Jump to content

Menu

Another shooting...


Recommended Posts

I don't like guns personally, but I agree that something more seems to be at play.  I mean what the heck is going on that so many people are going insane and killing innocent people in such a random manner.  I am leaning toward thinking we have a mental illness crisis on our hands, but honestly I don't know.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "strictest gun laws in America" is like the smallest skyscraper or the biggest miniature pony. State level laws can only do so much when federal laws protect guns and when state borders are completely open.

California didn't have a shooting, America did. They happen nationwide just like this.

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bibiche said:

Yes, too bad there's nothing that can be done about guns in this country.

 

28 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

deleted by moderator

 

20 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

 I am leaning toward thinking we have a mental illness crisis on our hands, but honestly I don't know.  

 

California rank #1 for strictest gun laws. Doesn’t stop people from breaking laws like for the 2015 San Bernardino shooting.

From CBS LA https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-shooting-borderline-bar-and-grill-13-killed/

“Authorities identified the shooter as Ian David Long, 28, a Marine Corps veteran who was visited by the Ventura County sheriff’s crisis intervention team after a call of a “subject disturbing” at his home in Newbury Park in April. He was never placed on a mental health hold, and Sheriff Geoff Dean said Long may have been suffering from PTSD.” 

Edited by emzhengjiu
quote from hidden post
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Farrar said:

The "strictest gun laws in America" is like the smallest skyscraper or the biggest miniature pony. State level laws can only do so much when federal laws protect guns and when state borders are completely open.

California didn't have a shooting, America did. They happen nationwide just like this.

This.

The (what I assume is) willful ignorance about/turning a blind eye to the ability to transport weapons between states gets almost as old and infuriating as "thoughts and prayers."

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Transporting them isn’t the issue.  Having guns doesn’t make someone murder.  That’s the problem - murder.  You can have all the safeties in place you want, all the reasonable limits and controls.  California does and many people do own guns and abide by those.  That does jack to prevent this,  because the guns and the gun laws are not the root problem.  They may exacerbate it to some extent and we have argued plenty about that, but it’s disingenuous and equally infuriating to pretend that if we only had more gun laws this wouldn’t happen, which is what turning this into a discussion on gun control and “why do stupid Americans always want to have guns when bad people use them to kill people?!”  never goes far.

Moving a weapon from another state to kill someone is still an individual INTENDING TO KILL SOMEONE.  Which is a crime - malice aforethought.  Constantly harping on every normal person who has never misused, improperly stored, or criminally discharged their firearm for being part of some sort of cultural problem with murder is why no traction is ever gained here.  Thousands of guns floating in the ether still don’t kill a single person until jackass picks it up and shoots someone.  

Oh please. Do we need to start posting the stats for gun related deaths in Europe? Australia? Or just about any other place in the world compared to the U.S.?

We all know them, and we all know the difference is . .. gun control laws. Not video games or mental illness or any other thing that is somehow supposedly (not!) unique to 'Merica.

Edited by Pawz4me
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I support

Strengthening/fixing background checks.  I don't have a lot of the specifics but it seems to me that an awful lot of people who shouldn't have guns according to the laws we already have, are still able to buy them and I think lots of criminals are slipping through the cracks

Research into better/more safety tech.  Again I don't have details

Requirements to have specific locks/safes/safe storage.  Maybe all gun sales require the store to also give away a trigger lock or something.

Maybe we need to look at laws regarding stolen weapons.  Both the act of stealing, and the act of selling stolen weapons.  Maybe those laws aren't working right.

 

ANd probably more, but my kids are yelling.  Be Back Later!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I support

Strengthening/fixing background checks.  I don't have a lot of the specifics but it seems to me that an awful lot of people who shouldn't have guns according to the laws we already have, are still able to buy them and I think lots of criminals are slipping through the cracks

Research into better/more safety tech.  Again I don't have details

Requirements to have specific locks/safes/safe storage.  Maybe all gun sales require the store to also give away a trigger lock or something.

Maybe we need to look at laws regarding stolen weapons.  Both the act of stealing, and the act of selling stolen weapons.  Maybe those laws aren't working right.

 

ANd probably more, but my kids are yelling.  Be Back Later!

