RiverDog wrote:Yeah, I couldn't believe it, either. Most police officers, or at least the ones I've ever met, have a genuine interest in helping those that are in need, and what other people have a greater need than grade school children?
I might be going off on a tangent, but the other thing I worry about is that this labor shortage is eliminating the fear employees used to have of losing their job. I can remember when I was in college, you could tell which professors had tenure, in other words, they couldn't be fired. They were the ones that wouldn't stay when class was over to answer a question.
Over the years, I've told a number of people not to "F this job up as jobs are hard to come by." Fear is a powerful motivator, but it doesn't work in today's economy. Why should a cop, or anyone else, worry about losing their job when they can easily get another job of equal or greater value? I wonder how many cops are in their jobs simply for the pay and benefits, especially after the past couple of years of humiliation and unending attacks on their profession. Has the combination of these factors resulted in an "I don't give a crap" attitude? Or being that the school was predominantly Hispanic, did race enter into it? I have lots of very ugly thoughts and suspicions about what was really going on in those cop's minds.
I-5 wrote:I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the Uvalde Police Dept are mostly hispanic themselves based on their facebook page, so I don't know if race is a big factor there. I see it more as self-preservation and cowardice, and possibly incompetence (though it shouldn't be since the Uvalde Police Dept had been posting about all the training they've been receiving).
Aseahawkfan wrote:The 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights because the Founders had a real fear of a standing army controlled by the government that could be turned on the people.
NorthHawk wrote:I doubt any of them envisioned the 2nd amendment being used to justify inaction on the relatively
regular killing of children and other citizens going about their business.
I-5 wrote:
Yup, keep the 2nd Amendment and simply ban AR's. Who would have a problem with that?
RiverDog wrote:Sorry that I cut off most of your post, but I didn't feel it was necessary to reply to all of it to make a point.
You're right, there were a number of the Founding Fathers, just how many I don't know, that were dead set against a standing army and favored militas comprised of ordinary citizens, which they felt were less likely to be manipulated by a repressive government. But there were others that were concerned about an invasion by a foreign force and felt that a professional army of regulars was the best means to "provide for the common defense", that they would be better trained and with better tactics to repel a European army should they come under attack.
As I mentioned earlier, the Founding Fathers consisted of 55 delegates from New England to Georgia. There was no over riding, dominant philosophy. There were competing ideologies during the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the debate about a standing army was one of them. Neither you nor I can say with any degree of certainty what the fears and desires of the Founding Fathers were. They did not speak with a single voice. Like I said, it was not like Moses coming down from heaven to read his 10 Commandments etched in stone.
As it turned out, it didn't take long for the new country to form a standing Army. Just two years after the Constitution was ratified, Congress adapted the First American Regiment, regarded by many historians as the birth of the US Army:
The first decade under the Constitution represented a new founding for all three services. But Congress first had to create an agency to administer military affairs. The Confederation had a War Department headed by a Secretary at War (Henry Knox since 1785). In August 1789 Congress maintained continuity by creating a Department of War, with Knox remaining as Secretary of War. Then Congress formally adopted the First American Regiment (and an artillery battalion raised during Shays’ Rebellion) on September 29th of that year, a date that represents the Army’s third birthday–and perhaps this is the one that should really count. The government soon augmented the regiment with four additional companies, and in subsequent years it slowly expanded the Regular Army. By the early 1800s, the United States had made the critical decision to maintain at least a small standing Regular Army in both peace and war, which was a clear-cut victory for the (Founding Fathers') nationalists and for Moderate Whig ideology.
https://www.fpri.org/article/2007/04/un ... ed-forces/
My point is that we should not be using the convictions of the Founding Fathers to justify the 2nd Amendment. They were not in total agreement on the subject, indeed, it was those Founding Fathers that favored a standing army that won out.
NorthHawk wrote:I doubt any of them envisioned the 2nd amendment being used to justify inaction on the relatively
regular killing of children and other citizens going about their business.
RiverDog wrote:I wasn't aware of that. At least it alleviates one of my suspicions.
There was at least one act of incompetence. The 911 dispatcher, even though she had heard gunfire in the background, told a student that was inside the classroom and in hiding to keep talking to her, which she did, and the gunman heard her and it prompted him to shoot her dead.
mykc14 wrote:Yup, keep the 2nd Amendment and simply ban AR's. Who would have a problem with that?
If only it were that simple.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:You might get more out of what you want if you don’t say “Ban AR’s”. The AR-15 is just one of many semi-automatic rifles on the market chambered for the 0.22 caliber rifle cartridge.
