And another mass shooting - Chattanooga, TN

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

Isn’t your husband a ministry professional? I’d think you’d recognize CT as a source. 

I think she meant gun magazines to hold bullets. But it's more deflection of we shouldn't do anything because maybe it wouldn't work and if we can't do just one easy thing that stops all gun deaths, we just shouldn't do anything to try to reduce the tens of thousands of gun deaths in this country a year. Deaths that are rare in other similar countries.

[Grace Hopper]

13 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

The problem with the magazines are a) there are millions of them out there and since they look like very easy things to make on a 3-d printer.

 

11 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

Isn’t your husband a ministry professional? I’d think you’d recognize CT as a source. 

Ah, I realize you are talking about gun magazines, sorry. These 3D printables are of concern but not so much for mass shootings. 
https://www.newsweek.com/3d-printed-guns-what-you-need-know-1050698?amp=1

[Lillyfee]

I always read about Chicago as the bad example.

The real question for me is why the US is the only country that can't get this under control. It doesn't make sense to me in a country like this that all laws that work everywhere else should not work here and why we can't even try it.

Maybe I am missing something but in this moment I am literally for everything that could help reduce the gun violence even a little bit.

[TravelingChris]

15 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

Isn’t your husband a ministry professional? I’d think you’d recognize CT as a source. 

No, my husband is a physicist who now works as a senior systems engineer.  But yes, of course, I know what CT is.  However, I am not really interested in reading another piece about how I am a bad whatever simply because I am a realist and know that lots of what is being proposed won't make a difference.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

As I said in another thread, I want gun safety rules for people with children/  I care about it all--- but ddid you reaalize that gun charges are hardly ever prosecuted??????/  Only mass gun charges, like importing a bunch of illegal guns.  But if a criminal has a gun- that is never prosecuted- always pled down.  Except sometimes, in some states, there is an extra charge if you kill someone with a gun.  Not sure why- it beats the burning death that one person recieved in Chicago recently.  Also beats beheadings and a lot of other ways to die.

Things change. That’s the point of doing all of the work taking through things, writing good laws, some compromises for everyone along the way. 
I’ll repeat something I said earlier, but not this clearly - we don’t have to do things the way we’re doing them now. The system is broken. Part of that very well be these plea deals. The solution is not to say “oh, it will always be this way.” The solution is to fix the system!!

We all matter or none of us do. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by TechWife

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

BTW, even misdemeanor domestic abuse gets you on the no gun law.

As it should. 

[KSera]

14 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

But yes, of course, I know what CT is.  However, I am not really interested in reading another piece about how I am a bad whatever simply because I am a realist and know that lots of what is being proposed won't make a difference.

It's not at about how bad anyone is, it's about what Black pastors are asking from white pastors to help them make their cities safer. This is the main ask:

Quote

Now we ask the same of you.

It is not our senators—those from our city-zoned districts—who reject universal background checks on the purchases of firearms. It is not our congressional leaders—those who attend our churches and speak at our back-to-school events—who are standing in the way of legislation that could prevent the next mass school shooting. It is yours. Your senators, who serve in your districts, sit in your pews, and listen to your preaching—they are the greatest antagonists to a real pro-life, anti-school-shootings agenda.

You have asked us to join in the fight for pro-life legislation, and now we ask you to do the same. Be pro-life by urging your congressional leaders to protect the lives of school kids who die at the force of weapons too easily placed in the wrong hands. Urge your senators to pass morally upright gun legislation. Be true to the same book you preach on Sunday.

 

[TechWife]

16 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

No, my husband is a physicist who now works as a senior systems engineer.  But yes, of course, I know what CT is.  However, I am not really interested in reading another piece about how I am a bad whatever simply because I am a realist and know that lots of what is being proposed won't make a difference.

Well, that’s not what that piece is about. But, if you’d read it before you commented on it, you would know that. 

[Eos]

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

BTW, even misdemeanor domestic abuse gets you on the no gun law.

Glad to hear it!

[mom31257]

5 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

What specifically do you want to add to the background check?

I would add medical and mental health records. I would also add requiring training and a license. My BIL was able to buy a gun with no waiting period despite the fact that he had been hospitalized for suicide and was on medications for mental health issues.  He committed suicide that night.

