Mass shootings and gun violence are happening way too often

[hoipolloi]

@Destiny - the USAF command has been infested with Talibangelicals for some time. 

As a rule, such fundies don't believe in domestic abuse & violence and, if they deign to notice it, it's probably the victim's fault. So, it wouldn't be surprising that the USAF failed to report these data.

[Destiny]

Oh I’m absolutely not saying I don’t believe it. I just wanna know more on the topic, especially the important question of WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY THINKING.

[nausicaa]

12 minutes ago, Destiny said:

@nausicaa do you have a source for the Air Force issue? I’d like to read more.

Here ya go. Of all things, I found this through a conservative pundit on Twitter.

Interesting pull quote:

"A scan of active records shows that the Department of Defense has just a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence on file with the National Criminal Instant Background Check System, or NICS.

Here’s the chart, which also shows that the military has currently submitted zero records for members subject to domestic violence restraining orders, the other category of domestic abuse that gets a civilian barred from buying guns from licensed dealers."

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/military-domestic-abuse-nics/

 

The New York Times is finally beginning to bite into this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html

 

And even the National Review (yep) has an article out today criticizing these policies with the title-- hope you're sitting down-- "Military Worship is Bad for the Military." (It covers a lot and is an interesting article in other ways as well.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453494/military-worship-hurts-military

[Destiny]

Thank you very much.

Sorry for the lack of tag. Tapa is being a dick. Thanks @nausicaa!

[OtterRuletheWorld]

23 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I will start off by saying we own guns, so it isn't like I'm anti-guns. But I think there needs to be a limit on ammo. No one needs a fucking ton of ammo. If you want to shoot guns for fun and need a ton of ammo for that, then it can be done at a gun range.  There are way too many guns out there right now, but I also think all when someone purchases a gun, there needs to be extreme vetting and the gun should be on a registry. There needs to be a paper trail when it is sold or given away along with the extreme vetting. Anyone who wants to carry a gun needs to go through intensive training and that training needs to be redone every single year. Homes with children should be required to keep guns locked up. If you are found not properly storing your gun with a child in the home then you should lose gun privileges for a brief amount of time. 

I don't know how I feel about required storage conditions. I understand the logic behind that, but I do wonder how it would be enforced. Are you suggesting random checks in gun owners homes? I am very wary of any government type home inspections. I do absolutely agree that training should be required. I don't know that I think it should be done on an annual basis, but I don't think it should be a "one and done" type training.

23 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Otter, what are your suggestions for lowering the risk something like this will happen?

I would start with major changes to mental health care in the US. Make sure quality mental health care is provided in prisons would be one thing (I have issues with the US prison system, but that is another topic)

23 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Clearly what we are currently doing isn't working. What current laws do you think would stop things like Sandy Hook, the Las Vegas shooting, the Orlando night club shooting, and the Aurora shooting?

With Orlando, the shooter had already been investigated by the FBI. He was therefor on their radar. I am not sure I have a great answer for that, but I could argue that if you have ever been on an FBI watch list, and a background check is run on you to purchase a gun, maybe that should set off some sort of flag. Vegas, I would honestly need to know a lot more about that situation as we haven't got a straight answer about that shooting. The Aurora shooter didn't have a conceal carry permit, if I remember correctly. Obviously in that case, requiring a conceal carry permit isn't going to stop someone who wants to kill other humans. He also had explosive devices in his home if I remember correctly. As soon as someone has bombs and guns, I think things become a bit more complicated. That person is pretty hell bent on harming people and I don't know that any law is going to stop that from happening. Sandy Hook was another mental health issue. I don't think it is fair to blame this all on mental health issues, because obviously not all people with mental health issues are going to kill people. I do however think that the US needs care when it comes to Mental Health. It makes me sad that this isn't a larger part of this conversation.

Another example of laws/government failing to be used is Dylan Roof. He had admitted to possessing drugs and therefor should not have been able to purchase.

23 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

What do you think laws will also help stop the countless other shootings that include children getting hold of guns and shooting them on accident from happening? 

