Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence

[tarheelsxxiii]

Thank God the NBA let us know what social justice cause they support this evening.  Their greed and hypocrisy warm my heart.

Amen to that.

Yeah, I get this cynicism but to get reform you usually need to build pressure throughout all parts of society. One single lobby can't get anything done..  you need to build broad support.

Nah, didn't you know being upset about the massacre of children is virtue signalling?

This is true.  I can't think of an entity who did so more egregiously than the NBA for about 1.5 years.

How is it true? Isn't trying to influence change just acting with virtues (even if they are virtues you do not share)?

If they cared about the issues they promote, they wouldn't be so closely tied to a country with slavery, child labor, and other human rights violations.  It's all about $.

Stopit.  I am at least consistent - monetary gain is also the reason I think the league likely tampers with the outcomes of games.  I still enjoy watching the Celtics and a couple other teams, but I don't agree with much of what they do.

The problem I have with sports leagues addressing social justice isn't that they're taking a stand.  As I've argued elsewhere, corporations and similar organizations have free speech rights to advocate for whatever they want.  There are times I want to use sports as escapism and don't want to see a lot of political action, but it's certainly their right.

What rubs me the wrong way is when they join a political bandwagon without any nuance.  Plastering "Black Lives Matter" all over the court and jerseys while having no other articulate message just means they've tied themselves to an outside movement, adopting the good and the bad of that movement.  And, with BLM, there was a lot of bad:  riots, murders, non-factual claims, corruption, etc. 

If major sports leagues really wanted to do something, they could use their money in much more effective ways than empty slogans. 

Regarding guns, there are no doubt false politic narratives from all sides involved, but the underlying message shouldn't be controversial:  too many people are dying.  And if you think 19 fourth graders in Texas is the worst of it, go look at the "Forgotten Lives" thread.  Kids are dying by guns every single day.  I just posted about a two year old in southern Maine who was shot and killed by her uncle, because he was upset that his brother had worn his t-shirt. 

And, a message for the conservative Republicans:  if you're truly pro-life, you need to protect the kids after they're born, too.  If a rogue abortion doctor performed 19 partial birth abortions, Tucker and others would be screaming about it nightly.  And hey, maybe that's fair.  But be consistent.  Limit the murders, even if your right to walk around like Billy the Kid is infringed upon.

(Aside:  Why is it in so many shows and movies about the "wild wild west", towns have signs stating that guns aren't allowed in town?  Could it be that citizens, in response to mass violence, lived with regulations about their right to carry?)

I agree with your points about the NBA and marketing - the league reserves the right to express whatever opinion they want, just as others are free question their messaging. I agree that the league could make more effective, community-level changes, too.

I'm not sure of your position on gun rights, though. Agree that we have an issue with gun violence.  What legislation do you think could help?

[Roy H.]

If I see one more “After 9/11 we didn’t ban planes, we secured the cockpits” meme, I may have to punch somebody in the face.

[Kernewek]

This is a very old blog post from a retired US military intelligence type, although I'm just encountering it now:
https://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html

Not only are the core ideas still relevant, but I think it might be the best, most pragmatic thing I've read on the subject.

It's quite a read, so here's some excerpts:

Whenever this comes up, I always ask: what laws would have prevented this latest slaughter?

The response is usually some vague hand waving about more background checks. But background checks wouldn’t have prevented Charleston. They wouldn’t have prevented Columbine. They wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook. They wouldn’t have prevented Aurora.  They wouldn’t have prevented Fort Hood, twice. They wouldn’t have kept Gabby Giffords from being shot in the head. They would not have stopped Christopher Dorner. Neither would banning assault weapons. Or high capacity magazines. Or mandating smart gun technology. Or more gun-free zones.

And in this, the NRA is provably correct.

But what both the anti-gun lobby and the pro-gun lobby get wrong is this: While it’s often true laws don’t stop criminals, that is not the law’s purpose.

Laws don’t stop crime. It would be nice if they did, but laws don’t stop crime. Instead laws give society legal recourse when its members engage in antisocial behavior.

If there wasn’t a law against theft, you couldn’t prosecute somebody for stealing.

If there wasn’t a law against murder, you couldn’t imprison somebody for killing another.

Laws against theft and murder don’t stop theft and murder, they give society legal options when theft and murder occur.

Saying new gun laws won’t end gun violence is a non sequitur. Of course guns laws won’t end gun violence.

