OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[WookieOnRitalin]

You can go to virtually any city in the world with prevalent gun access and shootings will be concentrated among the poorest, most segregated members of the population. "African American values" aren't driving shootings abroad. There's lots of great work being done to address poverty, but this notion that it should happen instead of, rather than along with, gun control doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And again, mass shooters have almost exclusively been young white men. Is there a conversation to be had about what's up with young white men? Maybe. But it's not nearly so urgent as access to AR-15s and the like.

Yeah, but again statistically the majority of gun related deaths are black on black. Why is that part not of this conversation?

There is only ONE unifying statistical fact with regards to gun violence. It is disproportionately committed by MEN. Black. White. Doesn't matter.

So is the solution to ban men from owning guns? In your world view yes, but you will not get there unless you convince people that they do not have a right to self defense which a constitutionally guaranteed right in the United States.

How do you plan on solving that problem? Having a view is one thing, but being about to convince others of that view is another. How do you convince others you're right and they need to give up that autonomy?

A majority of Americans already support much stricter gun laws. And most polls show that a majority supports a ban on assault-style weapons. This is less about convincing the population at-large than it is about neutralizing the party that accepts a crap-load of money from gun manufacturers.

Would there be resistance? Absolutely. But there was resistance to women's suffrage, labor laws, integration, interracial marriage, abortion, same sex marriage, and on and on. Something is part of the cultural fabric until it isn't.

And there's the rub...

How would you propose to "neutralize" said party?

You have to get those votes who elect them into those offices to not vote for them and vote for the other guy. Otherwise, your claim is that the vast majority of people are voting against their conscience in their states to elect representatives who are operating against their wishes.

Which creates two problems. Let's say, you do have a majority of Americans who want to turn over the 2nd amendment with a unifying amendment that would create some mechanism for banning or restricting guns within the country. Fantastic. The issue is can you get it through the Senate or get 3/4 of the states to ratify it?

I doubt it.

As to stricter gun laws, I can tell you in the state of Tennessee that the majority of people do not feel that way. They believe in responsible gun ownership. I bet other states and its citizens feel the same way. So again, is this just highlighting a cultural divide between the population in certain areas of the country? I believe it is.

The people of TN are not going to give up their gun rights. Will never happen.

Here are the current laws on the book in the state to purchase a weapon.

Tennessee is a point of contact state for firearm purchaser background checks. In Tennessee, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”). TBI enforces the federal purchaser prohibitions referenced above.1

Any person appropriately licensed by the federal government may stock and sell firearms to any potential purchaser not ineligible to receive firearms because such recipient has been convicted of stalking,2 is addicted to alcohol, is prohibited under the prohibited categories of federal law3 or has a firearm prohibiting mental health history.4


Before delivering any firearm to a purchaser, a firearms dealer must:

Receive from the prospective purchaser current identification;5
Complete a firearm transaction record as required by federal law and obtain the signature of the purchaser on the record;
Request that TBI conduct a criminal history record check on the purchaser, providing the following information to TBI:
The federal firearms license number of the dealer;
The business name of the dealer;
The place of transfer;
The name of the person making the transfer;
The make, model, caliber and manufacturer’s number of the firearm being transferred;
The name, gender, race, and date of birth of the purchaser;
The social security number of the purchaser, if one has been assigned; and
The type, issuer and identification number of the identification presented by the purchaser; and
Receive a unique approval number for the transfer from TBI and record this number on the firearm transaction record.6

TBI may require that the dealer verify the identification of the purchaser if that identity is in question by sending thumbprints of the purchaser to TBI.7

Firearm transfers will be denied if TBI finds that the potential purchaser has been charged with a crime for which a conviction would cause that purchaser to be prohibited under state or federal law from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm, and a final disposition of the case has not occurred or is not recorded.8 However, if TBI has received written notice, signed and verified by the clerk of the court or the clerk’s designee, that indicates that no final disposition information is available, TBI must immediately reverse a denial and allow the sale to proceed.9 Alternatively, if the purchaser challenges a denial, TBI must proceed with efforts to obtain the final disposition information, and the purchaser may assist. If neither the purchaser nor TBI is able to obtain the final disposition information within 15 days, TBI must immediately notify the dealer that the transaction that was initially denied is now a “conditional proceed.” A “conditional proceed” means that the dealer may lawfully transfer the firearm to the purchaser.10