Training is one. I also think kids need to know what to do if they do happen to come across a gun. One group that could help teach children safety would be the NRA. That isn't because I LIKE the NRA, but because I think they should take some responsibility when it comes to making sure people who have guns are being safe with guns.



 

52 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I saw today that the Air Force has reported ZERO domestic violence cases to the Federal database, even though it is required to do so by Pentagon rules.

I hope that one thing everyone can agree on about this issue is that at the very least existing laws should be enforced, and this laxness needs to stop fucking now. Like people need to be fired.

On the other hand, I have to point out that if the Air Force had reported it, the report would have prohibited him from buying a gun, no matter what he checked on the form. I was with someone purchasing a handgun three weeks ago in a red state.  She (purchaser) filled in paperwork in which she had to check whether or not she had ever been convicted of domestic violence, however the vendor also ran her driver's license to see if any reports had been made against her and if she appeared on the Federal database. If a military branch had reported a domestic incident, it would have come up and she would have been refused the firearm purchase, no matter what she had written on the form.

Don't get me wrong, it was still a surprisingly short process, and it's weird to walk out of a store with a handgun fifteen minutes after entering, but a background check was done. So let's make sure those background checks are accurate and thorough. Also, from a strategic angle, it's going to be harder for the NRA to argue that we shouldn't enforce existing laws, so let's at least start here.

Exactly what you said in the bolded. The law should have worked. The AF messed this up majorly. The current laws absolutely would have stopped him from being able to purchase the weapons he purchased. My guess is that he would have obtained guns elsewhere, but we don't know that for a fact.

[Rachel333]

I will say that one thing a little different about this shooting is that we just went through another horrible mass shooting a month ago and a lot of people seem to be particularly fed up with those in power not doing anything about gun violence. At the very least I hope this gets the country enforcing our existing gun laws better.

[OtterRuletheWorld]

 

33 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I know after the Las Vegas shooting when it was revealed that the shooter had a total of 43 firearms between the ones in the hotel and at his home, a lot of people were saying that at the very least it should be a red flag if someone is buying so many guns. A lot of other people said, however, that stockpiling that many guns really isn't unusual among gun enthusiasts, which to me as someone who isn't into guns at all seems kind of disturbing.

Generally speaking, those who are stockpiling are doing so because they enjoy guns and the sport behind shooting, etc and/or they believe they need to stockpile because they want to be prepared in case of something really bad happening. They are worried about Russian (or worse) types of government telling them citizens cannot own firearms. I am not arguing this argument but I do realize that most gun owners, even those who stockpile guns and ammo, have no desire to be the next mass shooter.

[OtterRuletheWorld]

35 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I will say that one thing a little different about this shooting is that we just went through another horrible mass shooting a month ago and a lot of people seem to be particularly fed up with those in power not doing anything about gun violence. At the very least I hope this gets the country enforcing our existing gun laws better.

It is hard to see any shooting take place. I think this is why people are so sensitive to terrorist attacks too. The constant fear of being shot, ran over with a truck, bombed, etc is scary. I just went to a school meeting where parents were refusing to allow their children to partake in active shooter training and it blew my mind that anyone would not want their kids to be prepared for an active shooter.

To your bolded: I think this is huge. Some idiot sitting at a desk didn't do his job and because he couldn't do his fucking job correctly (paid by taxpayers) , people lost their lives. Maybe the shooter would have purchased guns elsewhere, but maybe he would have been flagged had he tried to purchase and we wouldn't be sitting here wondering how the fuck this happened.

Do we tell people to do their fucking jobs correctly OR strip rights from law-abiding citizens so the jobs of those bureaucrats are easier?

[laPapessaGiovanna]

47 minutes ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

Quote

What do you think laws will also help stop the countless other shootings that include children getting hold of guns and shooting them on accident from happening? 

Training is one. I also think kids need to know what to do if they do happen to come across a gun.

Starting at what age? At 2? Or 3? It seems 3 to 4 yo are at higher risk. Their age group is also at higher risk to ingest dangerous substances they find laying around the home. Are you going to train them how to behave in those cases too or can you understand that it's the fucking parents responsibility to not leave dangerous things laying around? And if parents are too stupid or too negligent to fucking keep the fucking guns out of children's reach then we can't put the responsibility on the shoulders of a 3yo. The community needs to protect children when parents fail, with laws and law enforcement.

