cooling off period

[Pam in CT]

re what AR-15 bullets do to children's bodies, relative to what handgun bullets do to children's bodies

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

This is thoroughly disgusting, but I think important if people are trying to argue that bullets shot by an AR-15 are less damaging than from other guns and are just going to go right through people (how completely bizarre is it that we are even having this conversation, as if that would be okay as long as they went right through?).

The fact is, we know what these guns do to rooms full of children. We keep seeing it again and again. To argue they really aren't that damaging is mind blowing. But people want their toys.

Yes: thoroughly disgusting.

And yet: maybe we have to force ourselves to look.

Charlie Sykes (longtime Republican strategist who now self-identifies as "politically homeless" and is often vilified by his former clients as RINO) used part of his podcast a couple days ago to talk about this, arguing that we've arrived at the Time for an Emmett Till Moment.

 

 

[for those outside the US: Emmett Till, then 14, was brutally tortured, killed, weighted down and dumped into a river in Mississippi in 1955 by a lynch mob, whose ringleaders were subsequently acquitted by an all white jury. In sharp divergence from prevailing norms of niceties/ privacy, his mother made the decision to have an open coffin and allow photographers.  It didn't noticeably move the mark of white public sentiment *in the moment* but is now seen ex post as a bellwether for shifting tides in the subsequent era.  His casket, filled with photographs taken at his funeral, is now a central exhibit at the National Museum of African American History in WDC)

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think it's essential we not let perfect be the enemy of good (you may even have said the same in this thread?? Maybe that was someone else). It won't fix everything. Stopping new sales would almost surely prevent some tragedies though. And for gun owners to argue that it's not going to do any good would be them essentially saying they aren't going to be lawful with their weapons and keep them under their own lock and key, not sell them to criminals and not otherwise let them get into the wrong hands. This has worked in other countries. There's no reason that making guns like the AR-15 difficult or impossible to buy won't reduce the number of kids killed in schools.

I’m not sure I understand.  I just said that I don’t favor a ban of AR 15s anymore but so do favor sensible regulations making it more different to buy and a voluntary buy back.   I think bans are a political dead end for sure, and the pro gun people dig in their heels when that word comes out ending productive debate.  I don’t see how that is letting perfect get in the way of the good.  I think that’s a compromise position of sorts.  

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, mom2scouts said:

ARs are the most common for shootings because they are one of THE most common sport rifles in the US. They are *not* "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" but rifles designed to *look* like military weapons. I've actually shown people pictures of very powerful weapons that have a wooden stock and an AR that isn't even even close and ask which should be restricted. They'll pick the scary looking AR every time. I think this is one of the reasons we never make progress. 

ETA: Red Flag Laws. In theory, I support them. Almost without exception, recent shooters have had huge red flags that were ignored. I'm just not sure how we implement them to protect rights and prevent them from being used in a way that puts people at risk or allows people to use it against someone they don't like.

I'm interested in what weapon you are talking about, and in what way do you mean more powerful? Higher velocity? Magazine size? Mass of the bullet? 

The AR style weapons are so dangerous because they are both high velocity (so high force, causing terrible impact damage) AND high magazine capacity. They are also more accurate than some others. 

A WWII sniper rifle might be more powerful regarding the mass of the bullet, but it doesn't have the same magazine capacity, meaning fewer casualties most likely. Plus, the bigger kickback means less accuracy for someone not highly trained. 

4 hours ago, SKL said:

Screw compromise if I am under physical threat from my ex.  All of your waiver conditions require timely action by government officials, and require the victim to prove something that has only been threatened.  The number of women (and their children) who have been abused and murdered after reporting the SOB is not comforting.

(I also wouldn't limit it to "intimate partner."  What about the SOB you left long ago, or refused to be intimate with, who can't take no for an answer?  What about family members, housemates / neighbors, and any other lunatic who decides to come after you?)

So, something that likely would prevent a lot of deaths, isn't okay if it means you personally would have to wait a few days to get a gun when you want one?

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Am I missing it?  I do not see any study that provides evidence that:  a waiting period would decrease the situations of someone going into a building and killing people. 