We can only thank God that he didn't do what he wrote in his journal. He contemplated killing my sister and nephew, too, so he wouldn't leave them alone. For a short time after he did it, my sister actually wished that he had.  He took Tamiflu that week because my nephew had the flu. We believe it interfered with his medications because in the journal he wrote at times that he was 72 years old when he was 47.  We do not believe he would have done this if he had been in his right mind. 

I know people say there are other ways to kill yourself, but guns are very effective. He was found (not by my sister) and life flighted, but he didn't make it through surgery. 

And for what it is worth, I was for stronger gun regulations before this happened in my family. 

I see many people who own guns live in so much fear, fear of criminals, fear of the government, fear of losing their guns. I wish I could give them the freedom from those fears that I have. I never think about those things, and I've never owned a gun in my life.

I have spiritual feelings about it all, too. I am a Christian and ready to meet Jesus. If someone tries to kill me or hurt me, most likely they are not ready to meet Him. Why would I want to send them into eternity? I want them to have a chance to get things right in their life. 

[Dmmetler]

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

BTW, even misdemeanor domestic abuse gets you on the no gun law.

Convictions-which doesn't help a battered woman who has just gotten out of the house. 

[Tanaqui]

51 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

No, my husband is a physicist who now works as a senior systems engineer.  But yes, of course, I know what CT is.  However, I am not really interested in reading another piece about how I am a bad whatever simply because I am a realist and know that lots of what is being proposed won't make a difference.

You don't know anything of the sort. We know things when we have data - not when we just guess. How about we give this a try, and see what the data says in 20 years?

[Grace Hopper]

1 minute ago, mom31257 said:

I would add medical and mental health records. I would also add requiring training and a license. My BIL was able to buy a gun with no waiting period despite the fact that he had been hospitalized for suicide and was on medications for mental health issues.  He committed suicide that night.

We can only thank God that he didn't do what he wrote in his journal. He contemplated killing my sister and nephew, too, so he wouldn't leave them alone. For a short time after he did it, my sister actually wished that he had.  He took Tamiflu that week because my nephew had the flu. We believe it interfered with his medications because in the journal he wrote at times that he was 72 years old when he was 47.  We do not believe he would have done this if he had been in his right mind. 

I know people say there are other ways to kill yourself, but guns are very effective. He was found (not by my sister) and life flighted, but he didn't make it through surgery. 

And for what it is worth, I was for stronger gun regulations before this happened in my family. 

I see many people who own guns live in so much fear, fear of criminals, fear of the government, fear of losing their guns. I wish I could give them the freedom from those fears that I have. I never think about those things, and I've never owned a gun in my life.

I have spiritual feelings about it all, too. I am a Christian and ready to meet Jesus. If someone tries to kill me or hurt me, most likely they are not ready to meet Him. Why would I want to send them into eternity? I want them to have a chance to get things right in their life. 

I’d also like to see ONGOING training required for anyone certified to conceal carry, including written testing for the rules about when it’s legal to even take a shot (another sticky wicket, as states each have different varieties of castle doctrine - imo those should be the same across the nation). A person can now buy a gun, learn how it works, place  it in their gun safe (or nightstand or purse or carry belt) and not use it for a year. That does nothing to ensure they are a safe gun handler, even if they have no criminal record or no history of mental illness. If you have never been trained to handle a gun in a simulated intruder setting…. well it isn’t easy to make a swift, accurate decision or actual shot when startled and under pressure. It takes practice. You have to train regularly (something I am not willing to do, thus I will not carry despite the opportunity being available to me - I *know* I would not be the best person to be armed). It is also why I am uncomfortable being around some people I know who do conceal carry - I know they are not regularly practicing as they should. 

[Lillyfee]

The life of a human being, especially the most vulnerable like kids should be the highest priority of a country. Nothing else should stand over this.

So I am sorry if someone that did a small crime can't have a gun or someone that has some psychological trouble. Probably some people will not be able to get a gun that would have caused no trouble. If that is the price for keeping innocent people alive it is worth it.

I am sorry if it is an bigger inconvenience for people to get a gun and takes longer and if they might need to spend more money but if it will make school children saver it is worth it.

Right now I feel people are so worried that someone might not be able to have a gun or that they would need to go through more trouble getting one and put that need over absolutely innocent lives.