7 minutes ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

Some idiot sitting at a desk didn't do his job and because he couldn't do his fucking job correctly (paid by taxpayers) , people lost their lives

Except that it seems this wasn't an unfortunate case. Apparently the Air Force communicated exactly zero cases of dv related criminal records to the FBI. This isn't bureaucratic laziness it's much worse.

[Ali]

I think that parents who don't take reasonable measures to secure guns,such as putting them in a gun safe, should be charged with involuntary manslaughter for any death due to their carelessness.

[OtterRuletheWorld]

1 minute ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Starting at what age? At 2? Or 3? It seems 3 to 4 yo are at higher risk. Their age group is also at higher risk to ingest dangerous substances they find laying around the home. Are you going to train them how to behave in those cases too or can you understand that it's the fucking parents responsibility to not leave dangerous things laying around? And if parents are too stupid or too negligent to fucking keep the fucking guns out of children's reach then we can't put the responsibility on the shoulders of a 3yo. The community needs to protect children when parents fail, with laws and law enforcement.

Yeah, I never suggested it was up to the kids to be responsible. Training with guns should provide gun owners with gun safety training.
What "community" are you talking about? The government? What do you want the government to do?

I don't think it is insane to tell a kid of any age to not touch a gun and if they see one, to get away from the gun and let an adult know right away.

[Rachel333]

1 hour ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

 

Generally speaking, those who are stockpiling are doing so because they enjoy guns and the sport behind shooting, etc and/or they believe they need to stockpile because they want to be prepared in case of something really bad happening. They are worried about Russian (or worse) types of government telling them citizens cannot own firearms. I am not arguing this argument but I do realize that most gun owners, even those who stockpile guns and ammo, have no desire to be the next mass shooter.

I don't think most people who stockpile guns are going to be a mass shooter. In general, I think the vast majority of people don't actually want to commit mass murder. I do find it disturbing that it's apparently normal in gun culture to amass huge numbers of firearms and ammo.

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

I don't know how I feel about required storage conditions. I understand the logic behind that, but I do wonder how it would be enforced. Are you suggesting random checks in gun owners homes? I am very wary of any government type home inspections

Yes, when you purchase a gun part of the extreme vetting should show if there are children in the home, if there are, then the person purchasing the gun needs to show that they have proper storage for the gun. We let the government fucking inspect our cars to keep people safe, why not let them inspect to ensure that guns are kept so children can't get them? And if someone is able to prove that you aren't keeping your guns properly stored, then you lose your guns. You don't have a right to put children at risk. 

1 hour ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

I do absolutely agree that training should be required. I don't know that I think it should be done on an annual basis, but I don't think it should be a "one and done" type training.

With some of the stupid people I know who happen to have concealed weapons permits, they need yearly training. Actually, if it was very difficult yearly training they probably wouldn't bother carrying a gun because they are that lazy. As it is they are prancing around my community with a loaded gun thinking they can whip it out and save the day. 

1 hour ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

would start with major changes to mental health care in the US.

While we do need changes to our mental health care, it is unwise to blame our massive gun violence problem on those who suffer from mental illnesses. Most people who suffer from a mental illness are not violent and are most likely to hurt themselves rather than someone else. We don't need to start blaming our huge gun violence on the mentally ill. 

1 hour ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

Training is one. I also think kids need to know what to do if they do happen to come across a gun. One group that could help teach children safety would be the NRA. That isn't because I LIKE the NRA, but because I think they should take some responsibility when it comes to making sure people who have guns are being safe with guns.

No amount of training by the NRA is going to stop toddlers from picking up guns and pulling the trigger. This is where laws need to be passed to ensure that homes with children also have guns properly stored. We pass all sorts of laws about child safety, not sure why guns are immune. You want a gun? You got to stick to laws to make sure kids can't get to it. No person has the right to put the lives of children at risk. 