When you have a moment take a look at the ballot initiative just passed in Washington state:

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1639,_Changes_to_Gun_Ownership_and_Purchase_Requirements_Measure_(2018)

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

When you have a moment take a look at the ballot initiative just passed in Washington state:

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1639,_Changes_to_Gun_Ownership_and_Purchase_Requirements_Measure_(2018)

In general, that seems to be pretty good.  The only thing I have any issue with is the change from age 18 to age 21.  It seems weird to have that sort of age restriction, considering that people can join the military at age 18.  But it appears to have some pretty clear guidelines regarding when people will or will not be charged if someone steals the gun, and I don't think that a 10 day waiting period is all that onerous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

In general, that seems to be pretty good.  The only thing I have any issue with is the change from age 18 to age 21.  It seems weird to have that sort of age restriction, considering that people can join the military at age 18.  But it appears to have some pretty clear guidelines regarding when people will or will not be charged if someone steals the gun, and I don't think that a 10 day waiting period is all that onerous.  

I actually thought a great deal about the 18 vs 21 issue when I read that law.  I think military service is an interesting point to bring up, but considering those in the military at that age receive significant training and oversight I think that is enough of a distinction to justify the restriction.

I had some concerns about the being charged for a gun being stolen/used in a crime but I agree with you that the guidelines are clear and reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

I actually thought a great deal about the 18 vs 21 issue when I read that law.  I think military service is an interesting point to bring up, but considering those in the military at that age receive significant training and oversight I think that is enough of a distinction to justify the restriction.

I had some concerns about the being charged for a gun being stolen/used in a crime but I agree with you that the guidelines are clear and reasonable.

Well, here's the thing about the age restriction for me.  It's 2 fold.

First...Can a person who is IN the military and stationed in that place, own privately?  Is that an exception they would provide for?

And Second....is such an age restriction really saying that a 19 yr old is not mature enough to handle such a weapon?  AND....if it is....why are we trusting 19 yr olds to literally defend our lives?  Could a 19yr old receive a military like level of training and oversight (minus of course all the other military training that wouldn't be relevant to owning a firearm) and then qualify a special exception?  I am willing to bet that should that be possible there would almost instantly be such training facilities provided by private gun rights supporters, likely former military, so that such training would be possible.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, here's the thing about the age restriction for me.  It's 2 fold.

First...Can a person who is IN the military and stationed in that place, own privately?  Is that an exception they would provide for?

And Second....is such an age restriction really saying that a 19 yr old is not mature enough to handle such a weapon?  AND....if it is....why are we trusting 19 yr olds to literally defend our lives?  Could a 19yr old receive a military like level of training and oversight (minus of course all the other military training that wouldn't be relevant to owning a firearm) and then qualify a special exception?  I am willing to bet that should that be possible there would almost instantly be such training facilities provided by private gun rights supporters, likely former military, so that such training would be possible.

 

 

 

1.) No idea.

2.) The distinction is a well trained *and supervised* 19yo versus a random one who can make a purchase just because they have enough money. Weapons and ammunition in the military are accounted for and tightly controlled.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Age restrictions I find problematic. If self defence is a primary reason to have a gun why should an independent 19 year have that taken away? It is age discrimination. If you can't automatically take guns and car keys away from the elderly then why can you do so to those who are under 21? I'm only ok with laws applied equally for all adults. If you are to allow age discrimination than I see no reason not to apply it to the Social Security crowd also.  

If you are counting 19 and 20 years olds as children then selective service, voting, and other laws should be changed to match.  They should also not be tried in adult courts.

Edited by frogger
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, frogger said:

Age restrictions I find problematic. If self defence is a primary reason to have a gun why should an independent 19 year have that taken away? It is age discrimination. If you can't automatically take guns and car keys away from the elderly then why can you do so to those who are under 21? I'm only ok with laws applied equally for all adults. If you are to allow age discrimination than I see no reason not to apply it to the Social Security crowd also.  

If you are counting 19 and 20 years olds as children then selective service, voting, and other laws should be changed to match.  They should also not be tried in adult courts.

We already have various age restrictions (alcohol being a primary one) which have been upheld so I don't think you will find much traction to end them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

We already have various age restrictions (alcohol being a primary one) which have been upheld so I don't think you will find much traction to end them.

I do find the whole "old enough to go kill people in the name of the law but not old enough to have a can of beer" thing really weird and disjointed.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

We already have various age restrictions (alcohol being a primary one) which have been upheld so I don't think you will find much traction to end them.

 

Just because something already exists doesn't make it right.  

I realize once courts uphold something it is harder to make it right but it has been done.  Also, the argument for alcohol isn't inbedded in the Constitution. It should be harder to take away free speech or the right to bear arms than to drink a rum and coke.

 

That being said, the resason for the voting age being lowered to 18 was specifically because of a draft so you could make an argument that 21 is a better age for full citizenship.

