10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Val Halla]

I see the statistics. Without guns, the US and Canada have roughly the same homicide rate. Because of guns, the US homicide rate is 2 times that of Canada. 60% of US homicides are from guns. There has been 994 mass shootings since the start of this term.

But getting rid of guns completely would only get rid of another way for most Americans, 1 in 3, to defend themselves. Because do you honestly believe that making guns illegal to the public would stop criminals from using them? We would only be giving those who want to do these crazy gun sprees an advantage. Plus look at where they are shooting up, churches, schools, and GUN FREE ZONES.

1 in 3 Americans is not most Americans.

[Imperializt Russia]

So why does gangland violence account for only 900 of the 8600 firearms homicides in the US in 2011?

Could I have a source?
Maybe in specifically gang-on-gang violence in gang-related activities, but I believe it's much higher.
It isn't the suburban financially-secure middle class going around killing each other.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... a-table-11
Murder by circumstance. I was wrong, "gangland violence" is not equivalent to "juvenile gangland violence", so together they make up about 600 firearm homicides, not 900, so under 10% rather than over.

All types of homicide recorded as "argument" (including 1844 "other argument") tallies about 2200 firearm homicides, or one quarter of all.
"Narcotic drug laws circumstance" homicides, combined generously with "unspecified felony circumstance" tallies a further 650, but 43% of all firearm homicides were not committed in the course of another felony.

[Big Jim P]

But getting rid of guns completely would only get rid of another way for most Americans, 1 in 3, to defend themselves. Because do you honestly believe that making guns illegal to the public would stop criminals from using them? We would only be giving those who want to do these crazy gun sprees an advantage. Plus look at where they are shooting up, churches, schools, and GUN FREE ZONES.

1 in 3 Americans is not most Americans.

It still vastly outnumbers the 1 in 10,000 that dies by guns.

[Alvecia]

1 in 3 Americans is not most Americans.

It still vastly outnumbers the 1 in 10,000 that dies by guns.

1 in 10,000 is still no small statistic

[Big Jim P]

You brought up an interesting point, so I stopped to look into the numbers. I'm on my phone, so navigation is kind of difficult, but from what I gather DGU (Defensive Gun Use) measures in the tens of thousands (on the low estimates, some predict much higher, even in hundreds of thousands) while accidentally firearms deaths are much lower, in the four digits.
But if you can find unbiased statistics that say otherwise, I'm inclined to believe you.

I believe you that DGU would measure much higher than accidental gun death, a quick google shows similar results for me. I'm looking more into the future.
I guess the comparison I'm trying to make would be between a state with no guns and a state where everyone had a gun.
In each, what would be the rates of accidental gun death and DGU + homocide? Which would be higher? From that we can determine which would be preferable.
Assuming the end goal is least amount of deaths.

Accidental gun deaths are around 500 a year. They (like homicides) are highly sensationalized in the media, leading to the perception that they are far more prevalent than they actually are. Due to the media, the perception is that gun homicides and crime in general are on the increase, when in fact, the opposite is true. I would not be surprised if the same holds true for accidental deaths as well.

[Big Jim P]

It still vastly outnumbers the 1 in 10,000 that dies by guns.

1 in 10,000 is still no small statistic

Compared the the 1 in 3 DGUs, it is.

[Alvecia]

I believe you that DGU would measure much higher than accidental gun death, a quick google shows similar results for me. I'm looking more into the future.
I guess the comparison I'm trying to make would be between a state with no guns and a state where everyone had a gun.
In each, what would be the rates of accidental gun death and DGU + homocide? Which would be higher? From that we can determine which would be preferable.
Assuming the end goal is least amount of deaths.

Accidental gun deaths are around 500 a year. They (like homicides) are highly sensationalized in the media, leading to the perception that they are far more prevalent than they actually are. Due to the media, the perception is that gun homicides and crime in general are on the increase, when in fact, the opposite is true. I would not be surprised if the same holds true for accidental deaths as well.

I too recall hearing/reading somewhere that gun crime/homocides are on the decrease, though I can't recall where. I recall the same source also claiming that mass shootings were on the rise, though again, I have no hard data myself.

(now that I think about it, was it John Oliver I heard it from? That rings bells)

I understand that to completely remove guns from the US now would be implausible enough to call it impossible, but I do wonder if I were to be able to snap my fingers and either give everyone a gun or take away all the guns, whether the statistics would show more or less total loss of life.

[Alvecia]

1 in 10,000 is still no small statistic

Compared the the 1 in 3 DGUs, it is.

It's not completely comparable as each of those DGU's did not or likely would not have led to a loss of life.

[West Dixieland]

Could I have a source?
Maybe in specifically gang-on-gang violence in gang-related activities, but I believe it's much higher.
It isn't the suburban financially-secure middle class going around killing each other.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... a-table-11
Murder by circumstance. I was wrong, "gangland violence" is not equivalent to "juvenile gangland violence", so together they make up about 600 firearm homicides, not 900, so under 10% rather than over.

All types of homicide recorded as "argument" (including 1844 "other argument") tallies about 2200 firearm homicides, or one quarter of all.
"Narcotic drug laws circumstance" homicides, combined generously with "unspecified felony circumstance" tallies a further 650, but 43% of all firearm homicides were not committed in the course of another felony.

As I would group drug-affiliated and juvenile violence as being in association to the gang culture, it could be said that with responsible social engineering we could reduce deaths by half.
I'm ok with this, and I think it'd be a more realistic take on the issue rather than gun control, as it tackles the source, not the symptom.

[Alvecia]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... a-table-11
Murder by circumstance. I was wrong, "gangland violence" is not equivalent to "juvenile gangland violence", so together they make up about 600 firearm homicides, not 900, so under 10% rather than over.

All types of homicide recorded as "argument" (including 1844 "other argument") tallies about 2200 firearm homicides, or one quarter of all.
"Narcotic drug laws circumstance" homicides, combined generously with "unspecified felony circumstance" tallies a further 650, but 43% of all firearm homicides were not committed in the course of another felony.

As I would group drug-affiliated and juvenile violence as being in association to the gang culture, it could be said that with responsible social engineering we could reduce deaths by half.
I'm ok with this, and I think it'd be a more realistic take on the issue rather than gun control, as it tackles the source, not the symptom.

Emphasis mine.

All previous comments aside, any time this can be done then that should take priority.

[West Dixieland]

Compared the the 1 in 3 DGUs, it is.

It's not completely comparable as each of those DGU's did not or likely would not have led to a loss of life.

Same case with rape, but I'd argue shooting the assailant is just fine.

[Alvecia]

It's not completely comparable as each of those DGU's did not or likely would not have led to a loss of life.

Same case with rape, but I'd argue shooting the assailant is just fine.

On that I think we agree.

[TomKirk]

1 in 10,000 is still no small statistic

Compared the the 1 in 3 DGUs, it is.

A fairer comparison would be to the number of people who have actually used a gun in self-defense. There are a handful of frequently repeated anecdotes but I don't know of a good source of statistics on that.

[Big Jim P]

Compared the the 1 in 3 DGUs, it is.

It's not completely comparable as each of those DGU's did not or likely would not have led to a loss of life.

Directly comparable. The DGUs are one of the benefits of gun ownership, and heavily outweigh the negative.

Oh, and ome of those DGUs prevented murders.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I'm gonna probably piss a lotta people off here, and I'm not gonna apologize about it - due notice given.