Spoiler

Quote

On Wednesday two 3-year-old boys were shot by another toddler who found and inadvertently fired a gun at the home of their babysitter in Dearborn, Michigan, according to the Detroit Free Press

Quote

 Last weekend in St. Louis, a 2-year-old found a loaded handgun and accidentally shot and killed his father, who was asleep at the time. The day before, in Pennsylvania, a 3-year-old riding in the back seat of a car found a loaded gun and shot his uncle in the shoulder.

Quote

Another 3-year-old girl shot herself in the stomach in Georgia in June. She survived.

Quote

an 18-month-old from Nashville, who police say found a loaded pistol on a bed and shot himself in the face.

 

Quote

Earlier this month in South Carolina, for instance, 2-year-old Kyree Myers found a loaded gun at his home and fatally shot himself in the head.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/30/toddler-shootings-guns/

 

[OtterRuletheWorld]

Just now, Rachel333 said:

I don't think most people who stockpile guns are going to be a mass shooter. In general, I think the vast majority of people don't actually want to commit mass murder. I do find it disturbing that it's apparently normal in gun culture to amass huge numbers of firearms and ammo.

I understand why you would think that and why a lot of people think like you. I just think it helps to understand why law-abiding citizens feel they need to do this. I find this much less alarming than those who have a history of domestic abuse being able to purchase a gun because someone was lazy and not doing their job.

Of course the vast majority of people don't want to commit mass murder or any murder at all.

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

Generally speaking, those who are stockpiling are doing so because they enjoy guns and the sport behind shooting, etc and/or they believe they need to stockpile because they want to be prepared in case of something really bad happening. They are worried about Russian (or worse) types of government telling them citizens cannot own firearms. I am not arguing this argument but I do realize that most gun owners, even those who stockpile guns and ammo, have no desire to be the next mass shooter.

Someone's desire to live out their apocalyptic fantasies shouldn't come before the safety of the country. Anyone who thinks their stockpile of guns is going to do shit against the government or Russia is delusional. The government has bigger, stronger stuff and they will win. This isn't a YA dystopian novel. 

If you want to collect guns, fine. Collect them all you want. You just have to go through extreme vetting for each gun, register it, create a paper trail, keep it properly locked up if children live in the home and you don't get tons of ammo for those guns. No one actually needs a stockpile of ammo. 

1 hour ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

Do we tell people to do their fucking jobs correctly OR strip rights from law-abiding citizens so the jobs of those bureaucrats are easier?

We put restrictions on law abiding citizens because of the risk of a few bad eggs on a regular basis. Why should guns be immune? And it isn't an or situation. We can make people to their job AND pass stricter gun/ammo laws. 

[OtterRuletheWorld]

30 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Someone's desire to live out their apocalyptic fantasies shouldn't come before the safety of the country. Anyone who thinks their stockpile of guns is going to do shit against the government or Russia is delusional. The government has bigger, stronger stuff and they will win. This isn't a YA dystopian novel. 

I think the idea is typically that they don't want to be left without guns when someone else has guns. I also think they want to avoid the government getting those guns. I am not saying they are worried about Russia, just America becoming like Russia, including the part where citizens cannot bear arms while the the government can. 

 

30 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

We put restrictions on law abiding citizens because of the risk of a few bad eggs on a regular basis. Why should guns be immune? And it isn't an or situation. We can make people to their job AND pass stricter gun/ammo laws. 

Should we have restrictions on law abiding citizens on a regular basis? Are you saying you want more government and bureaucracy? We obviously cannot trust that the Government is going to follow through and do what they are supposed to do (as we saw with Devin Kelley) so why bother making more laws that won't even be enforced?

[laPapessaGiovanna]

5 hours ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

I don't think it is insane to tell a kid of any age to not touch a gun and if they see one, to get away from the gun and let an adult know right away

Considering that I didn't teach it to my nearly 5yo daughter because there's precisely zero chances she would ever be in that situation, yes I think it's insane. It's insane in the same way POC have to have "the talk" with their male offsprings. I'm not saying you shouldn't, it's clearly the safer thing to do, but the mere fact that you have to is insane. I have never even imagined of 3 y olds wounding/killing each others with guns before reading American news. It's simply unimaginable elsewhere.

