend less time focusing on The Founders flaws which doesn't suddenly make everything they did valueless. Republicans understand The Founders were far from perfect, but also appreciate greatly many the intelligent design of the Constitutional protections and the idea behind a nation of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We would like to maintain these ideas, while adapting them to modern life.

I have a healthy respect for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Freedom of speech, free assembly, illegal search and seizure, freedom of religion, no self incrimination, trial by jury, are all parts of the Bill of Rights that are just as relevant today as they were when they were first written. But not the 2nd. I believe strongly that the 2nd Amendment needs to be modified and I am convinced that if some of those folks were alive today that many of them would take a quite different position on the 2nd than they did in 1787. IMO many of them did not anticipate the advances in weaponry, did not anticipate that militias would become an outdated and wholly inadequate option to a standing army.

[RiverDog]

Let's see. Stephen Paddock.

Broken home. Fatherless. Seems to be a common trait of mass killers not having a strong, healthy male figure in the home.

Former Postal worker. Not relevant, but strangely ironic.

Seems he descended into alcoholism and taking anti-anxiety drugs.

Gun purchases spiked between October 2016 and September 2017. He purchased 55 firearms. This guy had a ton of red flags.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Gun hobbyists being able to buy far too many firearms too quickly. Waiting period alone would have slowed a lot of this. If a guy is buying this many guns, he should be flagged as a threat and investigated.

I'm for a person owning an assault rifle. I would be completely ok with a ban on the number of weapons you can own. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment in purpose or rhetoric supporting unlimited gun purchases for hobbyists.

This is the type of behavior the FBI should be flagging and investigating like they did with militias, gangs, possible terrorists attacks after those incidents. So I would say Stephen Paddock sent up a lot of red flags that should have put law enforcement on to him that we are not for some reason currently tracking.

This is when a lack of racism isn't helping us. If some Middle Easterner or some black guy on a gang list were engaged in exactly the same behavior as Stephen Paddock, he would have been flagged and investigated. But because this guy is some rich white guy he gets to buy a ton of guns while being an alcoholic taking valiums while gambling excessively, then he blows up we act surprised? C'mon now. This wasn't even a hard one. This guy had all kinds of flags that should have sent out a message to law enforcement.

This is just more of an example of people being overlooked because of a positive racial stereotype same as my mother does when she complains about every criminal act of an immigrant while making excuses for white males shooting people up or being serial killers in much larger numbers. It's just this kind of ridiculous bias to why these things slip through.

Paddock should have been investigated. His behavioral and psychological profile fit very well into a mass shooter profile. Those types of behaviors should be red flags in our law enforcement and background check system.

Paddock's purchases were stretched over a year, from September 2016 to October 2017. Most waiting periods are from 1-10 days, designed to stop a person with a temporary impulse from obtaining one in the hope that their sanity would return, like sobering up after a drunk. This clearly wasn't some temporary impulse that drove Paddock. A waiting period would have had zero effect on his purchases.

There are thousands of people, collectors and traders, gun show enthusiasts, law abiding citizens, that buy dozens of weapons in spikes like Paddock's. Are you going to track and investigate every one of them? There are over 5,000 gun shows in the United States each year, with individuals buying and trading scores of weapons in a single gun show. Same with his personal background. He had no history of mental illness, no previous criminal behavior, no known problems with employers or people he worked with, no problems with neighbors, no fights with women, no DUI's or drug arrests, nothing. He had no friends or associates that were known criminals. He was not in debt, even paid off his gambling debts before the shooting. The man was in his 60's and had nothing but a traffic citation on his record. Think of the reaction if it became known that the government was prying into the private lives of people like Paddock.

3% of Americans adults, about 7.7 million people, the vast majority of which, just like Paddock, are law abiding citizens, collectively own 130 million firearms. The top 14% of those gun owners own between 8 and 140 guns each. So you're going to tell me that Paddock's purchases should have raised a red flag?

That top 14 percent of gun owners — a group of 7.7 million people, or 3 percent of American adults — own between about eight and 140 guns each. The average is 17.

The 39-year-old is now one of America’s firearms super-owners — part of the 3 percent of American adults who collectively own 130 million firearms, half of the nation’s total stock of civilian guns.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-su ... rd-survey/

Despite the fact that this was the deadliest mass shooting by a single person in the United States, no one accused the government or anyone else of negligence by ignoring the red flags you think were so obvious. If those red flags of yours were as obvious as you claim, why didn't liberal Dem pols looking to cash in politically file scores of bills to prevent someone like Paddock from acquiring so many weapons like they do after every mass shooting? The only accusation of negligence was directed at the hotel for allowing him to bring so many weapons to his room....in large, sealed boxes.

There is no way in hell that any reasonable person would suspect this man of becoming a mass shooter. The information we're looking at was discovered in an after the fact investigation. None of it would have been readily available to LE or anyone else prior to the shooting. Only in retrospect would his behavior and personal background raise any flags. You're using 20/20 hindsight.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Sorry for necroing a previous comment, but I’m fully aware of the implications me stating semi automatic. Well aware that there are more than just AR 15s that have that capability. What I want people to acknowledge is:

1. The AR 15 that civilians buy is not military style. Those are selective fire weapons that allow for both semi automatic single fire and semi-automatic 3-round burst fire.
2. There are other rifles out there that aren’t “military style” that are semi-automatic, high capacity, and 0.223 caliber. You focus on just AR-15 or military style, these get left out. And they have done just as much damage as AR-15s when used in shootings.
3. Whether it be a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, semi automatic makes them incredibly destructive. Had the shooter at Uvalde had two 9mm pistols with hollow point rounds, he’d still have 30+ rounds to shoot before reloading and all just as lethal as what he was carrying that day at the ranges he was shooting. If the argument is that civilians don’t “need” a weapon like the AR-15, then they also don’t “need” anything semi automatic.
4. Paddock took it to another level by getting a bump stock. It gets a semi automatic rifle to dang near automatic fire by using the recoil to keep pulling the trigger after every shot. These should be banned if not already.
5. Unfortunately, there will be no way to spot everyone. My wife was watching a real crime drama where a man had a stroke or something major like that, and seemed fine to family but then slipped into some kind of mental break. He killed his grand son, his daughter, and himself with a pistol. Hadn’t ever exhibited mental problems before. I do think it still worthwhile to thoroughly vet people and restrict those proved to be mentally unfit from owning a firearm.
6. Limiting the numbers of firearms one can own, restricting magazine size, and requiring longer waiting periods are all within the right of the government and do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
7. The founders didn’t know where technology would take firearms, but they had to know it wouldn’t stand stagnant. They already knew the world was able to sail the ocean when they hadn’t before and knew that medieval arms and armor were long since obsolete. Even in their time, gunsmiths found they could groove the entire inside of a musket barrel to put spin on a musket ball (i.e. rifling) to increase range and accuracy. Pretty sure none of us today expect technology to stand still. That being said, it doesn’t give a free-for-all to the 2nd Amendment.

