Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence

[nickagneta]

I'm guessing this type of police work and this measure of incompetence is exempt from legal prosecution, but man, maybe it shouldn't be.

I have some current and former LEOs in my family, 5 actually. I know for sure, 4 would have been in that school immediately trying to get the perp before he could kill as much as he did. My cousin, yah, he would have been happy waiting for backup.

[BitterJim]

So when a woman is raped with no means to defend herself, we can blame the dems for taking guns right?
When an illegal comes across and gets in a car accident and kills a family, we can blame the dems right?
When an elderly man is powerless to stop a burglar at 2 am, we can blame the left for disarming him right?
When a dangerous criminal is put back out on the street and commits another crime within 24 hours because bail is raaaaaaaaacist, we can blame the left right?

You guys want to take a victory lap in this way? I don't think you'll like the results.  Stop standing on the bodies of children to do what you have always wanted to do, shooting or no shootings.

Save the illegal immigration debate and bail reform arguments for another thread, please.

I wonder, how many rapes are stopped by women carrying firearms?  Could those rapes be stopped with knives or pepper spray?  And, if gun reform kept that rapist from owning a gun because he's subject to a permanent bail check because he has a violent criminal record, would that be a good thing?

As for the elderly man, in the new America where there are fewer guns and fewer abilities to carry / transport them in public, did he survive because the burglar didn't have a gun?  Did he die because, despite his feeble body, he felt empowered to confront the burglar because he had a gun and ended up dead in the process?  Should he have owned a security system?  (The Ted Cruz argument). 

I'm not against guns for home security, but the fact is that 20k - 40k people are being murdered every year, without some obvious and necessary reforms.

Why does the woman being raped need a 50-round magazine / drum?  Why shouldn't she have both a license and a registration?

Is the woman being attacked by a lone attacker? If we think we have the right to tell her how to defend herself, we must be able to dictate how she can be attacked, right? Like we control the level of the playing field. But if we could control those things, we could just prevent all attacks.

So, we allow 40k people to be murdered every year to prevent one woman from getting gang-raped?  Is that the suggestion?  Or are you just playing games?

What if Russia sends over a squadron of bombers to attack the Hobbs' household?  It's the government's fault for restricting my access to an F-16?  Or surface to air missiles?  Where are my anti-tank missiles, my drones, my fully automatic machine guns!  Where are MY RIGHTS?!?!?!

I mean, you suggested a woman use a knife or pepper spray for self-defense instead of a gun. I'm simply pointing out how flippant that is. To act like someone else's self-defense is a matter of your policy preference. But I agree. That woman should not kill 40K people with her gun. She should be raped to save lives. That's our right to decide.

Of course it's our right to decide.  Just like Elon Musk can't protect himself from the progs by buying a couple of stealth bombers, because we collectively have decided that people shouldn't have stealth bombers.

The best comparison to a woman choosing to own a firearm of her choice to prevent rape is Elon Musk owning and presumably employing a stealth bomber for self-defense? I didn't know that. I didn't even imagine that was a reasonable comparison that could be taken seriously. I guess I'll consider it now.

Add something of substance to the conversations instead of your regular nonsense, or bow out.

People don't have the right to defend themselves however they want.  I'm sorry your sick mind goes to images of women getting gang-raped while you stroke your gun.

I've been a member of this place for a long time Roy and always respected you(I still do). I've seen you say many sensible things.
That said, this is beneath you.

I don't care.  When somebody asks "might there be other ways to defend yourself?  Knives, pepper spray, keeping criminals from having guns" and the answer if "but what about gang rape", I think you have a warped mind.

It's not warped to ask what could happen, or to inject a variable into the answer. I mean it's not like people whether it be rape, a robbery or home invasion always deal with one assailant.

The problem with this debate is emotion is getting the best of people are they're asking for action without thinking of the fallout.

No, it's not an emotional response, it's a rational one.  I'm not sure when it became acceptable to use gang rape as a rhetorical point in political debate, but let me ask you:  how prevalent is this?  What's the right level of protection to prevent gang rape?  Is it a revolver?  A shotgun?  An AR-15?  How large of a magazine?  50 round drum?  100?  Are machine guns justified in that situation?  Bazookas?  Attack helicopters?  If there such a thing as preemptive self-defense here?  If a man looks at a woman wrong, should she cut his testicles off?  What if he grabs her breast?  What if two men grab her breasts?  Should a woman allow herself to be raped to save one life?  What if it's her child's life?  A dozen lives? 20,000 lives?  Every life in America?  What if she hates America?  What if she loves America, but America doesn't love her?  Is it better or worse if the rapist is wearing a condom?  Death for unprotected rapists, just maiming for those who use the courtesy of protection?

