Of course not. There unfortunately will be another mass shooting and another as America comes out of lockdown and soft targets become prevalent. I’m just speaking to the notion that I understand what Fchow was saying that if a gun ban bill is front and center of Democratic legislation, it’ll completely suck all the air out of the room and other bills won’t get done. Biden has a tough task ahead for sure. We are seeing now what people were saying when said if he wins he’s got one hell of a mess. I made a note earlier too that points to the fact that it doesn’t have to squarely have to be on one mans shoulders. Zuckerberg overnight could make changes that dramatically help. So could the business community.
I don't get the fetish with AR15, but to each their own. 2A clearly state we have the right to guns. Unless and until 28A kill 2A, that's the reality. But 2A is so wrongly interpreted today. No, you don't get absolute rights to guns with no restriction. You know that. “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Congress has decided that well-regulated means, no freaking machine gun. NRA, the original NRA from the late 1800s, backed and pushed sucessfully for legislation to promote gun ownership for law-abiding citizens for hunting, protection and sporting, while limiting access to non-law-abiding citizens, aka criminals, children and mentally ill. The background check that we have - that was the NRA to meet their original goal of keeping guns away from people that shouldn't have access. The limit on age - again, the NRA. Licensed dealers - yet, again, the NRA. The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[36] after the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 became the first federal gun-control law passed in the US.[37] Karl Frederick, NRA president in 1934, during congressional NFA hearings testified "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."[38] Four years later, the NRA backed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.[39] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.[40] But then something happens in the 70s. I guess with any organization, eventually, as it grows, it gets corrupted. Self-interest and extremist can take hold. Or, more logically, as the NRA becomes a political force, gun manfacturers become major donors and eventually takes over the organization. From the very sensible 'promote gun ownership for law-abiding citizens while keeping them out of those that shouldn't have it' to we can't have any type of restrction, the NRA has gone extreme unadulterated right to gun ownership. Criminals are going to get guns anyway, so why restrict it for law-abiding citizens? Kids need access just like adult. Mentally ill restriction is nothing but a police state contruction to keep guns out of law-abiding citizens. Just nutty. That nutty behaviros over the last 30 years, with political support and strong lobbying power, has built up to today gun culture of the US. It was not always like this - this is a relatively recent culture built on powerfully lobbying and political support. I hope we get back to sensible behaviors and culture, of the 1870s-1960s. MAGA right . 90% of the public favor universal background check - just get it done. But instead of banning guns, I prefer we try treating guns for what they are - a tools that can be fun, can protect, but very liable to mass destruction as well. License, training, insurance. National Rifle Association - Wikipedia
I have faith that American's can recognize that healthcare is an important issue AND gun violence is an important issue and both need to be addressed. And our government can act on both. And I have listed off reasonable steps to reduce gun violence that includes *universal* background checks (for all gun sales), longer waiting periods, limits on the number of guns purchased, elimination of gun sale loopholes, increased mandatory training, mandatory gun (trigger) locks, limits on rounds, limits on type of ammo, and others. While I don't see the protective benefit of mandatory insurance, if it cuts down on improper use of guns then sure, why not. Most Americans favor all of the list I provided, as do law enforcement. But the argument that "policy changes won't work" to me is tiring. If the argument tis that "criminals will continue to break the laws" and worse, "previously law-abiding citizens will start breaking the law" then we as a country shouldn't have any laws. And "thoughts and prayers" will be our only defense. Every republican in congress voted against both of the two bills introduced. There is no reasonable solution in the eyes of republicans. Other than "thoughts and prayers."
Right there is an assumed risk and benefit of both guns and cars in society. However if a Datsun 280Z was created with an ejector seat that was accidentally (or purposefully on bad parent days) ejecting children through the roof to their deaths.... we'd probably look poorly on purchasing a Datsun 280Z. You could imagine scenarios where an ejector seat in that Datsun would have a use in a worst case scenario... but odds are much more likely you'll accidentally, or purposefully eject an innocent person onto the highway to their demise. That's sort of the insanity of allowing AR15's to be purchased and used in society the way we allow.
I don't think that's the issue (that America can recognize that HC and Gun violence are both important). The issue is that given how the US Senate works, or does not work... and given the short timing for Biden to pass legislation given the possibility of losing the House and Senate in 22, there are parliamentary issues that could grind the Senate to a halt if a gun bill is put up for a vote by Schumer. You are talking about at the very least 6 weeks of lost time in the Senate given the ways that the Republicans can stall out anything. So from a strategic standpoint, Biden and Chuck Schumer might have plans to put gun reform LEGISLATIVELY on the back burner for the time being, and have that fight after something like voting rights are put into law. Because if you lose our Democracy first... then there's really going to be no way to legislatively solve any gun violence issues.
