51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino.
Comments
-
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?HHusky said:
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
This is a fair point. Plus 1 Grundle.GrundleStiltzkin said:
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?HHusky said:
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
It's that. Tims 1000x. Actual change, as we are discussing, is wonkishly difficult. Much easier to yell about the other guys and fire up the base. Same can be said for lots of issues.Swaye said:
The issue is, and I am not trying to make this a shit throwing thing because I have been amazed at how level headed this has been so far, is that the NRA feels attacked right now. They see themselves as the last bulwark between freedom and lunatics who hate THEM. Rightly or wrongly.2001400ex said:
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.GrundleStiltzkin said:And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
The NRA could fix this tomorrow. If they called every member of the GOP and said look, we are now for closing all background check loopholes it would be done in a day. The issue is, to me, that some Dems have so vilified the NRA (and its members) that the NRA brass would now refuse to piss on those Dems if they were on fire. I think, perhaps wrongly, that if some of the DNC toned down the rhetoric and actually tried true engagement with the NRA to work toward incremental solutions, something might get done. But in the current climate where Bloomberg and others trash them and their membership every single day, and the NRA gives it right back to them, there is zero chance of that happening.
As others have mentioned, I sometimes wonder if the gun debate is about making real changes, or just a campaign issue to keep everyone pissed off, fired up, and donating (on both sides). -
All of our problems are meant to allow fundraising on both sides
Not to be solved -
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.GrundleStiltzkin said:
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?HHusky said:
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
You're most optimistic than I am. In my former life, I would have seen that as a supreme challenge, getting a major news outlet to cover a gun issue of some kind as civil rights violation.HHusky said:
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.GrundleStiltzkin said:
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?HHusky said:
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
I think conservatives tend to play the victim of “the press”. Even the term MSM implies that somehow there is a bar to conservative voices in reporting news. Obviously that’s not true.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You're most optimistic than I am.HHusky said:
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.GrundleStiltzkin said:
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?HHusky said:
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
Yeah, you're missing the point.HHusky said:
I think conservatives tend to play the victim of “the press”. Even the term MSM implies that somehow there is a bar to conservative voices in reporting news. Obviously that’s not true.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You're most optimistic than I am.HHusky said:
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.GrundleStiltzkin said:
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?HHusky said:
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
-
I think your point is that an “established” outlet won’t be interested. But that is my point too. There’s less of a monopoly on news distribution in some ill defined “establishment” than there’s ever been in history. And speaking of getting it reported, isn’t talk radio still a thing? Conservatives own talk radio.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Yeah, you're missing the point.HHusky said:
I think conservatives tend to play the victim of “the press”. Even the term MSM implies that somehow there is a bar to conservative voices in reporting news. Obviously that’s not true.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You're most optimistic than I am.HHusky said:
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.GrundleStiltzkin said:
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?HHusky said:
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
I agree with that completely. The mental health part I am not a fan of. Just because a dude is fucked up, doesn't mean they are going to go crazy and shoot up a public place. So I have a tough time taking guns from what is to be classified as mentally ill people. Also, many people who do these don't appear mentally ill until the day comes.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I get what you're saying from goal standpoint. But one must think it through from a legal, civil liberties view. This verges into pre-crime, which our system is supposed to avoid, with the aforementioned due process, equal protection, etc. If there's a legal, narrowly-applied method for this, I'm all ears.2001400ex said:
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.GrundleStiltzkin said:And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
And agreed on pre crime issues. This isn't minority report. That's why I say the barrier is proper gun training. I'd support the NRA and government having an extensive gun safety course, preferably at a young age, you can choose which to use. Then if you go through that, no barriers to gun possession. If not, then there's more hoops. But you still get to exercise your rights.
