Father of slain little girl vs Marco Rubio

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-und...

^Interesting article, ender.

Honestly, it strengthens my stance that we need to get rid of lethal firearms.  If someone is driven to attempt suicide, we may as well make it more difficult for that person to do so.

My personal wish is that we greatly reduce the risk that people who don't want to die are so easily killed by others.

From Whittier, CA:

"As a school resource deputy, Marino Chavez said his after-lunch routine has changed little in 28 years.

When the period bell rings, Chavez strolls the campus of El Camino High School in Whittier and ushers lingering students to class. But last Friday, Chavez overheard a student say something that shocked him.

"I guarantee you the school will be shot up in three weeks," the 17-year-old student was heard telling a classmate.

Just 48 hours earlier, a gunman had opened fire at a Florida high school, killing 17.

"He didn't appear scared, but he was like, 'Well, I didn't mean it,' " Chavez said Wednesday, describing how he had confronted the student, who had an extensive disciplinary record.

Hours later, investigators with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department searched the teen's home and recovered two semiautomatic AR-15 rifles, two handguns and 90 high-capacity magazines...

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-whittier-school-shooting-plo...

Ender, that article sums up in a very sober and non-argumentative manner the problem with much of the current debate on gun violence in that it largely ignores the fact that the overwhelming percentage of gun deaths are associated with the murder of black youth, domestic violence, and suicides.   Its hard to craft solid solutions to the problem when the picture of what is actually happening is so distorted.  Thanks for posting.

Today's NY Daily News cover

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/374998-ny-daily-news-cover-shows-trump...

"Honestly, it strengthens my stance that we need to get rid of lethal firearms."

Care to elaborate as to how you will go about this?

Nice to see CNN providing a venue for a classic Two Minutes Hate.  It certainly wasn't interested in providing a reasoned discussion on the topic.

maybe if we had a public health system and people weren't so distraught about the erosion of the middle class by plutocrats they wouldn't shoot people?

i don't know. honestly, we just can't have nice things....

My take away from the article is that there is additional work to be done aside from reducing the number and availability of guns.  Agreed. 

What concrete measures to increase access to care for mental illness have either the GOP or the dems proposed in response to gun violence?  As we have been told many times, this is a major factor causing these shootings.  We've got anti-immigration measures, and the travel ban to take care of the muslims and immigrants.  Surely for the mentally ill who are the cause of all the other shootings there is a measure pending to overhaul our systems for making sure everyone has access to mental health services.  Or is this just a load of bullcrap to keep from dealing with the gun issue?

You could, theoretically, cut down on all these deaths with a blanket removal of guns from the U.S. entirely — something that is as politically unlikely as it is legally untenable. Barring that, though, policies aimed at reducing gun deaths will likely need to be targeted at the specific people who commit or are victimized by those incidents.

by this logic, removing some guns from the us entirely will lower these rates.

There is also something distinctly American about how we respond to these events, the way they become tangled up in the national debate about guns — this question of how to reduce deaths attributable to a weapon protected in the founding documents of our land.

the author asserts that weapons of war, like the ar-15, were what the framers had in mind when drafting that amendment. is there something distinctly american about the types of firearms we allow individuals to own?

nice share, ender.

>>>Care to elaborate as to how you will go about this?

Sure ban any sale of semi-automatic rifles. If you own one now you get to keep it but you can’t sell it or give it to anyone and your kids can’t inherit it when you die. If it isn’t turned in at that point it becomes an illegal weapon. Very easy place to start.

Thom,  I am in no way an expert on how to go about this.

On a personal level, I will never, ever allow any firearms in my household.  If anyone in my household is going to kill themselves or others, they're going to have to "earn" it through planning and effort.  Pills, knives, jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.  That slows down the process and may save a few troubled lives.

From the little that I know, Australia and Scotland did well by banning firearms.  Again, I don't know the details about each plan, but it seems that Australia just got over all the butt-hurt gun owners and took everything.  And Scotland outlawed all hand guns.  When I lived in Glasgow, I saw how tough many of those people were, but the worst that I saw were a few broken noses.  When  someone burgled my flat, I chased him then held him down for the Police (they said that he was a frequent offender), because I figured that there was a good chance that he didn't have a gun.

I know that making guns illegal will not eliminate all guns, but if we destroy all guns that "bad guys" bring into use, that decreases the number over time.  If gun manufacturers are not allowed to produce arms for civilians (Okay, maybe they can have BB guns and .22 cals..or perhaps a shotgun if they really want to kill animals), then we can slow down additional guns going into circulation.

In Berkeley, I've heard gun shots outside of my kitchen window and watched the murderer flee the scene.  I know that there are drug dealers in my neighborhood who are hiding hand guns (and using them), but I continue to access my community and enjoy my life.  I don't believe that weighing down my body with a firearm or storing a lethal weapon in my house is going to reduce the chances that I will be shot by a bullet - quite the contrary.