We have a number of problems that contribute to these situations. There is no one reason anyone can point to, other than 'this person needlessly killed others' that is responsible for this, or other like incidents that have happened over the years. We need to recognize this, and our politicians and others with agendas, be it the NRA or peace-loving-daydreamers of whatever caliber, need to stop twisting these incidents to their own ends. It is quite frankly, disgusting. No matter who is doing it.

One of the prime things I see as a problem, going back years now, is our idea of privacy, and how any invasion thereof is seen as 'wrong'. There are certain circumstances where I would argue that this is not the case - the greater good, leaping to mind. We have background checks in place. We need to make certain that any gun sales - yes you read right, any - are able to utilize these, with ease, from the corporations down to the Craigslist guy offloading some of his collection. And we need to make certain the data there is accurate, does not cross lines into revealing personal data that could be used for purposed other than confirming whether this person ought to be able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership or not. A simple red flag system should be sufficient. Hell, if you want to get technical, go green, yellow, red, with a breakoff point system for multiple flags of a yellow or cautionary nature. Being treated for depression leaps to mind. Not on its own an indicator of potential violence, but it /can/ lead to problems when linked with other issues. This would include living in a household with someone who has the sorts of problems that are red flags, or enough points to warrant one. The Sandy Hook incident leaps to mind here. In any case, we need a national database or the equivalent - individual state databases that can be quickly compared against if a purchase crosses state lines. Either way, its needed. And it needs to be kept up to date, and utilized properly. Best suggestion? Begin it at a local level. Even down as far as voting districts, then counties, then state, then cross-state, and federal. I would prefer to keep it out of the control of the feds myself, but that's due to not trusting the bastards to either fuck it up, or misuse it. No, I do not have a favorable opinion of our government overall, but we gotta start somewhere with this, so here you go.

I feel I have the right to defend myself if needed. I also feel that this right ought not come at the cost of other's rights to simply live, and mind their own business. The incident mentioned above reflects this. Did she have a right to own guns? Certainly. Ought she have had them where they could be accessed by a son she and others knew had serious problems, and a potential for harm? Absolutely not. We need to also recognize that there have been a number of these incidents where the perpetrator has gotten a gun from a relative - often without the knowledge of that relative. Which leads to another point.

Gun safety. Proper training to handle one. Anyone owning one needs to properly utilize it. This means not leaving weapons out where they can easily be picked up by a child, by someone not in their right mind at the time, by an invader to their home, etc. Lock 'em up, be responsible. If you have a concealed carry permit, that doesn't exclude you from this. Be responsible with it. Don't just leave a loaded gun laying about in your purse - see not too long ago, child reaching in and brandishing at a store, iirc. There's proper holsters etc for the guns. Use them. If it's going to clash with your little black dress or wrinkle your Armani shirt, tough shit. Be safe, be responsible, be educated, and be aware.

Gang violence and illegal weapon issues - we need to better address this, obviously. Again, it may run into some issues of privacy etc, but at this point, I think I'm more than willing to give a little on that if it means getting illegal weapons out of the hands of folks who ought not have them to begin with, or contributing to a gun-centric slice of society. No, I don't care what color a person is that way. Yes, I do realize that we have problems with our police force and certain sectors, persons, colors, what have you. Yes, I do think that reform in that area is needed as well. No, I do not have all the answers.

Mental health issues - people with problems need better treatment, better oversight, better assistance. Anything from depression on up to antisocial and other matters. This thing of 'well we had record of, but' needs to stop. If there's a problem, address it. Yes, this does coincide with insurance etc, and yes, we need reform there as well. I don't have all the answers to this either, no big surprise. I just know we need to be taking care of our own people better, and in more extreme or potentially dangerous cases, this idea of 'freedom' and 'privacy' is coming at too high a cost. Once more, my freedom ought not come at the price of someone else's life.

Personal accountability. Yep, this is one that is bound to raise a few hackles. I know I'm an older pain in the ass than many of you, and I know that doesn't automatically grant me wisdom or the like. But what it does do is offer me a longer observation range. And I can tell you that increasingly, there has been a push for leaning away from people taking personal accountability - until something horrible happens. And then everyone wants to point the finger, except for their defense attorney, who then goes on to try and name all the reasons we ought not hold their client responsible for their actions. Lets see if any of these ring a bell:

"Its how they were raised." "Their parents didn't let them/treated them like/made them $thing." "They have $diagnosis." "The other guy did $thing." "They were angry because $reason." "They were fired." "They were struggling in school." "They had social issues." "They felt unloved."
Only a lad - you really can't blame him ...

Everyone has reasons. They don't always hold water. Just because we might be going through a thing, or dealing with a problem, does not make that someone else's problem. But we've created a society where somehow, it is. And we're all expected to dwi, until it crosses lines. And THEN everyone gets upset and blames the perp. We need to turn that around somehow, without losing the good aspects that have come with some of it, like a broader awareness of gender, color, sexuality, and other issues. People need to be taught at a young age that their actions and choices come with consequences, and that they - not everyone else - are responsible for them. If you are having a problem, get it addressed. Don't let it fester. If you are unhappy, get help. If you are depressed, get help. If you are angry all the time, get help. If you feel unloved or unlovable, get help. And by the same token, if you see people exhibiting warning signs ... get help, for them, and for the sake of others.

Online anonymity and social media - if you don't think this is a problem, perhaps you need a bit of a wake-up call. The internet provides instant gratification for attention. It can be a positive or negative contributor in a lot of this. How many of these have you seen with warning signs that only come to light after a tragic event? How many of these people were egged on by others online? How many were ignored? How many might have been stopped with proper parental oversight on their online activities? How many might have been alerted if those statements had been investigated? Is it a perfect solution? Not by a long shot - but there needs to be a change in how we view online participation, responsibility, all of it. It goes back in a great part to previous comments made about personal responsibility and the whole 'me, me, me' mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent. 'What I want. What I can get out of it. What I need. What I demand. What I deserve.' Which is not ever to say we needn't think about ourselves, mind. But there is a line that too often gets crossed. One more time - My wants, needs, etc need not come at the cost of another person's life. There's a pattern to that, yes.

Family. Believe it or not, it is important. And I wish to heaven I knew how to fix all of this. I don't care what your family unit is comprised of - what genders are involved, what relationship you have, none of that matters so much as having a cohesive, caring, nurturing bond with another group of people that you consider family. The ones you depend on more than others. The ones you ought to be able to go to when you have problems. The ones who are there for you when times are tough. The ones you ought to be able to share anything with, and still have a loving group for support. We don't have enough of this. We don't have enough support for this, so kids are going elsewhere to feel like they can belong - see gang issues, internet issues, the need for attention, etc. We need to strengthen our families, we need to support them better, we need to provide assistance to those in need, and we need to make it easier for those trying to support children and other dependents. How many gun incidents have we seen with families involved, murder-suicides, etc that can be traced back to a lack of cohesion, or money, or other family-related matters? The abuse cycle goes hand in hand here - it needs to stop, and people need to get help, whether its the abuser or their victims. We need to do better here.

Education. But we have schools, yes? Well yeah, but who among you has seen or experienced problems there? Bullying, pressure to perform, a lack of support, what have you - and more, this doesn't just mean in school. We need to better educate our entire population, and not just book-wise. We need to educate ourselves about the bigger world out there, about different people, different beliefs, different traditions, different outlooks. And we need to be more accepting of them - on all sides - while being able to maintain our own traditions, beliefs, etc. Whatever those may be, so long as they do not infringe on any other person's or group's rights. Enlightenment might be a better term, overall. This doesn't mean we have to approve of it all, no. One can still not be a complete asshole to someone else and still disagree with them. One can not approve of gay marriage without being a douchebag over it, and adopting an attitude of 'I may not agree with it, but that's their choice'. One can be skeptical of religion without being a dick about 'magical sky fairies', and telling others they are stupid or delusional to have any faith. Personal accountability, responsible for words and actions, live or online, yes it is all connected ...