Laws don’t stop crime, however what well written laws do is to put responsibility where it belongs – on the criminal.

Well written laws are about pragmatism.

For example, we all know that laws against drinking and driving won’t stop drunk driving, but they weren’t intended to. We know it’s going to happen. People are going to drink and drive and kill themselves and each other. We know we can’t eliminate it completely. That’s the pragmatism part.

Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

But, and this is important so pay attention, here’s what those laws didn’t do: they didn’t keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from 1) drinking, or 2) driving (note the operative word here is or).

And that’s the answer.

We need gun laws that give society legal recourse by making each gun owner/user personally accountable for their own actions.

Those laws should be designed to change our gun culture over time in order to make gun violence less likely. And, of course, those laws should not keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Now, what exactly does such a law look like?

Well, it looks like the NRA.

Look, let’s be honest.

More gun-free zones won’t do a [dang]ed thing. More background checks won’t do a [dang]ed thing – not unless we’re willing to get serious about it, unless we standardize background checks across the nation to include a complete and thorough investigation like the kind used for federal security clearances. We’re talking full national agency checks with interviews by certified investigators (what security clearance adjudicators call a NAC-I). Those cost about $100K and take four to six months. Such a system would require a complete disclosure of all financial, criminal (including juvenile records), and medical records (including mental health records), periodic updates, and a comprehensive database of all gun owners.  It’s possible, but I suspect neither affordable nor politically feasible. Anything less than that is a waste of time. Q.E.D.

Banning the future sales of assault weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity magazines won’t do a [dang]ed thing. That horse is out of the barn.

So what would?

Well, we make the NRA’s own rules federal law.

Always point the gun in a safe direction, that’s rule #1 of the NRA’s own guidelines.

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, that’s NRA rule #2.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use, that’s NRA rule #3.

You’re responsible for your weapon at all times. You’re responsible for proper and secure carry. You’re responsible for keeping the weapon in proper operating order. You’re responsible for engaging the safety if the weapon is so equipped or for the use of other techniques if it is not. A properly maintained and carried weapon does not discharge when dropped, if it does, it’s your responsibility. Period. No excuses.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to point your weapon in a safe direction, for unintentional discharge, for failure to properly maintain and use safety systems if only property damage is involved. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Felony manslaughter if somebody dies.

Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

[Roy H.]

This is a very old blog post from a retired US military intelligence type, although I'm just encountering it now:
https://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html

Not only are the core ideas still relevant, but I think it might be the best, most pragmatic thing I've read on the subject.

It's quite a read, so here's some excerpts:

Whenever this comes up, I always ask: what laws would have prevented this latest slaughter?

The response is usually some vague hand waving about more background checks. But background checks wouldn’t have prevented Charleston. They wouldn’t have prevented Columbine. They wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook. They wouldn’t have prevented Aurora.  They wouldn’t have prevented Fort Hood, twice. They wouldn’t have kept Gabby Giffords from being shot in the head. They would not have stopped Christopher Dorner. Neither would banning assault weapons. Or high capacity magazines. Or mandating smart gun technology. Or more gun-free zones.

And in this, the NRA is provably correct.

But what both the anti-gun lobby and the pro-gun lobby get wrong is this: While it’s often true laws don’t stop criminals, that is not the law’s purpose.

Laws don’t stop crime. It would be nice if they did, but laws don’t stop crime. Instead laws give society legal recourse when its members engage in antisocial behavior.

If there wasn’t a law against theft, you couldn’t prosecute somebody for stealing.

If there wasn’t a law against murder, you couldn’t imprison somebody for killing another.

Laws against theft and murder don’t stop theft and murder, they give society legal options when theft and murder occur.

Saying new gun laws won’t end gun violence is a non sequitur. Of course guns laws won’t end gun violence.

Laws don’t stop crime, however what well written laws do is to put responsibility where it belongs – on the criminal.

Well written laws are about pragmatism.

For example, we all know that laws against drinking and driving won’t stop drunk driving, but they weren’t intended to. We know it’s going to happen. People are going to drink and drive and kill themselves and each other. We know we can’t eliminate it completely. That’s the pragmatism part.

Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

But, and this is important so pay attention, here’s what those laws didn’t do: they didn’t keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from 1) drinking, or 2) driving (note the operative word here is or).

And that’s the answer.

We need gun laws that give society legal recourse by making each gun owner/user personally accountable for their own actions.

