PSA: What to do during a mass shooting

[E B]

This isn’t a full solution, but it seems like a pretty good start. Anyone object? I think there’s tremendous potential for compromise on this issue. The very powerful NRA (and the die-hards) halts this badly needed progress.

 

[redwood66]

And I wish you would quit taking equally extreme positions and addressing straw men. Yours is equally naive, to think that a few frothing liberals who know zip about guns or (in this case, often) the constitution, are an actual threat. Who cares what extreme fantasy they're having? They can't have that pink pony, you know it and so do I. You need to quit saying your response is in response to that. You know as well as I do that what drives most of the objections to gun regulation is not that it won't be effective, but the ideological position that government is mostly evil and ultimately ineffective and individual rights should trump all. That and too long staring of the boogieman flogged to a fever pitch by the NRA that any registration and regulation, no matter how narrowly applied, and to only certain types of guns will inevitably lead to mass confiscation. In fact, the mere use of the word "confiscation" by gunners means I can assume they're not talking about guns anymore. Since we have history since the founding of the country to look at for evidence that there is no real danger of mass confiscation, not to mention the glacially slow ebb and flow of most legislation of any kind, forget about gun legislation, believing that confiscation is a real threat, is actually the definition of paranoia.

To both you Red, and Bonfire, the reality is there is a working model of a gun control system that works right now, and has since 1934. In all that time, there have been no mass confiscations of legal class III weapons. They're registered, they're monitored, they're left alone. So leave the "all guns" verbiage out of it and just address the guns that are most lethal on a mass scale in a single incident, right now. Anything else should be a battle for another day and likely another generation. Now apply the logic that was used to classify earlier weapons as class III, meaning, the ability of an untrained individual to be lethal on a mass scale, to the AR and AK platforms. It gets somewhat clearer.

Will it mean no one gets shot? No. Should that be enough to not try? No, because it will probably help. Over time. Of course, much like we want a pill for every ill and a Harry Potter wand, we're not terrifically good at taking the long view in the US. But at this point, with the next perfectly-legal-until-he-isn't-hyper-violent-white-dude on a near weekly schedule to shoot up the next whatever, we've truly got little left to lose making the attempt. Should your objections be any of the following: "Nothing will make shootings stop therefore we can/should try nothing other than hand-wringing a limping along as we have", or ideological fear of the surveillance state and mass confiscation, or "I'll be inconvenienced"? No, because the first is defeated already, the second has no basis in reality, and the third because it's morally stunted.

We can have a respectful conversation without you telling me how to respond or name calling. I am certainly not extreme in my position either because as your husband knows there are plenty severely more extreme than me. The internet is loaded with the frothing liberals who know nothing about guns and the gun crazies. I am neither so don't lump me in with those groups, but I happen to have an opposing view than most here. If people want a registry by all means try it, if they want a ban try that too. Though the registry attempt will probably not get past the SCOTUS if even that far. But the fact remains that our society is violent and that is terribly sad.

This is a difficult subject filled with emotion. I am not an NRA member so what they do has no bearing on this issue for me. They are another lobbying interest that Washington is full of for all interests like climate, gas, insurance, etc.

Edit - As far as AR and AK platform weapons you must be fully aware that the preponderance of shootings are with handguns, not rifles. Hence the doing something that does nothing in reality. This article is from 2014 but still remains true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

 

[redwood66]

This isn’t a full solution, but it seems like a pretty good start. Anyone object? I think there’s tremendous potential for compromise on this issue. The very powerful NRA (and the die-hards) halts this badly needed progress.

You already cannot purchase or own a weapon if you have been convicted of domestic violence. See question 11i on the 4473 form.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

 

[E B]

You already cannot purchase or own a weapon if you have been convicted of domestic violence. See question 11i on the 4473 form.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Understood, but it seems as though there are some pretty alarming 'exceptions': https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html

A domestic violence update could be next, especially for violators in or discharged from the military. An online repository of active records maintained by the F.B.I.’s Criminal Justice Information Services shows that the Department of Defense had reported just one case of domestic violence as of Dec. 31, 2016. Although federal law lists 11 criteria that would bar someone from purchasing a gun — including being the subject of a protective order for domestic violence or conviction of a domestic violence misdemeanor — all but a tiny handful of the military’s 11,000 reported cases were in one category: dishonorable discharge.

Sounds like a massive update is in order.

 

[redwood66]

Understood, but it seems as though there are some pretty alarming 'exceptions': https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html

A domestic violence update could be next, especially for violators in or discharged from the military. An online repository of active records maintained by the F.B.I.’s Criminal Justice Information Services shows that the Department of Defense had reported just one case of domestic violence as of Dec. 31, 2016. Although federal law lists 11 criteria that would bar someone from purchasing a gun — including being the subject of a protective order for domestic violence or conviction of a domestic violence misdemeanor — all but a tiny handful of the military’s 11,000 reported cases were in one category: dishonorable discharge.

Sounds like a massive update is in order.

Absolutely. Having a system that does not work like it is supposed to is not surprising to me though.