[RiverDog]

Sorry for necroing a previous comment, but I’m fully aware of the implications me stating semi automatic. Well aware that there are more than just AR 15s that have that capability. What I want people to acknowledge is:

1. The AR 15 that civilians buy is not military style. Those are selective fire weapons that allow for both semi automatic single fire and semi-automatic 3-round burst fire.
2. There are other rifles out there that aren’t “military style” that are semi-automatic, high capacity, and 0.223 caliber. You focus on just AR-15 or military style, these get left out. And they have done just as much damage as AR-15s when used in shootings.
3. Whether it be a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, semi automatic makes them incredibly destructive. Had the shooter at Uvalde had two 9mm pistols with hollow point rounds, he’d still have 30+ rounds to shoot before reloading and all just as lethal as what he was carrying that day at the ranges he was shooting. If the argument is that civilians don’t “need” a weapon like the AR-15, then they also don’t “need” anything semi automatic.
4. Paddock took it to another level by getting a bump stock. It gets a semi automatic rifle to dang near automatic fire by using the recoil to keep pulling the trigger after every shot. These should be banned if not already.
5. Unfortunately, there will be no way to spot everyone. My wife was watching a real crime drama where a man had a stroke or something major like that, and seemed fine to family but then slipped into some kind of mental break. He killed his grand son, his daughter, and himself with a pistol. Hadn’t ever exhibited mental problems before. I do think it still worthwhile to thoroughly vet people and restrict those proved to be mentally unfit from owning a firearm.
6. Limiting the numbers of firearms one can own, restricting magazine size, and requiring longer waiting periods are all within the right of the government and do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
7. The founders didn’t know where technology would take firearms, but they had to know it wouldn’t stand stagnant. They already knew the world was able to sail the ocean when they hadn’t before and knew that medieval arms and armor were long since obsolete. Even in their time, gunsmiths found they could groove the entire inside of a musket barrel to put spin on a musket ball (i.e. rifling) to increase range and accuracy. Pretty sure none of us today expect technology to stand still. That being said, it doesn’t give a free-for-all to the 2nd Amendment.

The AR-15 is modeled after the military's M-16. That makes it a military-style weapon. It's not in the military's inventory, but it is closely related, just like a Hummer is a military-style vehicle modeled after the HMMWV, or Humvee, hence it's military style. It's a completely appropriate term.

The focus on the AR-15 is due to the fact that there are around 20 million of them in circulation, making them one of the most popular rifles of its kind in the country and seems to be the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

As far as civilians not "needing" a semi automatic weapon, I suggested that we concentrate on round capacity as a means to define what kind of weapons are appropriate for citizens. My semi automatic 12 gauge shotgun is limited to 3 rounds. If you need anymore than that, you're a piss poor shot. You don't need a weapon with double digit round capacity for hunting, target shooting, or self defense.

The Founders did anticipate that things wouldn't stay stagnate, which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution. However, IMO they set the bar way too high, with 2/3's of both Congress and the states needed to amend or modify it. There's all sorts of language that no longer applies. For example, impeaching for "high crimes and misdemeanors". When that phrase was written, the term "misdemeanors" had an entirely different meaning that the definition we use today. IMO the term "well regulated militia" does not apply today, either. It's language like this that needs to be cleaned up, but the bar is set too high, so we're pretty much stuck with a document that has a number of sections that are outdated.

Same thing with the abortion debate. IMO if the federal government wants to protect a woman's right to choose, they need to come up with an amendment to the Constitution that addresses it. Otherwise, per the Constitution, since it's not mentioned, it's delegated to the states. It shouldn't have to be decided in SCOTUS.

Good discussion.

[Aseahawkfan]

Paddock's purchases were stretched over a year, from September 2016 to October 2017. Most waiting periods are from 1-10 days, designed to stop a person with a temporary impulse from obtaining one in the hope that their sanity would return, like sobering up after a drunk. This clearly wasn't some temporary impulse that drove Paddock. A waiting period would have had zero effect on his purchases.

There are thousands of people, collectors and traders, gun show enthusiasts, law abiding citizens, that buy dozens of weapons in spikes like Paddock's. Are you going to track and investigate every one of them? There are over 5,000 gun shows in the United States each year, with individuals buying and trading scores of weapons in a single gun show. Same with his personal background. He had no history of mental illness, no previous criminal behavior, no known problems with employers or people he worked with, no problems with neighbors, no fights with women, no DUI's or drug arrests, nothing. He had no friends or associates that were known criminals. He was not in debt, even paid off his gambling debts before the shooting. The man was in his 60's and had nothing but a traffic citation on his record. Think of the reaction if it became known that the government was prying into the private lives of people like Paddock.

3% of Americans adults, about 7.7 million people, the vast majority of which, just like Paddock, are law abiding citizens, collectively own 130 million firearms. The top 14% of those gun owners own between 8 and 140 guns each. So you're going to tell me that Paddock's purchases should have raised a red flag?

That top 14 percent of gun owners — a group of 7.7 million people, or 3 percent of American adults — own between about eight and 140 guns each. The average is 17.

The 39-year-old is now one of America’s firearms super-owners — part of the 3 percent of American adults who collectively own 130 million firearms, half of the nation’s total stock of civilian guns.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-su ... rd-survey/

Despite the fact that this was the deadliest mass shooting by a single person in the United States, no one accused the government or anyone else of negligence by ignoring the red flags you think were so obvious. If those red flags of yours were as obvious as you claim, why didn't liberal Dem pols looking to cash in politically file scores of bills to prevent someone like Paddock from acquiring so many weapons like they do after every mass shooting? The only accusation of negligence was directed at the hotel for allowing him to bring so many weapons to his room....in large, sealed boxes.

There is no way in hell that any reasonable person would suspect this man of becoming a mass shooter. The information we're looking at was discovered in an after the fact investigation. None of it would have been readily available to LE or anyone else prior to the shooting. Only in retrospect would his behavior and personal background raise any flags. You're using 20/20 hindsight.

If they had been looking for the signs, a reasonable person would suspect Paddock of committing some deadly act of violence even if no one could fathom him becoming a mass shooter. I'm fairly certain no one fathoms some guy wandering in killing kids either. I'm pretty certain if you knew Paddock well and watched his behavior, you probably would have stopped hanging out with him. He is almost a textbook case of a possible mass shooter. What is more obvious that you don't want to admit to is that for some reason the government doesn't want to turn their powerful monitoring systems on these people. Yet they have zero problems doing it for Middle Eastern terrorists, gang threats, or organized crime. Well, the threat has become sufficient that it's time to take off the kid gloves and start monitoring Americans engaged in excessive weapon purchases and or who purchase assault weapons. Time to let the F.B.I. go to town like they did on the militia. They need to get rude about it as this point and even step over the line a bit like they did against militias when tracking these folks.

We have a sophisticated tracking system for tracking possible terrorist subjects. We have a had gang lists and the tracking and monitoring of gang members and organized crime for years. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the F.B.I. went to town tearing apart militias.

No beating around the bush. I want the government to turn their tracking and monitoring on gun nuts and people who are actively engaged in tweeting or using their phones for violent yapping about their societal hate. I think it is high time Americans have all that technology used over the years to protect the nation turned on the gun nuts. If you are buying an excessive amount of weapons quickly like 55 in a year which is extreme, then the tracking system should be flagging you and keeping track of you.

There is a lot you don't seem to want to admit we can do that isn't banning that we aren't even bothering to do right now because of the 2nd Amendment being used as some protection by gun hobbyists. I'd much rather try to use some of the same tech we use to keep protected from terrorists or other threats on the gun crazies. Red Flag laws and let the F.B.I. and Law Enforcement go to town like when old Town Marshalls went, "No guns in saloons and the like."

Right now we don't even have sensible monitoring and protection for these types of situations. Every single time this happens it just becomes a giant argument between banning them and doing nothing. So far the Republicans have ended up winning that and we do nothing. We have tons of alternatives to doing nothing.

Do I expect this to be perfect? Nope. Do I expect us to do a lot better than overlooking some guy buying 55 guns over a year period and bump stocks and the like? Yeah. Do I expect us to do better than letting an 18 year old kid buy two assault rifles and 300 plus rounds? Yeah. Do I expect us to do better than some guy buying an assault rifle 3 hours before he uses it? Yes, I do. The holes in our system are way too big right now and we have way too many tools to close them hard that we need to use.