I really don't care if the person had a gun for 5 minutes, three weeks, had applied a month earlier and now received the gun, had gone through gun safety courses, had gone through military or police training--the problem is the killing.  I have not seen good statistics, but many reports I have seen of mass killings is a result of someone having collected weapons over a period of time.  Because a person buys a gun on Monday and goes in a building and shoots people on Monday, does not mean that if we made the person wait until Friday to get the gun the person would not have gone in a building and shot people on Friday.  (Yes it would 100% prevent them from going in the building on Monday and killing people--but that isn't really the goal.)

I didn't start the thread saying it would do that. I said they have been shown to prevent overall gun deaths. Particularly suicides and homicides, likely domestic violence shootings. And likely SOME spree killings. But even if only preventing deaths via suicide, that would be wonderful. IT doesn't have to do everything, to do something important. 

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

 

You know that the one characteristic that school shooters had in a government funded study from a few years ago?  Broken families.

Unfortunately, we cannot mass produce a bunch of well adjusted financially stable parents to deliver to the doorstep of kids growing up in broken families. But we could implement sensible gun legislation very quickly. 

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Actually most of the deaths do have to do with gangs and other criminal activities.  That is what is driving up most of the killings in big cities like Chicago, Memphis, Philadelphia, etc.

Again, if a regulation only reduces other forms of gun deaths, it would still be worthwhile. 

51 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s also the velocity of the rounds.  I think that article talks about the difference when shot at ballistics gel.    The AR is modeled off of the M whatever in the military that was designed specifically to kill with fewer bullets, meaning one bullet needed to do more damage.   

yup, good time to review that force = mass x acceleration. 

[Lillyfee]

I honestly dont like my kid to get shot by any gun. I feel these conversations about which gun kills how and how to kill an intruder best (I overheard conversations if you better shoot I the head or the heart) are also very unique to the US.

This AR gun shoots very fast, can kill lots of people in a short time and is made to kill like any gun. Why do we need to discuss if it bounces around or goes through a body? Obviously it kills a lot of people.

I would never own a gun as I do not even think about protecting myself by actually KILLING another human being. Would I do it I my kids would be attacked? Probably yes. However, I never gave it any thought as it's just too absurd for me to imagine that. I never ever heard in Europe a conversation like that, my friends and me never had that conversation other than maybe carrying pepper spray if you walk alone at night in a city. But carrying a deadly weapon on me for safety or have it ready in the house never crossed my mind.

By the way, neither does my Texan husband think like that. He has one gun in a safe and the ammunition somewhere else safe. This gun would be useless in the case of a crime as it's locked away.

 

[KSera]

42 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I’m not sure I understand.  I just said that I don’t favor a ban of AR 15s anymore but so do favor sensible regulations making it more different to buy and a voluntary buy back.   I think bans are a political dead end for sure, and the pro gun people dig in their heels when that word comes out ending productive debate.  I don’t see how that is letting perfect get in the way of the good.  I think that’s a compromise position of sorts.  

I think we’re generally on a similar page, I just meant that we shouldn’t not do some thing because it won’t solve all the problems (in this case the fact that there are already so many A.R. 15s out there shouldn’t mean we don’t do something to reduce them to prevent new ones from being added.). Gun enthusiasts like to use that logic all the time and I think it’s important for those trying to actually improve the situation not to fall into it either. Not that I am saying that you are doing so.

As far as not doing some thing because it causes gun enthusiasts to dig in their heels and be unwilling to have a productive debate, that’s just the case no matter what the conversation is. They aren’t  entering into this in good faith, so I think we need to move forward and do what we can to keep the kids safe otherwise they’ll keep saying now is not the time, it’s the doors not the guns, etc. etc. In fact, it’s the gun enthusiasts who most often pull out the idea of bans as a way of shutting down the conversation rather than entering into good faith dialogue about compromises with safe storage and red flag laws and things like that.

Edited June 3, 2022 by KSera
Typo

[KSera]

Speaking of doors, it keeps striking me that the same people who keep saying the problem is the doors, we need bulletproof doors, we need to harden the doors, we need only one door, are the same ones who like to say it’s the person not the gun. But now all of a sudden it’s not the person, it’s the door? 🤔

[Pam in CT]

re about those doors

6 minutes ago, KSera said:

Speaking of doors, it keeps striking me that the same people who keep saying the problem is the doors, we need bulletproof doors, we need to harden the doors, we need only one door, are the same ones who like to say it’s the person not the gun. But now all of a sudden it’s not the person, it’s the door? 🤔

I... really don't think the TV talk show tour we had last weekend, all about Hardening The Doors, was actually about the doors, lol.