I tried to include enough of this fact check article from the WaPo within limits of size of post... Biden’s claim that the 1994 assault-weapons law ‘brought down’ mass shootings A 2004 study for the Justice Department found that the ban’s impact on gun violence was mixed, at best, because of exemptions written into the law; if the ban were renewed, the “effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” The report said that assault weapons were “rarely used” in gun crimes but suggested that if the law remained in place, it might have a bigger impact. James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University professor, collected data back to 1982 showing that assault weapons account for 24.6 percent of public mass shootings. “Assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advocates believe,” Fox wrote in a 2013 article in the journal Homicide Studies. Instead, “semiautomatic handguns [47.9 percent] are far more prevalent in random massacres than firearms that would typically be classified as assault weapons.” Did the assault weapons ban make a difference in mass shootings? Not significantly, according to Fox’s data at the time. From 1976 to 1994, about 18 mass shootings occurred each year. During the ban — 1995 to 2004 — there were about 19 incidents per year. After the ban, through 2011, the average went up to nearly 21. That was the state of play in 2016, when a claim that a rise in mass shootings was related to the expiration of the ban earned Three Pinocchios. At the time, even the lawmaker making the claim could not point to data that would support the assertion. But, with mass shootings over the years, the possible impact of the 1994 law has come into greater focus. Christopher S. Koper, an associate professor of criminology at George Mason University, was the author of the 2004 Justice Department study that found the law had minimal effect. But in a 2020 study, Koper said evidence suggested that mass killings had increased after the federal ban on assault weapons expired. Ironically, the ban may have been increasingly more effective toward the end of the 10-year period. “The law’s significant exemptions ensured that its full effects would occur only gradually over time, and those effects were still unfolding at the time it expired,” Koper wrote, saying the law helped cap and then reduce the supply of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The restrictions on large-capacity magazines may have been especially important. “Data on mass shooting incidents suggest these magazine restrictions can potentially reduce mass shooting deaths by 11 percent to 15 percent and total victims shot in these incidents by one quarter, likely as upper bounds,” Koper wrote, adding, “It is reasonable to argue that the federal ban could have prevented some of the recent increase in persons killed and injured in mass shootings had it remained in place.” Fox, meanwhile, co-wrote a 2020 study of state gun laws that concluded that two key provisions can be especially effective. “State laws requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, which includes a background check on all purchases, are associated with 60 percent lower odds of a mass public shooting occurring,” he told The Fact Checker. “Bans on large-capacity magazines are associated with 38 percent fewer fatalities and 77 percent fewer nonfatal injuries when a mass shooting occurred.” Louis Klarevas, a research professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, studied high-fatality mass shootings (six or more people) for his 2016 book “Rampage Nation.” He said that compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent and that the number of people dying because of mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers in the next 10-year period rose sharply — a 183 percent increase in mass shootings and a 239 percent increase in deaths. In a more recent study co-written by him and published by the American Journal of Public Health in 2019, Klarevas also measured the impact of banning large-capacity magazines and concluded that such bans end up saving lives. “When LCMs were involved, the average death toll for gun massacres increased by 62 percent,” he said. “Jurisdictions that did not have LCM bans in place experienced a 129 percent increase in the incidence rate and a 206 percent increase in the fatality rate of gun massacres.” “There is ample evidence to support President Biden’s suggestion that a new federal ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines will reduce mass shooting violence and save lives,” Klarevas said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main
Several other noteworthy reports exist. A 2014 study by Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University, published in Applied Economics Letters, concluded that while “assault weapons bans are effective in reducing mass shooting fatalities, their effects on the overall murder rate are probably minimal at best.” A study of mass-shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio, a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 of the 448, or 70 percent, mass-shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts, including Klarevas. Finally, a 2020 study published in Criminology and Public Policy, by a team headed by Daniel W. Webster of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that “LCM bans were associated with significant reductions in the incidence of fatal mass shootings but that bans on assault weapons had no clear effects on either the incidence of mass shootings or on the incidence of victim fatalities from mass shootings.” This study noted that “most mass shootings do not involve assault rifles, but many involve the use of LCMs.” Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, has assembled a database of mass shootings that he has previously shared with The Fact Checker. Duwe defines a mass public shooting as an incident in which four or more victims are killed publicly with guns within 24 hours — in workplaces, schools, restaurants and other public places — excluding shootings in connection with crimes such as robbery, drugs or gangs. He then adjusts the data for population and also looks at five-year moving averages. “There’s not strong support for the notion that the per capita incidence was much lower during the late 1990s and early 2000s,” Duwe told us in 2019. “There’s more support, however, for the idea that the per capita severity (the rates at which victims were killed or shot in mass public shootings) was lower during this period of time. But what’s even clearer from the data is that there has been an increase in both the incidence and severity of mass public shootings (on a per capita basis) since the latter part of the 2000s.” The White House had no specific comment, except to point to the research published by DiMaggio and Gius. The Pinocchio Test Biden said the 1994 law brought down mass killings. The biggest hurdle for him is that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. But Biden also was careful to cite both the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines — and new research increasingly supports the idea that restrictions on LCMs were effective in reducing the death toll when the law was in effect. Moreover, recent research also supports the contention that mass shootings have increased since the law expired. What once was a hunch, unsupported by rigorous research, has now been largely confirmed. Biden did not say that, but it helps bolster the case that the law was more effective than originally understood. If Biden had suggested the decrease in shootings was large, as Clinton did two years ago, he might have been in line for at least One Pinocchio. But we will leave this unrated. The body of research now increasingly suggests the 1994 law was effective in reducing mass-shooting deaths. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main
Welp this turned into bashing the right like so many threads on this forum do. like a big circle jerk This is a silly place
I got a message from my mom concerned about my safety with Boulder and GA. I reminded her that I live about a thousand miles from either place. That said the situation in MN isn't much different.