 

[E B]

But the Gun Control Act of 1968, which regulated the purchase of firearms, stipulated that only convicted felons could be prohibited from buying guns. “The question kept coming up, what about domestic violence, because its often a misdemeanor, and we knew that there was a linkage between gun violence and domestic violence,” Mr. Aborn said. “That was the birth of the whole conversation.”

But the law’s definition of who is a domestic abuser is “quite specific,” said Mr. Rosen, of the Everytown group. The measure requires, for example, that the victim and the abuser have to have been married or have had a child together, or have lived together. Thus the Lautenberg Amendment does not apply to people who are dating, which gives rise to what advocates call “the boyfriend loophole.”

 

[redwood66]

But the Gun Control Act of 1968, which regulated the purchase of firearms, stipulated that only convicted felons could be prohibited from buying guns. “The question kept coming up, what about domestic violence, because its often a misdemeanor, and we knew that there was a linkage between gun violence and domestic violence,” Mr. Aborn said. “That was the birth of the whole conversation.”

But the law’s definition of who is a domestic abuser is “quite specific,” said Mr. Rosen, of the Everytown group. The measure requires, for example, that the victim and the abuser have to have been married or have had a child together, or have lived together. Thus the Lautenberg Amendment does not apply to people who are dating, which gives rise to what advocates call “the boyfriend loophole.”

Anyone who has been convicted of any domestic violence, including boyfriend/girlfriend, significant other, etc. should not have a firearm.

 

[Calliecake]

I have no idea why you continue to post in these types of threads @redwood66 unless it is to get a rise out of people. People have repeatedly given common sense suggestions on gun control in countless threads here and your response is always the same. You obviously feel your rights are more important than the rights of people who have lost their lives to gun violence.

 

[Bonfire]

I have no idea why you continue to post in these types of threads @redwood66 unless it is to get a rise out of people. People have repeatedly given common sense suggestions on gun control in countless threads here and your response is always the same. You obviously feel your rights are more important than the rights of people who have lost their lives to gun violence.

It’s called having a conversation. Kenny said, “We’re all welcome here just as we are.”

 

[redwood66]

I have no idea why you continue to post in these types of threads @redwood66 unless it is to get a rise out of people. People have repeatedly given common sense suggestions on gun control in countless threads here and your response is always the same. You obviously feel your rights are more important than the rights of people who have lost their lives to gun violence.

Because there are opinions that are outside of yours in the world. This is a public forum. You would rather have people who only believe as you do to be allowed to post here? That doesn't sound very free speech friendly. Please see kenny's post upthread.

 

[monarch64]

No one said anything about who should be allowed to post here. Callie is just saying why bother restating your opinion time and again unless it is to stir the pot when you KNOW you're going against the grain and not going to change anyone's mind? I mean it would be like me going into a forum on which most posters are pro-life and trying to persuade them otherwise. It just seems futile unless of course you enjoy pushing people's buttons, that's all. At least Red and Bonfire can speak intelligently which is more than I can say for the one that finally got the boot.

 

[monarch64]

Anyone who has been convicted of any domestic violence, including boyfriend/girlfriend, significant other, etc. should not have a firearm.

But what about all the people who are abusive/violent who have YET to be convicted? It doesn't seem right that until an offender is convicted they can still have a gun. Ugh.

 

[redwood66]

No one said anything about who should be allowed to post here. Callie is just saying why bother restating your opinion time and again unless it is to stir the pot when you KNOW you're going against the grain and not going to change anyone's mind? I mean it would be like me going into a forum on which most posters are pro-life and trying to persuade them otherwise. It just seems futile unless of course you enjoy pushing people's buttons, that's all. At least Red and Bonfire can speak intelligently which is more than I can say for the one that finally got the boot.

IOW what people want is a place to vent without any opposing opinion? I happen to be a gun owner and the ranting on gun owners and what should happen to them/their weapons should go unopposed here? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Bonfire]

No one said anything about who should be allowed to post here. Callie is just saying why bother restating your opinion time and again unless it is to stir the pot when you KNOW you're going against the grain and not going to change anyone's mind? I mean it would be like me going into a forum on which most posters are pro-life and trying to persuade them otherwise. It just seems futile unless of course you enjoy pushing people's buttons, that's all. At least Red and Bonfire can speak intelligently which is more than I can say for the one that finally got the boot.

Gee thanks Monnie! But hey, I’m somewhere in the middle here. No pigeon holing please!

 

[redwood66]

But what about all the people who are abusive/violent who have YET to be convicted? It doesn't seem right that until an offender is convicted they can still have a gun. Ugh.

That is how the law works monnie and there is no other way is there?

 

[monarch64]

IOW what people want is a place to vent without any opposing opinion? I happen to be a gun owner and the ranting on gun owners and what should happen to them/their weapons should go unopposed here? Is that what you are saying?

Nope. Not what I am saying at all. You can post whatever the hell you want. But don't expect not to be questioned about your logic or why you enjoy banging your head against cement.