Bottom line of course is change - and not what may be jingling around in your pockets, nor what the current president based a campaign on. Real change. And it starts with everyone, as individuals. We make life harder than it needs to be, on ourselves, and on others. We need to be both taking care of ourselves while looking out for others, and not putting our rights so far ahead of everyone else's that we run into trouble. After all, if everyone truly has equal rights, there oughtn't be all that much to really fight about. And if we as a people can adopt a better understanding and acceptance of one another, I think we are much less likely to dehumanize them to the point where their lives are worth a few minutes of fame on the news and internet.

Anyways. Long rambling rant done. Here's to hoping we can eventually get it all sorted out. Fwiw, agree with the sheriff - no need to mention the perp's name every 5 seconds. It's what he wanted, after all.

[Val Halla]

I'm gonna probably piss a lotta people off here, and I'm not gonna apologize about it - due notice given.

We have a number of problems that contribute to these situations. There is no one reason anyone can point to, other than 'this person needlessly killed others' that is responsible for this, or other like incidents that have happened over the years. We need to recognize this, and our politicians and others with agendas, be it the NRA or peace-loving-daydreamers of whatever caliber, need to stop twisting these incidents to their own ends. It is quite frankly, disgusting. No matter who is doing it.

One of the prime things I see as a problem, going back years now, is our idea of privacy, and how any invasion thereof is seen as 'wrong'. There are certain circumstances where I would argue that this is not the case - the greater good, leaping to mind. We have background checks in place. We need to make certain that any gun sales - yes you read right, any - are able to utilize these, with ease, from the corporations down to the Craigslist guy offloading some of his collection. And we need to make certain the data there is accurate, does not cross lines into revealing personal data that could be used for purposed other than confirming whether this person ought to be able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership or not. A simple red flag system should be sufficient. Hell, if you want to get technical, go green, yellow, red, with a breakoff point system for multiple flags of a yellow or cautionary nature. Being treated for depression leaps to mind. Not on its own an indicator of potential violence, but it /can/ lead to problems when linked with other issues. This would include living in a household with someone who has the sorts of problems that are red flags, or enough points to warrant one. The Sandy Hook incident leaps to mind here. In any case, we need a national database or the equivalent - individual state databases that can be quickly compared against if a purchase crosses state lines. Either way, its needed. And it needs to be kept up to date, and utilized properly. Best suggestion? Begin it at a local level. Even down as far as voting districts, then counties, then state, then cross-state, and federal. I would prefer to keep it out of the control of the feds myself, but that's due to not trusting the bastards to either fuck it up, or misuse it. No, I do not have a favorable opinion of our government overall, but we gotta start somewhere with this, so here you go.

I feel I have the right to defend myself if needed. I also feel that this right ought not come at the cost of other's rights to simply live, and mind their own business. The incident mentioned above reflects this. Did she have a right to own guns? Certainly. Ought she have had them where they could be accessed by a son she and others knew had serious problems, and a potential for harm? Absolutely not. We need to also recognize that there have been a number of these incidents where the perpetrator has gotten a gun from a relative - often without the knowledge of that relative. Which leads to another point.

Gun safety. Proper training to handle one. Anyone owning one needs to properly utilize it. This means not leaving weapons out where they can easily be picked up by a child, by someone not in their right mind at the time, by an invader to their home, etc. Lock 'em up, be responsible. If you have a concealed carry permit, that doesn't exclude you from this. Be responsible with it. Don't just leave a loaded gun laying about in your purse - see not too long ago, child reaching in and brandishing at a store, iirc. There's proper holsters etc for the guns. Use them. If it's going to clash with your little black dress or wrinkle your Armani shirt, tough shit. Be safe, be responsible, be educated, and be aware.

Gang violence and illegal weapon issues - we need to better address this, obviously. Again, it may run into some issues of privacy etc, but at this point, I think I'm more than willing to give a little on that if it means getting illegal weapons out of the hands of folks who ought not have them to begin with, or contributing to a gun-centric slice of society. No, I don't care what color a person is that way. Yes, I do realize that we have problems with our police force and certain sectors, persons, colors, what have you. Yes, I do think that reform in that area is needed as well. No, I do not have all the answers.

Mental health issues - people with problems need better treatment, better oversight, better assistance. Anything from depression on up to antisocial and other matters. This thing of 'well we had record of, but' needs to stop. If there's a problem, address it. Yes, this does coincide with insurance etc, and yes, we need reform there as well. I don't have all the answers to this either, no big surprise. I just know we need to be taking care of our own people better, and in more extreme or potentially dangerous cases, this idea of 'freedom' and 'privacy' is coming at too high a cost. Once more, my freedom ought not come at the price of someone else's life.

Personal accountability. Yep, this is one that is bound to raise a few hackles. I know I'm an older pain in the ass than many of you, and I know that doesn't automatically grant me wisdom or the like. But what it does do is offer me a longer observation range. And I can tell you that increasingly, there has been a push for leaning away from people taking personal accountability - until something horrible happens. And then everyone wants to point the finger, except for their defense attorney, who then goes on to try and name all the reasons we ought not hold their client responsible for their actions. Lets see if any of these ring a bell:

"Its how they were raised." "Their parents didn't let them/treated them like/made them $thing." "They have $diagnosis." "The other guy did $thing." "They were angry because $reason." "They were fired." "They were struggling in school." "They had social issues." "They felt unloved."
Only a lad - you really can't blame him ...

Everyone has reasons. They don't always hold water. Just because we might be going through a thing, or dealing with a problem, does not make that someone else's problem. But we've created a society where somehow, it is. And we're all expected to dwi, until it crosses lines. And THEN everyone gets upset and blames the perp. We need to turn that around somehow, without losing the good aspects that have come with some of it, like a broader awareness of gender, color, sexuality, and other issues. People need to be taught at a young age that their actions and choices come with consequences, and that they - not everyone else - are responsible for them. If you are having a problem, get it addressed. Don't let it fester. If you are unhappy, get help. If you are depressed, get help. If you are angry all the time, get help. If you feel unloved or unlovable, get help. And by the same token, if you see people exhibiting warning signs ... get help, for them, and for the sake of others.

Online anonymity and social media - if you don't think this is a problem, perhaps you need a bit of a wake-up call. The internet provides instant gratification for attention. It can be a positive or negative contributor in a lot of this. How many of these have you seen with warning signs that only come to light after a tragic event? How many of these people were egged on by others online? How many were ignored? How many might have been stopped with proper parental oversight on their online activities? How many might have been alerted if those statements had been investigated? Is it a perfect solution? Not by a long shot - but there needs to be a change in how we view online participation, responsibility, all of it. It goes back in a great part to previous comments made about personal responsibility and the whole 'me, me, me' mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent. 'What I want. What I can get out of it. What I need. What I demand. What I deserve.' Which is not ever to say we needn't think about ourselves, mind. But there is a line that too often gets crossed. One more time - My wants, needs, etc need not come at the cost of another person's life. There's a pattern to that, yes.