This I say not because I think we are better in any way, but to give you a sensation of how it looks like from outside the NRA bubble. It looks unacceptable.

5 hours ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

I find this much less alarming than those who have a history of domestic abuse being able to purchase a gun because someone was lazy and not doing their job.

It wasn't a laziness problem. They purposely avoided to comply with the law. They communicated zero cases of dv related criminal records.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

4 hours ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

We obviously cannot trust that the Government is going to follow through and do what they are supposed to do (as we saw with Devin Kelley) so why bother making more laws that won't even be enforced?

What did I foresee? Discussing with trumper otter is a waste of time, she got all offended but it's simply the truth. No law is good enough when you're fine with the status quo and have zero willingness to push for a change. If only she could admit that she's also fine with the 30 000 dead per year, children included, it would be at least more honest.

But I'm glad to see she finally understands that it wasn't a lazy employee problem. Or she thinks that all public employees are too lazy to do their jobs?

[SilverBeach]

PPS 7.0 is still here? So boring.

 

[formergothardite]

11 hours ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

I think the idea is typically that they don't want to be left without guns when someone else has guns. I also think they want to avoid the government getting those guns. I am not saying they are worried about Russia, just America becoming like Russia, including the part where citizens cannot bear arms while the the government can. 

Stockpiling guns will do shit if America does become like Russia and the government comes to take those guns. Sure they have this delusional idea that they could "stand up" to the government, but reality is, if the government wants their guns, the government will take their guns and they will end up dead. There is no good excuse to allow people to stockpile ammo, not even, "but they want to pretend they are the chosen one in a dystopian novel where they take down the government." It is fairly clear that a mass shooting is far more likely to happen than a guy getting to stand up to the ebil government who is going to ban all guns. 

11 hours ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

Should we have restrictions on law abiding citizens on a regular basis? Are you saying you want more government and bureaucracy? We obviously cannot trust that the Government is going to follow through and do what they are supposed to do (as we saw with Devin Kelley) so why bother making more laws that won't even be enforced?

On some things, yes. Part of living in society is that life isn't all about you. You have to give up some things for the safety of society. If the government isn't enforcing current laws, then vote out the idiots who won't enforce them and get new people who will, but that doesn't mean we can't look at our current laws and realize that there are massive flaws that need to be fixed. 

You said you are uncomfortable with someone checking to make sure homes with children keep guns safely locked away. I personally am uncomfortable with toddlers and preschoolers picking up guns and shooting themselves or someone else. We can't train small children not to do that, we can only do our best to make sure guns are kept away from them. The current laws wouldn't stop toddlers from getting guns. What is more uncomfortable? Someone making sure you guns locked up or a 18 month old picking up a gun? 

All of these shootings happened in one week in April of last year. Clearly whatever the fuck we are doing( or not doing) isn't working. This should make everyone uncomfortable. How is having someone check to see if a gun is properly stored worse than this?! That isn't a rhetorical question otter. 

Spoiler

Quote

On April 20, a 2-year-old boy in Indiana found the gun his mother left in her purse on the kitchen counter and fatally shot himself.

 

Quote

in Kansas City, Mo., a 1-year-old girl evidently shot and killed herself with her father's gunwhile he was sleeping.

Quote

On April 22, a 3-year-old in Natchitoches, La., fatally shot himself after getting hold of a gun.

Quote

On April 26, a 3-year-old boy in Dallas, Ga., fatally shot himself in the chest with a gun he found at home.

Quote

On April 27, the Milwaukee toddler fatally shot his mother in the car.

Quote

That same day, a 3-year-old boy in Grout Township, Mich., shot himself in the arm with a gun he found at home.

Quote

On April 29, a 3-year-old girl shot herself in the arm after grabbing a gun in a parked car in Augusta, Ga. 

