OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I know mental health is an issue but there are mental issues in other countries too. It is not exclusive to the US. The problem is people can legally purchase these type of assault rifles. I have no problem with people owning handguns but what is the purpose of owning an assault rifle. Sure people can kill with handguns but an assault rifle can literally mow down crowds of people in seconds. I am all for banning assault rifles

1. I have no opinion of note on whether or not any particular guns should be allowed or disallowed.

2. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Almost no gun violence in this country is done with assault rifles.

3. In many ways handguns could be easier to kill more people if that's what you wanted to do because they are so much more easily concealed.

4. The purpose of owning an assault rifle or any kind of firearm from a philosophical standpoint is self-defense against threats including the government. A lot of people laugh at the notion that having a gun would do anything against the might and capabilities of the government. That's not exactly true. Yes if the government wants to exert force they will always win in the end, but the cost of doing so and willingness of govt employees to get in fire fights with their friends and neighbors is a strong counter force afffecting freedom. Look at the unwillingness of many Russian troops to get as brutal and effective at killing Ukrainians as Putin would want them to be. It's not because Ukraine stands a solid chance of actually defeating Russia in a war. It's because when you have people willing to fight even if they are outmanned and out armed the prospect of exerting force on them becomes incredibly less desirable and more difficult. I'm not necessarily saying that the right to protect yourself from the government is fundamentally crucial to me but it is not a laughable argument that makes no sense. It makes perfect sense especially in light of all the examples in history where totalitarian governments were able to easily manipulate the incapable masses.

#2. The AR-15 is indeed an assault rifle, unless of course, you let the gun lobby provide the definition. Here is how it was defined when they were banned before:

 "a military-style weapon capable of firing multiple rounds, either semi-automatic or a fully automatic firearm."

The AR-15 falls into that description. The NRA says if it isn't fully automatic it isn't an assault rifle. So an AR can only kill people as fast as a person can repeatedly pull the trigger, versus just holding the trigger down. Is that really a discussion you want to participate in? 120-150 shots per minute isn't an assault weapon?

#3 is complete BS. Not only could you not shoot as many people as quickly with a handgun, they are less powerful, less damaging, less lethal, shorter range.

You're using semantics and obfuscation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

#3 is not complete BS. Tell that to the family of the 32 people killed at virginia tech. 32 people died, he had a 9mm and a .22 caliber handgun. And yes you can hide them until you are in a position to kill more people. I mean it can happen, we can't just disregard it because we have an agenda to push against the AR-15. I mean I can convert my glock into an "assault" style weapon.

[dougthonus]

To get what you actually want (instead of what you think you want) is is leading us to a ban on semi-automatic, mag fed weapons, and calibers, and I'm telling you, that is a non-starter. (Most pistols today are mag fed, semi automatic, and I'm pretty sure the fine gentlemen on the Southside and West side of the Chi shooting each other would gladly turn them in....or not).

I appreciate this post, I found it to be enlightening. I do think saying "banning <xyz> is a non-starter" is interesting, because fully banning all guns and removing them from society is something that has been accomplished in other western societies. We already know it _could_ be accomplished.

From a "non-starter" perspective of could we ever have the political capital to overcome the current beliefs held by a large percentage of the country, I agree it would be really difficult, particularly with the way our political system is structured.

I think some things that feel reasonable and easy to implement in comparison are:
Require permits which are renewed regularly (requires background checks, mental health checks, etc..)
Require continuing education of gun safety use that must be completed every few years
Require registration of all guns with all rights towards ownership to be revoked under certain conditions
Accountability of registered gun owner to any crime or accident the weapon is used in

These are things that would probably go a fair way towards limiting a lot of problems we have and don't feel like the impose on anyone's rights at the moment.

One of the problems of course is that even if you do this going forward, you have such a large sea of weapons in existence already that it doesn't solve that problem, but it starts shrinking the problem and chipping away at it.

[League Circles]

You ban high capacity, rapid firing guns and magazines.

The problem is that defining these is not at all clear cut. But we can try. What capacity and rate of fire do you propose banning?