Family. Believe it or not, it is important. And I wish to heaven I knew how to fix all of this. I don't care what your family unit is comprised of - what genders are involved, what relationship you have, none of that matters so much as having a cohesive, caring, nurturing bond with another group of people that you consider family. The ones you depend on more than others. The ones you ought to be able to go to when you have problems. The ones who are there for you when times are tough. The ones you ought to be able to share anything with, and still have a loving group for support. We don't have enough of this. We don't have enough support for this, so kids are going elsewhere to feel like they can belong - see gang issues, internet issues, the need for attention, etc. We need to strengthen our families, we need to support them better, we need to provide assistance to those in need, and we need to make it easier for those trying to support children and other dependents. How many gun incidents have we seen with families involved, murder-suicides, etc that can be traced back to a lack of cohesion, or money, or other family-related matters? The abuse cycle goes hand in hand here - it needs to stop, and people need to get help, whether its the abuser or their victims. We need to do better here.

Education. But we have schools, yes? Well yeah, but who among you has seen or experienced problems there? Bullying, pressure to perform, a lack of support, what have you - and more, this doesn't just mean in school. We need to better educate our entire population, and not just book-wise. We need to educate ourselves about the bigger world out there, about different people, different beliefs, different traditions, different outlooks. And we need to be more accepting of them - on all sides - while being able to maintain our own traditions, beliefs, etc. Whatever those may be, so long as they do not infringe on any other person's or group's rights. Enlightenment might be a better term, overall. This doesn't mean we have to approve of it all, no. One can still not be a complete asshole to someone else and still disagree with them. One can not approve of gay marriage without being a douchebag over it, and adopting an attitude of 'I may not agree with it, but that's their choice'. One can be skeptical of religion without being a dick about 'magical sky fairies', and telling others they are stupid or delusional to have any faith. Personal accountability, responsible for words and actions, live or online, yes it is all connected ...

Bottom line of course is change - and not what may be jingling around in your pockets, nor what the current president based a campaign on. Real change. And it starts with everyone, as individuals. We make life harder than it needs to be, on ourselves, and on others. We need to be both taking care of ourselves while looking out for others, and not putting our rights so far ahead of everyone else's that we run into trouble. After all, if everyone truly has equal rights, there oughtn't be all that much to really fight about. And if we as a people can adopt a better understanding and acceptance of one another, I think we are much less likely to dehumanize them to the point where their lives are worth a few minutes of fame on the news and internet.

Anyways. Long rambling rant done. Here's to hoping we can eventually get it all sorted out. Fwiw, agree with the sheriff - no need to mention the perp's name every 5 seconds. It's what he wanted, after all.

Don't let a martyr be treat as one. Treat him like what he is. A murderer.

[Alvecia]

I'm gonna probably piss a lotta people off here, and I'm not gonna apologize about it - due notice given.

We have a number of problems that contribute to these situations. There is no one reason anyone can point to, other than 'this person needlessly killed others' that is responsible for this, or other like incidents that have happened over the years. We need to recognize this, and our politicians and others with agendas, be it the NRA or peace-loving-daydreamers of whatever caliber, need to stop twisting these incidents to their own ends. It is quite frankly, disgusting. No matter who is doing it.

One of the prime things I see as a problem, going back years now, is our idea of privacy, and how any invasion thereof is seen as 'wrong'. There are certain circumstances where I would argue that this is not the case - the greater good, leaping to mind. We have background checks in place. We need to make certain that any gun sales - yes you read right, any - are able to utilize these, with ease, from the corporations down to the Craigslist guy offloading some of his collection. And we need to make certain the data there is accurate, does not cross lines into revealing personal data that could be used for purposed other than confirming whether this person ought to be able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership or not. A simple red flag system should be sufficient. Hell, if you want to get technical, go green, yellow, red, with a breakoff point system for multiple flags of a yellow or cautionary nature. Being treated for depression leaps to mind. Not on its own an indicator of potential violence, but it /can/ lead to problems when linked with other issues. This would include living in a household with someone who has the sorts of problems that are red flags, or enough points to warrant one. The Sandy Hook incident leaps to mind here. In any case, we need a national database or the equivalent - individual state databases that can be quickly compared against if a purchase crosses state lines. Either way, its needed. And it needs to be kept up to date, and utilized properly. Best suggestion? Begin it at a local level. Even down as far as voting districts, then counties, then state, then cross-state, and federal. I would prefer to keep it out of the control of the feds myself, but that's due to not trusting the bastards to either fuck it up, or misuse it. No, I do not have a favorable opinion of our government overall, but we gotta start somewhere with this, so here you go.

I feel I have the right to defend myself if needed. I also feel that this right ought not come at the cost of other's rights to simply live, and mind their own business. The incident mentioned above reflects this. Did she have a right to own guns? Certainly. Ought she have had them where they could be accessed by a son she and others knew had serious problems, and a potential for harm? Absolutely not. We need to also recognize that there have been a number of these incidents where the perpetrator has gotten a gun from a relative - often without the knowledge of that relative. Which leads to another point.

Gun safety. Proper training to handle one. Anyone owning one needs to properly utilize it. This means not leaving weapons out where they can easily be picked up by a child, by someone not in their right mind at the time, by an invader to their home, etc. Lock 'em up, be responsible. If you have a concealed carry permit, that doesn't exclude you from this. Be responsible with it. Don't just leave a loaded gun laying about in your purse - see not too long ago, child reaching in and brandishing at a store, iirc. There's proper holsters etc for the guns. Use them. If it's going to clash with your little black dress or wrinkle your Armani shirt, tough shit. Be safe, be responsible, be educated, and be aware.

Gang violence and illegal weapon issues - we need to better address this, obviously. Again, it may run into some issues of privacy etc, but at this point, I think I'm more than willing to give a little on that if it means getting illegal weapons out of the hands of folks who ought not have them to begin with, or contributing to a gun-centric slice of society. No, I don't care what color a person is that way. Yes, I do realize that we have problems with our police force and certain sectors, persons, colors, what have you. Yes, I do think that reform in that area is needed as well. No, I do not have all the answers.

Mental health issues - people with problems need better treatment, better oversight, better assistance. Anything from depression on up to antisocial and other matters. This thing of 'well we had record of, but' needs to stop. If there's a problem, address it. Yes, this does coincide with insurance etc, and yes, we need reform there as well. I don't have all the answers to this either, no big surprise. I just know we need to be taking care of our own people better, and in more extreme or potentially dangerous cases, this idea of 'freedom' and 'privacy' is coming at too high a cost. Once more, my freedom ought not come at the price of someone else's life.

Personal accountability. Yep, this is one that is bound to raise a few hackles. I know I'm an older pain in the ass than many of you, and I know that doesn't automatically grant me wisdom or the like. But what it does do is offer me a longer observation range. And I can tell you that increasingly, there has been a push for leaning away from people taking personal accountability - until something horrible happens. And then everyone wants to point the finger, except for their defense attorney, who then goes on to try and name all the reasons we ought not hold their client responsible for their actions. Lets see if any of these ring a bell:

"Its how they were raised." "Their parents didn't let them/treated them like/made them $thing." "They have $diagnosis." "The other guy did $thing." "They were angry because $reason." "They were fired." "They were struggling in school." "They had social issues." "They felt unloved."
Only a lad - you really can't blame him ...