Those laws should be designed to change our gun culture over time in order to make gun violence less likely. And, of course, those laws should not keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Now, what exactly does such a law look like?

Well, it looks like the NRA.

Look, let’s be honest.

More gun-free zones won’t do a [dang]ed thing. More background checks won’t do a [dang]ed thing – not unless we’re willing to get serious about it, unless we standardize background checks across the nation to include a complete and thorough investigation like the kind used for federal security clearances. We’re talking full national agency checks with interviews by certified investigators (what security clearance adjudicators call a NAC-I). Those cost about $100K and take four to six months. Such a system would require a complete disclosure of all financial, criminal (including juvenile records), and medical records (including mental health records), periodic updates, and a comprehensive database of all gun owners.  It’s possible, but I suspect neither affordable nor politically feasible. Anything less than that is a waste of time. Q.E.D.

Banning the future sales of assault weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity magazines won’t do a [dang]ed thing. That horse is out of the barn.

So what would?

Well, we make the NRA’s own rules federal law.

Always point the gun in a safe direction, that’s rule #1 of the NRA’s own guidelines.

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, that’s NRA rule #2.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use, that’s NRA rule #3.

You’re responsible for your weapon at all times. You’re responsible for proper and secure carry. You’re responsible for keeping the weapon in proper operating order. You’re responsible for engaging the safety if the weapon is so equipped or for the use of other techniques if it is not. A properly maintained and carried weapon does not discharge when dropped, if it does, it’s your responsibility. Period. No excuses.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to point your weapon in a safe direction, for unintentional discharge, for failure to properly maintain and use safety systems if only property damage is involved. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Felony manslaughter if somebody dies.

Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

Most of those "NRA" rules are already laws.  Perhaps not on the national level, but at the state and local level.  The one notable one that is not is that some states don't require firearms to be locked up unless in use, but I'm not even sure that's what the author is advocating for.

I think the proposals above stop well short of anything that would be meaningful.

[Roy H.]

[Ten year old Samuel] Salinas was a student in Irma Garcia's fourth-grade class. They were scheduled to graduate Thursday, but the ceremony was canceled because Garcia, another teacher and 19 third- and fourth-grade students were killed in Tuesday's massacre. Another 17 people were wounded, including three law enforcement officers. ...

Salinas, whose mother died in a car accident in 2019, said his aunt dropped him off for school on Tuesday morning.

"It was a normal day until my teacher said we're on severe lockdown," he told ABC News, "and then there was shooting in the windows."

Salinas said the gunman came into his classroom, closed the door and told them, "You're all going to die," before opening fire.

"He shot the teacher and then he shot the kids," Salinas said, recalling the cries and yells of students around him.

"I think he was aiming at me," Salinas said, but a chair was between him and the shooter, and the bullet hit the chair. Shrapnel struck Salinas' thigh and got lodged in his leg. Then he pretended to be dead, he said.

"I played dead so he wouldn't shoot me," he added, noting that a lot of other children did the same.

A cellphone in one of the student's desks started ringing, and as the girl was trying to silence it, Salinas heard gunshots. Police engaged the gunman and then moved desks out of the way to free the children, he said.

As police rushed him out of the room, Salinas said he saw the bodies of his teacher and other students.

"There was blood on the ground," he recalled. "And there were kids [...] full of blood."

When asked how it felt to join the growing list of school shooting victims, Salinas said the idea of going to fifth grade is simply overwhelming.

"Whenever there's a lockdown, then I'll be really scared," he told ABC News, fighting back tears.

Even the idea of reuniting with his friends who survived the shooting was too much for the 10-year-old to think about.

"I'm not looking forward to it," he said. "I'm just going to stay home and rest."

[Kernewek]

Most of those "NRA" rules are already laws.  Perhaps not on the national level, but at the state and local level.  The one notable one that is not is that some states don't require firearms to be locked up unless in use, but I'm not even sure that's what the author is advocating for.

I think the proposals above stop well short of anything that would be meaningful.

That was one example. And they're called NRA rules because they're the literal gun safety rules that the NRA advocates for. The fact that they're not federal laws is, I would say, part of the problem. If nothing else, this is a minimum standard of what should change.

As far as firearms being locked up, it's addressed later on in a similar fashion:

The NRA itself, by its own rules for safe gun handling, dictates that weapons must be stored so that they are not accessible to unauthorized persons. Note that the NRA doesn’t dictate the method, only the requirement.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to properly store your weapon. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Negligent homicide if somebody dies. Children are able to access your weapon because you failed to properly secure it? Felony child endangerment. No excuses. No exceptions.

