billeisele

All tragedies for sure. Unfortunately these mass shootings are a small fraction of the deaths that occur from handguns. The "motivating event" may be when it directly effects one or more of them. This article arrived today. Some of this is what I'm concerned about. Passing laws that are ineffective and passing laws that will not stand up to court challenges. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-the-supreme-court-s-major-gun-decision-these-states-passed-restrictive-new-laws-in-2022/ar-AA15VCyQ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d87ef16379d040119024cfdad6807aac

Good morning, Happy NY and all that stuff. I think that nothing will change until there is a motivating event. Not sure what that would be. Maybe a few with personal tragedies, term limits, voters replace a bunch of them, removal of the incentive/reward for inaction. and who knows what else. I'd like to see a few moderates of both parties join together and demonstrate that not everything is strictly D or R. That there can be consensus and that representing the best interests of the country is a good thing. As Wendy said, compromise is needed. That also requires negotiating in good faith. Honesty and integrity are needed. People like Santos need to be hammered as hard as possible to send a clear message. Political office should not be haven for the inept, dishonest and immoral.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The data is interesting for sure and thanks for the link. I'll dive into this and read the original data at Giffords. I'm not questioning your "R's banned the research" statement but would like to read up on that. Is this a reference to the Dickey Amendment? It's way past time for Congress to do their job on immigration policy and action on firearms.

Of course it matters. The point is that laws don't prevent all deaths. BV implied that many dangerous things/activities had laws and stated that billions was spent on research. Then said, "... when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths." That implies that there are no laws on guns and that the proposed laws would be effective. I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that there were no laws. CA has many laws and the deaths continue. The new law in OR just started so we'll get to see if it's effective. One challenge is it's difficult to quantify how many deaths were avoided by the passage of a law. In CA a CCW is difficult to get and keep, and the purchase/manufacture/gift/loan of a large capacity mag is prohibited. Lastly, the sentence stated that the proposed laws would prevent deaths. That may have been the case but maybe not. Certainly, some of the proposed laws would have provided some benefit but the opposite is also possibly true. IMO unbiased research needs to be done to determine what methods would be practical that would also effectively reduce gun deaths. The results would provide valuable information from which laws could be crafted. No doubt this is a tricky subject. The better the research the more difficult it will be for people to oppose the proposed laws.

Yet kids keep dying from all the above. There are laws on guns intended to do the same thing. One thing we don't know is how many lives are saved because of these laws. We also don't know how many laws exist that have little to no impact. Most remember when containers didn't require a seal. People were nicer, politics wasn't as nasty and there were lines that weren't crossed. All it took was one person to decide to switch out some pills in a bottle to harm people. Could laws on all these things be improved, no doubt. The gun thing is especially sticky because of the rights infringement or perceived rights infringement, and other issues and personalities that are difficult to overcome and manage. But that shouldn't stop our law makers from trying to enact effective legislation. IMO Until a bipartisan effort is made, nothing will change.

There are laws for a reason. Some of the posts seem to infer that ignoring the law is OK. We all have opinions on various topics. Rather than discuss the opinion some folks want to attack and label the person. IMO laws should be enforced. If they are bad laws then they should be repealed not ignored. Yes, shipping out all the undocumented isn't doable and it wasn't suggested. But stopping, controlling and vetting the current inflow is doable. IMO unfettered immigration is a problem that leads to other, worse, problems. Some don't seem to care unless it directly affects them. There is a bigger picture and how it affects others and the nation. The number of fentanyl deaths should be enough to concern everyone. The 2022 deaths exceed 100,000, that's doubled in 4 years, and it's double the number of deaths from guns including suicide. Tougher border enforcement would slow it down but maybe it just comes from elsewhere, who knows. Drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, terrorists - all are a ticking time bomb. Once it does affect one personally it's too late. Prevention is the best option. There is plenty of evidence on crime, drugs and human trafficking that are, IMO, a problem. The impacts on the social support systems and law enforcement are tremendous. That reduces the support for Americans like veterans and the homeless American citizens. The leadership and citizens of the border states, even Denver, are screaming about the problems and DC isn't listening. The administration flies out those that we're visible, and in the news, and that was OK. But when the border states ship a small fraction of immigrants to certain places the whining is quite high. One would think that the President would care about the personal suffering of the immigrants and of Americans, to enforce the law. The cartels and China are loving our President. They are making millions. To your question. Lock down the border, vet all immigrants according to the law. Many studies have shown that's it's financially impossible to solve the problem by bringing all people in need to America. Helping those countries improve their living conditions is the only viable option. We've been doing it at various levels for years, that needs to continue and be reenergized.