Then once we tried these methods, then we can address what is working and what is not. Same as any intelligent run organization does when fixing a problem. I work in Big Tech. Every time we have some issue, we start by making small changes then push more change after monitoring how each change affects measurable metrics adjusting as needed. This is a common, scientific method for making effective change within an organization that can be used on a national level if these people would get their heads out of their behinds.

[RiverDog]

Paddock's purchases were stretched over a year, from September 2016 to October 2017. Most waiting periods are from 1-10 days, designed to stop a person with a temporary impulse from obtaining one in the hope that their sanity would return, like sobering up after a drunk. This clearly wasn't some temporary impulse that drove Paddock. A waiting period would have had zero effect on his purchases.

There are thousands of people, collectors and traders, gun show enthusiasts, law abiding citizens, that buy dozens of weapons in spikes like Paddock's. Are you going to track and investigate every one of them? There are over 5,000 gun shows in the United States each year, with individuals buying and trading scores of weapons in a single gun show. Same with his personal background. He had no history of mental illness, no previous criminal behavior, no known problems with employers or people he worked with, no problems with neighbors, no fights with women, no DUI's or drug arrests, nothing. He had no friends or associates that were known criminals. He was not in debt, even paid off his gambling debts before the shooting. The man was in his 60's and had nothing but a traffic citation on his record. Think of the reaction if it became known that the government was prying into the private lives of people like Paddock.

3% of Americans adults, about 7.7 million people, the vast majority of which, just like Paddock, are law abiding citizens, collectively own 130 million firearms. The top 14% of those gun owners own between 8 and 140 guns each. So you're going to tell me that Paddock's purchases should have raised a red flag?

That top 14 percent of gun owners — a group of 7.7 million people, or 3 percent of American adults — own between about eight and 140 guns each. The average is 17.

The 39-year-old is now one of America’s firearms super-owners — part of the 3 percent of American adults who collectively own 130 million firearms, half of the nation’s total stock of civilian guns.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-su ... rd-survey/

Despite the fact that this was the deadliest mass shooting by a single person in the United States, no one accused the government or anyone else of negligence by ignoring the red flags you think were so obvious. If those red flags of yours were as obvious as you claim, why didn't liberal Dem pols looking to cash in politically file scores of bills to prevent someone like Paddock from acquiring so many weapons like they do after every mass shooting? The only accusation of negligence was directed at the hotel for allowing him to bring so many weapons to his room....in large, sealed boxes.

There is no way in hell that any reasonable person would suspect this man of becoming a mass shooter. The information we're looking at was discovered in an after the fact investigation. None of it would have been readily available to LE or anyone else prior to the shooting. Only in retrospect would his behavior and personal background raise any flags. You're using 20/20 hindsight.

Yes.

We have a sophisticated tracking system for tracking possible terrorist subjects. We have a had gang lists and the tracking and monitoring of gang members and organized crime for years. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the F.B.I. went to town tearing apart militias.

No beating around the bush long posts. I want the government to turn their tracking and monitoring on gun nuts and people who are actively engaged in tweeting or using their phones for violent yapping about their societal hate. I think it is high time Americans have all that technology to have used over the years to protect the nation on the gun nuts.

If you are buying an excessive amount of weapons quickly like 55 in a year which is extreme. Then the tracking system should be flagging you and keeping track of you.

That's never going to fly. There are thousands of people that buy and trade 55 weapons in a year. There's no way that the government is going to get away with tracking that many law abiding citizens. It's one thing to track a convicted criminal with a rap sheet as is the case with gang members, a completely other thing to track someone with no record other than a speeding ticket. Additionally, it's a lot easier to track gang and organized crime than it is a lone wolf like Paddock. Once again, he had no criminal record and no known associates with criminal records. That's what separates him from the gangs and organized crime that you referenced.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Other way around on the M16. The Armalite AR15 preceded the M16. Granted, it started out as being designed for sale to the military with selective fire capability that you see in the M16 now, but after the military’s adoption civilians could only buy the semi automatic only version.

And it’s a mistake to only focus on the AR-15. As I mentioned the before, the Ruger 10/22 has damn near identical capabilities as the AR 15 and there are over 7 million in existence.

I’m not saying it means get rid of them; keep the reduced magazine capacity and make harder to qualify to get any kind of semi automatic firearm is my point.

[I-5]

Sorry for necroing a previous comment, but I’m fully aware of the implications me stating semi automatic. Well aware that there are more than just AR 15s that have that capability. What I want people to acknowledge is:

1. The AR 15 that civilians buy is not military style. Those are selective fire weapons that allow for both semi automatic single fire and semi-automatic 3-round burst fire.
2. There are other rifles out there that aren’t “military style” that are semi-automatic, high capacity, and 0.223 caliber. You focus on just AR-15 or military style, these get left out. And they have done just as much damage as AR-15s when used in shootings.
3. Whether it be a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, semi automatic makes them incredibly destructive. Had the shooter at Uvalde had two 9mm pistols with hollow point rounds, he’d still have 30+ rounds to shoot before reloading and all just as lethal as what he was carrying that day at the ranges he was shooting. If the argument is that civilians don’t “need” a weapon like the AR-15, then they also don’t “need” anything semi automatic.
4. Paddock took it to another level by getting a bump stock. It gets a semi automatic rifle to dang near automatic fire by using the recoil to keep pulling the trigger after every shot. These should be banned if not already.
5. Unfortunately, there will be no way to spot everyone. My wife was watching a real crime drama where a man had a stroke or something major like that, and seemed fine to family but then slipped into some kind of mental break. He killed his grand son, his daughter, and himself with a pistol. Hadn’t ever exhibited mental problems before. I do think it still worthwhile to thoroughly vet people and restrict those proved to be mentally unfit from owning a firearm.
6. Limiting the numbers of firearms one can own, restricting magazine size, and requiring longer waiting periods are all within the right of the government and do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
7. The founders didn’t know where technology would take firearms, but they had to know it wouldn’t stand stagnant. They already knew the world was able to sail the ocean when they hadn’t before and knew that medieval arms and armor were long since obsolete. Even in their time, gunsmiths found they could groove the entire inside of a musket barrel to put spin on a musket ball (i.e. rifling) to increase range and accuracy. Pretty sure none of us today expect technology to stand still. That being said, it doesn’t give a free-for-all to the 2nd Amendment.

I'm sure there are lots we don't agree on, but in regards to these weapons of mass murder when put in the wrong hands, I agree with everyone of your points. I know it's not just the AR-15, too. I also agree the founders knew there would be innovations coming, but it doesn't make it a free for all like you said. If the current laws as they stand still allow a teenager who exhibits dangerous tendencies to 'easily' purchase weapons, then something has to give.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's never going to fly. There are thousands of people that buy and trade 55 weapons in a year. There's no way that the government is going to get away with tracking that many law abiding citizens. It's one thing to track a convicted criminal with a rap sheet as is the case with gang members, a completely other thing to track someone with no record other than a speeding ticket. Additionally, it's a lot easier to track gang and organized crime than it is a lone wolf like Paddock. Once again, he had no criminal record and no known associates with criminal records. That's what separates him from the gangs and organized crime that you referenced.

Man, some stuff you are an encyclopedia like for JFK or some other subject you study. Some stuff you seem to have completely ignored either to due to a lack of interest or not enough time.

We have been tracking law abiding citizens who fit a certain profile for years. My buddy was not a criminal at all and neither was I and I was put on a gang list at the age of 16 in front of a 7 11 by cops who stopped me and took my name to run it on a gang list and then kept my name on said list to keep running it if I was found to hanging out in the "wrong" areas too much with the "wrong" colored people. The militias the F.B.I. tore apart after the Oklahoma City bombing weren't on a gang list and most did not have criminal records. We have been tracking phone traffic and the internet since 9/11. Did you really miss out on why Snowden is in Russia? Or the talk of police racial profiling which has been in politics for decades of law abiding citizens with no criminal record due to their nationality, religion, or race? Where the hell have you been? We been tracking law abiding citizens for all kinds of behaviors. The war on drugs has been especially liberal in their tracking of movement using phones, computers, and the like even if you haven't been convicted of any crime.