[ThisGuyFawkes]

You ban high capacity, rapid firing guns and magazines.

The problem is that defining these is not at all clear cut. But we can try. What capacity and rate of fire do you propose banning?

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

[_txchilibowl_]

Some of the posts range from tone deaf to completely selfish. Easier to just say you want no part of the necessary answers...

- Mental health needs to be addressed. Quit voting in Republicans. They continually vote down any hope of addressing the problem. If you care about the problem hold them accountable, otherwise you're fine with them lying to you and lining their pockets with what is tantamount to NRA blood money.

Also, Bring Back Bullying? That's insane. You think we can just "toughen people up" by pointing out their problems and trying to sweep them under the rug? Miss me with that BS.

- Ban all semi-automatic weapons immediately. There is no use for these weapons that supercedes the gun violence issue we have as a nation. If that means you can't hunt with one then so be it. There are other ways to hunt (and, quite frankly, more skillful ways to hunt).

I don't care that it won't immediately solve the problem or that gun enthusiasts won't hand them over. Keep the ones you own and have them registered. Failure to do so would carry consequences. Ban them today and the future will be brighter and safer for the next generation.

- Stringent and repeated mental wellness check ups before and after the purchasing of ANY firearm. You want the privilege of owning a device that can kill someone then you have to prove to society that you are able to do so responsibly. Period.

- Magazine limits. If you can't hit your intended target within 17 shots (standard hand gun magazine) then you aren't likely to do much better with the extra 13 (AR-15 clip). Unless you're plan is to spray bullets in a general direction. Then the extra rounds come in mighty handy.



None of the things prevent you from owning a gun. And if they do then they should. Meaning, if you can't pass the mental health exam then why would you be allowed to own a gun? Seems fairly reasonable to me.

And please stop saying that people would just find another way to kill other people. Apparently, people like to kill people with guns more than anything else. Otherwise, why go through the trouble of purchasing an expensive firearm if your car or knife is just as effective? Short answer: they aren't.

[panthermark]

You ban high capacity, rapid firing guns and magazines.

The problem is that defining these is not at all clear cut. But we can try. What capacity and rate of fire do you propose banning?

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

Sure, and the 1st amendment should only apply to items either spoken in person, or written in a physical newspaper, or written on parchment with a feather dipped in ink.

amirite?

[panthermark]

You ban high capacity, rapid firing guns and magazines. You offer a buy back period. After that buy back period yes, you put people in jail for possession. You require all new guns sold to have fingerprint activated safety mechanisms.

You institute universal background checks and expand the background checks. You add significant waiting periods.

You raise the minimum age to purchase to 21 at a federal level.

You outlaw ghost guns with automatic tripling of times served compared to possession of other guns.

You repeal the liability protections provided to gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners.

You require annual licensing of the gun owner, and annual registration of each gun, just like cars.

You provide universal Healthcare, including mental health care. That should have been done decades ago regardless of guns, and better mental health care addresses all kinds of problem areas, not just mass shootings and gun crimes.

This isn't brain surgery. And no. All of those together won't eliminate all shootings. No law eliminates everything it prohibits. Those measures sure as hell would put a major dent in the problem.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

And there it is folks. This is why nothing will ever happen. There will be no compromise, and no one will give an inch, because there is nothing to compromise and the end goal is that **** listed above. About the only thing useful is mental healthcare.

That is the exact reason why I went from someone that was very much against assault weapons, to someone that really dug into the laws and came out on the opposite end.

What is a "high capacity mag"? The original AR's came with 20 round mags. 30 round mags have been the standard for as long as I can remember. 10 rounds is REDUCED capacity. SCOTUS just decided on this BTW.

Rapid fire? What does that mean? Semi-auto? EL OH Freaking EL.

Ghost guns? Creating your own firearms have been the norm since the day this country was founded.

Remove liability protection? Gun grabbers always get this mixed up. Car manufactures are liable if there is something wrong with their cars that causes injury. Ford is not liable if someone uses their car to run down a bunch of people at a Christmas parade.

Finger prints, annual licensing and registration? What part of the 2nd amendment are you not understanding?