Though I did wonder about the possibility that a largescale manufacturer of courthouse-grade Hard Door security systems had, uh, made an impact at the NRA convention in Houston that took place at the same time, where all the lobbyists and legislators and sympathetic talking heads and influencers were all conveniently clumped together.  #SynergisticBusinessModels

[KSera]

17 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

I... really don't think the TV talk show tour we had last weekend, all about Hardening The Doors, was actually about the doors, lol.

No, of course it wasn’t. They sure were coordinated on their talking points though, weren’t they? And how convenient that it allowed them to avoid addressing the actual real things they could do that would actually make an impact. But, doing any of that would of course risk all the donations they get from the gun lobby, so they certainly couldn’t do that. Priorities and all.

[Pam in CT]

re make way for the Hard Door Lobbyists

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

No, of course it wasn’t. They sure were coordinated on their talking points though, weren’t they? And how convenient that it allowed them to avoid addressing the actual real things they could do that would actually make an impact. But, doing any of that would of course risk all the donations they get from the gun lobby, so they certainly couldn’t do that. Priorities and all.

 

[KSera]

I double checked this for political content and other than the fact that some of the people who say things are politicians, it’s not for or against any particular politicians or candidates and isn’t about that so hopefully it meets guidelines.

 

[ktgrok]

wow, seeing them call for not just one entry, but one exit, like one literal door, is.....terrifying. Like, have they never heard of fire codes?!?! 

Not to mention, they do know that people shoot people outside, right? 

[Idalou]

I won't link it in case it's against rules, but there's  a female journalist named Lauren Windsor who walked in with a friend, passed a security guard and went through a side door at last week's NRA, and then sat herself down in a reserved seating area for the former president's speech.  Easily googled, Newsweek article. So much for top notch security!

Edited June 3, 2022 by Idalou

[LaughingCat]

The door thing is just so crazy making -- I have never seen a school with no windows at all at a level that some one couldn't break the window and practically step right in -- so what difference does it make how many doors there are?   Controlling the doors only matters to people that are following the rules on how to enter, not to someone trying to break in.  Not to mention that the original "shut off the lights, drop and hide" advice came from people shooting in through the windows in CA.  

 I understand these are people trying to push the narrative elsewhere -- but geez louise, come up with something that actually makes sense!

(said pretty much this on the other thread too :D) 

Example elementary school below (and you can see all the windows in the Robb Elementary directly behind the memorial, so it's not some uber modern style building)

[ktgrok]

And the one 10 yr old who survived said that the guy shot out the window in the classroom door - so, yeah. 

[KSera]

I listened to the latest Holy Post podcast today and it addressed the current gun violence events and the state of guns and gun regulations in the US. I thought the whole segment was really good (it also had some further responses to their Roe v Wade segment, fwiw) but I especially thought this article they discussed about the success of gun buy backs in Australia was highly relevant. I knew Australia's program was considered very successful, but I had not heard some of the stats. They bought back about 20% of the guns that were in circulation, and the effect on gun deaths was dramatic.

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

I recommend reading the whole article, but of note in relation to our discussions here:

Quote

What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.

 

Quote

Nevertheless, the RAND authors conclude, “the strongest evidence is consistent with the claim that the NFA caused reductions in firearm suicides, mass shootings, and female homicide victimization.” So why these three effects?

(bolding mine) You can click on the article and read on for their explanation and more. Do people really think it's not worth trying something that could reduce gun deaths significantly?

Link to Holy Post podcast: Episode 511: America’s 400 Million Guns

[KSera]

I've been spending time reading research on the Every Town website, and I found they have a whole section devoted to the specific issue of gun violence against women. https://everytownresearch.org/report/guns-and-violence-against-women-americas-uniquely-lethal-intimate-partner-violence-problem/

Since we were talking here about how we could keep abused or stalked women safe, I wondered if we could all agree with this requirement, which is one of the 5 policies they suggest can save women's lives:

"Requiring dealers to notify state or local law enforcement when a domestic abuser or convicted stalker attempts to buy a gun and fails a background check."

(The other four are listed on the page linked above.)