Because, that's what the gang rape conversation on CelticsStrong is giving us.  It's not clever.  It's not intellectual.  It's a sick rape fantasy disguised packaged as rhetoric.

The whole point of rape being brought up was because you and others claimed blood is on the hand of republicans for not banning guns. In all honesty, that's sick to imply and as a conservative, I'm tired of the left throwing every evil on us because we hold different views. Demonizing the other side accomplishes nothing. To then sit there an accuse someone of having a sick fetish because you can't argue in the arena if ideas is not something I'd ever imagined you would do. It's a sleazy tactic and I know you are better than that. Now.......


 I simply asked if the opposite would be true if someone didn't have a gun to stop a would be rapist or assailant.

Gift brought up multiple assailants when Nick said use pepper spray. Now here we are.

There is one study

https://www.jstor.org/stable/800645

That shows a gun does help protect the woman.

I've never said guns should be banned.  I've said they should be banned in public. 

And, yeah, I'm going to stick with the sick fetish thing, because I just don't think the reason that so many conservatives love guns is because they can't bear to see even one more woman raped.

But, if rape prevention was as easy as being armed, you'd expect the United States to be near the bottom of the list, rather than having the 14th highest rape rate in the world.

And if rape prevention was actually a priority for the Republican party, they wouldn't be fighting against sex and consent education and immediately shouting down anyone who accuses someone they like (this isn't exclusive to Republicans, either, but there's no question about which party takes rape/sexual misconduct allegation more seriously). The vast majority of rapes are not being attacked in public by a stranger. It's usually someone you know, whether they're taking advantage of your inability to consent or ignoring your lack of consent.

Guns aren't going to prevent the vast, vast majority of rapes, and using violent rapes as an excuse for not changing gun laws is tone deaf and frankly insulting to victims.

[nickagneta]

Governor Abbott of Texas promised legislation would be passed in the wake of the Robb Elementary shooting....but not gun legislation. The legislation will be concentrated on heath care reform, specifically mental health reform.

Wonder what draconian measures they will foist upon the mentally ill in that messed up state.

[Neurotic Guy]

I'm all-in on gun control.

But, it's frustrating to see many on the left mocking the idea of increased school security, single entry points, etc. 

Can't we do both?  My children's schools have single entry points and my son's school's front door requires a key entry or the administrative secretary to buzz somebody in.  Curiously, my daughter's school has the same functionality, but they always keep the door open during the warm months, which defeats the purpose.

It's the absolutism of the "my way or the highway" approach. From both sides. The only options are to ban guns completely or to have no restrictions on them whatsoever. It's why I'm cynical about whether each side actually wants to accomplish anything meaningful in terms of reform, because it's such a huge turnout issue that motivates voters to turn out and donate. If the problem were solved then they lose that lever. Also, we're electing people to Congress today that have to pander to extremes in the primaries, and they are sent to Congress with the express goal to NOT negotiate with anyone. Because negotiating is a sign of weakness. It's how you get called a RINO or a DINO. My way or the highway.

I haven’t seen one gun control advocate in the last couple of days speak about anything other than doing something - probably have heard about 6 of then which include Chris Murphy, Newtown parents, and former Parkland students. EVERY one spoke about compromise, everyone stated that they are not expecting (or needing) to get everything they are asking for. Absolutely were looking for some common sense movement.  I also heard Ted Cruz and others makes their blanket statements that regulating gun ownership won’t solve the problem.

[Roy H.]

I'm all-in on gun control.

But, it's frustrating to see many on the left mocking the idea of increased school security, single entry points, etc. 

Can't we do both?  My children's schools have single entry points and my son's school's front door requires a key entry or the administrative secretary to buzz somebody in.  Curiously, my daughter's school has the same functionality, but they always keep the door open during the warm months, which defeats the purpose.