Buy-back? How is the government going to buy something back that I'm a) not interested in selling, and b) didn't buy from them in the first place?


FACTS: The majority of gun deaths in the US are SUICIDE, followed by dumbasses shooting each other in the hood with handguns over stupid beefs or drugs or disrespect. What you are proposing won't touch a dent in a majority of gun deaths because the people shooting each other in the hood won't give two craps about insurance and licenses or laws in general.

But damn near EVERYTHING you proposed is Unconstitutional. The 2nd does not give one the right to bear arms...that is a common misconception. It specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government.
Do you know what the 14th Amendment is? It basically means you can't make Unconstitutional state laws.

If you don't like that, amend the 2nd and the 14th.

Now, do you know what it takes to push through an amendment?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An%20amendment%20may%20be%20proposed,in%20each%20State%20for%20ratification.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

You are not going to get 3/4th of anything to ratify that.
Plus, you should be really think long and hard about opening the door trying to amend amendments....that is the kind of thing that often backfires spectacularly, especially considering that the 14th is pretty important to a lot of (us) folks on this board.

I'm going to say this again.
b]The majority of gun deaths in the US are SUICIDE, followed by dumbasses shooting each other in the hood with handguns over stupid beefs or drugs or disrespect.[/b] Outside of mental healthcare for suicides (and hopefully some mass shooters), nothing you proposed impacts gun deaths.

12 pages on guns....with hardly any discussion on the person that actually pulled the trigger. Typical.

[MrSparkle]

The problem is that defining these is not at all clear cut. But we can try. What capacity and rate of fire do you propose banning?

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

Sure, and the 1st amendment should only apply to items either spoken in person, or written in a physical newspaper, or written on parchment with a feather dipped in ink.

amirite?

Kinda. The internet should be considered a little differently. For one thing, you don’t know who I am. Also, we keep things respectful otherwise moderators delete comments. So there are certainly limits to freedom of internet speech. Also, the ease of creating a false news story and circulating it around the planet means that maybe internet “press” should be regulated. The 1st amendment certainly got a lot more complicated with social media.

Are any trillion dollar industries supposed to regulate themselves out of their infinite control? Pretty convenient for them to pull the “freedom” card every time.

[_txchilibowl_]

The problem is that defining these is not at all clear cut. But we can try. What capacity and rate of fire do you propose banning?

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

Sure, and the 1st amendment should only apply to items either spoken in person, or written in a physical newspaper, or written on parchment with a feather dipped in ink.

amirite?

If you're a Constitutionalist then technically that is correct. Sort of the problem with using a 232 year old document to run your country.

[Dresden]

The problem is that defining these is not at all clear cut. But we can try. What capacity and rate of fire do you propose banning?

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

Sure, and the 1st amendment should only apply to items either spoken in person, or written in a physical newspaper, or written on parchment with a feather dipped in ink.

amirite?

I think common sense can be used here. New laws need to be written as needed to keep up with changes in society and technology. Many other countries have seen the problem with firearms and taken steps to greatly reduce their availability, and as a consequence, they suffer far fewer cases of gun violence than we do. Why can't we do the same? If it takes a constitutional amendment to do that, fine, let's do that. But then the argument is "well, that isn't politically feasible".

So the real issue is not whether something can be done about this, it's "why do so many people resist changing that part of the constitution when it's so clearly apparent that it needs to be updated?"

[dougthonus]

And there it is folks. This is why nothing will ever happen. There will be no compromise, and no one will give an inch, because there is nothing to compromise and the end goal is that **** listed above. About the only thing useful is mental healthcare.

That is the exact reason why I went from someone that was very much against assault weapons, to someone that really dug into the laws and came out on the opposite end.

What is a "high capacity mag"? The original AR's came with 20 round mags. 30 round mags have been the standard for as long as I can remember. 10 rounds is REDUCED capacity. SCOTUS just decided on this BTW.

Rapid fire? What does that mean? Semi-auto? EL OH Freaking EL.

Ghost guns? Creating your own firearms have been the norm since the day this country was founded.