Quote

Last year, a Washington Post analysis found that toddlers were finding guns and shooting people at a rate of about one a week. This year, that pace has accelerated. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/?utm_term=.f161c5ebc394

 

[Howl]

The cat's out of the bag, the train left the station, the horse left the barn, when the Federal assault weapons ban was not renewed when it expired in 2004.    Many of these incidents would not have happened or would have been much less destructive were the ban still in place.  Why was there a ban?  From the WIKI on the The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)

Quote

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity"...

...Efforts to create restrictions on "assault weapons" at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle. The Luby's shooting in October 1991, which left 23 people dead and 27 wounded, was another factor. The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers.  The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon", as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device".

If this nation had the guts, the balls, the spine, the simple rational thought to prohibit these weapons again, and make it illegal to own one, we wouldn't be offering prayers  for the bereaved and the dearly departed nearly as often.  

In the summer of 1966, I was an 18-year-old college freshman trying to get a head start by going to summer school at the University of Texas at Austin.  About an hour after I'd left campus for lunch, Charles Whitman began raining terror on students and pedestrians, killing 13 an wounding 30, shooting from the Tower at the center of campus.  I clearly understand that these types of incidents will not go away, even if automatic weapons disappeared today.  But the damage will be much, much less.   

[formergothardite]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html?smid=fb-share

Quote

 

Gun enthusiasts often protest: Cars kill about as many people as guns, and we don’t ban them! No, but automobiles are actually a model for the public health approach I’m suggesting.

We don’t ban cars, but we work hard to regulate them – and limit access to them – so as to reduce the death toll they cause. This has been spectacularly successful, reducing the death rate per 100 million miles driven by 95 percent since 1921.

 

Quote

 

Background Checks

22 percent of guns are obtained without one

 Protection Orders

Keep men subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns

 Ban Under-21s

A ban on people under 21 purchasing firearms (this is already the case in many states)

Safe Storage

These include trigger locks and guns and ammunition stored separately, especially when children are in the house

 Straw Purchases

Tighter enforcement of laws on straw purchases of weapons, and some limits on how many guns can be purchased in a month

 Ammunition Checks

Experimentation with a one-time background check for anybody buying ammunition.

End Immunity

End immunity for firearm companies. That’s a subsidy to a particular industry

 Ban Bump Stocks

A ban on bump stocks of the kind used in Las Vegas to mimic automatic weapon fire

 Research ‘Smart Guns’

“Smart guns” fire only after a fingerprint or PIN is entered, or if used near a particular bracelet.

 

 

Quote

There’s simply a scandalous lack of research on gun violence, largely because the N.R.A. is extremely hostile to such research and Congress rolls over. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did try to research gun violence, Congress responded by cutting its funding.

The NRA is one of the hug problems when it comes to gun safety. They care about guns, not people. 

Quote

Yet the audits also suggest that trainers are more likely to advocate for the N.R.A. or for carrying guns than for, say, safe storage

The NRA cannot be depended on to provide proper gun safety classes for anyone, including children. 

Quote

 

But automobiles are a reminder that we can chip away at a large problem through a public health approach: Just as auto safety improvements have left us far better off,, it seems plausible to some gun policy experts that a sensible, politically feasible set of public health steps could over time reduce firearm deaths in America by one-third – or more than 10,000 lives saved each year.

So let’s not just shed tears for the dead, give somber speeches and lower flags. Let’s get started and save lives.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I love Ted Lieu: "‘I can’t do this again’: Why a congressman walked out of moment of silence for Texas victims"

Spoiler

Rep. Ted Lieu’s national profile skyrocketed as he became the acerbic foil to the nation’s tweeter in chief, blasting President Trump with incessant and sharply worded responses to presidential posts.

But the California Democrat’s recent foray into social media took aim at other legislators who he said were not doing enough to beef up the nation’s gun control laws in the wake of Sunday’s mass shooting at a Texas church.

While his colleagues were inside the House chambers on Monday, having a moment of silence for the victims, Lieu was outside, phone in selfie position, being the opposite of silent.

“My colleagues are doing a moment of silence in the House of Representatives chamber. I respect their right to do that and I myself have participated in many of them, but I can’t do this again,” he told his Facebook followers.