Suffice it to say the American government is very capable of monitoring law abiding citizens for any variety of reasons and they already do. It's less about can they do this and more about will they do this. We have limited resources, time, and manpower. So when they direct the power of American law enforcement to clean something up, it will take resources from somewhere else. But these gun loons have reached a point where I feel we need to turn that power on them, then figure out afterwards what worked and what didn't.

Man, sometimes you really surprise me, Riverdog. The whole profiling and tracking of law abiding citizens has literally been a huge political argument in many circles for quite some time now. The Patriot tracking system we use and was a big talking point for years during the Bush Admin is still in operation and probably more powerful than before.

There is even a company that quite a few folks like to invest in called Palantir which engages in exactly this type of tracking for the government (Stock Ticker: PLTR). It uses AI programs that accumulate tons of data from a variety of sources and run threat assessments. If we can get this type of AI tracking the right information, we can do a lot of threat assessment tracking to catch as many of these scum before they do what they do.

[RiverDog]

Man, some stuff you are an encyclopedia like for JFK or some other subject you study. Some stuff you seem to have completely ignored either to due to a lack of interest or not enough time.

We have been tracking law abiding citizens who fit a certain profile for years. My buddy was not a criminal at all and neither was I and I was put on a gang list at the age of 16 in front of a 7 11 by cops who stopped me and took my name to run it on a gang list and then kept my name on said list to keep running it if I was found to hanging out in the "wrong" areas too much with the "wrong" colored people. The militias the F.B.I. tore apart after the Oklahoma City bombing weren't on a gang list and most did not have criminal records. We have been tracking phone traffic and the internet since 9/11. Did you really miss out on why Snowden is in Russia? Or the talk of police racial profiling which has been in politics for decades of law abiding citizens with no criminal record due to their nationality, religion, or race? Where the hell have you been? We been tracking law abiding citizens for all kinds of behaviors. The war on drugs has been especially liberal in their tracking of movement using phones, computers, and the like even if you haven't been convicted of any crime.

Suffice it to say the American government is very capable of monitoring law abiding citizens for any variety of reasons and they already do. It's less about can they do this and more about will they do this. We have limited resources, time, and manpower. So when they direct the power of American law enforcement to clean something up, they need to do it and it will take resources from somewhere else. But these gun loons have reached a point where I feel we need to turn that power on them, then figure out afterwards what worked and what didn't.

Man, sometimes you really surprise me, Riverdog. The whole profiling and tracking of law abiding citizens has literally been a huge political argument in many circles for quite some time now. The Patriot tracking system we use and was a big talking point for years during the Bush Admin is still in operation and probably more powerful than before.

There is even a company that quite a few folks like to invest in called Palantir which engages in exactly this type of tracking for the government (Stock Ticker: PLTR). It uses AI programs that accumulate tons of data from a variety of sources and run threat assessments. If we can get this type of AI tracking the right information, we can do a lot of threat assessment tracking to catch as many of these scum before they do what they do.

The profiles you are talking about, ie gang members, organized crime, militias, etc, all have either a record themselves or associate with individuals that have records or have had some sort of contact with LE, etc. Paddock's only encounter with LE was one traffic ticket. One. He had no close friends. He belonged to no organizations. Tracking a few groups of people like militias and white supremacy groups is one heck of a lot easier than tracking thousands of individuals that bought some guns and a gun show. We do not have the resources to track thousands of individuals like Paddock.

Snowden was ex military that worked for the CIA. Paddock was a real estate property manager. Apples and oranges. Go find a subject that was 'tracked' that fits the profile of Stephen Paddock then come back and talk to me.

[Stream Hawk]

Watch what McConaughey said today at the WH. JFC he pretty much nailed it. And his suggestions were not out of left field. At all. Raise the minimum age to purchase an assault rifle to 21. Do background checks. Red flag laws. I personally think assault rifles should NOT be purchased by ANY non-military American.

It’s about the kids and human life. The rest of the world is shocked by our country’s behavior & subsequent stubbornness of the Republican Party.

Also I have not reviewed this entire thread, but the 2nd amendment needs to be revised. It was written to prevent armies attacking civilians. Muskets were a thing then. We had no legitimate US army in 1789. Seriously, how can anyone seriously argue that? That was 233 years ago! Life is a tad different now. The 2nd amendment needs to be … AMENDED!

[Aseahawkfan]

The profiles you are talking about, ie gang members, organized crime, militias, etc, all have either a record themselves or associate with individuals that have records or have had some sort of contact with LE, etc. Paddock's only encounter with LE was one traffic ticket. One. He had no close friends. He belonged to no organizations. Tracking a few groups of people like militias and white supremacy groups is one heck of a lot easier than tracking thousands of individuals that bought some guns and a gun show. We do not have the resources to track thousands of individuals like Paddock.

Snowden was ex military that worked for the CIA. Paddock was a real estate property manager. Apples and oranges. Go find a subject that was 'tracked' that fits the profile of Stephen Paddock then come back and talk to me.

You know who Snowden is? He wasn't tracked. He was the whistleblower who blew open the tracking programs the NSA was using. I didn't list him because he was being tracked or was some comparison to Paddock. I listed it because it was a extremely high profile example of the government tracking systems and the extent they are doing it along with an exploration of exactly how powerful the government tracking is in the modern day. It's insanely powerful.

I just told you I was put on a gang list and had zero criminal record. I was not associating with criminals. My friend had no record. We were both around 16 and 17 hanging out in front of a 7 11. It is an absolute fact that thousands to tens of thousands of citizens are tracked yearly who have done nothing wrong or associated with anyone doing anything wrong due to some other factor like race, nationality, religion, etcetera. This isn't even disputable. Profiling is a common practice of law enforcement. Been in the news for years.

Read up on the PRISM program. Literally documented evidence that thousands of people were tracked without their knowledge with criteria being decided by FISA courts using criteria we don't even know about. You could have been tracked for all you know and known nothing about it. Everyone on this forum could be having information collected on them just for having this discussion and not even know it. They track nationally and globally because the programs used to do so are so powerful and capable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

Tracking high threat targets can, has been, and is currently being done for terrorism and other criminal activities without regard for their criminal history on the basis of word searches and other psychological factors. You don't seem to grasp the ability of software to track right now. It's absolutely amazing what they can do with AI. Read up on Palantir. That company is being avoided by some investors because of the very possibility they can be employed by nations like China and Saudi Arabia to track and be used for oppression because their AI software is so powerful and predictive they can track individuals across entire nations picking out threats from information it collects at digital speeds and processes faster than 10,000 F.B.I. agents canvassing.

I say plug it in and start using it for identifying mass shooter candidates and crack down hard on them. I'd like to see it. I'm betting a software solution alone could cut down on a substantial number of attacks each year along with stronger legislation on a variety of levels. We have the capability to track and crack down on this. Let the F.B.I. do it. I know if I were president, I would do it, worry about the heat later. Turn that AI tracking we use against terrorists on the gun nuts. See how well it can do.

[Aseahawkfan]

Watch what McConaughey said today at the WH. JFC he pretty much nailed it. And his suggestions were not out of left field. At all. Raise the minimum age to purchase an assault rifle to 21. Do background checks. Red flag laws. I personally think assault rifles should NOT be purchased by ANY non-military American.

It’s about the kids and human life. The rest of the world is shocked by our country’s behavior & subsequent stubbornness of the Republican Party.