Tennessee law also requires the instant check unit of TBI to contact the relevant agency within one day if a person that is subject to a protective order entered into the Tennessee crime information center attempts to purchase a firearm.11

Under Tennessee law, if a person who has been prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons attempts to purchase a firearm, and the instant check unit of the Tennessee bureau of investigation confirms the person’s record, the unit shall contact, within twenty-four hours, the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction where the attempted purchase occurred for the purpose of initiating an investigation into a possible violation of law.12

Background Checks? Check.

Mental Health checks? Check

Gun transferers cannot transfer to people with criminal records or they are on the hook? Check


So more gun control. Got it. What do you want? Bans are not going to happen in Tennessee. You are unlikely to see any regulation on ammo purchasing. I'm just to figure out what would people here agree to do that you believe would solve the problem outside of getting rid of all guns.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I don't believe that Republicans are likely to be neutralized. Democratic leadership isn't up for it. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the Senate is an outdated body that gives disproportionate power to the rural electorate, voter suppression and gerrymandering are worse than they've been in decades, and the Supreme Court is signaling that it's going to allow state governments to overturn national election results. In case I haven't said so, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing significant happens on guns.

But feasibility is one thing and the truth is another, and the truth is that there's no reason for a gun like an AR-15 to be in civilian hands. None. For the sake of our collective sanity, that should be said loudly and clearly as often as possible.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I don't believe that Republicans are likely to be neutralized. Democratic leadership isn't up for it. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the Senate is an outdated body that gives disproportionate power to the rural electorate, voter suppression and gerrymandering are worse than they've been in decades, and the Supreme Court is signaling that it's going to allow state governments to overturn national election results. In case I haven't said so, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing significant happens on guns.

But feasibility is one thing and the truth is another, and the truth is that there's no reason for a gun like an AR-15 to be in civilian hands. None. For the sake of our collective sanity, that should be said loudly and clearly as often as possible.

That is your opinion, not truth. You have no appreciable way to dictate how a person decides to arm and defend him or herself to protect their own personal liberty. None.

Millions of people own these weapons and do not murder people with them. Only the insane and mentally unstable do. That is the truth.

The outliers do not dictate the fundamental rights of others.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I don't believe that Republicans are likely to be neutralized. Democratic leadership isn't up for it. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the Senate is an outdated body that gives disproportionate power to the rural electorate, voter suppression and gerrymandering are worse than they've been in decades, and the Supreme Court is signaling that it's going to allow state governments to overturn national election results. In case I haven't said so, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing significant happens on guns.

But feasibility is one thing and the truth is another, and the truth is that there's no reason for a gun like an AR-15 to be in civilian hands. None. For the sake of our collective sanity, that should be said loudly and clearly as often as possible.

That is your opinion, not truth. You have no appreciable way to dictate how a person decides to arm and defend him or herself to protect their own personal liberty. None.

Millions of people own these weapons and do not murder people with them. Only the insane and mentally unstable do. That is the truth.

The outliers do not dictate the fundamental rights of others.

K, I think we’ve reached the end of the road. You take care.

[superdave]

The parents of the HP shooter have retained R Kelly’s defense attorney. Good lord. Occam’s razor- one of the shooters parents co-signed the purchase or transfer of one or more of the shooters 5 rifles.

[WookieOnRitalin]

The parents of the HP shooter have retained R Kelly’s defense attorney. Good lord. Occam’s razor- one of the shooters parents co-signed the purchase or transfer of one or more of the shooters 5 rifles.

[TheStig]

I don't believe that Republicans are likely to be neutralized. Democratic leadership isn't up for it. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the Senate is an outdated body that gives disproportionate power to the rural electorate, voter suppression and gerrymandering are worse than they've been in decades, and the Supreme Court is signaling that it's going to allow state governments to overturn national election results. In case I haven't said so, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing significant happens on guns.