Everyone has reasons. They don't always hold water. Just because we might be going through a thing, or dealing with a problem, does not make that someone else's problem. But we've created a society where somehow, it is. And we're all expected to dwi, until it crosses lines. And THEN everyone gets upset and blames the perp. We need to turn that around somehow, without losing the good aspects that have come with some of it, like a broader awareness of gender, color, sexuality, and other issues. People need to be taught at a young age that their actions and choices come with consequences, and that they - not everyone else - are responsible for them. If you are having a problem, get it addressed. Don't let it fester. If you are unhappy, get help. If you are depressed, get help. If you are angry all the time, get help. If you feel unloved or unlovable, get help. And by the same token, if you see people exhibiting warning signs ... get help, for them, and for the sake of others.

Online anonymity and social media - if you don't think this is a problem, perhaps you need a bit of a wake-up call. The internet provides instant gratification for attention. It can be a positive or negative contributor in a lot of this. How many of these have you seen with warning signs that only come to light after a tragic event? How many of these people were egged on by others online? How many were ignored? How many might have been stopped with proper parental oversight on their online activities? How many might have been alerted if those statements had been investigated? Is it a perfect solution? Not by a long shot - but there needs to be a change in how we view online participation, responsibility, all of it. It goes back in a great part to previous comments made about personal responsibility and the whole 'me, me, me' mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent. 'What I want. What I can get out of it. What I need. What I demand. What I deserve.' Which is not ever to say we needn't think about ourselves, mind. But there is a line that too often gets crossed. One more time - My wants, needs, etc need not come at the cost of another person's life. There's a pattern to that, yes.

Family. Believe it or not, it is important. And I wish to heaven I knew how to fix all of this. I don't care what your family unit is comprised of - what genders are involved, what relationship you have, none of that matters so much as having a cohesive, caring, nurturing bond with another group of people that you consider family. The ones you depend on more than others. The ones you ought to be able to go to when you have problems. The ones who are there for you when times are tough. The ones you ought to be able to share anything with, and still have a loving group for support. We don't have enough of this. We don't have enough support for this, so kids are going elsewhere to feel like they can belong - see gang issues, internet issues, the need for attention, etc. We need to strengthen our families, we need to support them better, we need to provide assistance to those in need, and we need to make it easier for those trying to support children and other dependents. How many gun incidents have we seen with families involved, murder-suicides, etc that can be traced back to a lack of cohesion, or money, or other family-related matters? The abuse cycle goes hand in hand here - it needs to stop, and people need to get help, whether its the abuser or their victims. We need to do better here.

Education. But we have schools, yes? Well yeah, but who among you has seen or experienced problems there? Bullying, pressure to perform, a lack of support, what have you - and more, this doesn't just mean in school. We need to better educate our entire population, and not just book-wise. We need to educate ourselves about the bigger world out there, about different people, different beliefs, different traditions, different outlooks. And we need to be more accepting of them - on all sides - while being able to maintain our own traditions, beliefs, etc. Whatever those may be, so long as they do not infringe on any other person's or group's rights. Enlightenment might be a better term, overall. This doesn't mean we have to approve of it all, no. One can still not be a complete asshole to someone else and still disagree with them. One can not approve of gay marriage without being a douchebag over it, and adopting an attitude of 'I may not agree with it, but that's their choice'. One can be skeptical of religion without being a dick about 'magical sky fairies', and telling others they are stupid or delusional to have any faith. Personal accountability, responsible for words and actions, live or online, yes it is all connected ...

Bottom line of course is change - and not what may be jingling around in your pockets, nor what the current president based a campaign on. Real change. And it starts with everyone, as individuals. We make life harder than it needs to be, on ourselves, and on others. We need to be both taking care of ourselves while looking out for others, and not putting our rights so far ahead of everyone else's that we run into trouble. After all, if everyone truly has equal rights, there oughtn't be all that much to really fight about. And if we as a people can adopt a better understanding and acceptance of one another, I think we are much less likely to dehumanize them to the point where their lives are worth a few minutes of fame on the news and internet.

Anyways. Long rambling rant done. Here's to hoping we can eventually get it all sorted out. Fwiw, agree with the sheriff - no need to mention the perp's name every 5 seconds. It's what he wanted, after all.

*blink*
That was a lot to take in but for the most part I agree. Nothing really objectional, I guess the only thing left is
You can rest your fingers now.

[Big Jim P]

I'm gonna probably piss a lotta people off here, and I'm not gonna apologize about it - due notice given.

We have a number of problems that contribute to these situations. There is no one reason anyone can point to, other than 'this person needlessly killed others' that is responsible for this, or other like incidents that have happened over the years. We need to recognize this, and our politicians and others with agendas, be it the NRA or peace-loving-daydreamers of whatever caliber, need to stop twisting these incidents to their own ends. It is quite frankly, disgusting. No matter who is doing it.

One of the prime things I see as a problem, going back years now, is our idea of privacy, and how any invasion thereof is seen as 'wrong'. There are certain circumstances where I would argue that this is not the case - the greater good, leaping to mind. We have background checks in place. We need to make certain that any gun sales - yes you read right, any - are able to utilize these, with ease, from the corporations down to the Craigslist guy offloading some of his collection. And we need to make certain the data there is accurate, does not cross lines into revealing personal data that could be used for purposed other than confirming whether this person ought to be able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership or not. A simple red flag system should be sufficient. Hell, if you want to get technical, go green, yellow, red, with a breakoff point system for multiple flags of a yellow or cautionary nature. Being treated for depression leaps to mind. Not on its own an indicator of potential violence, but it /can/ lead to problems when linked with other issues. This would include living in a household with someone who has the sorts of problems that are red flags, or enough points to warrant one. The Sandy Hook incident leaps to mind here. In any case, we need a national database or the equivalent - individual state databases that can be quickly compared against if a purchase crosses state lines. Either way, its needed. And it needs to be kept up to date, and utilized properly. Best suggestion? Begin it at a local level. Even down as far as voting districts, then counties, then state, then cross-state, and federal. I would prefer to keep it out of the control of the feds myself, but that's due to not trusting the bastards to either fuck it up, or misuse it. No, I do not have a favorable opinion of our government overall, but we gotta start somewhere with this, so here you go.

I feel I have the right to defend myself if needed. I also feel that this right ought not come at the cost of other's rights to simply live, and mind their own business. The incident mentioned above reflects this. Did she have a right to own guns? Certainly. Ought she have had them where they could be accessed by a son she and others knew had serious problems, and a potential for harm? Absolutely not. We need to also recognize that there have been a number of these incidents where the perpetrator has gotten a gun from a relative - often without the knowledge of that relative. Which leads to another point.

Gun safety. Proper training to handle one. Anyone owning one needs to properly utilize it. This means not leaving weapons out where they can easily be picked up by a child, by someone not in their right mind at the time, by an invader to their home, etc. Lock 'em up, be responsible. If you have a concealed carry permit, that doesn't exclude you from this. Be responsible with it. Don't just leave a loaded gun laying about in your purse - see not too long ago, child reaching in and brandishing at a store, iirc. There's proper holsters etc for the guns. Use them. If it's going to clash with your little black dress or wrinkle your Armani shirt, tough shit. Be safe, be responsible, be educated, and be aware.

Gang violence and illegal weapon issues - we need to better address this, obviously. Again, it may run into some issues of privacy etc, but at this point, I think I'm more than willing to give a little on that if it means getting illegal weapons out of the hands of folks who ought not have them to begin with, or contributing to a gun-centric slice of society. No, I don't care what color a person is that way. Yes, I do realize that we have problems with our police force and certain sectors, persons, colors, what have you. Yes, I do think that reform in that area is needed as well. No, I do not have all the answers.