If it is ok to make laws restricting firearm usage and ownership, which the majority accept just not on what degree, than they need to be applied equally. 

Edited by frogger
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, frogger said:

Age restrictions I find problematic. If self defence is a primary reason to have a gun why should an independent 19 year have that taken away?

In this case, it’s not taking away a 19 year old’s right to have a gun, only restricting the types of guns. They would still have plenty of options for self defense weapon. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Re ages - lift everything to 21. We know way more about the developing brains of young adults than we ever did before - at 21 the brain may not have finished maturing, but the risk assessment capabilities are far improved as compared to 18. Lots of growth in those three years. (Yes, within that general statement there are very mature 18 year olds and very immature 40 year olds, but we don't make laws for the individual).

Re PTSD - victims of war continue to hurt long after the war is done. More $$ into support of veterans - medical, psychological, peer, social, housing, employment.

Re guns - what did anyone expect ? Again, this is simply the price many people are prepared to pay. 

I am actually not necessarily opposed to that.  I mean, in general I think we as an overall society are extending adolescence beyond what we need to.  BUT.....I do agree that we now know way more about brain development and how it all works, and raising everything to 21 isn't necessarily a terrible idea.  I think we do need to be careful about creating a slippery slope where we just keep extending childhood and continuing to move the goal posts.  But in general, I do think we are coming to a point where.....lets reassess it ALL.  

Edited by happysmileylady
holy crap sometimes I can't spell
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kand said:

In this case, it’s not taking away a 19 year old’s right to have a gun, only restricting the types of guns. They would still have plenty of options for self defense weapon. 

Yes, but I still find it problematic morally. If you restrict them for a 20 year old then I believe the same restrictions should apply for a 60 year old. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frogger said:

Yes, but I still find it problematic morally. If you restrict them for a 20 year old then I believe the same restrictions should apply for a 60 year old. 

I see what you’re saying. I think the reasoning was based on statistics, particularly in school shootings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kand said:

In this case, it’s not taking away a 19 year old’s right to have a gun, only restricting the types of guns. They would still have plenty of options for self defense weapon. 

Except....I guess maybe this is another issue I have.....the idea that only particular types of guns are too big for 19yr olds to handle....but NOT too big for 21 yr olds to handle...that doesn't' so much make sense for me.  But then, I am not so big on the difference between the danger of an "assault rifle" vs a handgun (which is actually used more often in a mass shooting, or really, most other criminal gun deaths-didn't see stats on suicides though I am sure they exist.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Re ages - lift everything to 21. We know way more about the developing brains of young adults than we ever did before - at 21 the brain may not have finished maturing, but the risk assessment capabilities are far improved as compared to 18. Lots of growth in those three years. (Yes, within that general statement there are very mature 18 year olds and very immature 40 year olds, but we don't make laws for the individual).

Re PTSD - victims of war continue to hurt long after the war is done. More $$ into support of veterans - medical, psychological, peer, social, housing, employment.

 

I would not mind changing the official age of adults but it would not be easy. I would say military enlistment is out which is the means to college for many. 

They should still be tried through Juvenile Court system.

This would affect the emancipation of students. Would parents now have access to medical records, student records? If a young person lacks freedom then they must have an advocacy.  It also restricts people who don't have an advocate and must somehow survive on their own. The foster care system is overloaded as it is and I would think it can't expand. Yet, teens already face more restrictions than felons. There are extra restrictions on everything from hours they can drive to what kind of work they can do to how many hours they can work. I wouldn't mind increasing age of adulthood as long as we didn't increase restrictions overall and in fact decreased them. 

 

 

As to the victims of war, I so agree. I feel that young people are used by older people for their wars and hung out to dry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one happened in my hometown, a 10-minute drive from the house in which I grew up, virtually next door to the mall where I spent most of my weekends as a teenager. When I looked up the address on Google maps, it was actually kind of hard for me to breathe for a couple of minutes. I feel like there's nowhere to turn: Pulse happened just a few miles from the house where my husband, my children and I lived for several years and heavily affected the LGBTQ community in which my daughter, especially, had many friends. Now this.

And, although I couldn't bring myself to read the political wrangling that started early in this thread, I'll mention here that it is my understand that the gun used in this atrocity was purchased legally.

I have also read that the presumed shooter had been brought to the attention of law enforcement a few months ago, at which time it was thought there were no mental health issues significant enough to require intervention.

Edited by Jenny in Florida
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Off Topic.

Prayers and positive thoughts for Butte County (Northern California), people and animals are running for their lives.

“Tens of thousands of people are forced to evacuate Thursday as a destructive wildfire continues to grow in Butte County.