If you mean waking up and recognizing what's occurring at the border and how it's impacting the country, that's a great thought. One primary function of the federal government is border security. It would also be nice if Congress, both parties, did their job and took action on this.

And now we have "Bidenism."One definition would be, - ignoring facts means it's not occurring.

Fraud in an election should be a felony. Wondering why his background wasn't checked well before the election. With all the political hate flying around it's surprising. Plenty of fraud, lying, arrogance and bragging in both parties. To think it's just one side of the fence is idiocy.

Police

Sailors delight

zone

To me there are two issues: Assisted Suicide = those that can't do it themselves, and Death with Dignity = those that are physically capable and have a declining condition or poor life quality. Or whatever other terms are appropriate. Sometimes it would be difficult to place a person in one category or the other. I've witnessed two miserable deaths. One was a person with pancreatic cancer that chose to not take chemo. She chose hospice at home, declined over three weeks, was kept somewhat comfortable with drugs, in the end being unable to eat or swallow dehydration occurred and death. The other was Alzheimer's. The person that he was known to be disappeared over time, physically declined, less walking, then a wheelchair, finally became bedridden. That brings on other medical issues. By this point all dignity was gone. Loss of ability to eat, dehydration and death. Both were a miserably slow process. Those two were my in laws. Also witnessed the results of Parkinsons with my father. he was a college athlete, Navy war vet and an active senior. The disease took his ability to control his body. He researched methods to die. Before that occurred he suffered a medical issue associated with Parkinson's, was ambulanced to the ER, an improper procedure was performed and he died. In the case with the first two there wasn't a discussion about ending it early. With my father he was nearing the point where, I believe, he would have done something. If legal options were available I believe that some people would make that decision, and they should have the right to. As you said, "The devil is in the details."

Woo Hoo - fun-filled video, until the hook turn at the end. Ya gotta respect the game.