When you have a moment I think you should read the whole thing.

[Roy H.]

Most of those "NRA" rules are already laws.  Perhaps not on the national level, but at the state and local level.  The one notable one that is not is that some states don't require firearms to be locked up unless in use, but I'm not even sure that's what the author is advocating for.

I think the proposals above stop well short of anything that would be meaningful.

That was one example. And they're called NRA rules because they're the literal gun safety rules that the NRA advocates for. The fact that they're not federal laws is, I would say, part of the problem. If nothing else, this is a minimum standard of what should change.

As far as firearms being locked up, it's addressed later on in a similar fashion:

The NRA itself, by its own rules for safe gun handling, dictates that weapons must be stored so that they are not accessible to unauthorized persons. Note that the NRA doesn’t dictate the method, only the requirement.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to properly store your weapon. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Negligent homicide if somebody dies. Children are able to access your weapon because you failed to properly secure it? Felony child endangerment. No excuses. No exceptions.

When you have a moment I think you should read the whole thing.

Yeah, I'll take a look.  And I certainly agree that whatever the NRA thinks is negligent should be the *minimum* standard reflected by our gun laws.  But, there are also areas that the NRA will never touch that I think are also the basis for sensible laws.

For instance, the NRA seemingly thinks it's completely cool for somebody to go out in the public square and walk around with an AR-15 strapped to your back, packing two handguns at your waste and another in your boot.  To me, that's insane.

Just looking at Maine law:  until fairly recently, we had a law against "dangerous knives", which basically outlawed switchblades.  Brass knuckles are treated similarly, although I can't remember if people are restricted from owning them, or just carrying them.  Meanwhile, somebody can openly carry (but not threaten with) pretty much any firearm they want, so long as it's not fully automatic.  It's wild to me.

[seancally]

This is a very old blog post from a retired US military intelligence type, although I'm just encountering it now:
https://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html

Not only are the core ideas still relevant, but I think it might be the best, most pragmatic thing I've read on the subject.

It's quite a read, so here's some excerpts:

Whenever this comes up, I always ask: what laws would have prevented this latest slaughter?

The response is usually some vague hand waving about more background checks. But background checks wouldn’t have prevented Charleston. They wouldn’t have prevented Columbine. They wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook. They wouldn’t have prevented Aurora.  They wouldn’t have prevented Fort Hood, twice. They wouldn’t have kept Gabby Giffords from being shot in the head. They would not have stopped Christopher Dorner. Neither would banning assault weapons. Or high capacity magazines. Or mandating smart gun technology. Or more gun-free zones.

And in this, the NRA is provably correct.

But what both the anti-gun lobby and the pro-gun lobby get wrong is this: While it’s often true laws don’t stop criminals, that is not the law’s purpose.

Laws don’t stop crime. It would be nice if they did, but laws don’t stop crime. Instead laws give society legal recourse when its members engage in antisocial behavior.

If there wasn’t a law against theft, you couldn’t prosecute somebody for stealing.

If there wasn’t a law against murder, you couldn’t imprison somebody for killing another.

Laws against theft and murder don’t stop theft and murder, they give society legal options when theft and murder occur.

Saying new gun laws won’t end gun violence is a non sequitur. Of course guns laws won’t end gun violence.

Laws don’t stop crime, however what well written laws do is to put responsibility where it belongs – on the criminal.

Well written laws are about pragmatism.

For example, we all know that laws against drinking and driving won’t stop drunk driving, but they weren’t intended to. We know it’s going to happen. People are going to drink and drive and kill themselves and each other. We know we can’t eliminate it completely. That’s the pragmatism part.

Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

But, and this is important so pay attention, here’s what those laws didn’t do: they didn’t keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from 1) drinking, or 2) driving (note the operative word here is or).

And that’s the answer.

We need gun laws that give society legal recourse by making each gun owner/user personally accountable for their own actions.

Those laws should be designed to change our gun culture over time in order to make gun violence less likely. And, of course, those laws should not keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Now, what exactly does such a law look like?

Well, it looks like the NRA.

Look, let’s be honest.