Also I have not reviewed this entire thread, but the 2nd amendment needs to be revised. It was written to prevent armies attacking civilians. Muskets were a thing then. We had no legitimate US army in 1789. Seriously, how can anyone seriously argue that? That was 233 years ago! Life is a tad different now. The 2nd amendment needs to be … AMENDED!

Republican Party right now is a clown show. So don't expect that group to come around until they wash out the Trump stink.

The 2nd Amendment was created as a check on government power as an armed population was an important check on the military power of government. George Washington and the Founders always knew there was going to be a standing army. Washington was a general. He knew the formation of an army was a necessary element of a competitive nation state.

Life is different now. But it seems to me being armed is as important now as it was then. You may want to die without defense if the psychopaths or criminals cross your path, but I certainly don't. I still see a military and police force that could be turned on the citizenry and in some cases already is being turn on the citizens, I'd certainly like to be able to fight back if needed.

I still consider the 2nd Amendment as vital and important a right in the modern day as the 1st Amendment.

Biggest problem I see is the 2nd Amendment has been hijacked by the gun hobbyists and gun companies who want to sell as much guns and ammo as possible. The biggest buyers are gun hobbyists and preppers. That group thinks they're waiting for the downfall of society and have little interest in the purpose of the 2nd Amendment which has always been the idea of armed populace working together against the tyranny of government. All the Founders were men involved in society and civic life, not lunatics sitting in their rooms sketching out how to commit suicide by mass murder while buying as many guns as possible to execute their plan while the media broadcasts it for ratings to make money.

The whole thing is sick how this plays out right now.

[RiverDog]

You know who Snowden is? He wasn't tracked. He was the whistleblower who blew open the tracking programs the NSA was using. I didn't list him because he was being tracked or was some comparison to Paddock. I listed it because it was a extremely high profile example of the government tracking systems and the extent they are doing it along with an exploration of exactly how powerful the government tracking is in the modern day. It's insanely powerful.

I just told you I was put on a gang list and had zero criminal record. I was not associating with criminals. My friend had no record. We were both around 16 and 17 hanging out in front of a 7 11. It is an absolute fact that thousands to tens of thousands of citizens are tracked yearly who have done nothing wrong or associated with anyone doing anything wrong due to some other factor like race, nationality, religion, etcetera. This isn't even disputable. Profiling is a common practice of law enforcement. Been in the news for years.

Read up on the PRISM program. Literally documented evidence that thousands of people were tracked without their knowledge with criteria being decided by FISA courts using criteria we don't even know about. You could have been tracked for all you know and known nothing about it. Everyone on this forum could be having information collected on them just for having this discussion and not even know it. They track nationally and globally because the programs used to do so are so powerful and capable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

Tracking high threat targets can, has been, and is currently being done for terrorism and other criminal activities without regard for their criminal history on the basis of word searches and other psychological factors. You don't seem to grasp the ability of software to track right now. It's absolutely amazing what they can do with AI. Read up on Palantir. That company is being avoided by some investors because of the very possibility they can be employed by nations like China and Saudi Arabia to track and be used for oppression because their AI software is so powerful and predictive they can track individuals across entire nations picking out threats from information it collects at digital speeds and processes faster than 10,000 F.B.I. agents canvassing.

I say plug it in and start using it for identifying mass shooter candidates and crack down hard on them. I'd like to see it. I'm betting a software solution alone could cut down on a substantial number of attacks each year along with stronger legislation on a variety of levels. We have the capability to track and crack down on this. Let the F.B.I. do it. I know if I were president, I would do it, worry about the heat later. Turn that AI tracking we use against terrorists on the gun nuts. See how well it can do.

I took your suggestion and read up on the PRISM program. From your own link:

U.S. government officials have disputed criticisms of PRISM in the Guardian and Washington Post articles and have defended the program, asserting that it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant.

There is no way the government is going to be able to legally track a law abiding citizen like Paddock. No judge in the country would issue a surveillance warrant based solely on his being one of the thousands of people that legally purchased 55 firearms in one year.

Besides, like I mentioned, while these tactics might work very well against groups of people, Proud Boyz, the Capitol rioters, Gov. Widner's kidnappers, etc, it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack when using it to find a lone wolf, a guy like Paddock that's not a member, formal or informal, with one of those types of groups, does not associate with anyone, doesn't make statements over social media, and just snaps. Guys like Paddock are the exception, but he illustrates the difficulty of completely eliminating these mass shootings...and the standard society has adopted is zero tolerance for these acts. Every time one happens, people will insist that we "do something."

Unless and until society changes, we're going to have to deal with a mass shooting every few years. I'm not saying that we should accept that fact and do nothing, to the contrary, I'm for any reasonable means of preventing these horrible crimes against humanity from occurring. But you're kidding yourself if you think that you're going to completely eliminate it.

[RiverDog]

Watch what McConaughey said today at the WH. JFC he pretty much nailed it. And his suggestions were not out of left field. At all. Raise the minimum age to purchase an assault rifle to 21. Do background checks. Red flag laws. I personally think assault rifles should NOT be purchased by ANY non-military American.

It’s about the kids and human life. The rest of the world is shocked by our country’s behavior & subsequent stubbornness of the Republican Party.

Also I have not reviewed this entire thread, but the 2nd amendment needs to be revised. It was written to prevent armies attacking civilians. Muskets were a thing then. We had no legitimate US army in 1789. Seriously, how can anyone seriously argue that? That was 233 years ago! Life is a tad different now. The 2nd amendment needs to be … AMENDED!

I completely agree. I have no problem raising the age to legally purchase firearms to 21, along with the other measures you mentioned. But they'll have to find a way to do it at the state level because it's not something called out in the Constitution and thus delegated to the states, and unless you get all 50 states on board, there's going to be loopholes.

The reason why the national drinking age is 21 (actually there's no such thing as a national drinking age) is because the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds from any state that didn't raise their minimum drinking age to 21. Idaho used to have a 19 year old drinking age when I was in college. Same with the .08% BAC standard for drunken driving, which used to be 1.0% BAC in most states. There was an enormous amount of pressure to do something about drunken driving, an activity that nearly everyone was opposed to so there wasn't a lot of blow back when the federal government used extortion tactics to achieve their goal. Good luck trying that with any gun control measure in today's political environment.

There's no way we're ever going to amend the Constitution to include any kind of meaningful gun control measure. It requires a two thirds majority in both houses of Congress, a body that can't agree on where to have lunch, and two thirds of the states, ie 34 states, and the red states would never sit still for even the slightest of changes. Indeed, such an effort could backfire as it could be used by the far right as a powerful campaign issue to elect a POTUS like Trump. The last Amendment of any consequence, lowering the voting age to 18, was ratified over 50 years ago. It's not going to happen.

[NorthHawk]

Here's an article about some professors who have studied shootings and have some solutions.
They have some interesting observations and insights.


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ket-newtab

[RiverDog]

Here's an article about some professors who have studied shootings and have some solutions.
They have some interesting observations and insights.


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ket-newtab

It was a good article and I appreciate your sharing it. I agree with most, if not all, of the observations, but I didn't see a heck of a lot of solutions. It's certainly not going to address a person like Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter that ASF and I have been discussing, or Major Nidal Hassan, the army officer and psychologist that murdered 13 people at Fort Hood, TX, of whom the FBI had investigated prior to the shooting and concluded that he was not a threat.

I've read a couple books about retired Secret Service agents, and they all say that they don't worry about the extremist groups. Those folks are easy to keep an eye on, easy to track, and the FBI has a book on them and shares information with other LE agencies before a Presidential visit. They worry about the lone wolfs, the Lee Harvey Oswalds, the John Hinckleys, the Sirhan Sirhans, those that act alone and with little, if any, criminal past that might send up a red flag. It's the same problem that we're facing with these active shooters.

We live in a free country, and unfortunately, that sometimes works against us, part of the price we have to pay for not living in a police state.