It's the absolutism of the "my way or the highway" approach. From both sides. The only options are to ban guns completely or to have no restrictions on them whatsoever. It's why I'm cynical about whether each side actually wants to accomplish anything meaningful in terms of reform, because it's such a huge turnout issue that motivates voters to turn out and donate. If the problem were solved then they lose that lever. Also, we're electing people to Congress today that have to pander to extremes in the primaries, and they are sent to Congress with the express goal to NOT negotiate with anyone. Because negotiating is a sign of weakness. It's how you get called a RINO or a DINO. My way or the highway.

I haven’t seen one gun control advocate in that’s couple of days speak about anything other than doing something - probably have heard about 6 of then which include Chris Murphy, Newtown parents, and former Parkland students. EVERY one spoke about compromise, everyone stated that they are not expecting (or needing) to get everything they are asking for. Absolutely were looking for some common sense movement.  I also heard Ted Cruz and others makes their blanket statements that regulating gun ownership won’t solve the problem.

I think it depends on how far the Twitter wormhole you want to go, NG.  You’re absolutely right about Ted Cruz.  But there’s another side that rejects every Republican idea as ludicrous, as well, because it’s not the best solution.  I get the frustration, but it’s unproductive.

If I’m Mitch Connell, I go to Schumer and say, “I guarantee you ten votes for sensible reform, but it has to be in the lame duck session, after the election”. 

That provides political cover in November, but also moves the ball forward.  I wonder if either party would do that.

[nickagneta]

I'm all-in on gun control.

But, it's frustrating to see many on the left mocking the idea of increased school security, single entry points, etc. 

Can't we do both?  My children's schools have single entry points and my son's school's front door requires a key entry or the administrative secretary to buzz somebody in.  Curiously, my daughter's school has the same functionality, but they always keep the door open during the warm months, which defeats the purpose.

It's the absolutism of the "my way or the highway" approach. From both sides. The only options are to ban guns completely or to have no restrictions on them whatsoever. It's why I'm cynical about whether each side actually wants to accomplish anything meaningful in terms of reform, because it's such a huge turnout issue that motivates voters to turn out and donate. If the problem were solved then they lose that lever. Also, we're electing people to Congress today that have to pander to extremes in the primaries, and they are sent to Congress with the express goal to NOT negotiate with anyone. Because negotiating is a sign of weakness. It's how you get called a RINO or a DINO. My way or the highway.

I haven’t seen one gun control advocate in that’s couple of days speak about anything other than doing something - probably have heard about 6 of then which include Chris Murphy, Newtown parents, and former Parkland students. EVERY one spoke about compromise, everyone stated that they are not expecting (or needing) to get everything they are asking for. Absolutely were looking for some common sense movement.  I also heard Ted Cruz and others makes their blanket statements that regulating gun ownership won’t solve the problem.

I think it depends on how far the Twitter wormhole you want to go, NG.  You’re absolutely right about Ted Cruz.  But there’s another side that rejects every Republican idea as ludicrous, as well, because it’s not the best solution.  I get the frustration, but it’s unproductive.

If I’m Mitch Connell, I go to Schumer and say, “I guarantee you ten votes for sensible reform, but it has to be in the lame duck session, after the election”. 

That provides political cover in November, but also moves the ball forward.  I wonder if either party would do that.

After reading the very interesting phraseology of Mitchell's directive to Sen. Corryn in going to talk with Dems to get stuff done, I wouldn't hold me breath waiting for your scenario to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I think it a good plan, but anything that is brought up about restricting access to guns even a little bit isn't going to happen.

Mitch is smart. He has to keep that NRA money rolling in and keep his gun "toting and voting" base happy. And he knows it's not long before the Supreme Conservative Court rolls out a less restrictive 2nd Amendment ruling to further appease his people.

There is no way he gives the left an iota of movement on strengthening any gun restriction when he has the SC on his side and he is about to regain power in Congress. And his handling of two open SC seats and how the votes were held, proves that to me. Mitch cares about Mitch. "Getting owned by the left" is something Mitch never wants uttered any more than it already has by the extreme Trumper end of the Republican party.

[gouki88]

Those accounts from the actual schoolchildren are just soul-crushing

[Neurotic Guy]

I'm all-in on gun control.

But, it's frustrating to see many on the left mocking the idea of increased school security, single entry points, etc. 