More gun-free zones won’t do a [dang]ed thing. More background checks won’t do a [dang]ed thing – not unless we’re willing to get serious about it, unless we standardize background checks across the nation to include a complete and thorough investigation like the kind used for federal security clearances. We’re talking full national agency checks with interviews by certified investigators (what security clearance adjudicators call a NAC-I). Those cost about $100K and take four to six months. Such a system would require a complete disclosure of all financial, criminal (including juvenile records), and medical records (including mental health records), periodic updates, and a comprehensive database of all gun owners.  It’s possible, but I suspect neither affordable nor politically feasible. Anything less than that is a waste of time. Q.E.D.

Banning the future sales of assault weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity magazines won’t do a [dang]ed thing. That horse is out of the barn.

So what would?

Well, we make the NRA’s own rules federal law.

Always point the gun in a safe direction, that’s rule #1 of the NRA’s own guidelines.

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, that’s NRA rule #2.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use, that’s NRA rule #3.

You’re responsible for your weapon at all times. You’re responsible for proper and secure carry. You’re responsible for keeping the weapon in proper operating order. You’re responsible for engaging the safety if the weapon is so equipped or for the use of other techniques if it is not. A properly maintained and carried weapon does not discharge when dropped, if it does, it’s your responsibility. Period. No excuses.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to point your weapon in a safe direction, for unintentional discharge, for failure to properly maintain and use safety systems if only property damage is involved. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Felony manslaughter if somebody dies.

Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

Most of those "NRA" rules are already laws.  Perhaps not on the national level, but at the state and local level.  The one notable one that is not is that some states don't require firearms to be locked up unless in use, but I'm not even sure that's what the author is advocating for.

I think the proposals above stop well short of anything that would be meaningful.

Yeah, it’s uncontroversial because it wouldn’t change anything. It’s already punishable by death in some states to murder someone. This event has nothing to do with gun safety or criminal law — it has everything to do with gun access.

I don’t think 18-year-olds should be able to buy guns, but even that aside, no one should be able to buy the type of guns this shooter bought. It should be incredibly difficult to buy a firearm.

The NRA is fine if it’s truly a gun safety organization. But it isn’t. It’s a dark money nonprofit that influences voters and politicians to protect the 2nd amendment from any regulation that would mean fewer guns for sale, of any type, for anyone. So the NRA might have cute little rules about not pointing your gun at anyone, yadda yadda, but it means nothing if it continues to advocate through money and action for unfettered gun access to basically anyone who wants one.

[Roy H.]

The NRA is fine if it’s truly a gun safety organization. But it isn’t. It’s a dark money nonprofit that influences voters and politicians...

That's why my father left the NRA.  He had been a member for years (he's a former marine, owned a gun shop, and is a lifelong hunter, so this stuff was in his wheelhouse).  His gripe was that they shifted their focus in membership materials from gun safety and being more sportsman-oriented to becoming very political.

He's still an anti-government, pro-Second Amendment conservative, but they became a little bit much even for him.

[Kernewek]

The NRA is fine if it’s truly a gun safety organization. But it isn’t. It’s a dark money nonprofit that influences voters and politicians to protect the 2nd amendment from any regulation that would mean fewer guns for sale, of any type, for anyone. So the NRA might have cute little rules about not pointing your gun at anyone, yadda yadda, but it means nothing if it continues to advocate through money and action for unfettered gun access to basically anyone who wants one.

But this is the point, isn't it. If the NRA has rules that make access to firearms more difficult, the NRA can't reasonably campaign against these rules. Mandatory federal sentencing against people who breach these rules. As the example goes: people still drive drunk, but many fewer people drive drunk than they did before the campaigning by MADD & subsequent legal adjustments.

This is presuming good faith on behalf of the NRA, which isn't a given - as correctly pointed out. And as one of the significantly left leaning posters in this thread, I've got my own opinions about them as a lobbying agency. But the fact that they exploit hysteria among gun enthusiasts to boost gun sales & profits is a separate issue to what we're talking about in this thread.

[seancally]

The NRA is fine if it’s truly a gun safety organization. But it isn’t. It’s a dark money nonprofit that influences voters and politicians to protect the 2nd amendment from any regulation that would mean fewer guns for sale, of any type, for anyone. So the NRA might have cute little rules about not pointing your gun at anyone, yadda yadda, but it means nothing if it continues to advocate through money and action for unfettered gun access to basically anyone who wants one.

But this is the point, isn't it. If the NRA has rules that make access to firearms more difficult, the NRA can't reasonably campaign against these rules. Mandatory federal sentencing against people who breach these rules. As the example goes: people still drive drunk, but many fewer people drive drunk than they did before the campaigning by MADD & subsequent legal adjustments.