But feasibility is one thing and the truth is another, and the truth is that there's no reason for a gun like an AR-15 to be in civilian hands. None. For the sake of our collective sanity, that should be said loudly and clearly as often as possible.

That is your opinion, not truth. You have no appreciable way to dictate how a person decides to arm and defend him or herself to protect their own personal liberty. None.

Millions of people own these weapons and do not murder people with them. Only the insane and mentally unstable do. That is the truth.

The outliers do not dictate the fundamental rights of others.

If you take away all guns, people hell bent on this kind of thing will find other ways to do the deed. We've seen it in Waukesha. Instead of a gun, he used a car. He killed the same number of people and injured a significant amount. Both were parades, both with people intent on murder.

[Fantastik_Goat]

The "Militia Argument" has been considered and has been found to be descriptive preliminary language that does not restrict the right to bear arms in the language after the comma. The Founders had a greater command of the English language than most of our current citizens. Had they intended to limit gun ownership to militia membership they could have and would have specified that in plain language. The America of 1783 was spreading rapidly west, and settlers frequently encountered hostile native Americans (understandably hostile I might add). There were many Founders who did not favor a standing army. The westward pioneers were on their own unless they banded together with other western bound migrants. It would have been unthinkable in that era that each man would not have the right to own weapons for protection. The key to the whole Constitution is that we as human have certain rights that are endowed by our Creator...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't confer these rights to us. They are innate to us from the moment of our birth. The Bill of Rights spells out particular areas where the government cannot negate our fundamental rights. If we have the right to life and liberty then we must as a consequence of this also have the right to protect our own life. Thus the Second Amendment. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And if we did not have this fundamental right then many of our other rights provided for in the Bill of Rights would have also been in jeopardy over the 240 years since the Constitution was written by men much smarter than ourselves.

The kids murdered in Highland Park and Uvalde sure had the right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. By your statement, you suggest that innate from birth they should all been trained to use weapons and all should've been armed to protect themselves, since they have the right to protect their own life. Sounds like a bizarre dystopia. A gun is a tool for killing or threatening to kill someone. Problem is most gun instances are crimes, not self-defense. 2018: 484,800 gun-crimes, 70,040 self-defense. I would classify it as a criminal tool more than a defense tool. That'd be akin to stats showing that people use their cars to commit crimes about 7x as often as driving to work. Tools have different purposes, but they ultimately have one primary purpose in reality, and citizens' guns don't serve the purpose that the NRA seems hell bent on arguing - all empirical evidence suggests as much.

Westward pioneers were traveling beyond US territory, fighting natives on in lawless country. USA wasn't even officially exploring the West until the 1800s. You know that the right to bear arms had everything to do with the revolutionary nature of the founding of America, and it was a particular sticking point to preventing monarch-style oppression in the new country. Made a lot of sense back then.

Still makes sense in some ways, but we all know that this gun debate is about "gun control" not a "gun ban" - common sense updates to laws that were made in a different time period, by smart men who wrote the constitution in a way that was intended to be flexible and updated to modern times by the majority of the population. Currently as I look at USA polling, a majority of the population wants gun control laws for mentally ill, harder permits and licensing, and restricting military grade weapons and assault rifles to the general public.

Keep in mind that the majority of gun violence is committed by African Americans against....African Americans. A high number of them are young men as well (adding to the "child" statistics which I would call young adult).

So STILL one of the biggest problems with gun violence is that it disproportionately impacts poor, black communities. The problem is not the gun, but rather the cycle of violence within these communities (Read Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun by Geoffery Canada).

As to the bolded statement, I believe you can win a lot of hearts and minds on these issues and I believe state legislatures are catching up to this by passing laws to do so.

But here's a point for consideration. A large majority of the total gun violence is committed in urban centers where they already have pretty high levels of gun control. Again, the issue being that the majority of these homicides are being committed with handguns and not higher capacity weapons.

Actually most gun violence is committed by white men who shoot them selves. The suicide rate in Montana is higher then the murder rate in Chicago.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Actually most gun violence is committed by white men who shoot them selves. The suicide rate in Montana is higher then the murder rate in Chicago.

You are correct. However, as probably was clear, I was referring to gun violence against people other than oneself.