 

These are German gun laws. Germany has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe and you still can get a gun. They are not banned or anything, you just go through a thorough process.

https://m.dw.com/en/gun-control-and-firearms-possession-in-germany/a-52450664?fbclid=IwAR10NYu22QLiCGRxJDI-_OLPIz8fRgRdbn55Fotq47vUWKEgWn57YnAP4Bo

[Heartstrings]

17 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

I’d also like to see ONGOING training required for anyone certified to conceal carry, including written testing for the rules about when it’s legal to even take a shot (another sticky wicket, as states each have different varieties of castle doctrine - imo those should be the same across the nation). A person can now buy a gun, learn how it works, place  it in their gun safe (or nightstand or purse or carry belt) and not use it for a year. That does nothing to ensure they are a safe gun handler, even if they have no criminal record or no history of mental illness. If you have never been trained to handle a gun in a simulated intruder setting…. well it isn’t easy to make a swift, accurate decision or actual shot when startled and under pressure. It takes practice. You have to train regularly (something I am not willing to do, thus I will not carry despite the opportunity being available to me - I *know* I would not be the best person to be armed). It is also why I am uncomfortable being around some people I know who do conceal carry - I know they are not regularly practicing as they should. 

Right now we're going the opposite with that.  Texas recently made it to where anyone that can own a gun can concealed carry and I don't think they are the only ones.  

[ktgrok]

31 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

I’d also like to see ONGOING training required for anyone certified to conceal carry, including written testing for the rules about when it’s legal to even take a shot (another sticky wicket, as states each have different varieties of castle doctrine - imo those should be the same across the nation). A person can now buy a gun, learn how it works, place  it in their gun safe (or nightstand or purse or carry belt) and not use it for a year. That does nothing to ensure they are a safe gun handler, even if they have no criminal record or no history of mental illness. If you have never been trained to handle a gun in a simulated intruder setting…. well it isn’t easy to make a swift, accurate decision or actual shot when startled and under pressure. It takes practice. You have to train regularly (something I am not willing to do, thus I will not carry despite the opportunity being available to me - I *know* I would not be the best person to be armed). It is also why I am uncomfortable being around some people I know who do conceal carry - I know they are not regularly practicing as they should. 

And when they show up for training the instructor can red flag them is they appear unstable or unsafe. 

[Happy2BaMom]

12 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

No, my husband is a physicist who now works as a senior systems engineer.  But yes, of course, I know what CT is.  However, I am not really interested in reading another piece about how I am a bad whatever simply because I am a realist and know that lots of what is being proposed won't make a difference.

For the record, I've previously stated that the US, with it's 15+ years of relentlessly removing any & obstacles to anyone getting & carrying a gun, has created a situation that will be nearly impossible to solve. It is entirely possible to utterly f*ck a situation & society up so badly that it will take decades to unravel it and I totally think we're there. So on the surface it might seem I agree with you.

Despite my beliefs, I refuse to adopt the stance of refusing to try anything because I'm "a realist". We. Must. Try. Children are being repeatedly mowed down in their schools. They are being executed in ways prohibited by the Geneva Convention as well as by any organized society anywhere, 'civilized' or not. Some of them undoubtedly suffered immeasurably. Their families will never recover.

So if you don't find the proposals to be worthwhile....what then do you propose? Because the only proposals I see from the pro-gun crowd are mumblings about lack of Jesus and fathers and Bibles in schools and an excess of videos games. Which, BTW, nearly every other Western developed country also has.....but they don't have mass shootings.

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[Idalou]

https://popular.info/p/the-nra-talks-big-on-school-safety?s=w

Here is an article on a school safety program the NRA funds for schools. Their president spoke about it at the conference last week. 

I am anxiously awaiting them to begin the Thorny Bushes Solution.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Idalou

[ktgrok]

57 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

For the record, I've previously stated that the US, with it's 15+ years of relentlessly removing any & obstacles to anyone getting & carrying a gun, has created a situation that will be nearly impossible to solve. It is entirely possible to utterly f*ck a situation & society up so badly that it will take decades to unravel it and I totally think we're there. So on the surface it might seem I agree with you.

Despite my beliefs, I refuse to adopt the stance of refusing to try anything because I'm "a realist". We. Must. Try. Children are being repeatedly mowed down in their schools. They are being executed in ways prohibited by the Geneva Convention as well as by any organized society anywhere, 'civilized' or not. Some of them undoubtedly suffered immeasurably. Their families will never recover.