 

[monarch64]

That is how the law works monnie and there is no other way is there?

So because the law works a certain way we should all just accept that and do nothing to change it if it isn't actually WORKING? I refuse to accept that things are set in stone. It would be nice if nothing ever had to change and everything lasted forever and worked perfectly, but as life would have it, it doesn't.

 

[Bonfire]

Nope. Not what I am saying at all. You can post whatever the hell you want. But don't expect not to be questioned about your logic or why you enjoy banging your head against cement.

But why can’t we all respectfully listen to what the other has to say? No one is trying to change any minds. For me, I get lumped into pro-guns because of my frustration with Chicago’s gun violence. A city with gun laws. That’s the point I was making. Am I correct in saying most people here see most issues in black and white terms, when there is so much stinkin’ grey?

 

[Tekate]

Too late by that time you are dead.

draw gun
seek cover
return fire until the threat is neutralized.

 

[monarch64]

But why can’t we all respectfully listen to what the other has to say? No one is trying to change any minds. For me, I get lumped into pro-guns because of my frustration with Chicago’s gun violence. A city with gun laws. That’s the point I was making. Am I correct in saying most people here see most issues in black and white terms, when there is so much stinkin’ grey?

I listen. I might not always hit "like" and say I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think that just because we see the issue a little differently you don't get a say here. Again, my interpretation of Callie's post was more "why do you bother" than "you shouldn't post here because you don't agree." That's all.

 

[redwood66]

Nope. Not what I am saying at all. You can post whatever the hell you want. But don't expect not to be questioned about your logic or why you enjoy banging your head against cement.

I don't bang my head on cement or try to change anyone's mind. Question me all you want and I usually answer don't I? And I try to give factual information.

 

[Tekate]

Well sort of, but the guy did commit suicide. You keep forgetting already 57 are dead and dying. If he had a gun that could only shoot 5 bullets many more people would have lived, and if someone HAD a gun in church then they may have been able to kill the guy before 5 people were killed. So if we carry in our churches do we support guns in mosques and temples? I'd say the anger sentiment is much more violent against Jews and Muslims.

A good guy with a gun stopped the shooting in Texas.
Not the police, not the FBI not the ATF, an armed citizen stopped it.
The police, the FBI and the ATF did their job, filled out the paperwork after the fact.
There is an old saying that is very true.
When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

 

[Bonfire]

I listen. I might not always hit "like" and say I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think that just because we see the issue a little differently you don't get a say here. Again, my interpretation of Callie's post was more "why do you bother" than "you shouldn't post here because you don't agree." That's all.

I gotcha. I was truely interested in hearing some feedback on solutions to an extremely multifaceted problem. I’m afraid I derailed @kenny thread.

 

[monarch64]

I don't bang my head on cement or try to change anyone's mind. Question me all you want and I usually answer don't I?

Ha, ok, ok. It's not that deep. I should've kept my big mouth shut and remembered Callie is a big girl. Here, I will bang my head. On some bricks.

 

[redwood66]

Ha, ok, ok. It's not that deep. I should've kept my big mouth shut and remembered Callie is a big girl. Here, I will bang my head. On some bricks.

LOL It is never that big a deal with me.

 

[Tekate]

This makes me sad.

I work in a school in Brooklyn, we have just as many "lock down" and "lock in" drills as fire drills. Recently our entire district was on "lock in" for 3 hours as police pursued a man who assaulted and raped 3 women within the district just that morning. I honestly thought all schools practiced these drills.

 

[redwood66]

So because the law works a certain way we should all just accept that and do nothing to change it if it isn't actually WORKING? I refuse to accept that things are set in stone. It would be nice if nothing ever had to change and everything lasted forever and worked perfectly, but as life would have it, it doesn't.

Well there is the 6th amendment and the presumption of innocence that has to be taken into consideration as far as people who are not yet convicted of anything. If we didn't have the Constitution and Bill of Rights we might be in a dictatorship or communism or something worse.

 

[Tekate]

Eliminate gun shows, that would help a LOT.

To think that this is even possible is being naive. There is no way to get this genie back in the bottle and I wish people would realize this and move on to better solutions. Bonfire is right and barring door to door confiscation in every house in the US there is no way to rid every firearm from the country. If you want confiscation of every firearm then you are living in a fantasy world with all due respect. These extreme views do nothing to further any kind of solutions. People have to be realistic.

 

[redwood66]

Eliminate gun shows, that would help a LOT.

It might help some but all the gun shows I have been to have an FFL on location with access to NICS for transfers. Personally I would never buy or sell a firearm without insisting on a legal transfer through an FFL. I don't know anyone that would do that. You never know who you are buying from or selling to. If I don't own the weapon I don't want my name attached to it.

 

[Tekate]

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7538&context=jclc

this is very interesting Red.

It might help some but all the gun shows I have been to have an FFL on location with access to NICS for transfers. Personally I would never buy or sell a firearm without insisting on a legal transfer through an FFL. I don't know anyone that would do that. You never know who you are buying from or selling to.