[NorthHawk]

Clearly they don’t have all of the solutions but they seem to have an idea about the younger
people which could be useful. If their theories eliminate the majority of the threats from
the 18-25 group over the next 10 years, who knows how many lives could be saved. It might
also set the wheels in motion for a change in attitude of others to take warnings seriously and
contact people who can help. But it would cost money and would the politics mean it wouldn’t
be properly funded?

[Aseahawkfan]

Well, listening to an 11 year old talk about covering herself in blood to escape getting murdered in a U.S. classroom is a level of demented and sad I have not experienced since Sandy Hook. Never thought I would see these types of events in America. There are some people that are so evil that it is hard to fathom.

I support most of the measures recommended. Raising minimum age. Red flag laws. Lots of options that should have already been in place.

Regardless of Riverdog's belief we can't monitor hundreds of millions of people, I know we can and do. I would like to see the government start using this incredible technology we have to start profiling possible mass shooters. We have clear profiles for mass shooters that fit into a software system like those used for terrorist monitoring that can track mass shooter threats. We need to turn that technology internally. If we can use it to scan the hundreds of millions worldwide like we do right now, we can use it to scan internally. Anyone accessing a computer, a forum, making a purchase over a payment system, at a gun store with a background check system, and the like can be tracked at digital speed by a computer system that doesn't sleep to track threats to alert law enforcement or institutions under threat.

I also want to see robotics develop nonlethal drones for human protection that feel no fear and will enter an area under attack and go after the threat immediately. The age of robots is just starting and the younger generation should see them deployed for a variety of purposes at some point in their life whether robotaxis or law enforcement drones.

I hope the old folks we have in office right now and who have too much voting power in this nation lose that power soon, so a younger, technologically savvy generation can turn the powerful technology we have built for a variety of reasons to solving public issues like mass shootings, health, and the like. We have built such an incredible amount of amazing technology we can use to solve or reduce some of these issues and we're using it to sell more jerseys to a person searching for Seahawks news or who looks up the local McDonalds. We are using this tech for terrorist monitoring outside the country, but time to turn it internally and track threats internally.

Man, watching this kind of stuff is embarrassing, sad, and unbelievable. How the hell does the United States of America with all its wealth, technology, and capability allow this to continue to happen? I don't get it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Here's an article about some professors who have studied shootings and have some solutions.
They have some interesting observations and insights.


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ket-newtab

I read that article. I do agree that social media and the 24 hour news cycle can make such behavior socially contagious as they call it. I think we've seen these types of effects over the years even in areas like the Old West where outlaws were glamorized or the gangster era in America with bank robbers with names given to them by the media like Baby Face Nelson or Machine Gun Kelly. It's the same type of impulse that drives some ingenue to Hollywood seeking celebrity and willing to do almost anything for it. You have some lunatic hopped up on hate seeing some other person being remembered and garnering massive attention for some vile act of violence, some other person is triggered and decides to emulate them. Copycat killers are what they are referred to at times.

[RiverDog]

Clearly they don’t have all of the solutions but they seem to have an idea about the younger people which could be useful. If their theories eliminate the majority of the threats from the 18-25 group over the next 10 years, who knows how many lives could be saved. It might
also set the wheels in motion for a change in attitude of others to take warnings seriously and contact people who can help. But it would cost money and would the politics mean it wouldn’t be properly funded?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for trying almost anything. I've even expressed my willingness to make some major modifications to the 2nd Amendment, and that's coming from a guy who considers himself a conservative. But I'm also a realist, and the fact is that this current, societal disease that has created these one in a million personalities, combined with the availability of weapons that will remain with us no matter what kind of laws the pols pass (there's 20 million AR-15's currently in circulation in the US), this problem is going to be with us for the foreseeable future.

The other thing is that we, as a society, have adapted a zero tolerance for these random shootings, and after each one, no matter the circumstances, whether it be committed by a completely unpredictable person like a 60-something year old Paddock, a 39 year old active duty Major Hassan, or a wayward 18 year old kid like Ramos, politicians will be on their soap boxes calling for more gun control. Simply reducing the frequency or limiting the carnage won't cut it.

[Aseahawkfan]

It was a good article and I appreciate your sharing it. I agree with most, if not all, of the observations, but I didn't see a heck of a lot of solutions. It's certainly not going to address a person like Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter that ASF and I have been discussing, or Major Nidal Hassan, the army officer and psychologist that murdered 13 people at Fort Hood, TX, of whom the FBI had investigated prior to the shooting and concluded that he was not a threat.

I've read a couple books about retired Secret Service agents, and they all say that they don't worry about the extremist groups. Those folks are easy to keep an eye on, easy to track, and the FBI has a book on them and shares information with other LE agencies before a Presidential visit. They worry about the lone wolfs, the Lee Harvey Oswalds, the John Hinckleys, the Sirhan Sirhans, those that act alone and with little, if any, criminal past that might send up a red flag. It's the same problem that we're facing with these active shooters.

We live in a free country, and unfortunately, that sometimes works against us, part of the price we have to pay for not living in a police state.

I see a lot of solutions that aren't even being tried.

In fact, I see a lot of negligence in gun laws that I personally didn't know existed. I would never fathom a state being stupid enough to allow an 18 year old to purchase two assault rifles and 375 rounds of ammunition. Never would have thought a state would allow the purchase of an assault rifle 3 hours before it was used. Or a guy being considered normal for purchasing 55 weapons even over the course of a year. I see these types of behaviors as obvious warning signs, in no way an exercise of the 2nd Amendment, and just a clear sign of idiocy gun laws that need to be cleaned up on a Federal level.

Your Secret Service agent books are old likely. We have technology far better than the days of Hinckley. Probably a big reason why you haven't seen a president shot for ages because the tracking and monitoring systems protecting the president are so vast and capable that any threat accessing the various digital systems is almost immediately tracked. Even with the face and body scanning technology picking up on weapons and possible nefarious subjects is very, very possible.

Real problem is this type of technology is reserved for the very wealthy in this nation and top level politicians or government agencies. It isn't deployed in schools or other areas primarily trafficked by defenseless common Americans.

Normally, decades back I would have agreed with your stance in general because you can't track lone wolfs and the like. Too much manpower covering too large an area. But this is 2022. We've had technology capable of scanning at a population level for a while now. The AI software for facial and body scans is far more advanced. The main limiters at this point is not technologically capability, but cost and scale as well as the legal discussions surrounding technology and privacy.

But make no mistake, this isn't the days when you or I or any of the old timers were growing up. We can scan across populations with face and body recognition software and across any digital medium with AI software immediately recognizing threats like you've seen only in movies to date. We're that advanced. Law enforcement needs the go ahead to do it. I hope that is coming soon.

I guarantee you 100% after the old "I'm scared of technology" generation dies off, the younger generation will start using these tools to take care of these problems. There are already businesses working on these issues that will eventually start to take care of this, same as the labor problem you fear so much is going to be taken care of with automation such as automated trucker fleets, shipping, warehouse workers, fast food grill workers, and a variety of other areas of the labor market. Automation and the Age of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence is fast advancing. This entire world is going to be much, much different in the coming years.

Hell, I recently found out I missed a new obesity drug that works so well it reduces bodyweight by 15 to 20 percent with extremely mild side effects. It doesn't even use a metabolic enhancer like caffeine, but uses a hormone naturally produced by the body to moderate appetite and insulin production. I missed it because I was too focused on small to mid size biopharma and this was made by mega-pharma. Technology is going to continue to solve more problems than legislation. And mass shootings will also likely be solved by technological innovations that will build a shield around certain areas that these vile scum won't be able to easily get through.

[RiverDog]

Here's an article about some professors who have studied shootings and have some solutions.
They have some interesting observations and insights.