Mental health issues - people with problems need better treatment, better oversight, better assistance. Anything from depression on up to antisocial and other matters. This thing of 'well we had record of, but' needs to stop. If there's a problem, address it. Yes, this does coincide with insurance etc, and yes, we need reform there as well. I don't have all the answers to this either, no big surprise. I just know we need to be taking care of our own people better, and in more extreme or potentially dangerous cases, this idea of 'freedom' and 'privacy' is coming at too high a cost. Once more, my freedom ought not come at the price of someone else's life.

Personal accountability. Yep, this is one that is bound to raise a few hackles. I know I'm an older pain in the ass than many of you, and I know that doesn't automatically grant me wisdom or the like. But what it does do is offer me a longer observation range. And I can tell you that increasingly, there has been a push for leaning away from people taking personal accountability - until something horrible happens. And then everyone wants to point the finger, except for their defense attorney, who then goes on to try and name all the reasons we ought not hold their client responsible for their actions. Lets see if any of these ring a bell:

"Its how they were raised." "Their parents didn't let them/treated them like/made them $thing." "They have $diagnosis." "The other guy did $thing." "They were angry because $reason." "They were fired." "They were struggling in school." "They had social issues." "They felt unloved."
Only a lad - you really can't blame him ...

Everyone has reasons. They don't always hold water. Just because we might be going through a thing, or dealing with a problem, does not make that someone else's problem. But we've created a society where somehow, it is. And we're all expected to dwi, until it crosses lines. And THEN everyone gets upset and blames the perp. We need to turn that around somehow, without losing the good aspects that have come with some of it, like a broader awareness of gender, color, sexuality, and other issues. People need to be taught at a young age that their actions and choices come with consequences, and that they - not everyone else - are responsible for them. If you are having a problem, get it addressed. Don't let it fester. If you are unhappy, get help. If you are depressed, get help. If you are angry all the time, get help. If you feel unloved or unlovable, get help. And by the same token, if you see people exhibiting warning signs ... get help, for them, and for the sake of others.

Online anonymity and social media - if you don't think this is a problem, perhaps you need a bit of a wake-up call. The internet provides instant gratification for attention. It can be a positive or negative contributor in a lot of this. How many of these have you seen with warning signs that only come to light after a tragic event? How many of these people were egged on by others online? How many were ignored? How many might have been stopped with proper parental oversight on their online activities? How many might have been alerted if those statements had been investigated? Is it a perfect solution? Not by a long shot - but there needs to be a change in how we view online participation, responsibility, all of it. It goes back in a great part to previous comments made about personal responsibility and the whole 'me, me, me' mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent. 'What I want. What I can get out of it. What I need. What I demand. What I deserve.' Which is not ever to say we needn't think about ourselves, mind. But there is a line that too often gets crossed. One more time - My wants, needs, etc need not come at the cost of another person's life. There's a pattern to that, yes.

Family. Believe it or not, it is important. And I wish to heaven I knew how to fix all of this. I don't care what your family unit is comprised of - what genders are involved, what relationship you have, none of that matters so much as having a cohesive, caring, nurturing bond with another group of people that you consider family. The ones you depend on more than others. The ones you ought to be able to go to when you have problems. The ones who are there for you when times are tough. The ones you ought to be able to share anything with, and still have a loving group for support. We don't have enough of this. We don't have enough support for this, so kids are going elsewhere to feel like they can belong - see gang issues, internet issues, the need for attention, etc. We need to strengthen our families, we need to support them better, we need to provide assistance to those in need, and we need to make it easier for those trying to support children and other dependents. How many gun incidents have we seen with families involved, murder-suicides, etc that can be traced back to a lack of cohesion, or money, or other family-related matters? The abuse cycle goes hand in hand here - it needs to stop, and people need to get help, whether its the abuser or their victims. We need to do better here.

Education. But we have schools, yes? Well yeah, but who among you has seen or experienced problems there? Bullying, pressure to perform, a lack of support, what have you - and more, this doesn't just mean in school. We need to better educate our entire population, and not just book-wise. We need to educate ourselves about the bigger world out there, about different people, different beliefs, different traditions, different outlooks. And we need to be more accepting of them - on all sides - while being able to maintain our own traditions, beliefs, etc. Whatever those may be, so long as they do not infringe on any other person's or group's rights. Enlightenment might be a better term, overall. This doesn't mean we have to approve of it all, no. One can still not be a complete asshole to someone else and still disagree with them. One can not approve of gay marriage without being a douchebag over it, and adopting an attitude of 'I may not agree with it, but that's their choice'. One can be skeptical of religion without being a dick about 'magical sky fairies', and telling others they are stupid or delusional to have any faith. Personal accountability, responsible for words and actions, live or online, yes it is all connected ...

Bottom line of course is change - and not what may be jingling around in your pockets, nor what the current president based a campaign on. Real change. And it starts with everyone, as individuals. We make life harder than it needs to be, on ourselves, and on others. We need to be both taking care of ourselves while looking out for others, and not putting our rights so far ahead of everyone else's that we run into trouble. After all, if everyone truly has equal rights, there oughtn't be all that much to really fight about. And if we as a people can adopt a better understanding and acceptance of one another, I think we are much less likely to dehumanize them to the point where their lives are worth a few minutes of fame on the news and internet.

Anyways. Long rambling rant done. Here's to hoping we can eventually get it all sorted out. Fwiw, agree with the sheriff - no need to mention the perp's name every 5 seconds. It's what he wanted, after all.

I have made proposals in the past about red-flagging the IDs of people disallowed to own guns. Like a licensing idea I had a very long tme ago, the gun-grabbers thought it was not restrictive enough, and the gun advocate thought it too restrictive.

I have long ago reached the point where I will not support any new restrictions, as no matter how many are on the books (enforced or not), the gun grabbers will still demand more (as has been seen repeatedly in the past) and not be satisfied until every law-abiding gun owner has been disarmed.

I fully support the current state-by state trend of easing ownership/carry restrictions. Ultimately, we need nation-wide Constitutional Carry. However that, like the gun-grabbers ultimate dream of repealing the Second Amendment and totally banning guns, nation-wide Constitutional Carry is very unlikely to happen, so (again like the gun-grabbers) we will go about it state by state.

[Alvecia]

I'm gonna probably piss a lotta people off here, and I'm not gonna apologize about it - due notice given.

We have a number of problems that contribute to these situations. There is no one reason anyone can point to, other than 'this person needlessly killed others' that is responsible for this, or other like incidents that have happened over the years. We need to recognize this, and our politicians and others with agendas, be it the NRA or peace-loving-daydreamers of whatever caliber, need to stop twisting these incidents to their own ends. It is quite frankly, disgusting. No matter who is doing it.

One of the prime things I see as a problem, going back years now, is our idea of privacy, and how any invasion thereof is seen as 'wrong'. There are certain circumstances where I would argue that this is not the case - the greater good, leaping to mind. We have background checks in place. We need to make certain that any gun sales - yes you read right, any - are able to utilize these, with ease, from the corporations down to the Craigslist guy offloading some of his collection. And we need to make certain the data there is accurate, does not cross lines into revealing personal data that could be used for purposed other than confirming whether this person ought to be able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership or not. A simple red flag system should be sufficient. Hell, if you want to get technical, go green, yellow, red, with a breakoff point system for multiple flags of a yellow or cautionary nature. Being treated for depression leaps to mind. Not on its own an indicator of potential violence, but it /can/ lead to problems when linked with other issues. This would include living in a household with someone who has the sorts of problems that are red flags, or enough points to warrant one. The Sandy Hook incident leaps to mind here. In any case, we need a national database or the equivalent - individual state databases that can be quickly compared against if a purchase crosses state lines. Either way, its needed. And it needs to be kept up to date, and utilized properly. Best suggestion? Begin it at a local level. Even down as far as voting districts, then counties, then state, then cross-state, and federal. I would prefer to keep it out of the control of the feds myself, but that's due to not trusting the bastards to either fuck it up, or misuse it. No, I do not have a favorable opinion of our government overall, but we gotta start somewhere with this, so here you go.