Remove liability protection? Gun grabbers always get this mixed up. Car manufactures are liable if there is something wrong with their cars that causes injury. Ford is not liable if someone uses their car to run down a bunch of people at a Christmas parade.

Finger prints, annual licensing and registration? What part of the 2nd amendment are you not understanding?

Buy-back? How is the government going to buy something back that I'm a) not interested in selling, and b) didn't buy from them in the first place?


FACTS: The majority of gun deaths in the US are SUICIDE, followed by dumbasses shooting each other in the hood with handguns over stupid beefs or drugs or disrespect. What you are proposing won't touch a dent in a majority of gun deaths because the people shooting each other in the hood won't give two craps about insurance and licenses or laws in general.

But damn near EVERYTHING you proposed is Unconstitutional. The 2nd does not give one the right to bear arms...that is a common misconception. It specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government.
Do you know what the 14th Amendment is? It basically means you can't make Unconstitutional state laws.

If you don't like that, amend the 2nd and the 14th.

Now, do you know what it takes to push through an amendment?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An%20amendment%20may%20be%20proposed,in%20each%20State%20for%20ratification.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

You are not going to get 3/4th of anything to ratify that.
Plus, you should be really think long and hard about opening the door trying to amend amendments....that is the kind of thing that often backfires spectacularly, especially considering that the 14th is pretty important to a lot of (us) folks on this board.

I'm going to say this again.
b]The majority of gun deaths in the US are SUICIDE, followed by dumbasses shooting each other in the hood with handguns over stupid beefs or drugs or disrespect.[/b] Outside of mental healthcare for suicides (and hopefully some mass shooters), nothing you proposed impacts gun deaths.

12 pages on guns....with hardly any discussion on the person that actually pulled the trigger. Typical.

I outlined several things:
Licenses that must be renewed with background / mental health checks in place
Training with guns that is mandatory at regular intervals
Registration of weapons
Making the registered owner accountable for all events that happen with their weapon (it is their responsibility to secure it when they aren't around and not to let anyone else use it and failure to do so is akin to taking any actions ).

Ignoring that you think we could never get past the 2nd amendment, I'm curious why philosophically you (or anyone who is pro-gun) would be against these things?

[Bullflip]

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

Sure, and the 1st amendment should only apply to items either spoken in person, or written in a physical newspaper, or written on parchment with a feather dipped in ink.

amirite?

I think common sense can be used here. New laws need to be written as needed to keep up with changes in society and technology. Many other countries have seen the problem with firearms and taken steps to greatly reduce their availability, and as a consequence, they suffer far fewer cases of gun violence than we do. Why can't we do the same? If it takes a constitutional amendment to do that, fine, let's do that. But then the argument is "well, that isn't politically feasible".

So the real issue is not whether something can be done about this, it's "why do so many people resist changing that part of the constitution when it's so clearly apparent that it needs to be updated?"

This is correct. The Constitution should be treated as document that needs to evolve with the changing times. If we had kept the first iteration of the Constitution, slavery would still be around and women would have no right to vote. Just because it is in the Constitution, does not make it the be-all-end-all. It needs to adapt

[panthermark]

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

Sure, and the 1st amendment should only apply to items either spoken in person, or written in a physical newspaper, or written on parchment with a feather dipped in ink.

amirite?

If you're a Constitutionalist then technically that is correct. Sort of the problem with using a 232 year old document to run your country.

I'm by no means a strict Constitutionalist.
What I am is a long time (+25 years) gun owner that has never shot, or even pointed a gun at another person.
I used to be all for AWB's because of my feelz, until I started to realize that "feel good" laws which run counter to the Constitution are great all the way up until you find yourself on the other side of that Unconstitutional law without actually committing any crimes. I care less about assault weapons, and more about the assault on laws. How some laws are administered while others are ignored based on popular opinion.
Our state is a wonderful example of "feel good" laws.
In Illinois you need a FOID to purchase a firearm or ammo.
In Illinois you need 16 hours of classroom training, plus pass a written test, and shooting test, to qualify for a concealed carry permit.
The City of Chicago has an AWB.
Cook County has an AWB
The City of Aurora has an AWB.
Highland Park has an AWB.