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ket-newtab

I read that article. I do agree that social media and the 24 hour news cycle can make such behavior socially contagious as they call it. I think we've seen these types of effects over the years even in areas like the Old West where outlaws were glamorized or the gangster era in America with bank robbers with names given to them by the media like Baby Face Nelson or Machine Gun Kelly. It's the same type of impulse that drives some ingenue to Hollywood seeking celebrity and willing to do almost anything for it. You have some lunatic hopped up on hate seeing some other person being remembered and garnering massive attention for some vile act of violence, some other person is triggered and decides to emulate them. Copycat killers are what they are referred to at times.

I don't think there's any question that 24 hour news media, along with social media, has made the problem contagious. I also think that the graphic movies and video games contributes to the problem by de-sensitizing weak and fragile minds. IMO this has been a progressive problem that has been at least 50 years in the making. The availability of weapons is a contributing factor, but isn't the root cause.

[RiverDog]

I see a lot of solutions that aren't even being tried.

In fact, I see a lot of negligence in gun laws that I personally didn't know existed. I would never fathom a state being stupid enough to allow an 18 year old to purchase two assault rifles and 375 rounds of ammunition. Never would have thought a state would allow the purchase of an assault rifle 3 hours before it was used. Or a guy being considered normal for purchasing 55 weapons even over the course of a year. I see these types of behaviors as obvious warning signs, in no way an exercise of the 2nd Amendment, and just a clear sign of idiocy gun laws that need to be cleaned up on a Federal level.

Your Secret Service agent books are old likely. We have technology far better than the days of Hinckley. Probably a big reason why you haven't seen a president shot for ages because the tracking and monitoring systems protecting the president are so vast and capable that any threat accessing the various digital systems is almost immediately tracked. Even with the face and body scanning technology picking up on weapons and possible nefarious subjects is very, very possible.

Real problem is this type of technology is reserved for the very wealthy in this nation and top level politicians or government agencies. It isn't deployed in schools or other areas primarily trafficked by defenseless common Americans.

Normally, decades back I would have agreed with your stance in general because you can't track lone wolfs and the like. Too much manpower covering too large an area. But this is 2022. We've had technology capable of scanning at a population level for a while now. The AI software for facial and body scans is far more advanced. The main limiters at this point is not technologically capability, but cost and scale as well as the legal discussions surrounding technology and privacy.

But make no mistake, this isn't the days when you or I or any of the old timers were growing up. We can scan across populations with face and body recognition software and across any digital medium with AI software immediately recognizing threats like you've seen only in movies to date. We're that advanced. Law enforcement needs the go ahead to do it. I hope that is coming soon.

I guarantee you 100% after the old "I'm scared of technology" generation dies off, the younger generation will start using these tools to take care of these problems. There are already businesses working on these issues that will eventually start to take care of this, same as the labor problem you fear so much is going to be taken care of with automation such as automated trucker fleets, shipping, warehouse workers, fast food grill workers, and a variety of other areas of the labor market. Automation and the Age of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence is fast advancing. This entire world is going to be much, much different in the coming years.

Hell, I recently found out I missed a new obesity drug that works so well it reduces bodyweight by 15 to 20 percent with extremely mild side effects. It doesn't even use a metabolic enhancer like caffeine, but uses a hormone naturally produced by the body to moderate appetite and insulin production. I missed it because I was too focused on small to mid size biopharma and this was made by mega-pharma. Technology is going to continue to solve more problems than legislation. And mass shootings will also likely be solved by technological innovations that will build a shield around certain areas that these vile scum won't be able to easily get through.

I agree that the advancements in technology, like AI, facial recognition and other biometric information gathering has made tracking criminals and potential threats easier. But I still don't see how it could have stopped a person like Paddock or Major Hassan. Hell, the FBI investigated Hassan and declared him not to be a threat prior to the Fort Hood shooting. How in the hell is technology going to prevent an incident like that?

I am not against trying these sort of things, and I do think that it has the potential of reducing the frequency and limit the carnage when there is a person that slips through the cracks. But as I said above, we have to be realistic. We're never going to get to the point where people feel safe, are no longer afraid to send their kids to school, are no longer clamoring for more gun control. This problem is here to stay. Might as well get used to it.

[c_hawkbob]

Simply reducing the frequency or limiting the carnage won't cut it.

Yes it will! It will at least be doing something! There will always need to be more progress toward zero such instances but we can't let anything less be an acceptable excuse to do nothing.

[RiverDog]

Simply reducing the frequency or limiting the carnage won't cut it.

Yes it will! It will at least be doing something! There will always need to be more progress toward zero such instances but we can't let anything less be an acceptable excuse to do nothing.

Of course, it will be something. But it will never be enough, ie it won't cut it. Mass shootings will continue into the foreseeable future, the media will always highlight it, we'll always lower the flags to half staff, and the politicians will use the opportunity to get their mugs in front of a TV camera to make as much political hay as they can when the fact is that it's a drop in the bucket compared to the 40-50 some homicides that happen each day in this country. This isn't going away no matter how many bills we pass or people we track.

[I-5]

Riv, maybe I've missed, and I do agree with you that 'this isn't going away', but I'm still 1000% for TRYING to stop troubled teen kids from LEGALLY purchasing semi automatic weaons, high capacity magazines, and anything else that put in the hands of what is usually a very young person (these mass shootings are uniformly never 'professional criminals'). If making even incremental progress lessens the amount of kids murdered by guns every year, why wouldn't we be for it? I would never give up that battle, even I think it's a losing battle. Whatever system we have til now has been a total failure, and we all know why. It's not the American public - it's the gun lobby. ABC's recent poll finds that 70% of Americans feel that enacting laws to reduce gun violence is a higher priority than protecting the right to own a wide variety of guns. Most Americans understand this doesn't mean repealing the 2nd Amendment, even if the more vocals ones claim it does. Most Americans know the difference. It's the gun lobby, and the politicians who are owned by them.

Some republicans are finally beginning to hear it even from their constituents, and in some unlikely places, like Sen Cynthia Lummi from Wyoming. “I’ve been a little surprised at the phone calls we’ve been getting and how receptive Wyoming callers seem to be to address guns in some manner. I am of the opinion that it’s more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. But, you know, I’m listening to what people from Wyoming are saying.” This senator usually touts her A-plus NRA rating, too. Will she actually support a bill though? We'll see.

[RiverDog]

Riv, maybe I've missed, and I do agree with you that 'this isn't going away', but I'm still 1000% for TRYING to stop troubled teen kids from LEGALLY purchasing semi automatic weaons, high capacity magazines, and anything else that put in the hands of what is usually a very young person (these mass shootings are uniformly never 'professional criminals'). If making even incremental progress lessens the amount of kids murdered by guns every year, why wouldn't we be for it? I would never give up that battle, even I think it's a losing battle. Whatever system we have til now has been a total failure, and we all know why. It's not the American public - it's the gun lobby. ABC's recent poll finds that 70% of Americans feel that enacting laws to reduce gun violence is a higher priority than protecting the right to own a wide variety of guns. Most Americans understand this doesn't mean repealing the 2nd Amendment, even if the more vocals ones claim it does. Most Americans know the difference. It's the gun lobby, and the politicians who are owned by them.

I've said repeatedly that I am not against any of those proposals. I've even stated my openness to revising the wording of the 2nd Amendment. My points are the following:

Unless you can amend the Constitution, of which I think we can all agree is out of the question, all of these proposals will be subject to 2nd Amendment challenges. If they want to do something like raise the minimum age to purchase weapons to 21, another proposal that I am 100% for, they will have to find a way to get it done at the state level, and getting all 50 states on board is a near impossible task, so there's always going to be a loop hole.