Edit: you may also be using AR to mean “assault rifle”; this also limits your scope as many semi-automatic rifles are not considered assault rifles.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I'm not advocating for it either, and, in Australia, it isn't an out-and-out ban. You have to get a license and "for home defense" isn't a good enough reason. They've made it very difficult to get a license to own a semi-automatic rifle.
There is a distinction assigned to assault rifles. They are typically selective fire: semi-automatic or burst fire (3 rounds per trigger pull).
Ruger makes a very popular semi-automatic rifle that fires the same round as the AR-15, but doesn't get near the same amount of attention. When I hear "ban assault rifles!", I don't think a lot of them realize what they are leaving out.
Semi-automatic also includes battle rifles like you mentioned (FN-FAL). Full size rifle rounds (0.30 caliber) fired in succession. This would include the old WW2 M1 Garand and the M14 of the late 50's. Very destructive and much harder to control (i.e. fire accurately), which I'm guessing is why these shooters don't go for them.
And I agree that 99.9% of gun owners aren't the problem, but that doesn't help when children die to a mad gunman with a semi-automatic rifle like at Sandy Hook and Uvalde. I think something is going to have to give.
Aseahawkfan wrote:We will never agree on this. The only way to check the military power of government is an armed populace. I have read enough history to know there is likely never to be a time when this is not the case. No laws or anything of the kind will do it if those in charge of the government turn the power of the military and police on the people. Not voting. Not words. Nothing will prevent the tyranny from such action except armed resistance. The 2nd Amendment made it into the Constitution as a political right to check the power of the government's military and police power, so that Americans would have the means to fight back against such encroachment should it be necessary.
The Founders weren't in agreement on many of the rights. Some didn't even want a Bill of Rights. Doesn't change that the Bill of Rights had enough support to be included. Citizens should have clear rights to defend themselves from government overreach and tyrannical behavior.
Yes. George Washington supported a Standing Army. Any student of history knows that competition between nation states requires a modern standing army. Just as any student of history knows the only check against a standing army is an armed citizenry. Both the standing army and the armed citizenry must coexist to maintain liberty.
I-5 wrote:Yup, keep the 2nd Amendment and simply ban AR's. Who would have a problem with that?
mykc14 wrote:If only it were that simple.
I-5 wrote:It was literally that simple in both Australia and the UK after massacres in each country. But I fully realize Americans are a whole different breed. No amount of innocently slaughtered children will ever change that.
I'm not opposed to a ban on assault weapons. But we're kidding ourselves if we think it's going to change anything.
I'm not opposed to a ban on assault weapons. But we're kidding ourselves if we think it's going to change anything.
c_hawkbob wrote:Nonsense. During the 1994 assault weapons ban, even though it "grandfathered in" previously sold weapons and high capacity magazines, saw a significant downturn in mass shootings, whereas the death toll from mass shootings went from an average of 4.8 per year during the ban years to an average of 23.8 per year in the decade afterwards.
If the Ban had been allowed to remain in place we would be in a much better place than we are currently with the massive buying spree that has occurred since they all became legal again.
4.8 per year during the ban years to an average of 23.8 per year in the decade afterwards.
RiverDog wrote:Which is my point. Our founders were not in complete agreement when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enacted, and certainly not on the need for the 2nd Amendment. It was a typical decision by a committee, full of compromises and concessions, the "I'll vote for your amendment if you vote for mine" horse trading negotiations. They had to engage in a give and take if they wanted a unified country that could live under one set of laws. There is no clear, concise vision held by the Founding Fathers, at least not on this matter. Therefore, to say that the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army for fear of it being manipulated by a repressive government and henceforth gave us the 2nd Amendment is false. They gave us the 2nd because it was one of the compromises that the group of 55 had to make if they were going to get everybody on board.
We don't have an armed populous, not compared to what the military considers as being 'armed.' Even if everyone owned an AR-15, they'd be spit wads compared to tanks and helicopters. That's the difference between today's army and what armies were like in the 1700's. There wasn't near the difference in the quality of arms back then.
c_hawkbob wrote:Nonsense. During the 1994 assault weapons ban, even though it "grandfathered in" previously sold weapons and high capacity magazines, saw a significant downturn in mass shootings, whereas the death toll from mass shootings went from an average of 4.8 per year during the ban years to an average of 23.8 per year in the decade afterwards.
If the Ban had been allowed to remain in place we would be in a much better place than we are currently with the massive buying spree that has occurred since they all became legal again.
4.8 per year during the ban years to an average of 23.8 per year in the decade afterwards.
c_hawkbob wrote:That is fact. Period. I don't care how they want to "adjust" for this or that individual criteria, the raw, basic numbers still 'are what they are'.