[Fantastik_Goat]

Why is one a bigger problem then the other, or more a symbol of cultural failing. Add in drug overdose deaths. This is what I call deaths from despair. You add these three numbers up in any place and you’ll find there is no place doing well.

[_txchilibowl_]

I don't believe that Republicans are likely to be neutralized. Democratic leadership isn't up for it. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the Senate is an outdated body that gives disproportionate power to the rural electorate, voter suppression and gerrymandering are worse than they've been in decades, and the Supreme Court is signaling that it's going to allow state governments to overturn national election results. In case I haven't said so, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing significant happens on guns.

But feasibility is one thing and the truth is another, and the truth is that there's no reason for a gun like an AR-15 to be in civilian hands. None. For the sake of our collective sanity, that should be said loudly and clearly as often as possible.

That is your opinion, not truth. You have no appreciable way to dictate how a person decides to arm and defend him or herself to protect their own personal liberty. None.

Millions of people own these weapons and do not murder people with them. Only the insane and mentally unstable do. That is the truth.

The outliers do not dictate the fundamental rights of others.

If you take away all guns, people hell bent on this kind of thing will find other ways to do the deed. We've seen it in Waukesha. Instead of a gun, he used a car. He killed the same number of people and injured a significant amount. Both were parades, both with people intent on murder.

That's cherry picking your argument...

Unless I missed the story about a person driving through a school and taking out an entire elementary classroom...

Remind me again of the time that guy who took out a large number of concert goers with his SUV...

Maybe that one time when that guy knifed an entire gay bar to death...

Oh right...those were guns.

Anti-Gun Control people love to bring up the Waukesha driver and the guy who stabbed people on the bridge in London as proof that crazy people will still crazy. No ****. But it happens magnitudes less than it does with guns.

It's not the same thing.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

“We can’t stop all the bad things from happening, so why bother trying to do anything”.

Love it.

[panthermark]

The more that comes out of this tragic event, the more it shows how useless the "feel good" gun laws are.
The police confiscated a bunch of swords and knives in 2019 because he threatened to kill everyone. He attempted suicide in 2019 as well. The hair? The videos and music he was making? The art?
Later in 2019, his dad sponsored his FOID
Warning signs were ignored.

We have a serious people problem. Social media and everyone needed a safe space because of the feelz is a big part of it for mass shooters. The lack of common sense, decency, and self-control, respect for human life (and too much of worshipping ghetto-fab ****) is the other part of hood shootings.

Also, some of ya'll need to read the Constitution and look up some Supreme Court cases. Heller, Bruen (plus the 4 cases GVR'd), even WV vs EPA. The talk of banning anything is a non-starter, and those that have guns illegally now, will still have them. It isn't like they are going to turn them in.

BTW, for those that don't know, YES, you can buy a grenade launcher in most states.

[Ben Wilson25]

I don't believe that Republicans are likely to be neutralized. Democratic leadership isn't up for it. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the Senate is an outdated body that gives disproportionate power to the rural electorate, voter suppression and gerrymandering are worse than they've been in decades, and the Supreme Court is signaling that it's going to allow state governments to overturn national election results. In case I haven't said so, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing significant happens on guns.

But feasibility is one thing and the truth is another, and the truth is that there's no reason for a gun like an AR-15 to be in civilian hands. None. For the sake of our collective sanity, that should be said loudly and clearly as often as possible.

That is your opinion, not truth. You have no appreciable way to dictate how a person decides to arm and defend him or herself to protect their own personal liberty. None.

Millions of people own these weapons and do not murder people with them. Only the insane and mentally unstable do. That is the truth.

The outliers do not dictate the fundamental rights of others.

Its cliche but do you believe civilians should be allowed to own rocket launchers, weapons-enabled drones and other military equipment? We obviously weigh the danger to society and draw some lines. Its weird we would place a greater value on the fetish some have with that type of weaponry (hunting, home defense and sport shooting can all be done with weapons not preferred by mass shooters) than the need to address the increasingly common mass murder of our fellow citizens. That's a pretty strong fetish if you decide you'd rather have the right to own an AR-15 rather than do whatever you can to stop another classroom of 10 year olds from being mowed down.