“I’ve been to too many moments of silences. In just my short career in Congress, three of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history have occurred. I will not be silent. What we need is we need action. We need to pass gun safety legislation now.”

It was a spray of gasoline on the already incendiary debate about guns in the United States — particularly concerning access to the most dangerous weapons that have been used to take dozens of lives in violent moments.

Lieu, who is Catholic, told The Washington Post he prayed for the victims on Sunday, but got angry when he saw the congressional calendar. It contained the moment of silence, but no legislative action.

“This is all we do in Congress,” he told The Post. “We do this brief moment of silence, and then nothing happens. It’s not as if we’re business people. We make laws. We’re actually in a position where we can do something about this.”

His ire grew for most of a day, and when the moment of silence began Monday, he grabbed his phone and walked out.

Before Lieu had finished the video, he had already received praise from people who say he got to the meat of the issue and criticism from those who derided him for making a political point during a moment of mourning.

“So glad you are MY REPRESENTATIVE. So proud of you,” one woman wrote during the video.

“Your an idiot,” a man wrote a few milliseconds later. “To leave a moment of silence to do a political rant is not cool. Total disrespect for those killed.”

“One minute is all you needed to wait,” another commenter said. “It’s an embarrassment that you couldn’t show 60 seconds of respect before you started grandstanding.”

Lieu was not the first to raise the gun control issue. Others brought it up in the hours after the shooting, which left 26 dead in a church in Sutherland Springs, Tex.

... < tweet from Obama >

As the debate raged on, investigators were trying to parse out how the suspected killer got his guns despite a violent criminal past.

The Air Force said it did not follow policies for alerting authorities about Devin Kelley’s criminal history when he served at a New Mexico base, as reported by The Washington Post’s Eli Rosenberg, Alex Horton and Mark Berman. He should not have been allowed to buy a gun because of his domestic-violence conviction in 2014.

Trump asserted Tuesday that tougher gun laws would have made “no difference three days ago.” He said “hundreds more” people would have died had another man not been able to “neutralize” the alleged killer with a gun of his own.

A month ago, a similar debate raged about “bump stocks,” a contraption that can be used to legally increase a rifle’s firing rate. Several rifles with bump stocks were found in the room of the shooter who opened fire on a concert crowd on the Las Vegas Strip last month from an upper hotel floor, killing 58 and injuring more than 500.

As The Post’s Aaron C. Davis, Beth Reinhard and Sari Horwitz reported, “the increasingly popular bump stock has allowed even novice gun-owners to easily modify a legal semiautomatic rifle into one that resembles a battlefield machine gun.”

After the Las Vegas mass shooting, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a bill specifically targeting bump stocks and similar inventions.

A month later, Lieu ended his moment of non-silence with a call to action, saying Congress should pass “reasonable gun safety legislation including a universal background check law.”

He told The Post that he got the irony of his predicament — that more people are listening to him because of his sharp tweets toward Trump.

“For whatever reason, in me tweeting, it has resulted in more people paying attention, and I do think that while I have this opportunity, I should try to affect sentiment while I can.”

He also sought to blunt criticism that skipping out on a congressional moment of silence was in some way disrespectful to victims. Not being silent, he said, was pretty much the point.

“I think the best way for me to honor victims of mass shooting is to try to prevent further mass shootings.”

 

[OtterRuletheWorld]

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

 Sure they have this delusional idea that they could "stand up" to the government, but reality is, if the government wants their guns, the government will take their guns and they will end up dead.

There are an awful lot of gun owners in America and some of those people have a lot of guns. There is certainly a better chance of fighting a tyrannical government with arms than if you do not have arms. Example: Revolutionary War. The very idea that citizens are armed is (in theory) a preventative measure of a tyrannical government. You may very well be correct that everyone in this day and age would be fucked, but I don't think you can rightfully say that this is absolutely without question useless, so everyone should be required to give up on this protection.

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

On some things, yes. Part of living in society is that life isn't all about you. You have to give up some things for the safety of society. If the government isn't enforcing current laws, then vote out the idiots who won't enforce them and get new people who will, but that doesn't mean we can't look at our current laws and realize that there are massive flaws that need to be fixed. 