Can't we do both?  My children's schools have single entry points and my son's school's front door requires a key entry or the administrative secretary to buzz somebody in.  Curiously, my daughter's school has the same functionality, but they always keep the door open during the warm months, which defeats the purpose.

It's the absolutism of the "my way or the highway" approach. From both sides. The only options are to ban guns completely or to have no restrictions on them whatsoever. It's why I'm cynical about whether each side actually wants to accomplish anything meaningful in terms of reform, because it's such a huge turnout issue that motivates voters to turn out and donate. If the problem were solved then they lose that lever. Also, we're electing people to Congress today that have to pander to extremes in the primaries, and they are sent to Congress with the express goal to NOT negotiate with anyone. Because negotiating is a sign of weakness. It's how you get called a RINO or a DINO. My way or the highway.

I haven’t seen one gun control advocate in that’s couple of days speak about anything other than doing something - probably have heard about 6 of then which include Chris Murphy, Newtown parents, and former Parkland students. EVERY one spoke about compromise, everyone stated that they are not expecting (or needing) to get everything they are asking for. Absolutely were looking for some common sense movement.  I also heard Ted Cruz and others makes their blanket statements that regulating gun ownership won’t solve the problem.

I think it depends on how far the Twitter wormhole you want to go, NG.  You’re absolutely right about Ted Cruz.  But there’s another side that rejects every Republican idea as ludicrous, as well, because it’s not the best solution.  I get the frustration, but it’s unproductive.

If I’m Mitch Connell, I go to Schumer and say, “I guarantee you ten votes for sensible reform, but it has to be in the lame duck session, after the election”. 

That provides political cover in November, but also moves the ball forward.  I wonder if either party would do that.

I naively keep expecting one surprise republican senator to say "enough is enough" -- not Romney, Murkowski, or Collins (though I don't know where they stand on gun control) -- but one of NRA-supporting stalwarts.  I get the sense that there is a political tipping point around the corner and that a solid nudge could sway momentum as it did with gay marriage not long ago. 

[Donoghus]

Those accounts from the actual schoolchildren are just soul-crushing

And the stories regarding law enforcement simply infuriating.

[nickagneta]

From ESPN on Gabe Kapler, former world champion Boston Red Sox player and current San Francisco Giant manager:

"When I was the same age as the children in Uvalde, my father taught me to stand for the pledge of allegiance when I believed my country was representing its people well or to protest and stay seated when it wasn't. I don't believe it is representing us well right now," Kapler wrote.

"... Every time I place my hand over my heart and remove my hat, I'm participating in a self congratulatory glorification of the ONLY country where these mass shootings take place. On Wednesday, I walked out onto the field, I listened to the announcement as we honored the victims in Uvalde. I bowed my head. I stood for the national anthem. Metallica riffed on City Connect guitars."

Kapler said he wanted to make some sort of gesture, but said he was conscious that it could be misunderstood as an act meant to be offensive "to the military, to veterans, to themselves."

"My brain said drop to a knee; my body didn't listen. I wanted to walk back inside; instead I froze. I felt like a coward. I didn't want to call attention to myself. I didn't want to take away from the victims or their families.

"... But I am not okay with the state of this country. I wish I hadn't let my discomfort compromise my integrity. I wish that I could have demonstrated what I learned from my dad, that when you're dissatisfied with your country, you let it be known through protest. The home of the brave should encourage this."

Prior to Friday's game against the Cincinnati Reds at Great American Ball Park, Kapler said he plans on refusing to take the field for the national anthem to protest the nation's political direction following this week's school shooting in Texas.

"I don't plan on coming out for the anthem going forward until I feel better about the direction of our country,'' Kapler told reporters. "I don't expect it to move the needle necessarily. It's just something that I feel strongly enough about to take that step.''

[gouki88]

Those accounts from the actual schoolchildren are just soul-crushing

And the stories regarding law enforcement simply infuriating.

Echoed by things like this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/white-house-sidesteps-question-about-police-response-to-texas-school-shooting

The White House refused to call for an investigation into the police response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, saying President Joe Biden "has the utmost respect for the men and women of law enforcement."

Blind reverence for LEOs, even in instances of grave misconduct, bothers me significantly.

[nickagneta]

Those accounts from the actual schoolchildren are just soul-crushing

And the stories regarding law enforcement simply infuriating.