Sorry not sure the point you’re trying to make here. Do they have rules to make gun access more difficult? If we wanna lean on the drunk driving example then the proper response is to regulate guns the same way we regulate alcohol, cars, and driving. That’s not even close to being true today. Yes, punishment is helpful. But regulations do prevent accidents and deaths.

This is presuming good faith on behalf of the NRA, which isn't a given - as correctly pointed out. And as one of the significantly left leaning posters in this thread, I've got my own opinions about them as a lobbying agency. But the fact that they exploit hysteria among gun enthusiasts to boost gun sales & profits is a separate issue to what we're talking about in this thread.

I think it’s entirely germane to this thread. Frankly if the NRA didn’t exist, and nothing else did in its place, I think we’d have already passed notable gun regulation. Maybe that’s optimistic but the point is the NRA contributes substantially to this country’s gun culture and its refusal to regulate firearms adequately. It’s relevant because the shooter bought two ARs on one day and 375 rounds of ammunition the next. That, to me, is a failure of our regulatory environment.

And by helping to protect a healthy market for military-grade weapons designed explicitly for killing people, the NRA encourages gun manufacturers, gun publications, gun shows, etc. to continue producing, marketing and selling such weapons as broadly as possible.

This is somewhat separate but I’ll keep repeating this point: The biggest violent threat to Americans today is domestic terrorism. Who is arming them? If ISIS attacked America and we found out our own gun manufacturers were selling them weapons, don’t you think that’d be a problem? Would you accept the excuse “sorry we didn’t know they were gonna do that”? (Asking rhetorically, not directing at anyone specifically.)

[Kernewek]

The NRA is fine if it’s truly a gun safety organization. But it isn’t. It’s a dark money nonprofit that influences voters and politicians to protect the 2nd amendment from any regulation that would mean fewer guns for sale, of any type, for anyone. So the NRA might have cute little rules about not pointing your gun at anyone, yadda yadda, but it means nothing if it continues to advocate through money and action for unfettered gun access to basically anyone who wants one.

But this is the point, isn't it. If the NRA has rules that make access to firearms more difficult, the NRA can't reasonably campaign against these rules. Mandatory federal sentencing against people who breach these rules. As the example goes: people still drive drunk, but many fewer people drive drunk than they did before the campaigning by MADD & subsequent legal adjustments.

Sorry not sure the point you’re trying to make here. Do they have rules to make gun access more difficult? If we wanna lean on the drunk driving example then the proper response is to regulate guns the same way we regulate alcohol, cars, and driving. That’s not even close to being true today. Yes, punishment is helpful. But regulations do prevent accidents and deaths.

This is presuming good faith on behalf of the NRA, which isn't a given - as correctly pointed out. And as one of the significantly left leaning posters in this thread, I've got my own opinions about them as a lobbying agency. But the fact that they exploit hysteria among gun enthusiasts to boost gun sales & profits is a separate issue to what we're talking about in this thread.

I think it’s entirely germane to this thread. Frankly if the NRA didn’t exist, and nothing else did in its place, I think we’d have already passed notable gun regulation. Maybe that’s optimistic but the point is the NRA contributes substantially to this country’s gun culture and its refusal to regulate firearms adequately. It’s relevant because the shooter bought two ARs on one day and 375 rounds of ammunition the next. That, to me, is a failure of our regulatory environment.

And by helping to protect a healthy market for military-grade weapons designed explicitly for killing people, the NRA encourages gun manufacturers, gun publications, gun shows, etc. to continue producing, marketing and selling such weapons as broadly as possible.

This is somewhat separate but I’ll keep repeating this point: The biggest violent threat to Americans today is domestic terrorism. Who is arming them? If ISIS attacked America and we found out our own gun manufacturers were selling them weapons, don’t you think that’d be a problem? Would you accept the excuse “sorry we didn’t know they were gonna do that”? (Asking rhetorically, not directing at anyone specifically.)

To the bolded, the NRA had no problem with meaningful gun regulation when they backed the Mulford Act (which I've already discussed in this thread). To this point, I think you may find it useful to do some digging into how the NRA ended up where they are now, which is essentially the last 50 years of their history.

I'll give you a hint: it has to do with not wanting black folks to have guns. If black people are copwatching, it's no good. If white people do it, they're 'concerned patriots' exercising their second amendment rights. But, again, this is way off topic.