There are all kinds of mag bans and AWB (Assault Weapon Bans) in place, but none of it stops idiots from shooting each other. Yet all I see are proposal and laws that criminalize ME. As a FOID and Concealed Carry holder, I get background checked by the Illinois State Patrol 360 days a year.
Boo-Boo the fool and his Glock Fo-tay with extendo mag tucked in his waistband does not get background checked ever, nor gives a crap about any of the laws. If he goes to jail, he's out in 3 days and back on the streets because reasons.

What it all equals is this.
Panthermark, even though you follow all the rules, and go through all the background checks, and obey all laws, YOU need to give up more, and be subject to MORE rules and laws and registratins that won't address the root cause, because someone else is acting a fool, and we don't have the will or know-how to address it.
I'm looking at the 2nd Amendment. I'm looking the recent SCOTUS decisions. I'm looking at all of these ridiculous proposals, and I'm thinking...nope. I'm done.
Did you know our FOID has been ruled Unconstitutional? I'm not supposed to need to apply for permission, or pay a fee, to exercise a Constitutional tax. That is called a Poll Tax. AWB's have just been kicked back.
There are tons of state and local laws that are Unconstitutional, and I really did used to be fine with them until I opened my eyes and realized that the laws are not helping, and really only impact the people that pay attention to the laws in the first place. Again, that is all great until some feel good, useless, Unconstitutional law changes on you, and all of a sudden, you would be considered a felon. (Been there, done that, true story).

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Just bring it back to when the 2nd amendment was originally written. Muskets only.

Sure, and the 1st amendment should only apply to items either spoken in person, or written in a physical newspaper, or written on parchment with a feather dipped in ink.

amirite?

I think common sense can be used here. New laws need to be written as needed to keep up with changes in society and technology. Many other countries have seen the problem with firearms and taken steps to greatly reduce their availability, and as a consequence, they suffer far fewer cases of gun violence than we do. Why can't we do the same? If it takes a constitutional amendment to do that, fine, let's do that. But then the argument is "well, that isn't politically feasible".

So the real issue is not whether something can be done about this, it's "why do so many people resist changing that part of the constitution when it's so clearly apparent that it needs to be updated?"

Its hard for people to give up their right to own something especially if they don't believe its really going to make a difference. Its like why should a few bad seeds ruin it for millions of other responsible owners. Its not hard to understand. Clearly if you are against guns or you aren't a gun owner it is so simple for you to consider it. And yes there are some gun owners that agree with it but they don't speak for the masses when it comes to banning.

Like I said, I don't care about the constitution but the problem is you are suggesting taking away something from people who have done nothing wrong. Its a real uphill battle, not simple and I'm not giving a cop out answer. Its not that easy.

[1985Bear]

Panther: Would you be oK with Illinois laws if they were Federal and all states had to follow them?

As a person who wants AMERICANS TO STOP MURDERING Americans, action has to happen. All we get from the gun side is nothing works so don’t do anything and expect problem to change.

Unless it’s not a problem? Everything is all good on the gun front?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Panther: Would you be oK with Illinois laws if they were Federal and all states had to follow them?

As a person who wants AMERICANS TO STOP MURDERING Americans, action has to happen. All we get from the gun side is nothing works so don’t do anything and expect problem to change.

Unless it’s not a problem? Everything is all good on the gun front?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I usually see or hear first are people calling for bans. That triggers an emotional response from gun owners like you can pry my guns from my cold dead hands and its usually a childish back and forth.

[edededtut]

That triggers an emotional response from gun owners like you can pry my guns from my cold dead hands

At this rate it’ll happen sooner rather than later.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

That triggers an emotional response from gun owners like you can pry my guns from my cold dead hands

At this rate it’ll happen sooner rather than later.

What are you saying?

[edededtut]

I’m saying with all the gun violence, the random gun owner saying ”you can pry my guns from my cold dead hands” will end up shot by someone.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I’m saying with all the gun violence, the random gun owner saying ”you can pry my guns from my cold dead hands” will end up shot by someone.

Well that's productive.