It's not going to address the societal lust and fascination with guns and indiscriminate killings that is the root cause of the problem. Military-style weapons have always been available, but only in the past 20-30 years have we been dealing with school shootings. The availability of weapons is an underlying cause. It's not what's been driving these shootings.

Despite the fact that the death count due to these highly publicized shootings pale in comparison to the overall homicide rate, the press and the public will continue to obsess over it, politicians will be falling over each other to take advantage of each of these shootings, and the call to "do something" will never abate.

Some republicans are finally beginning to hear it even from their constituents, and in some unlikely places, like Sen Cynthia Lummi from Wyoming. “I’ve been a little surprised at the phone calls we’ve been getting and how receptive Wyoming callers seem to be to address guns in some manner. I am of the opinion that it’s more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. But, you know, I’m listening to what people from Wyoming are saying.” This senator usually touts her A-plus NRA rating, too. Will she actually support a bill though? We'll see.

They may be now, but public opinion waxes and wanes. Once the headlines from this latest shooting fade and the leaves begin to turn color, will they still be in support of gun control legislation? Or will the issue take a back seat to gas prices and inflation?

[I-5]

From what Ive seen, public opinion has been for taking more action for a while now. Thats why I said the public isn’t the culprit. Its the Gun Lobby first, Gun Lobby second, and Gun Lobby third.

[I-5]

I've said repeatedly that I am not against any of those proposals. I've even stated my openness to revising the wording of the 2nd Amendment. My points are the following:

Unless you can amend the Constitution, of which I think we can all agree is out of the question, all of these proposals will be subject to 2nd Amendment challenges. If they want to do something like raise the minimum age to purchase weapons to 21, another proposal that I am 100% for, they will have to find a way to get it done at the state level, and getting all 50 states on board is a near impossible task, so there's always going to be a loop hole.

It's not going to address the societal lust and fascination with guns and indiscriminate killings that is the root cause of the problem. Military-style weapons have always been available, but only in the past 20-30 years have we been dealing with school shootings. The availability of weapons is an underlying cause. It's not what's been driving these shootings.

Despite the fact that the death count due to these highly publicized shootings pale in comparison to the overall homicide rate, the press and the public will continue to obsess over it, politicians will be falling over each other to take advantage of each of these shootings, and the call to "do something" will never abate.

If it comes to amending the Constitution, I think all american parents with kids in public schools (to hell with DeVos) want their children to feel more secure, and we simply can't afford to post armed guards in every single school. Something is going to have to give. Everything we've done to this point has been a failure. I would argue it's BOTH societal lust for guns AND ease access to weapons to 18 year olds. Why can't it be both?

The most horrifying stat among stats is that gun violence is the number one cause of death among US children. I know that points to domestic violence, too. What is wrong with us? There are mentally ill people playing violent video games and watching violence in media in other countries like Canada for example, but the results are far different.

[RiverDog]

I've said repeatedly that I am not against any of those proposals. I've even stated my openness to revising the wording of the 2nd Amendment. My points are the following:

Unless you can amend the Constitution, of which I think we can all agree is out of the question, all of these proposals will be subject to 2nd Amendment challenges. If they want to do something like raise the minimum age to purchase weapons to 21, another proposal that I am 100% for, they will have to find a way to get it done at the state level, and getting all 50 states on board is a near impossible task, so there's always going to be a loop hole.

It's not going to address the societal lust and fascination with guns and indiscriminate killings that is the root cause of the problem. Military-style weapons have always been available, but only in the past 20-30 years have we been dealing with school shootings. The availability of weapons is an underlying cause. It's not what's been driving these shootings.

Despite the fact that the death count due to these highly publicized shootings pale in comparison to the overall homicide rate, the press and the public will continue to obsess over it, politicians will be falling over each other to take advantage of each of these shootings, and the call to "do something" will never abate.

If it comes to amending the Constitution, I think all american parents with kids in public schools (to hell with DeVos) want their children to feel more secure, and we simply can't afford to post armed guards in every single school. Something is going to have to give. Everything we've done to this point has been a failure. I would argue it's BOTH societal lust for guns AND ease access to weapons to 18 year olds. Why can't it be both?

The reason why it (the root cause) isn't both is because we've had access to plenty of weapons for decades. In my readings on the JFK assassination, on the very page of the catalog that LHO bought his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, for $12 plus $8 for the scope, there was an M1 Garrand, the semi automatic, primary weapon used by troops in WW2 and Korea, that was available for around $40, or about $350 in today's money. There was no waiting period, no background checks, no minimum age to purchase. LHO did not need to produce any sort of ID to buy one, indeed, he used an alias, AJ Hidell, and had it sent to a P.O. box. Clearly, there has been plenty of guns around for decades that would have made an excellent choice for a mass shooting. But school shootings has been a comparatively recent phenomena, since the mid 90's. No, the availability of guns are NOT part of the root cause. They are a contributing factor.

The most horrifying stat among stats is that gun violence is the number one cause of death among US children. I know that points to domestic violence, too. What is wrong with us? There are mentally ill people playing violent video games and watching violence in media in other countries like Canada for example, but you know how many elementary kids have been killed by gun violence in school in Canada? 0. Total kids death by gun violence in Canada I believe is at 11. I don't mean for the year, I mean in total.

Yes, it's absolutely terrifying, and until and unless something basic changes in the American psychic...and I agree, although there are some incidents elsewhere, it seems to be pretty much an American problem...I don't see any way out of it. The best we can hope for is to minimize the damage. We're not going to be able to eliminate these shootings given our current environment. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should try. I'll sign any reasonable petition put before me. I'm just as outraged as anyone else.

[I-5]

Yes, it's absolutely terrifying, and until and unless something basic changes in the American psychic...and I agree, although there are some incidents elsewhere, it seems to be pretty much an American problem...I don't see any way out of it. The best we can hope for is to minimize the damage. We're not going to be able to eliminate these shootings given our current environment. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should try. I'll sign any reasonable petition put before me. I'm just as outraged as anyone else.

It's pretty unbelievable and beyond sad that we're at the point that we are resigned that this is just the way it's going to be...when it's not this way anywhere else on earth. I don't know if anyone on this forum has elementary age children, but I do, and I'd be terrified sending them to school in the US everyday. I feel for my brother and sister in the US that do.

Curious what minimizing the damage means in actual policy, for those that think we have more than enough (too much?) gun laws already.

[RiverDog]

Yes, it's absolutely terrifying, and until and unless something basic changes in the American psychic...and I agree, although there are some incidents elsewhere, it seems to be pretty much an American problem...I don't see any way out of it. The best we can hope for is to minimize the damage. We're not going to be able to eliminate these shootings given our current environment. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should try. I'll sign any reasonable petition put before me. I'm just as outraged as anyone else.

It's pretty unbelievable and beyond sad that we're at the point that we are resigned that this is just the way it's going to be...when it's not this way anywhere else on earth. I don't know if anyone on this forum has elementary age children, but I do, and I'd be terrified sending them to school in the US everyday. I feel for my brother and sister in the US that do.

Curious what minimizing the damage means in actual policy, for those that think we have more than enough (too much?) gun laws already.

My only daughter is 4 months pregnant, so in 6 years or so, I'll have an elementary age grandchild if all goes well.

I'm not a deeply religious person, but regarding the dilemma you mentioned about being horrified about sending your kids to school, there's a prayer that has always resonated with me: God grant me the Courage to change the things that I can change, the Serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, and the Wisdom to tell the difference between the two.

I would hope that you would do what you can to alleviate your own fears as well as those of your child's. There is no sense your having nightmares over what could happen and filling your kids with fear and suspicion about an event that has a one in a million chance of happening.

Having said that, I do think that we can make small little changes in our own little worlds by teaching our kids not to be bullies, not to tease others, to treat others like they would want to be treated themselves.