Aseahawkfan wrote:What am I getting at? Laws are only one aspect of the problem we have with violence in America. America has always had a much higher violent crime rate than other 1st world nations historically. I've always told people America is not a nice country. We are not raised to be particularly nice people. We are culturally encouraged to settle disputes and situations with violence. We glorify people who settle matters with violence whether the gun toting Dirty Harry type of cop, the Scarface or Godfather like gangster, the vengeful minded father murdering people who have harmed his family, the Old West Outlaw or Lawman using his six shooter to solve problems, or the ex-soldier cleaning up his community. America glorifies violence and has for a long time.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Though when I was growing up and I'm sure most of the old timers can relate, mass shootings of the kind we're seeing right now we're not a thing. I think the first mass shooting that became a real part of the national narrative were the postal shootings in the mid 80s. That made the news and was a big deal. The first major publicized school shooting was 1999 in Columbine. That seemed to mark a big change in the psychotic nature of these crimes. From there it has kept getting worse. It's like these lunatics are trying to top the last mass shooter in body county or the level of vileness of the crime.
Aseahawkfan wrote:We need to focus on stopping suicide by mass murder. Because that is what these sick males are doing. There has got to be a way to track these people as they descend into madness. We need to figure out how to do that.
Some of these Red Flag laws look supportable. I hope they get implemented nation wide to take guns away from loons.
RiverDog wrote:I'm good with that kind of legislation, too, but it doesn't seem very workable. How do you identify the loons? Who makes that call?
RiverDog wrote:I'm good with that kind of legislation, too, but it doesn't seem very workable. How do you identify the loons? Who makes that call?
Aseahawkfan wrote:Florida is using a judge to make the call. We should have a police force specifically set up to do it. Some people can take a little discomfort for possible accusations to prevent this kind of psychotic attack.
Aseahawkfan wrote:To be a little racial even though I don't much care for the color designation, if black people have had to deal with randomly getting checked for gang affiliation and put on gang lists, white people can tolerate some false accusations of being a possible mass shooter to prevent some of these mass shooting attacks. If these folks start talking crazy or sending messages, you got a line to call. Mass shooter hotline. Get on there, cops respond, check the situation, and see how real the threat is. If they have to take you into temporary custody, then they do. Better to be safe than sorry at this point.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Seems to me these things are becoming so unbelievably vile that we need to tolerate some inconvenience. It's one thing if some guy loses his crap and kills his High School girlfriend. It's a terrible crime, but at least you understand it. This wandering in from nowhere and killing random young school children. I don't even know where that kind of hate and insanity comes from. That's the kind of mental state I've only seen from child killers like Wesley Allen Dodd or Albert Fish.
I do recall some school shootings in Washington State as well, just not as big as Columbine which was the first really big one that caused a mass uproar and massive media coverage. I read over that list of mass shootings. Seems pistols are used more often than rifles, but rifles are used in the higher kill count mass shootings that seem planned or to target large groups of vulnerable people.
The world is getting crazy, Riverdog. I was reading on the Clinton Administration and that Anti-crime act and it was sponsored by Democrats and supported by cops back when the Democrats weren't the party of Defund the Police and turn the police into racist villains. They were actually doing something about the criminals and not trying so hard to appease a segment of their base at the expense of the police. Not sure what happened to that Democratic Party same as I don't know what happened to the Republican Party that believed in sane government, not following some crazy to the detriment of the nation. I miss those days.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I'm not advocating for it either, and, in Australia, it isn't an out-and-out ban. You have to get a license and "for home defense" isn't a good enough reason. They've made it very difficult to get a license to own a semi-automatic rifle.
There is a distinction assigned to assault rifles. They are typically selective fire: semi-automatic or burst fire (3 rounds per trigger pull).
Ruger makes a very popular semi-automatic rifle that fires the same round as the AR-15, but doesn't get near the same amount of attention. When I hear "ban assault rifles!", I don't think a lot of them realize what they are leaving out.
Semi-automatic also includes battle rifles like you mentioned (FN-FAL). Full size rifle rounds (0.30 caliber) fired in succession. This would include the old WW2 M1 Garand and the M14 of the late 50's. Very destructive and much harder to control (i.e. fire accurately), which I'm guessing is why these shooters don't go for them.
And I agree that 99.9% of gun owners aren't the problem, but that doesn't help when children die to a mad gunman with a semi-automatic rifle like at Sandy Hook and Uvalde. I think something is going to have to give.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I'm not advocating for it either, and, in Australia, it isn't an out-and-out ban. You have to get a license and "for home defense" isn't a good enough reason. They've made it very difficult to get a license to own a semi-automatic rifle.