So if you don't find the proposals to be worthwhile....what then do you propose? Because the only proposals I see from the pro-gun crowd are mumblings about lack of Jesus and fathers and Bibles in schools and an excess of videos games. Which, BTW, nearly every other Western developed country also has.....but they don't have mass shootings.

 

And the thing is, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. We don't get stuff done because we don't try because we don't think we can get stuff done. We CAN. we just haven't. 

For instance, on my poll on cooling off periods, the "no" vote was 3.5%. If this is even a bit indicative of what people want in the USA, that means passing a mandatory cooling off period should be a freaking slam dunk. We CAN. It is just that no one has the guts to bring it to the floor ,because then they actually have to go on record and vote. 

Im starting to wonder if the only way is to put this stuff on the ballot via citizen initiative. we can do that in Florida, and I hate it, because I don't think that's the right way to tinker with our state constitution, but at this point, I'm in favor of doing it with gun laws if we can't any other way. 

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Because the only proposals I see from the pro-gun crowd are mumblings about lack of Jesus and fathers and Bibles in schools and an excess of videos games. Which, BTW, nearly every other Western developed country also has.....but they don't have mass shootings.

 

Doors. You forgot doors.

(SMH)

[Terabith]

What confuses me, in the middle of all this talk about guns and making schools safer against gun violence, like the freaking door talk, is that it ignores that there are competing safety needs.  Not to mention practical needs.  If we make schools have one door and metal detectors, how are we going to get two thousand students in and out of the building every day?  What about the risks of fires or other necessary fast evacuations?  How do you balance keeping classrooms safe from a school shooter with needs for covid mitigation and student protection from abuse needs?  All of the talks that center on things that aren’t getting rid of guns or increasing access to mental health care just aren’t practical.  If you have a target that has been specifically targeted, you cannot win a defensive engagement without losses.  The intruder has infinite time to plan and learn your weak points and the defenders are heavily constrained by needing to tell friends from foes.  Hardening schools is a waste of resources and money.  

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, Terabith said:

What confuses me, in the middle of all this talk about guns and making schools safer against gun violence, like the freaking door talk, is that it ignores that there are competing safety needs.  Not to mention practical needs.  If we make schools have one door and metal detectors, how are we going to get two thousand students in and out of the building every day?  What about the risks of fires or other necessary fast evacuations?  How do you balance keeping classrooms safe from a school shooter with needs for covid mitigation and student protection from abuse needs?  All of the talks that center on things that aren’t getting rid of guns or increasing access to mental health care just aren’t practical.  If you have a target that has been specifically targeted, you cannot win a defensive engagement without losses.  The intruder has infinite time to plan and learn your weak points and the defenders are heavily constrained by needing to tell friends from foes.  Hardening schools is a waste of resources and money.  

And leaves out that there are other places, like shopping centers, parks, playgrounds, libraries, medical centers, movie theaters, etc etc where shootings can and have happened. 

Stopping the gun makes more sense than changing the venue the shooting happens. 

[TravelingChris]

13 hours ago, TechWife said:

As it should. 

I totally agree.

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, mom31257 said:

I would add medical and mental health records. I would also add requiring training and a license. My BIL was able to buy a gun with no waiting period despite the fact that he had been hospitalized for suicide and was on medications for mental health issues.  He committed suicide that night.

We can only thank God that he didn't do what he wrote in his journal. He contemplated killing my sister and nephew, too, so he wouldn't leave them alone. For a short time after he did it, my sister actually wished that he had.  He took Tamiflu that week because my nephew had the flu. We believe it interfered with his medications because in the journal he wrote at times that he was 72 years old when he was 47.  We do not believe he would have done this if he had been in his right mind. 

I know people say there are other ways to kill yourself, but guns are very effective. He was found (not by my sister) and life flighted, but he didn't make it through surgery. 

And for what it is worth, I was for stronger gun regulations before this happened in my family. 

I see many people who own guns live in so much fear, fear of criminals, fear of the government, fear of losing their guns. I wish I could give them the freedom from those fears that I have. I never think about those things, and I've never owned a gun in my life.

I have spiritual feelings about it all, too. I am a Christian and ready to meet Jesus. If someone tries to kill me or hurt me, most likely they are not ready to meet Him. Why would I want to send them into eternity? I want them to have a chance to get things right in their life. 

No, I am totally against that.  Some people want to ban people who are on anti-depressants.  I am on two-but neither one is for depression.   That would just be a giant intrusion into people's lives--- you do realize that almost all people with depression do not commit suicide?  

As to the second point, yes, some  people have a lot of fear.  Some of those people have justified fear--- they are being stalked, they have crazy exes or crazy neighbors or live in a high crime neighborhood, etc.  But most of us gun owners aren't like that at all.  For us, and I am talking about my family.  it is not only potential protection but also a fun hobby.  We enjoy shooting at targets.  Once I get my neck fused, I hope to be able to do trap shooting too. It isn't people like us who are shooting up schools or medical facilities or any other place.

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

Convictions-which doesn't help a battered woman who has just gotten out of the house. 

I know, but we are a country of laws and due process.  Which was why on another thread, several people were arguing against prolonged background checks because they hurt battered people and also hurt stalking victims.

[Heartstrings]

16 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

No, I am totally against that.  Some people want to ban people who are on anti-depressants.  I am on two-but neither one is for depression.   That would just be a giant intrusion into people's lives--- you do realize that almost all people with depression do not commit suicide?  

As to the second point, yes, some  people have a lot of fear.  Some of those people have justified fear--- they are being stalked, they have crazy exes or crazy neighbors or live in a high crime neighborhood, etc.  But most of us gun owners aren't like that at all.  For us, and I am talking about my family.  it is not only potential protection but also a fun hobby.  We enjoy shooting at targets.  Once I get my neck fused, I hope to be able to do trap shooting too. It isn't people like us who are shooting up schools or medical facilities or any other place.

We’re trying to figure out ways to allow families like yours and mine to have guns, while making an attempt to keep the wrong people from getting them, while also balancing safety of people in public spaces.   It’s hard, yes but such is the work of living in a society. 

[Terabith]

[Lillyfee]

I feel like one feeling that is very present in lots of other countries is missing here completely. 

To understand that it's ok to not being able to get something or go through more trouble or even that I have something taken away if it is for the good the general public, the people around us.

My brother in Germany is not married and has no kids and makes lots of money. He pays every month more than 40 % taxes. It doesn't bother him because he knows that because of people like him single mothers with kids don't need to pay taxes because he covers them. He also knows that if he should ever come in a situation where he can't work, the other people will cover him. It's just how people think.

That thought to live for the higher good of the nation instead of just for yourself is kind of missing for a lot of people in the US. Not all as I met some of the nicest, helpful people in the US, some of them very conservative. But to trust the government with anything is a big problem here.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Lillyfee

[TravelingChris]

1 minute ago, Lillyfee said:

I feel like one feeling that is very present in lots of other countries is missing here completely. 

To understand that it's ok to not being able to get something or go through more trouble or even that I have something taken away if it is for the good the general public, the people around us.

My brother in Germany is not married and has no kids and makes lots of money. He pays every month more than 40 % taxes. It doesn't bother him because he knows that because of people like him single mothers with kids don't need to pay taxes because he covers them. He also knows that if he should ever come in a situation where he can't work, the other people will cover him. It's just how people think.

That thought to live for the higher good of the nation instead of just for yourself is kind of missing for a lot of people in the US. Not all as I met some of the nicest, helpful people in the US, some of them very conservative. But to trust the government with anything is a big problem here.

Yes--- we are not the same type of people.  The people who emigrated here were risk-takers/  We are a super individualistic country---different countries have different cultures.  Big countries normally have more than one culture-- but almost all of ours are individualistic anyway.

[KSera]

43 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

No, I am totally against that.  Some people want to ban people who are on anti-depressants.  I am on two-but neither one is for depression.   That would just be a giant intrusion into people's lives--- you do realize that almost all people with depression do not commit suicide?  

As to the second point, yes, some  people have a lot of fear.  Some of those people have justified fear--- they are being stalked, they have crazy exes or crazy neighbors or live in a high crime neighborhood, etc.  But most of us gun owners aren't like that at all.  For us, and I am talking about my family.  it is not only potential protection but also a fun hobby.  We enjoy shooting at targets.  Once I get my neck fused, I hope to be able to do trap shooting too. It isn't people like us who are shooting up schools or medical facilities or any other place.

The mental health piece wouldn't be about banning people on anti-depressants, but about allowing mental health professionals to enter a flag on someone if they are concerned. So, you being on anti-depresssants wouldn't trigger a flag, but another person who is on a safety plan where all the sharps and drugs in their house are locked up to keep them safe would.

I agree that a lot of gun owners do it because it's a fun hobby to them. Those are the people that most all should surely be able to get behind putting safety measures in place so that their fun hobby doesn't continue to have the current side effect of making it easy for others to kill people, including children.

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, Lillyfee said:

That thought to live for the higher good of the nation instead of just for yourself is kind of missing for a lot of people in the US. N

I think you are super on target here. The US is very individualistic compared to other countries, and it doesn't seem to end up being to our benefit to be that way.

[Heartstrings]

55 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think you are super on target here. The US is very individualistic compared to other countries, and it doesn't seem to end up being to our benefit to be that way.

Yet we are the country that screams PATRIOTISM at every turn.  What’s patriotic about telling your neighbors and fellow countrymen “too bad, so sad, I got mine?”  What’s even the point of society at that point?  

Edited June 6, 2022 by Heartstrings

[denarii]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

Yes--- we are not the same type of people.  The people who emigrated here were risk-takers/  We are a super individualistic country---different countries have different cultures.  Big countries normally have more than one culture-- but almost all of ours are individualistic anyway.

I feel like this narrative forgets that Canada exists. The people who emigrated here were risk takers too but we do not have an equivalent level of gun violence. 

[bolt.]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

We’re trying to figure out ways to allow families like yours and mine to have guns, while making an attempt to keep the wrong people from getting them, while also balancing safety of people in public spaces.   It’s hard, yes but such is the work of living in a society. 

Some people are trying to find a way to convince "families like yours" to accept the possibility that fewer/different guns for you, with less convenience and more regulations... might mean fewer/different guns (with more regulation) for everybody, which might mean more people live through childhood.

I see that a lot of people consider not being a gun owner as a safety risk for themselves. Maybe just be willing to take that risk? If there was a good reason to take it?

[Pam in CT]

re self-perpetuating cycle of hopelessness that anything can be done -> passivity -> nothing gets done

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

And the thing is, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. We don't get stuff done because we don't try because we don't think we can get stuff done. We CAN. we just haven't. 

For instance, on my poll on cooling off periods, the "no" vote was 3.5%. If this is even a bit indicative of what people want in the USA, that means passing a mandatory cooling off period should be a freaking slam dunk. We CAN. It is just that no one has the guts to bring it to the floor ,because then they actually have to go on record and vote. 

Im starting to wonder if the only way is to put this stuff on the ballot via citizen initiative. we can do that in Florida, and I hate it, because I don't think that's the right way to tinker with our state constitution, but at this point, I'm in favor of doing it with gun laws if we can't any other way. 

This.

[In *all* the areas where the world we live in is broken. But we're talking in this thread about gun violence.]

 

So, Chris Murphy, the Senator who's been referenced a couple of times in this thread, who within hours of Sandy Hook as a then-brand new Senator from a little coastal state that much of the rest of America deems pretty suss for this reason or that, filibustered for 14 hours, to a mostly-empty Senate chamber. There were two major themes: every mass shooting is a snowflake, with its own particular murderer and weapon and door and other elements. And also: every incidence of gun violence also has a common element, that the murderer had no difficulty whatsoever in laying hands on his chosen weapon.  And begged his colleagues to act

He's subsequently taken to the floor repeatedly, after each of the too-many subsequent mass shootings. After Orlando, in another 14+ marathon, he managed to persuade / strongarm / shame his colleagues into taking a floor vote on two measures:... that people already tagged as potential terrorists on the FAA no-fly zone be flagged as ineligible to purchase guns; and a universal background check.  He succeeded, in that he managed to secure a floor vote over the then-Senate leader's opposition. But he also failed, in that both modest measures failed to actually PASS.

Nevertheless he persisted.

I live in his state, and he is EXTREMELY accessible to constituents; prior to COVID he spent a week every summer literally walking across the breadth of the state, stopping in diners and churches and village green bandshells and soccer tournaments along the way, chatting up anyone who cared to approach him. And gun safety is the topic that most animates him. He introduces ("hopeless") background check bills every single session.  He knows every element of every other ("hopeless") bill currently sitting in committee. He shows up regularly at *state level* organizational meetings.

Over the last two weekends, while his colleagues advocated for single entry doors and arming teachers, he went on air trying, again, to stake out a couple of areas that he senses **might** be possible this time.  He indicates that one of his GOP colleagues in the Senate has sent some sort of feelers to him that something **might** be possible this time.  He (Chris) mentioned expanded background checks (to tighten loopholes in existing mostly-state rules), red flag, and raising the minimum age for certain weapons to 21.  Maybe. He also says straight up, I realize I'm not going to get everything I want.  But we have to show Americans that we are willing to work on this problem.

It's a good week to call your legislators, whomever they are, and say: Please Work On This Problem.

 

 

[Heartstrings]

19 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Some people are trying to find a way to convince "families like yours" to accept the possibility that fewer/different guns for you, with less convenience and more regulations... might mean fewer/different guns (with more regulation) for everybody, which might mean more people live through childhood.

I see that a lot of people consider not being a gun owner as a safety risk for themselves. Maybe just be willing to take that risk? If there was a good reason to take it?

I’m here for all of it.  Raise the age, have a cooling off period, put my name on a registry, do a *thorough*background check.  Send the sheriff over every year to check my storage and prosecute me if my gun is “lost” and used in a crime.  Make me jump through hoops if I want to carry my gun about town.  REGULATE my rights WELL as required by the constitution.  Please. 
 

After Sandy Hook my husband looked at me said he’d turn over every gun if it meant no school shootings. 
 

I honestly don’t understand gun owners who are against every regulation, every attempt.  I don’t. 
 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Heartstrings

[ktgrok]

25 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I’m here for all of it.  Raise the age, have a cooling off period, put my name on a registry, do a *thorough*background check.  Send the sheriff over every year to check my storage and prosecute me if my gun is “lost” and used in a crime.  Make me jump through hoops if I want to carry my gun about town.  REGULATE my rights WELL as required by the constitution.  Please. 
 

After Sandy Hook my husband looked at me said he’d turn over every gun if it meant no school shootings. 
 

I honestly don’t understand gun owners who are against every regulation, every attempt.  I don’t. 
 

This is exactly my household. 

[Lillyfee]

My husband comes from a farm in Texas from a conservative "guns-on-the-wall-hanging" household.

Even he is done. He is for regulations and would have no problem go get evaluated over and over again amd let officers look at his gun storage if they would just finally act to save lives.

[Pam in CT]

I've said this a couple of times on other threads, but I'll refrain.

What shifted the center of political gravity at the state level in this state was when responsible gun owners started speaking up and saying out loud and publicly, this is what responsible gun ownership looks like. We can live with legislation that ratifies what we already do / already teach our children.

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

I've said this a couple of times on other threads, but I'll refrain.

What shifted the center of political gravity at the state level in this state was when responsible gun owners started speaking up and saying out loud and publicly, this is what responsible gun ownership looks like. We can live with legislation that ratifies what we already do / already teach our children.

I plan to call congressional offices this week. I think I’ll add that I’m a gun owner when I call.  I usually just say I’m a voter in such and such place, but I think I’ll say voter and gun owner this time.  

[Tanaqui]

Quote

I see that a lot of people consider not being a gun owner as a safety risk for themselves. Maybe just be willing to take that risk? If there was a good reason to take it?

 

They're wrong, though. Being a gun owner is the single biggest risk factor for dying or being severely injured by a gun. The fact that other people have easy access to guns has got to be the second biggest risk factor, but don't quote me on that one.

Lots of people think lots of things, but that doesn't make those things true, and it doesn't make sense to keep pretending that their false beliefs are valid.

[Pam in CT]

The NY state assembly just passed legislation raising the minimum age to purchase certain semiautomatic weapons to 21, and permitting law enforcement to obtain easier access to social media content that contains potential threats.

 

From the Politico summary:

Quote

...New York already had some of the strongest gun-control laws in the nation, which were passed in January 2013 in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 26 children and staff.

But the new laws will bolster existing ones and close what state leaders viewed as loopholes that included allowing the Buffalo shooter to slip through the state’s Red Flag statute that should have detected his racist social media rants and led to the removal of his weapons...