I feel I have the right to defend myself if needed. I also feel that this right ought not come at the cost of other's rights to simply live, and mind their own business. The incident mentioned above reflects this. Did she have a right to own guns? Certainly. Ought she have had them where they could be accessed by a son she and others knew had serious problems, and a potential for harm? Absolutely not. We need to also recognize that there have been a number of these incidents where the perpetrator has gotten a gun from a relative - often without the knowledge of that relative. Which leads to another point.

Gun safety. Proper training to handle one. Anyone owning one needs to properly utilize it. This means not leaving weapons out where they can easily be picked up by a child, by someone not in their right mind at the time, by an invader to their home, etc. Lock 'em up, be responsible. If you have a concealed carry permit, that doesn't exclude you from this. Be responsible with it. Don't just leave a loaded gun laying about in your purse - see not too long ago, child reaching in and brandishing at a store, iirc. There's proper holsters etc for the guns. Use them. If it's going to clash with your little black dress or wrinkle your Armani shirt, tough shit. Be safe, be responsible, be educated, and be aware.

Gang violence and illegal weapon issues - we need to better address this, obviously. Again, it may run into some issues of privacy etc, but at this point, I think I'm more than willing to give a little on that if it means getting illegal weapons out of the hands of folks who ought not have them to begin with, or contributing to a gun-centric slice of society. No, I don't care what color a person is that way. Yes, I do realize that we have problems with our police force and certain sectors, persons, colors, what have you. Yes, I do think that reform in that area is needed as well. No, I do not have all the answers.

Mental health issues - people with problems need better treatment, better oversight, better assistance. Anything from depression on up to antisocial and other matters. This thing of 'well we had record of, but' needs to stop. If there's a problem, address it. Yes, this does coincide with insurance etc, and yes, we need reform there as well. I don't have all the answers to this either, no big surprise. I just know we need to be taking care of our own people better, and in more extreme or potentially dangerous cases, this idea of 'freedom' and 'privacy' is coming at too high a cost. Once more, my freedom ought not come at the price of someone else's life.

Personal accountability. Yep, this is one that is bound to raise a few hackles. I know I'm an older pain in the ass than many of you, and I know that doesn't automatically grant me wisdom or the like. But what it does do is offer me a longer observation range. And I can tell you that increasingly, there has been a push for leaning away from people taking personal accountability - until something horrible happens. And then everyone wants to point the finger, except for their defense attorney, who then goes on to try and name all the reasons we ought not hold their client responsible for their actions. Lets see if any of these ring a bell:

"Its how they were raised." "Their parents didn't let them/treated them like/made them $thing." "They have $diagnosis." "The other guy did $thing." "They were angry because $reason." "They were fired." "They were struggling in school." "They had social issues." "They felt unloved."
Only a lad - you really can't blame him ...

Everyone has reasons. They don't always hold water. Just because we might be going through a thing, or dealing with a problem, does not make that someone else's problem. But we've created a society where somehow, it is. And we're all expected to dwi, until it crosses lines. And THEN everyone gets upset and blames the perp. We need to turn that around somehow, without losing the good aspects that have come with some of it, like a broader awareness of gender, color, sexuality, and other issues. People need to be taught at a young age that their actions and choices come with consequences, and that they - not everyone else - are responsible for them. If you are having a problem, get it addressed. Don't let it fester. If you are unhappy, get help. If you are depressed, get help. If you are angry all the time, get help. If you feel unloved or unlovable, get help. And by the same token, if you see people exhibiting warning signs ... get help, for them, and for the sake of others.

Online anonymity and social media - if you don't think this is a problem, perhaps you need a bit of a wake-up call. The internet provides instant gratification for attention. It can be a positive or negative contributor in a lot of this. How many of these have you seen with warning signs that only come to light after a tragic event? How many of these people were egged on by others online? How many were ignored? How many might have been stopped with proper parental oversight on their online activities? How many might have been alerted if those statements had been investigated? Is it a perfect solution? Not by a long shot - but there needs to be a change in how we view online participation, responsibility, all of it. It goes back in a great part to previous comments made about personal responsibility and the whole 'me, me, me' mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent. 'What I want. What I can get out of it. What I need. What I demand. What I deserve.' Which is not ever to say we needn't think about ourselves, mind. But there is a line that too often gets crossed. One more time - My wants, needs, etc need not come at the cost of another person's life. There's a pattern to that, yes.

Family. Believe it or not, it is important. And I wish to heaven I knew how to fix all of this. I don't care what your family unit is comprised of - what genders are involved, what relationship you have, none of that matters so much as having a cohesive, caring, nurturing bond with another group of people that you consider family. The ones you depend on more than others. The ones you ought to be able to go to when you have problems. The ones who are there for you when times are tough. The ones you ought to be able to share anything with, and still have a loving group for support. We don't have enough of this. We don't have enough support for this, so kids are going elsewhere to feel like they can belong - see gang issues, internet issues, the need for attention, etc. We need to strengthen our families, we need to support them better, we need to provide assistance to those in need, and we need to make it easier for those trying to support children and other dependents. How many gun incidents have we seen with families involved, murder-suicides, etc that can be traced back to a lack of cohesion, or money, or other family-related matters? The abuse cycle goes hand in hand here - it needs to stop, and people need to get help, whether its the abuser or their victims. We need to do better here.

Education. But we have schools, yes? Well yeah, but who among you has seen or experienced problems there? Bullying, pressure to perform, a lack of support, what have you - and more, this doesn't just mean in school. We need to better educate our entire population, and not just book-wise. We need to educate ourselves about the bigger world out there, about different people, different beliefs, different traditions, different outlooks. And we need to be more accepting of them - on all sides - while being able to maintain our own traditions, beliefs, etc. Whatever those may be, so long as they do not infringe on any other person's or group's rights. Enlightenment might be a better term, overall. This doesn't mean we have to approve of it all, no. One can still not be a complete asshole to someone else and still disagree with them. One can not approve of gay marriage without being a douchebag over it, and adopting an attitude of 'I may not agree with it, but that's their choice'. One can be skeptical of religion without being a dick about 'magical sky fairies', and telling others they are stupid or delusional to have any faith. Personal accountability, responsible for words and actions, live or online, yes it is all connected ...

Bottom line of course is change - and not what may be jingling around in your pockets, nor what the current president based a campaign on. Real change. And it starts with everyone, as individuals. We make life harder than it needs to be, on ourselves, and on others. We need to be both taking care of ourselves while looking out for others, and not putting our rights so far ahead of everyone else's that we run into trouble. After all, if everyone truly has equal rights, there oughtn't be all that much to really fight about. And if we as a people can adopt a better understanding and acceptance of one another, I think we are much less likely to dehumanize them to the point where their lives are worth a few minutes of fame on the news and internet.

Anyways. Long rambling rant done. Here's to hoping we can eventually get it all sorted out. Fwiw, agree with the sheriff - no need to mention the perp's name every 5 seconds. It's what he wanted, after all.