The fire, called the Camp Fire, has destroyed several hundred structures in Paradise, is threatening 15,000 other structures and has injured multiple people.

"Pretty much the community of Paradise is destroyed, it's that kind of devastation," Cal Fire Capt. Scott McLean said late Thursday. "The wind that was predicted came and just wiped it out."

...

EVACUATIONS

The towns of Pulga and Paradise have been told to evacuate, officials said. If you need assistance evacuating, call 911.

...

INJURIES

Seven people have been injured so far, including two firefighters, according the Butte County Sheriff's Office.

CHP said it has aircraft working with Enloe Medical Center to treat patients.

BATTLING THE BLAZE

Officials were sending as many firefighters as they could, Cal Fire spokesman Rick Carhart said.

"Every engine that we could put on the fire is on the fire right now, and more are coming," he said. "There are dozens of strike teams that we're bringing in from all parts of the state."

...

POWER OUTAGES

About 14,000 PG&E customers are without power in Butte and Plumas counties.

PG&E has shut off power in the surrounding area of the blaze at firefighters' request. No proactive power shutoffs were initiated, the company said.

Other outages in the area were caused by the fire.” https://www.kcra.com/article/butte-count-wildfire-burns-20000-acres-thousands-evacuated-from-paradise/24838602

link to news on horses fleeing https://abc7news.com/video-horses-flee-camp-fire-in-butte-county/4649809/

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Arcadia said:

 

 

 

California rank #1 for strictest gun laws. Doesn’t stop people from breaking laws like for the 2015 San Bernardino shooting.

From CBS LA https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-shooting-borderline-bar-and-grill-13-killed/

“Authorities identified the shooter as Ian David Long, 28, a Marine Corps veteran who was visited by the Ventura County sheriff’s crisis intervention team after a call of a “subject disturbing” at his home in Newbury Park in April. He was never placed on a mental health hold, and Sheriff Geoff Dean said Long may have been suffering from PTSD.” 

 

This is what came to mind after I read he was a Marine. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

I just heard about the fires too.  

 

There is another fire going on at Thousand Oaks/Newbury Park

“A fast-moving brush fire fueled by strong, erratic winds and low humidity charred as many as 7,000 acres Thursday in the Newbury Park-Thousand Oaks area, forcing evacuations and shutting down a section of Highway 101 as scores of firefighters, aided by air tankers, worked to quell the flames.

The blaze broke out sometime around 2 p.m. in the Santa Rosa Valley near Santa Rosa Road, according to Ventura County Fire Department officials.

...

CSU Channel Islands also ordered a mandatory evacuation of the campus due to fire. All classes and activities were canceled Thursday evening, a school official said, and students who live on campus have been asked to evacuate and go home, stay with a friend or head north of the campus.

Also burning in the region was the Woolsey fire, which had charred more than 2,000 acres in the Woolsey Canyon area of Ventura County, CalFire officials said. Los Angeles County firefighters were assisting with that blaze.” https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/11/08/fast-moving-brush-fire-scorches-at-least-3000-acres-near-highway-101-ventura-county-officials-say/

Edited by Arcadia
Weird font sizes
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 11:53 AM, Pawz4me said:

Oh please. Do we need to start posting the stats for gun related deaths in Europe? Australia? Or just about any other place in the world compared to the U.S.?

We all know them, and we all know the difference is . .. gun control laws. Not video games or mental illness or any other thing that is somehow supposedly (not!) unique to 'Merica.

 

I don't think it is really all that clear that the important difference is the laws.  It seems just as likely that the difference in gun laws comes out of some other, more fundamental, cultural difference about violence.

And I think that now, there is a significant difference with regard to mass shootings in particular.  The US now has a tradition of mass shootings - they exist as a thing in the public consciousness.  So far, this hasn't spread much to other places, though that may be changing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

1.) No idea.

2.) The distinction is a well trained *and supervised* 19yo versus a random one who can make a purchase just because they have enough money. Weapons and ammunition in the military are accounted for and tightly controlled.

 

I think point 2 is reasonable.  It is actually pretty common for young people in the military to do stupid things with firearms - but  because they are supervised and there is real tracking of where stuff is, it's managed.  The point is in large part for them to learn to be responsible, almost reflexively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, frogger said:

Age restrictions I find problematic. If self defence is a primary reason to have a gun why should an independent 19 year have that taken away? It is age discrimination. If you can't automatically take guns and car keys away from the elderly then why can you do so to those who are under 21? I'm only ok with laws applied equally for all adults. If you are to allow age discrimination than I see no reason not to apply it to the Social Security crowd also.  