The weird thing is that I consider myself fairly moderate, but allowing civilians access to bump stocks, assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, tracer rounds, etc, just seems absolutely insane to me.  ****EDIT**** I'd have absolutely have no problem with getting rid of handguns as well and especially the carry and conceal nonsense - hiding your guns seems shady to me.

I was taught that everyone makes mistakes (everyone sins), so allowing people who make BIG mistakes with maximum killing capacity is unacceptable.

The Second Amendment needs to be updated as well.  Our Congress needs to clarify what CURRENT Americans (preferably the majority of Americans) deem appropriate regarding citizens' rights to defend themselves while allowing others the right to decrease the odds that they are going to be shot by another citizen.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

^Way too vague.

>>>>Sure ban any sale of semi-automatic rifles

How about semi-automatic handguns which are a much greater threat to public safety than semi-automatic rifles and are, by far, more likely to be used in crime, murder, and suicide?   Seems like that would be a more logical place to start.

>>>>The Second Amendment needs to be updated as well. 

Bear in mind that the Congress, by itself, cannot change the Constitution.   You also need the amendment to be ratified by two-thirds of the states.   The real trick will be getting all the "fly over" states to go along with changing the Second Amendment.  Until that is can be done, any proposed new gun regulations will have to work within the confines of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's holding in Heller. 

well regulated

And what Militia are all of these Arms-bearing people a part of?

Here is what the Supreme Court said about the "well regulated militia" thing:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

This is what you have to work with, so anybody discussing proposed new regulations must be able to articulate how the proposed new law will pass constitutional muster.  Otherwise, you will be just spinning tires. 

>> And what Militia are all of these Arms-bearing people a part of?

What Ken said. Your question was answered by SCOTUS 10 years ago. The militia clause simply defines the purpose of the 2nd amendment, it doesn't limit the scope of the right to bear arms.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Thanks for the link, Ken.

My initial reaction after skimming through the SCOTUS document is that we need more statistical information about how effective particular weapons are for personal defense.

A couple of sentences stand out to me:

"Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons..."

"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster..."

So, if we had good research to determine how effective particular weapons are at ensuing adequate self-defense at home vs. how dangerous they are to their owners or innocent victims, we (and lawmakers) could potentially be better informed to make benefit-risk decisions regarding what we, as a society, are willing to compromise on when it comes to the type and scope of weapons we want to have in our country.

At least that's my take.

>>>>>The real trick will be getting all the "fly over" states to go along with changing the Second Amendment

>>>>>we (and lawmakers) could potentially be better informed to make benefit-risk decisions regarding what we, as a society, are willing to compromise on when it comes to the type and scope of weapons we want to have in our country.

I''m betting a lot of the folks in the flyover zone will not be using benefit-risk analysis to make their decisions about gun legislation.

turtle I don't think the school shooters were  concerned about the erosion of the middle class. they more than likely don't even know about it. 

Make all the guns you want...just ban the bulletsl

>>>just ban the bullets

Hay!   Sulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal.  We used to make homemade black powder bombs as kids using that simple formula. 

so the burning question on everyone's mind.... Crisis Actors, or Nah?

My proposal to ban all semi-automatic rifles isn’t meant to stop gun violence it is only meant to slow down the slaughter at mass shootings. It also gets around the absurd argument from the pro-gun side that you can’t ban assault rifles because you can’t define what an assault rifle is.

There would be no need to change the constitution for my proposal since we are only talking about drawing the line in a different place than it is now, and the constitutionality of that has been held up. I also fully agree that the courts will have the final say. That’s a good thing about America, but it doesn’t mean we can’t pass legislation to get that process started.

Nice to see Marc Rubio took almost $10,000 from the NRA, is that where he got the $ for his hair weave? 

The NRA arms the world's worst terrorists, American men, and are knee pad whores for the world's largest terrorist organization, the Republican Party, who has 2 endless wars in a region where their best friend, Saudi Arabia, is responsible for the World Trade Center attack.

On the lighter side, Chris Rock's take..

“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control.

Man, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders. 

Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.

kxela,

You should read DC vs Heller, you would have to change the constitution (or have SCOTUS overturn it's own ruling) to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Like handguns, they are clearly a class of firearms used "traditionally for lawful purposes" and are therefore protected.

"The only thing government could do that would give the activists what they crave is to repeal the Second Amendment, which guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. A debate about this would be the only honest debate about guns, since repealing the amendment would give the government the ability to ban a wide array of weapons that could be used in mass shootings as well as to confiscate weapons already in circulation (a number that nears the total of U.S. citizens).