I tend to be a smaller government kind of person, but I agree with you in some aspects. Vaccinations are one thing that I think responsible citizens should do. Vaccines are preventative measures to help keep other individuals protected. Should individuals be required to get vaccines? I want to say yes, but do you have government officials knock on doors, require people to show proof of vaccines and force them to be immunized if they fail to provide proof or do you require children to be vaccinated if they are attending a public school? What if private schools show low levels of immunization? Should the government intervene? Should individuals be held responsible for exposing individuals to preventative diseases? Voting out those that are not enforcing laws is also fair and along with that, we should be evaluating laws and how we can enforce them without striping law abiding citizens of their rights.
 

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

You said you are uncomfortable with someone checking to make sure homes with children keep guns safely locked away. I personally am uncomfortable with toddlers and preschoolers picking up guns and shooting themselves or someone else. We can't train small children not to do that, we can only do our best to make sure guns are kept away from them. The current laws wouldn't stop toddlers from getting guns. What is more uncomfortable? Someone making sure you guns locked up or a 18 month old picking up a gun? 

I am also incredibly uncomfortable with children having access to guns. Training to own a gun should be required and a large part of that should be gun safety and not just how to use the gun safely.  The problem with what you are suggesting is this means random searches to those who have followed laws that would allow searches to happen (registering your guns) Those that register their guns will most likely also store their guns the way required of them to do so. Those that don't want to register their guns with the government will go unchecked. I think it is MORE important to teach safety, therefor empower citizens to be responsible gun owners. What you are suggesting is treading on violating the Fourth Amendment.  I will absolutely never understand Americans who don't appreciate how important the Fourth Amendment is.
 

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

All of these shootings happened in one week in April of last year. Clearly whatever the fuck we are doing( or not doing) isn't working. This should make everyone uncomfortable. How is having someone check to see if a gun is properly stored worse than this?! That isn't a rhetorical question otter. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/?utm_term=.f161c5ebc394

 

For a lot of reasons, but as I mentioned above, The Fourth Amendment has a lot to do with this. I also dislike the idea of registries of people or their behaviors. Why do you believe the government would stop at guns to do home searches? What would the proper storage be? Would ammo have to be a certain distance from the locked weapons? What if the person is a single mom who is a victim of domestic abuse and lives in a very small apartment, her ex calls the police on her and reports she has a weapon and wants the home searched? I know I am bringing up a "what if" but things like this can allow the government to tear families and lives apart. Where do you stop?

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

The NRA cannot be depended on to provide proper gun safety classes for anyone, including children. 

 

The NRA does teach a lot of gun safety, including to children. It is probably more effective than no training, but I am absolutely open to more effective training. I am not endorsing the NRA at all, but I do find it frustrating that there are not suggestions for better and more effective training.

[formergothardite]

You realize you can't teach 18 month olds gun safety, right? So basically the idea that when you purchase a gun you must show that it is properly stored in a way children can't access it is more disturbing to you than all those toddlers and preschoolers dying? While we think of those hypothetical situations where an ex calls the police on a single mom(is her gun properly stored? If not, he has a reason to call, If it is, what is the problem?), why don't we also think of the very, very real situation of a toddler picking up a gun and shooting himself in the face. So what is your plan to stop that since you aren't keen on making people keep them out of the hands of toddlers? 

The NRA makes it harder to get and Eddie the Eagle costume than an actual gun. Last I checked a toddler probably couldn't pick up an eagle costume and kill someone within seconds. They actually have a Eddie the Eagle register to make sure they can keep track of what happens to those costumes. That is right no gun register because OMG!!! but an eagle costume? We need to track that shit something bad might happen!

 

 

46 minutes ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

You may very well be correct that everyone in this day and age would be fucked, but I don't think you can rightfully say that this is absolutely without question useless, so everyone should be required to give up on this protection.

Really? You think someone with a pile of guns and ammo will be able to stand up to the government who has way bigger and stronger shit? 

What is more likely to happen the ebil government turning into something from a dystopian novel or a guy getting a shit ton of ammo and guns and killing bunches of people in a very short amount of time?