I'd appreciate it, though, if you didn't put me in a position where I have to defend people I find disagreeable - the point is that we would hope the level of discourse in American society hasn't degraded to such tribalism that arguing for enhanced regulation by codifying the NRA's own rules on gun safety at a federal level wouldn't be something that the NRA would throw money against.


Speaking frankly, I find most of the policy positions for most of the vocal right-wing elements in the US today to be incredibly surface-level & inconsistent, so I have no faith that this would actually come to pass, but it seems like something that should be a gimme.

All that said, I think we're in agreement mostly.

[angryguy77]

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.

[Kernewek]

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.

You have to realise that when you argue against spending more money on the social safety net, this is exactly the result you reap?

[nickagneta]

The story of an 11 year old survivor.

Mods I quoted the entire article, but thought it all relevant as it not only described the experience but also the effects it is having on this little girl afterward. Edit as you feel you need. Sorry for this but I thought it worthy of being an exception.

An 11-year-old survivor of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, feared the gunman would come back for her so she smeared herself in her friend's blood and played dead.

Miah Cerrillo spoke exclusively to CNN about her horrific experience that day inside the classroom where the mass shooting took place that killed 19 of her classmates and two of her teachers.

Miah said she and her classmates were watching the movie "Lilo and Stitch" in a classroom shared by two teachers, Eva Mireles and Irma Garcia. The students were finished with their lessons when the teachers got word there was a shooter in the building, she told CNN's "New Day."

One teacher went to lock the door, but Miah says the shooter was already right there — and shot out the window in the door.

She described it all happening so fast — her teacher backed into the classroom and the gunman followed. She told CNN he made eye contact with one of the teachers, said, "Goodnight," and then shot her.
He opened fire, shooting the other teacher and many of Miah's friends. She said bullets flew by her, and fragments hit her shoulders and head. The girl was later treated at the hospital and released with fragment wounds; she described to CNN that clumps of her hair were falling out now.

Miah said after shooting students in her class, the gunman went through a door into an adjoining classroom. She heard screams, and the sound of shots in that classroom. After the shots stopped, though, she says the shooter started playing loud music -- sad music, she said.

The girl and a friend managed to get her dead teacher's phone and call 911 for help. She said she told a dispatcher, "Please come ... we're in trouble."

Miah said she was scared the gunman would return to her classroom to kill her and a few other surviving friends. So, she dipped her hands in the blood of a classmate -- who lay next to her, already dead -- and then smeared the blood all over herself to play dead.
Miah said it felt like three hours that she lay there, covered in her classmate's blood, with her friends.
She told CNN she assumed at that point the police hadn't arrived on the scene yet.

She said afterward, she overheard talk of police waiting outside the school. As she recounted this part of the story to CNN, she started crying, saying she just didn't understand why they didn't come inside and rescue them.

Miah's mother said her daughter is traumatized and can't sleep. The child's parents have started a GoFundMe specifically to pay for her therapy.
In an effort to keep herself covered, Miah sat for the interview wrapped in a blanket, despite the warm temperatures.

A cellphone alarm accidentally went off during the interview, and Miah was visibly unnerved by the noise. Her mother said that's been happening a lot, and described an earlier incident where they were at a car wash and the sound of the vacuum cleaner "completely set her off."

Miah was too scared to speak on camera, or to a man, because of what she experienced, but she told CNN she wanted to share her story so people can know what it's like to live through a school shooting. She says hopefully it can help prevent a tragedy like this from happening to other children.

Already a "miracle baby"

Miah's mother said she was born with a tumor in her abdomen and wasn't expected to live much past her birth. She underwent extensive surgery to remove the tumor at age three; her mother already called her a "miracle baby" and said that's even truer now.
Her mother also told CNN that the morning of the shooting, Miah had an earache and she took her out of school to go to the doctor. On the way back, they stopped at Starbucks for a treat and her mother offered to let Miah skip school the rest of the day since it was one of the last days of classes before summer break and they were just watching movies

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/robb-shooting-survivor-miah-cerrillo/index.html

This article shows that not every victim is shot and killed or shot and wounded. Miah Cerrillo will be damaged in some way by this for the rest of her life. So will possibly hundreds of other students from Robb Elementary. And that doesn't even include the mom's, dads, grandparents, uncle's, aunt's, cousins, friends, and neighbors that need to unnecessarily move on without their loved one or ones.