There is a distinction assigned to assault rifles. They are typically selective fire: semi-automatic or burst fire (3 rounds per trigger pull).
Ruger makes a very popular semi-automatic rifle that fires the same round as the AR-15, but doesn't get near the same amount of attention. When I hear "ban assault rifles!", I don't think a lot of them realize what they are leaving out.
Semi-automatic also includes battle rifles like you mentioned (FN-FAL). Full size rifle rounds (0.30 caliber) fired in succession. This would include the old WW2 M1 Garand and the M14 of the late 50's. Very destructive and much harder to control (i.e. fire accurately), which I'm guessing is why these shooters don't go for them.
And I agree that 99.9% of gun owners aren't the problem, but that doesn't help when children die to a mad gunman with a semi-automatic rifle like at Sandy Hook and Uvalde. I think something is going to have to give.
Hawktawk wrote:This right here . I’m a lifelong gun owner who believes qualified trained psychologically stable people should be able to own guns . I don’t really care what type of gun this people own . But when you have a weapon of war , a point and click killing machine so deadly cops won’t take it on for the second time in a major shoot it’s all you need to know about the weapon . If you want one I need to know a lot more about you . For one thing you have to be 21 or active duty military you don’t get one . Something . Some sort of enhancement to your license to have one .
Hawktawk wrote:I never said semi auto . I have a 3006 Remington 300 cannon . It takes 2 seconds to pull another accurate shot it kicks so hard . I’m referring to military style low recoil semi autos . I’m not advocating banning them either . I’m for an enhanced license to purchase one . Exhaustive background check . Nobody under 21 can have one unless they are law enforcement or active duty military . Give to get . But simply outlawing perhaps any semi auto weapon to under 21 would stop 9–10ths of it including the punk Rittenhouse . Why do we wait till 21 to be able to buy booze but at 18 we can buy a gun and shoot up a classroom ? Makes sense
RiverDog wrote:I realize that you didn't say semi auto, but Mack did and you noted it in your response. Rather than semi automatic, a better limitation would be on round capacity.
Age restrictions are of little assurance. The Las Vegas shooter that murdered 60 was 64 years old.
Active duty military and LE should not have any special rights to gun ownership. They don't need an AR-15 when they are off duty. As was the case in the Fort Hood shooting, anyone can go postal. IMO no amount of vetting is going to assure us that those types of weapons aren't used in mass shootings. The only way to achieve that goal is to keep very strict control of them: Limit them to SWAT teams that keep them under lock and key with a validated accounting system until they are needed for training or use against an active shooter and certain military personnel that do likewise. They might even want to embed them with locator chips in the event they become lost or stolen. Treat them like we would keys to launch the missiles.
Eliminating 9/10th's isn't going to pacify people. It's like telling people that we can stop 90% of the nuclear missiles launched against us. All it takes is one incident where 20 or so get murdered, especially children, and the shock of it will cause everyone to be clamoring for more gun control laws.
All you're doing with your solution is nibbling around the edges. If you are serious about preventing these military style weapons from being used in mass shootings, then let's go big. Keep them out of everyone's hands.
.
Aseahawkfan wrote:If the citizens of Switzerland can own military style assault rifles with as low a homicide crime rate as anywhere else, so can Americans. We should follow the Swiss model which is more 2nd Amendment like than what we currently practice in America.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Read over the ridiculously lax gun laws in some of these cases. It's so stupid that even someone as supportive of the 2nd Amendment myself is saying, "What are you people even thinking? This is the height of stupid. Why are you allowing this? It is completely unnecessary and ridiculous." What kind of a nation won't sell beer and wine to an 18 year old but somehow thinks it's ok to sell two assault rifles to an 18 year old? Or allows a guy to buy an assault rifle so quickly that 3 hours later he is able to load it and go on a shooting rampage? That's just stupid. We can start off getting rid of some the exceedingly stupidly lax laws before you ramp up to a ban.
RiverDog wrote:Switzerland's population is 9 million. Ours is 330 million. Big difference. The United States is unlike any other country in the world. Things that work in Australia or Canada might not work here simply due to our size, diversity, and historical context.
If you could convince me that we would never have a situation where we have people storming the Capitol, taking over neighborhoods in major cities, or believing in whacky conspiracy theories about the Covid vaccine, then I'd be all for your proposal. But we have far too many loons.
But to be fair, my solution wouldn't work, either, as it would likely be declared unconstitutional. All I'm saying is that if you want to stop the use of assault weapons in mass shootings, you're going to have to ban anyone from owning or possessing one.
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
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."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest