The Walmart Shooting

I'm 65. I have lived in the NY Metro area my whole life. I have never been assaulted and I know of only a few people who ever have been...in 65 years.

Yea...it's rare

 

Yes, 30 seconds is responsive. In this case, the police performance was outstanding, I agree.

However, you are wrong about the cause of mass shooting. Think about it:

More people were killed in 2018 with hammers and clubs than by rifles of all kinds put together. Any blunt object can become a club. I'm sure you have access to a hammer. Does that fact ever cause you want to kill someone? Would you be safer surrounded by good stable people carrying AR-15's, or surrounded by people with an urge to kill you, who had no guns?

The source of danger is mentally hostile and deranged people. People advised the FBI as well as local police in Florida that a person was telling friends he was going to "shoot up a school", and nobody took action- Then the guy went to Parkland school and did it. It wasn't the gun's idea.


There are around 400 million guns in the US. A great many of them are not registered, yet legally owned. "Military style"- to most people, the appearance makes a gun military, not the function. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle by far- but the military has never owned one, because the functionality does not meet their requirements. The AR is the most versatile rifle there is, and that is why it's popular. It's appearance is similar to the military standard, but functionality is not. What's more, you can't go out and buy the military versions of today at all. Now the police DO have access to military grade weapons- full auto- yet we do not have mass shootings by the police. We do have police sometimes convicted of various violent crimes- but the fact that military grade weapons are available does not make them into mass shooters. That's because the gun does not do that- the mind does, and we are careful to select mentally stable people when we hire them as police.

I have an AR custom configured for back-country hiking. It quickly breaks down and will fit in a backpack. It handles three calibers. Change the bolt, and it shoots .22 long rifle shells, suited for small game. Switch the quick-change barrel and it shoots a .30 caliber shell strong enough for deer or protection from a bear or cougar. The gun weighs less than 5 lbs. Add the compact scope, extra barrel and bolt and magazines- it's still under 10 lbs in the backpack. However, regardless of the configuration, it is still semi-automatic in the same way as most .22 rifles are. NO automatic functionality- which would be highly illegal, and is not found on any AR-15 rifle from any manufacturer anywhere. There is no other weapon that can provide such versatility. It's modular, allowing people to configure features to their own choices. That backpack gun is exactly that- I did the work to make it into what I wanted.

When we start keeping tabs on hostile people with unstable mindsets- then we will be controlling the source of danger.

 

And yet Trumpers and gun nuts are against red flag laws

Trump and the previous Republican Congress rolled back legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of people with mental issues

I guess you weren't aware of those things.
'
Oh wait. Of course you are.

 

Im surprised that you aren't also, as a liberal. Given the clear unconstitutionality of those kinds of laws, why would you actually support them? Are you seriously saying that because you are so fearful, you'll trade your constitutionally protected rights in? I find that difficult to believe.

 

Actually, I have no knowledge of anything in the form you describe. What I have seen repeatedly is that medical privacy rules prevent medical professionals and mental health people from reporting such conditions unless there is immediate threat- and then it's touchy ground for them. Even things like a violent spouse who threatens to kill are handled with a protective order, which is in effect just a judge saying you shouldn't do that- and very often they do. Kind of impotent protection in the face of direct threat.

People considered potentially violent when history, behavior or professional opinion identifies it, should be listed in the gun registering database to be denied approval. While that isn't a complete solution at all, it would help at least some. We must recognize that someone obsessed with killing is not deterred by it being illegal, nor with a limited choice of weaponry. That requires action on the person, not the guns, knives, hammers, cars or any of the multitude of things available as weapons. We have a pretty good system for background checks, as far as the field portion goes, but the database it verifies to approve or disapprove does not have access to the list of the people most likely to use it for criminal purpose. Now if you are arrested for domestic violence, regardless of how serious it is- you can't buy a gun. Why shouldn't mentally unstable people be in the same category? Now I don't know a single gun owner who objects to that. It is in their best interests as well as yours- but I think they know that better than most do.

The arguments seem to revolve around the idea of controlling shootings. They should be about controlling hostility and murderers, regardless of the weapon. It's a people problem, as most of the challenges of life are, and until we improve the mindsets and mental stability of people, violence will be a part of society.

 

I usually advance this question at this point. If the gun shop owner decides they don't want to sell you the gun because someone looks unstable to them, what would the ACLU say? Especially if it was clouded by other minority types of qualifiers? If we don't allow gun shops to serve the public interest in this way, why not?

Second concern here. Aren't we at least a teensie bit concerned that future casting doesn't severely violate constitutional protection? If you haven't committed a crime, (and nowhere would you find mental illness, for example, is a crime). so, unless you have been convicted using a constitutionally appropriate measure, why would anyone expect to lose their liberties or freedoms, or rights?

To me, future ill intent or action isn't something that is even a consideration in the law. And for very good reasons.

 

Trump quietly used regulations to expand gun access
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/trump-gun-access-restrictions-1449663

The Hater-in-Chied has insidiously been making it easier for dangerous people to get guns while lying about it.

 

Wow, your anecdote is very scientific.
Amazing

 

There is indeed a conflict here. One consideration is that the way we deal with violent criminals often returns them to society; meaning we ourselves put the predatory people back in the game. Violence happens in direct proportion to the number of people in society that see violence as an acceptable way to express their frustrations. The more of such people we tolerate, the worse the level of violent conduct. It's not the number of weapons- it's the number of people willing to do violence to others.

Likewise, it would seem that controlling those who are psychopathic in their need to kill by taking weapons from people who have honored the law and committed no crime, on the assumption that they might because they own a gun or that some psychopath might steal that gun is a considerably greater violation of rights, both constitutional and basic common sense rights. The potential psycho is unrestricted, but we try to take away weapons they might use- when nearly everything can be used as a weapon. Clearly, this is an inverted solution to a problem- and functionally, not a solution at all.

What we need is a society of rational, responsible people who respect each other. To have a society of borderline wackos (which we see being promoted by the extremists every day) and think we can prevent them from getting weapons? Can't be done. Even if all possible weapons (rocks, skillets, candlesticks, pencils etc) were made inaccessible to all persons obsessed with violence, violence will occur. Unless you intend to remove all personal physical weapons too- pull teeth so they can't bite, amputate hands and feet so they can't punch or stomp. It's people, not guns that harm people. No gun has malice on it's own.