If you are counting 19 and 20 years olds as children then selective service, voting, and other laws should be changed to match.  They should also not be tried in adult courts.

 

IMO this idea is the #1 difference between guns in the US and other parts of the world with less gun crime.  It's not the number or type of guns, or mental illness.  It's the idea that the most important reason people need them is defence against other citizens or against their own government.  

Other places where that idea is common tends to be war zones on a regular basis.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, most people I know who have used guns in self defence have used them against bears and yes I want my children to have that ability but honestly, I can provide that regardless of any age limit imposed by any state.

 

If our country is a war zone because all the adults have guns then it seems even more unfair to take guns away from only law abiding 18-21 years old, doesn't it?  

Edited by frogger
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, frogger said:

Well, most people I know who have used guns in self defence have used them against bears and yes I want my children to have that ability but honestly, I can provide that regardless of any age limit imposed by any state.

 

If our country is a war zone because all the adults have guns then it seems even more unfair to take guns away from only law abiding 18-21 years old, doesn't it?  

 

I was thinking self-defence against people, not bears.  It's a pretty common idea that that is the reason to have a gun.  It's not so usual to have people object to a rifle or shotgun in  places with grizzlies or for protecting livestock and such.

In a war zone, you could certainly argue that people need a gun.  I'm not sure that most people think of the US as similar to the DRC though, and if it is, worrying about the guns themselves should be secondary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The CA shootings that I am aware of were not with guns smuggled in from other states.  CA state laws are about as restrictive as the federal laws that many advocate for, but they don't prevent these incidents.  People tend to say that a federal restriction would do so, but again I don't believe that the actual data bears this out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I was thinking self-defence against people, not bears.  It's a pretty common idea that that is the reason to have a gun.  It's not so usual to have people object to a rifle or shotgun in  places with grizzlies or for protecting livestock and such.

In a war zone, you could certainly argue that people need a gun.  I'm not sure that most people think of the US as similar to the DRC though, and if it is, worrying about the guns themselves should be secondary.

That may be true but the argument that gun control advocates are arguing against is that it is a constitutional right and for self defence otherwise it would be easy to get rid of guns in general.

 

If you can take guns from 20 year olds, why not 40 year olds? This allowance for military only is to me using people who don't have the same freedoms as others for military uses ticks me off, quite frankly. If my son has to sign for selective service and pay taxes then he ought to be able to have the same freedoms as a 40 year old. You can argue with me what those ought to be but they ought to be the same.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I probably shouldn't say much more but the idea that the training in the military is supposed to keep incidents like this from happening seems really far off. These shootings aren't accidental. These are cold blooded often premediatated murders. Training just would make you more efficient and knowledgable to pull off your evil plan.  Also, military recruits have to learn to be able to pull the trigger on others because mentally healthy people  don't want to shoot others. It's actually a difficult thing to overcome if you have grown up to have any source of empathy at all.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, frogger said:

Oh and I probably shouldn't say much more but the idea that the training in the military is supposed to keep incidents like this from happening seems really far off. These shootings aren't accidental. These are cold blooded often premediatated murders. Training just would make you more efficient and knowledgable to pull off your evil plan.  Also, military recruits have to learn to be able to pull the trigger on others because mentally healthy people  don't want to shoot others. It's actually a difficult thing to overcome if you have grown up to have any source of empathy at all.

Agreed. Often the shooters in mass shootings and regular domestic violence shootings are military or former military or kicked out almost military. I'm not saying military service members are more likely to commit gun crimes, but I doubt they are less likely. They come from the same population as the rest of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, frogger said:

Oh and I probably shouldn't say much more but the idea that the training in the military is supposed to keep incidents like this from happening seems really far off. These shootings aren't accidental. These are cold blooded often premediatated murders. Training just would make you more efficient and knowledgable to pull off your evil plan.  Also, military recruits have to learn to be able to pull the trigger on others because mentally healthy people  don't want to shoot others. It's actually a difficult thing to overcome if you have grown up to have any source of empathy at all.

 

I don't think that is the point people are making  Rather, young people who are in the military do not have access to personally owned weapons that they use on their own because of that.  The weapons they have while actually working are strictly controlled - they need to be stored a particular way, locked up when not in use, and there are all kinds of rules around when you can and cannot use them.  There are older and more experienced people supervising them, and serious penalties even for small errors.  Plus far more training is safe use than is required for civilians.

That someone at 19 is allowed access to a powerful weapon under those conditions is just not the same as someone 19 being able to pick one up at the store and bring it home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...