Democrats are too politically savvy to embrace a demand that, while a logical extension of their desire to make guns scarce and hard to obtain, would directly put them at odds with much of the country — folks who think taking away the right to a gun is synonymous with tyranny. Instead, they focus on ideas that won’t stop massacres but do give them the opportunity to demonize the NRA and its supporters."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/republicans-gun-control-backing-d...

>> demonize the NRA and its supporters.<<

I think that the NRA does a pretty good job of that all by themselves...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

>>>> Instead, they focus on ideas that won’t stop massacres 

Pure NRA bullshit. How about we try some ideas and see if they work, because it's not like innocent children are being slaughtered or anything.

Ender I would welcome that decision from the supreme court. It would focus people's attention like Roe v Wade has focused the attention of the right. 

>>> You should read DC vs Heller

heller decision doesn't explicitly declare american's have the right to own semi automatic weapons. banning semi automatic weapons doesn't violate the constitution, or at least there isn't any case law stating otherwise. heller was a hand gun issue which has been fairly widely interpreted by states, since then.

below is a statement from late justice scalia's decision:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

>>>>My proposal to ban all semi-automatic rifles

So under your proposal, this little .22 Marlin would be banned:

However, people could still have this over the top Glock 9mm:

As I said my proposal is to combat the idea that there is absolutely nothing that can be done on the gun control side to slow down the slaughter of children. My semi-automatic rifle ban doesn’t fix every problem, but it will lower the body count.

The NRA floods the conversation with idea that nothing can be done, and its just bullshit. It can be done, and the reason it isn’t getting done is not because of Congress, or Trump, or the NRA. It’s because people don’t vote for gun control, and one of the reasons people don’t vote for gun control is that they think nothing can be done.

>>  heller was a hand gun issue which has been fairly widely interpreted by states, since then.

Yes, but the logic for declaring handguns protected easily applies to semi-automatic rifles. The court said blanket bans on a class of firearms used traditionally for lawful purposes was the problem. (I don't argue that you can't ban individual models or features of a semi automatic rifles.)

More here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/jun/24/paul-ryan/sec...

Trump’s proposal to arm teachers panned by experts as a ‘colossally stupid idea’  <<<<<<

Agree

Trump IS a LUNATIC

I like changing the age of sale from 18 to 21 years (there's already a military exception on the books),  obviously closing loopholes relating to background checks, and improved sharing of intelligence within the different law orgs (mostly a funding issue sounds like).  It's almost impossible to accurately legislate every component of every type of firearm, to come up with a reasonable format for banning a weapon (yes, they've been banned before, but was really lip service when you apply reality to it, so many ways to get around it).  

During my tenure in radiology, most of the GSW (gun shot wounds) I saw were suicide (too often attempted, now have a frontal lobotomy or no face).  And the stats that are reported by the CDC would very much correlate to my experiences.  Most of the cop shootings I saw were from de-holstering (shoot themselves in the thigh),  and most of the others I'd suggest using the bean bag guns, only one or two guys was a true candidate for being outright shot (IMHO).  

So 2 ideas I don't hear talked about too often;

1.  Making your initial first time gun purchase much more regulated. (Background check, written and shooting test, mental health eval, heavy duty one time only).  Israel has an interesting model to copy,  though it is way to strict to ever be adopted here, but it would be the best time to focus resources on the purchaser (could also ease some restrictions on life time gun owners, who are well documented);  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/28/israeli-gun...

2.  Another idea Bill Maher put out there was to legalize prostitution...  while there are many ethical / moral arguments against that, it very well could have prevented some of these twistos from popping!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRpgl01brpo

"Jellyroll can drive you stone-mad"?

Support this 10 yr old and under girls softball team by buying and $10 raffle ticket. You could win an AR-15 and use it for traditional lawful purposes.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/rifle-raffle-kentucky-trnd/index.html

>> Should the federal government do anything in response to school shootings?

I'm not sure when they can do. The armed resource officer on the scene did nothing. He fucking hid outside while kids were slaughtered. I don't think that Trump is right about putting more guns in schools reducing violence.

I don't really see any practical difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles, shotguns that hold 8+1 and "assault rifles" when it comes to shooting multiple people at close range. The features of a rifle that make it an assault rifle offer little advantage in that scenario. 

I suppose removing large cap magazines from circulation could slightly reduce the numbers killed, but it wouldn't stop mass shootings. Limiting the age when you can purchase guns would also have a slight reduction in access of guns to potential mass murders, but in my experience guns are ubiquitous. 

THe current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment reduces the effective options to nil beyond that.

>>> current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment reduces the effective options to nil beyond that.

?

Mannfred,

It's nuanced. This is a good read: https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

I believe it would have an effect, but it would be minimal.