Echoed by things like this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/white-house-sidesteps-question-about-police-response-to-texas-school-shooting

The White House refused to call for an investigation into the police response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, saying President Joe Biden "has the utmost respect for the men and women of law enforcement."

Blind reverence for LEOs, even in instances of grave misconduct, bothers me significantly.

Wasn't there something in the news in the past couple years about police reform and holding officers accountable. I seemed to remember something about that.

[gouki88]

https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1530357140191186944

This thread of tweets is absolutely [dang]ing.

I have spent the past few days researching the training of Uvalde officers, including the tactics they were expected to use to halt school shooters.
The documents are jarring. Here’s a thread of our findings so far.
1/9

The Uvalde training session 2 months ago relied on guidelines that give explicit expectations for officers responding to an active shooter.
The training is clear: Time is of the essence. The “first priority is to move in and confront the attacker.”

But how should officers confront the gunman? With a tactical team? The training says that's probably not feasible, because the urgency is so high.
A SINGLE OFFICER, the training says, may need to confront the suspect on their own.

The guidelines provide sobering clarity: The first officers may be risking their lives. But, it says, innocent lives take priority.

“A first responder unwilling to place the lives of the innocent above their own safety should consider another career field."

Those kids were completely failed.

[ozgod]

This kid I'm learning shot at people with BB guns for fun. He had cut up his face with a razor for "fun." He came from a broken hone with no father.

No one did anything. He was sick and needed help.

The guns are a symptoms, not the cause of the rot in society.

Bring back institution's.
Educate the public on warning signs of mental health
Reform involuntary confinement.
Upgrade school security and provide funding for security
Oh and hire cops who will do their job

This would go farther to help prevent these tragedies from happening. Screaming about the NRA(who isn't even the top donor lobby group in the country) solves zip.

Let's all agree that mental health funding, more state-run psychiatric hospitals, and upgraded school security are all sensible things.  And, let's ignore for a minute that "mental health" has been something that has been cried about for generations without any significant resources put towards it.  We'll pretend we have a competent Congress, and those things will be immediately passed.

Where do you stand on these proposals, none of which involve banning guns?

1.  All guns must be registered

2.  All gun owners must be licensed, subject to training, with 10 year renewals

3.  Require a standardized background check and waiting period

4.  Make it easier for police to stop and frisk people in public who have a violent criminal record

5.  Trigger locks must be installed on all new guns

6.  Any mechanism used to make a gun more automatic is illegal

7.  Close the "gun show" loophole

8.  Keep the Castle Doctrine, but revert to standard self-defense laws in public

9.  Red flag laws

10.  Increase the age of gun ownership to age 21, unless somebody is serving in the military and/or has been honorably discharged

Thoughts?  Those are very basic, without touching magazine size or severely restricting gun ownership for the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners.

I agree with all these suggestions, (although what’s a trigger lock “installed” mean?) ..gun owner for 30+ years

OK with all of these as well, as a gun owner for nearly 10 years. None of these will prevent law abiding folks from owning a firearm if they want to.

[Roy H.]

Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-NY), who is set for a GOP primary battle in August, told reporters he would get behind gun control efforts in Congress including an assault weapons ban and setting 21 as the minimum age to buy guns, WKBW reported.

A majority of Americans favor an assault weapons ban, with 67% of people surveyed

in a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll saying they’d support one.

It’s good that at least one member of Congress will break with the NRA.  I will say, an assault weapons ban wouldn’t prevent many of the 40,000 gun fatalities, though.  But maybe from it some other sensible measures will be actually discussed.

In terms of how hopeless it is, read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/us/trump-gun-control.html

Despite being a buffoon, I’ve consistently thought that Trump legitimately hates war.  Reading the above, it seems like he legitimately hates guns, too, or at least mass shootings with guns. But, that’s our politics, right?  There’s no room for personal beliefs, it’s what will fire up the base and bring in that cash.

But I digress.  Back in 2018, there was hope.  If Trump had come out publicly, who knows what would have happened.  I don’t know what it will take.  A Dem President with a Senate willing to end the filibuster?  A GOP President in his second term who doesn’t care about reelection?

All that said, is it next month that the Supreme Court rules on NY’s gun statute?  Depending on how narrowly that gets written, it could make guns even more prevalent.