Covid-19, gun control, immigration reform, infrastructure, healthcare, Chinese, Russian, NK, and Iranian aggression...it's like the previous guy holding office didn't do ****...thoughts and prayers for Biden and his administration cause they sure as hell gonna need them.
Or maybe we realize that it is a dead end and try and do something comprehensive and tie in the mental health aspect that also seems to be big factor in these shootings. I don't see why anyone needs a AR15 type weapon but banning these are low hanging fruit that really does nothing to address the issue, 1st and foremost this guy was nuts and banning assault type weapons is nibbling at the margins and frankly hurts the debate.
I used the Datsun 287 with an ejector seat analogy to the logic of not guns but the AR 15 in its danger to the country. Now imagine if every time someone said that the government should ban The Datsun 287, the liberals jumped on their number one talking point that the Republicans want to take your right to drive a car?? What if the only response you got from a liberal was “well the drivers are the problem. We just need better drivers.” It’s that type of response to a legitimate issue that makes the attack on the right about this issue well deserved. If you are a Republican voter who either recites these talking points because you love guns or you think assault weapons are an issue but do nothing to let your Republican representative know they need to move on this issue... you are well deserving of the criticism you see here. You guys own this issue until you freaking do something about it.
Right now, nothing has been done, and nothing is getting done. Just like the previous time. And the time before that. reread my earlier post: Right now, nothing is being done. Tying in mental health (needs to be fixed) sounds like a great idea. The previous president actually made it easier for people with mental health issues to buy guns. One easy fix would be to reverse that. But if your ultimate solution is to "solve mental issues" as a solution to the gun violence issue, then you may as well also try to solve the income disparity problem while you are at it. Or... you could start with a series of reasonable gun laws that most Americans support and most law enforcement supports.
Your right nothing has been done and nothing is getting done so why keep doing the same thing? Yes I want to start with reasonable gun laws but not enough of the US thinks banning assault rifles is reasonable so that makes my point. Its to easy for Republicans to deflect when after these things when the 1st talking point is banning the AR15. I'm just saying lets be smart about this and stop with what's not working.
The first approach was background checks. The first House bill was for background checks. My list included background checks and didn't include a weapons ban. Yet... Nothing is being done.
Per Police, the shooter bought a Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before shooting. fwiw: so technically not an AR-15...for those who like to be accurate about weapons he also lived with many family members — “multi-generational” household https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/23/boulder-shooting-suspect-ahmad-al-aliwi-alissa/ Alissa lived with his family in an Arvada subdivision on West 65th Place, a quiet neighborhood of single-family homes. Neighbors said the household appeared to be multi-generational with a large number of family members living there. The home is owned by Ali Aliwi Alissa, who also owns a nearby restaurant that was closed Tuesday. It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether any of Alissa’s family knew of his plan to attack King Soopers. A relative told investigators Monday night that she’d seen Alissa “playing” with a gun that looked like a “machine gun” about two days prior, according to the affidavit. “Alissa had been talking about having a bullet stuck in the gun and was playing with the gun,” the affidavit said. Others in the home became upset that he had the gun inside and took it from him, the relative told police, although she believed it had later been returned to him. Alissa purchased a Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before the attack, according to a police affidavit released Tuesday. Witnesses to the shooting described the gunman as firing a “patrol rifle,” Boulder police have said.
The shooter also did Jiujitsu and had won some tournaments. https://www.bjj-world.com/colorado-...VToiG7S7HCbiiHS_qzjDDO3BfRfsVGi42NuxiNO-vYOnc Colorado Shooting, Suspect, Double NAGA Champion, and Victims Identified