[_txchilibowl_]

Because the Constitution is an infallible document...

Maybe we should try evolving as a society? If people weren't so dogmatic about the Constitution, a document written when people were still sporting wooden teeth, then maybe we could solve modern day problems with modern day solutions.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Why is one a bigger problem then the other, or more a symbol of cultural failing. Add in drug overdose deaths. This is what I call deaths from despair. You add these three numbers up in any place and you’ll find there is no place doing well.

Absolutely agreed.

+1 billion.

Suicide, like all things, is correlated with a perception of the absence of the existence of hope. If hope does not exist, what is the point?

People measure their difficulties based on their capacities with which to handle the tasks before them. If they do not believe in their capacities to handle those challenges, it is likely to lead to investment in negative behaviors or self harm. In short, life is very difficult and people do not believe in their abilities to overcome those difficulties. This loss of self efficacy becomes the center point for the improvement of outcomes.

As you build self efficacy, you build the ability to help others restore their ability to overcome their difficulties. The other piece is to absolutely stop lying to people about how the world is.

It's not Disney. Life is hard and we need to remind people, especially young people, how hard it really is. If we create an honest view of the world and the necessary task of what it takes to deal with it, then we can begin to arm people with the tools necessary to handle it well,

This is why marriage is a fundamental backbone to a strong, civilized nation as an example or a strong emphasis on family or community. Creating deep investments into those traditional values leads to a fundamental understanding that life is harder on your own and easier with the support of another or many others.

Does not take a genius that sitting of a screen downloading media that does not help you invest in universal behaviors that lead to success is creating a lot of mental health instability. Social media is a collective contagion that is fragmenting the minds of people. I truly believe that and there is enough empirical evidence to support that claim. So we have to ask ourselves, do we need to regulate guns more than we need to regulate social media?

That's a fun quandary to consider as I would argue that social media and media in general create the volatility that permeates the mental health of our culture today.

There's more to it than social media obviously, but it's a good point to consider immediately and I also believe has a lot of bipartisan support.

As a practitioner, I believe that it is essential to build networks that help people take autonomy back into their lives. That is really the only way out of this mess. Either people believe they have the capacity to positively impact their lives or they don't. We need to help people understand that if you want to be a part of the group that exists in the former, you must believe in a high degree of personal accountability and responsibility. Without it, you will not be able to begin,

[chitownsports4ever]

Read on Twitter

[WookieOnRitalin]

Because the Constitution is an infallible document...

Maybe we should try evolving as a society? If people weren't so dogmatic about the Constitution, a document written when people were still sporting wooden teeth, then maybe we could solve modern day problems with modern day solutions.

Great idea, how would you like us to evolve as a society considering our current governmental structure?

You may figure out ways to call for a new Constitutional Convention to reorganize our system of governance, but I would probably bet that's not going to happen because there is not enough passion in the American populous to go through such a task simply because, well, America has the greatest producing economy in the world and unless the bottom falls out economically, I do not see a mechanism strong enough to upend our current rule of law.

Unless you have additional ideas that you find compelling?

[WookieOnRitalin]

Read on Twitter

Talk about a softball to appeal to the base. Pretty straight forward.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Its cliche but do you believe civilians should be allowed to own rocket launchers, weapons-enabled drones and other military equipment? We obviously weigh the danger to society and draw some lines. Its weird we would place a greater value on the fetish some have with that type of weaponry (hunting, home defense and sport shooting can all be done with weapons not preferred by mass shooters) than the need to address the increasingly common mass murder of our fellow citizens. That's a pretty strong fetish if you decide you'd rather have the right to own an AR-15 rather than do whatever you can to stop another classroom of 10 year olds from being mowed down.

Misrepresenting a position as a "fetish" is a classic tactic in debate, but hardly a good strategy for winning hearts and minds.

As a matter of principle, I believe citizens should have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. That is the essential component of the 2nd amendment. It's about autonomy.

In general, most people do not believe in owning such weapons thus, such proclivity is rare and unusual, but not necessarily illegal. So its prevalence is rare and ultimately too expensive for most to execute in any meaningful way. However, for the average person, a rifle is an easier piece of machinery to learn, easier to maintain, and economical for self defense.