...The Red Flag law in New York will be expanded to allow more people, including health-care professionals, to file risk orders that could lead to weapons confiscations from potentially dangerous people. And it requires, rather than allows, law enforcement to seek an order if credible information is provided.

Semi-automatic rifles, which already difficult to obtain in New York, will added to the list to the weapons requiring a permit and will only be available to those over age 21.

 

[Grace Hopper]

6 hours ago, ktgrok said:

And the thing is, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. We don't get stuff done because we don't try because we don't think we can get stuff done. We CAN. we just haven't. 

For instance, on my poll on cooling off periods, the "no" vote was 3.5%. If this is even a bit indicative of what people want in the USA, that means passing a mandatory cooling off period should be a freaking slam dunk. We CAN. It is just that no one has the guts to bring it to the floor ,because then they actually have to go on record and vote. 

Im starting to wonder if the only way is to put this stuff on the ballot via citizen initiative. we can do that in Florida, and I hate it, because I don't think that's the right way to tinker with our state constitution, but at this point, I'm in favor of doing it with gun laws if we can't any other way. 

I’ll say it again. Term limits. 

[ktgrok]

15 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

I’ll say it again. Term limits. 

Seriously. 

[mommyoffive]

Firearms: What you can do right now - by Katelyn Jetelina (substack.com)

[mommyoffive]

UPDATE 1-Teacher, 14-year-old among hundreds of Americans hit by gunfire over weekend (msn.com)

More than 124 people were killed and 325 wounded in 300-plus shootings documented in the United States since Friday, according to GunViolenceArchive.org, a Washington D.C. non-profit that tracks shootings.

[TechWife]

So sad for the family. This is what we mean by holding gun owners accountable. His dad is dead because of an unsecured firearm.  The children will live with this forever. Can you imagine growing up under this shadow? 

“A Florida mother whose son, 2, apparently shot and killed his father is now facing manslaughter charges, after investigators determined that the gun hadn't been stored properly in their home.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/07/1103510689/mother-arrested-florida-after-2-year-old-shot-her-husband

[Vintage81]

45 minutes ago, TechWife said:

So sad for the family. This is what we mean by holding gun owners accountable. His dad is dead because of an unsecured firearm.  The children will live with this forever. Can you imagine growing up under this shadow? 

“A Florida mother whose son, 2, apparently shot and killed his father is now facing manslaughter charges, after investigators determined that the gun hadn't been stored properly in their home.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/07/1103510689/mother-arrested-florida-after-2-year-old-shot-her-husband

“Investigators also learned that both Ayala and Mabry were convicted felons, and were thus barred from possessing a firearm.”

I’d be interested to know how they obtained the gun in the first place since they were both convicted felons. 🤨

[Pam in CT]

re ease of obtaining weapons even for those who are supposed to be flagged in background checks

1 hour ago, Vintage81 said:

“Investigators also learned that both Ayala and Mabry were convicted felons, and were thus barred from possessing a firearm.”

I’d be interested to know how they obtained the gun in the first place since they were both convicted felons. 🤨

Current Federal and Florida-specific background check legislation

(As is true in many states) looks like licensed dealers are supposed to conduct background checks that would flag felony convictions, but that there is no such requirement for either private sales or and show sales.

Quote

Neither federal nor Florida law requires sellers who are not licensed dealers to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm. See our Universal Background Checks  policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.

Most of us in comparatively restrictive background check states recognize that between this gaping loophole, and the supreme ease of crossing state lines and/ or buying from a straw man third party intermediary... pretty much anyone anywhere can get whatever they want with sufficient lead time.  There's no way to get a handle even on how all the NEWLY MANUFACTURED weapons get into individual hands without some sort of universal background check process. 

And ensuring background checks within the swash of weapons sloshing around the private secondary market is even harder.  Still, to have *laws on the books requiring* that private sales go through a background check process at least gives LE and investigators tools to work with.

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

So sad for the family. This is what we mean by holding gun owners accountable. His dad is dead because of an unsecured firearm.  The children will live with this forever. Can you imagine growing up under this shadow? 

“A Florida mother whose son, 2, apparently shot and killed his father is now facing manslaughter charges, after investigators determined that the gun hadn't been stored properly in their home.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/07/1103510689/mother-arrested-florida-after-2-year-old-shot-her-husband

And she was a felon so should not have had a gun in the first place