I have made proposals in the past about red-flagging the IDs of people disallowed to own guns. Like a licensing idea I had a very long tme ago, the gun-grabbers thought it was not restrictive enough, and the gun advocate thought it too restrictive.

I have long ago reached the point where I will not support any new restrictions, as no matter how many are on the books (enforced or not), the gun grabbers will still demand more (as has been seen repeatedly in the past) and not be satisfied until every law-abiding gun owner has been disarmed.

I fully support the current state-by state trend of easing ownership/carry restrictions. Ultimately, we need nation-wide Constitutional Carry. However that, like the gun-grabbers ultimate dream of repealing the Second Amendment and totally banning guns, nation-wide Constitutional Carry is very unlikely to happen, so (again like the gun-grabbers) we will go about it state by state.

The whole gun-grabbers spiel seems very generalised. If you close your mind to compromise then there will never be any progress on this issue.
Maybe you can't satisfy everyone, but that's not really the goal. The goal is tricking both extremes into thinking they have the better end of the deal while pleasing the moderates with progress.
Compromise in a nutshell.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I have made proposals in the past about red-flagging the IDs of people disallowed to own guns. Like a licensing idea I had a very long tme ago, the gun-grabbers thought it was not restrictive enough, and the gun advocate thought it too restrictive.

I have long ago reached the point where I will not support any new restrictions, as no matter how many are on the books (enforced or not), the gun grabbers will still demand more (as has been seen repeatedly in the past) and not be satisfied until every law-abiding gun owner has been disarmed.

I fully support the current state-by state trend of easing ownership/carry restrictions. Ultimately, we need nation-wide Constitutional Carry. However that, like the gun-grabbers ultimate dream of repealing the Second Amendment and totally banning guns, nation-wide Constitutional Carry is very unlikely to happen, so (again like the gun-grabbers) we will go about it state by state.

The whole gun-grabbers spiel seems very generalised. If you close your mind to compromise then there will never be any progress on this issue.
Maybe you can't satisfy everyone, but that's not really the goal. The goal is tricking both extremes into thinking they have the better end of the deal while pleasing the moderates with progress.
Compromise in a nutshell.

That's the thing Jim's pointed out before, there is no compromise. Gun control advocates have never given up something, they always just want to put new measures in place without relaxing other things.

[Big Jim P]

I have made proposals in the past about red-flagging the IDs of people disallowed to own guns. Like a licensing idea I had a very long tme ago, the gun-grabbers thought it was not restrictive enough, and the gun advocate thought it too restrictive.

I have long ago reached the point where I will not support any new restrictions, as no matter how many are on the books (enforced or not), the gun grabbers will still demand more (as has been seen repeatedly in the past) and not be satisfied until every law-abiding gun owner has been disarmed.

I fully support the current state-by state trend of easing ownership/carry restrictions. Ultimately, we need nation-wide Constitutional Carry. However that, like the gun-grabbers ultimate dream of repealing the Second Amendment and totally banning guns, nation-wide Constitutional Carry is very unlikely to happen, so (again like the gun-grabbers) we will go about it state by state.

The whole gun-grabbers spiel seems very generalised. If you close your mind to compromise then there will never be any progress on this issue.
Maybe you can't satisfy everyone, but that's not really the goal. The goal is tricking both extremes into thinking they have the better end of the deal while pleasing the moderates with progress.
Compromise in a nutshell.

Too bad the gun-grabbers idea of "compromise" is the gun owners giving up some thing in return for nothing in return, then demanding they give up more. That will certainly turn people off to "compromise". Happily that trend has been declining in recent years and (like I have already said), restrictions are being eased stat-by-state.

[Imperializt Russia]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... a-table-11
Murder by circumstance. I was wrong, "gangland violence" is not equivalent to "juvenile gangland violence", so together they make up about 600 firearm homicides, not 900, so under 10% rather than over.

All types of homicide recorded as "argument" (including 1844 "other argument") tallies about 2200 firearm homicides, or one quarter of all.
"Narcotic drug laws circumstance" homicides, combined generously with "unspecified felony circumstance" tallies a further 650, but 43% of all firearm homicides were not committed in the course of another felony.

As I would group drug-affiliated and juvenile violence as being in association to the gang culture, it could be said that with responsible social engineering we could reduce deaths by half.

How do you arrive at "half"?

Drug affiliated, gangland and juvenile gangland total 1000 firearm homicides between them.
To reduce gun deaths by half, the more practical manner would be to reduce violence in the home - a quarter of all firearms homicides (not considered gang violence, for that matter) are the escalation of some description of argument.

I argue this is a problem of gun culture in the US, which is exacerbated by the access to guns available. The gun is not respected for what it is - a tool of deadly force, that requires respect. Otherwise we would not see over two thousand "arguments" "settled" by a gunman every year.
The article described a page or two ago sums up my viewpoint here - an eleven year old child shot his eight year old neighbour, because she wouldn't let him see her puppy. That is absolutely a problem of culture exacerbated by access. Without access to firearms (which could include better firearm security on the part of that weapon's owner), this would not have happened. With improved gun culture, the child would not have seen the firearm as a solution to the "problem" of not being allowed to see a fucking dog.

[Big Jim P]

Accidental gun deaths are around 500 a year. They (like homicides) are highly sensationalized in the media, leading to the perception that they are far more prevalent than they actually are. Due to the media, the perception is that gun homicides and crime in general are on the increase, when in fact, the opposite is true. I would not be surprised if the same holds true for accidental deaths as well.

I too recall hearing/reading somewhere that gun crime/homocides are on the decrease, though I can't recall where. I recall the same source also claiming that mass shootings were on the rise, though again, I have no hard data myself.

(now that I think about it, was it John Oliver I heard it from? That rings bells)

I understand that to completely remove guns from the US now would be implausible enough to call it impossible, but I do wonder if I were to be able to snap my fingers and either give everyone a gun or take away all the guns, whether the statistics would show more or less total loss of life.

Here you go.

[Big Jim P]

Compared the the 1 in 3 DGUs, it is.

A fairer comparison would be to the number of people who have actually used a gun in self-defense. There are a handful of frequently repeated anecdotes but I don't know of a good source of statistics on that.

Any time a gun is used to prevent or deter a crime (whether it is fired or not) is a DGU, and these incidents are not always reported to the authorities. That makes the stats hard to come by.

[Big Jim P]

As I would group drug-affiliated and juvenile violence as being in association to the gang culture, it could be said that with responsible social engineering we could reduce deaths by half.

How do you arrive at "half"?

Drug affiliated, gangland and juvenile gangland total 1000 firearm homicides between them.
To reduce gun deaths by half, the more practical manner would be to reduce violence in the home - a quarter of all firearms homicides (not considered gang violence, for that matter) are the escalation of some description of argument.

I argue this is a problem of gun culture in the US, which is exacerbated by the access to guns available. The gun is not respected for what it is - a tool of deadly force, that requires respect. Otherwise we would not see over two thousand "arguments" "settled" by a gunman every year.
The article described a page or two ago sums up my viewpoint here - an eleven year old child shot his eight year old neighbour, because she wouldn't let him see her puppy. That is absolutely a problem of culture exacerbated by access. Without access to firearms (which could include better firearm security on the part of that weapon's owner), this would not have happened. With improved gun culture, the child would not have seen the firearm as a solution to the "problem" of not being allowed to see a fucking dog.

That incident reflects a LACK of gun culture. The gun culture places a heavy focus on gun safety and responsibility.