This is an interesting article on the 1994 - 2003 assault weapons ban. It's 101 pages but worth the read. The article uses: AW for assault weapon, and LCM for large capacity magazine. It would be valuable to repeat the study looking at what is occurring today. So much has changed since 2004. The volume of guns and LCMs, and capacity of LCMs are just three. The number of these items in private ownership in the US varies based on the data source. Regardless of the actual number there has been a 10-13X increase since 2004. AWs - 1994 - 1.5 million, 2022 - 20 million LCMs - 1994 - 25-30 million, 2022 - 304 million https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf A few excerpts: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” "AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles." "Reducing attacks with AWs and LCMs may in fact have no more than a trivial impact on gun deaths and injuries, but any such impact cannot be realized or adequately assessed until the availability and use of the banned guns and magazines decline appreciably. Additionally, it may take many years for the effects of modest, incremental policy changes to be fully felt, a reality that both researchers and policy makers should heed." "Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement. A 5% reduction in gunshot victimizations is perhaps a reasonable upper bound estimate of the ban’s potential impact (based on the only available estimate of gunshot victimizations resulting from attacks in which more than 10 shots were fired), but the actual impact is likely to be smaller and may not be fully realized for many years into the future,.." It noted that assault weapons weren’t often “used in gun crimes even before the ban,” and it noted that while LCMs “are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes,” it was then unclear “how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.” "It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder. Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs (Duwe, 2000). The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions," A recent trip to the gun store for target ammo was interesting. This particular store, Palmetto State Armory, has seven retail locations. They have a manufacturing facility making many types and designs of AWs. They sell complete guns and all the parts to build a gun. Many people like to build their own guns using parts from various manufacturers. My estimate is that the display cases at this one store hold 260+/- different handguns from numerous manufacturers. Ranging from an $180 cowboy style .22 pistol up to an engraved silver plated .50 caliber Desert Eagle for $9,998. The rear and side walls hold the long guns and AWs. There were at least 100 of them. Then there are the non-lethal items, tools, cases, optics, mounts, knives, cleaning supplies, ammo, clothes boots, archery equipment, targets, etc. one stop shopping for sure. This store has an indoor gun range. The website lists 5,209 different pistols (1,294 in stock), 1,479 AW guns (343 in stock), 2,717 traditional rifles (469 in stock), and 2,013 shotguns (661 in stock). The point being is there are a ton of options and guns available for purchase in the US. One can even purchase a PulseFire under barrel mounted flame thrower! I hope that this item goes the route of the bump stock. https://palmettostatearmory.com/guns/handguns.html https://palmettostatearmory.com/exothermic-technologies-pulsefire-ubf-underbarrel-flamethrower-black-pf-ubf.html https://exothermic.tech/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuI_Ly-7s-wIVMRXUAR2CugKkEAAYASAAEgId8fD_BwE Direct from the manufacturer. Best for melting ice, agricultural purposes, controlled burns, weeds, bonfires, insects, films and TV, and pyrotechnic shows. Barbie doll included and they are on sale!! Get yourself a stocking stuffer. IMO - The sheer volume of guns and magazines in private ownership will make it extremely difficult to enact legislation. My hope is that a bipartisan group will identify and propose effective actions that will have a measurable impact on gun crimes without unduly restricting responsible private ownership. That's an awfully thin tightrope.

It appears that the 1.1 mill includes suicide. The historic annual stats are: 60% suicide, 500 due to mishandling of the gun (accidental discharge), and 500 self-defense. That leaves approximately 10,000 annually (recent history). In past years the # of deaths was lower. 90% occur with handguns and 10% with rifles. Clearly the 10,000 deaths per year is a crazy number. It's approximately 30% of the total gun deaths. That provides an opportunity to address the other 70%. Unfortunately criminals have guns and have no qualms with using them. Luckily for the general population many of the gun deaths are between criminals. A primary concern remains. If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. What then?

You two are interesting. Ms Wendy - you stated that in context of my post rate didn't matter. Then K continues to infer that I was comparing locales which I never did. On the issue of data and rate, your comments would be relevant if I had been comparing locations and deaths. On that we agree. Specifically what was said was, "Yes, having a gun is a choice and it has potential consequences. Evaluate the risks and make a choice. In this instance the lady was able to defend herself because she had a gun. Again, in a city with restrictive gun laws that clearly don't work." In responding to the post where K introduced rate I said, "The restrictive gun laws comment was directed at the fact that the criminal had a gun. Criminals do not follow the law and that's one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun." My point was simple and reframing my comment into something more complex, which it was not, is, in fact, misleading. Chicago has restrictive gun laws. The criminal had a gun and used in in committing a crime. Effective gun laws are needed but whatever is being done in Chicago is not working. Nothing in my comments has anything to do with rate. Hope everyone had a good holiday.

Good evening Jerry. Hope you are well. We're getting freezing temps at night. Unusual for SC in November to be colder than OR. I respect your opinion on guns. We just differ. In my book that's OK. Maybe it's just different life experiences. Don't stores/banks, etc. have a policy of not resisting? They don't keep much cash on hand and have those colored tapes at the doors to help ID an accurate height for the report. And I'd assume that they all have cameras. In that respect a 7-11 heist may be a sure thing but remaining free with a small amount of cash, some candy bars and smokes hopefully doesn't happen too often. Having a gun and successfully using it for self-defense are never a sure thing. Anyone that thinks that is just wrong.

Ms Wendy - I didn't say that rate didn't matter. What I said was that I did not bring it up. In the context of my statement, rate has no bearing. K tried to change the context of my statement by inserting RATE. He then made the demeaning and incorrect assumption that the term "rate" was an unknown concept, which it is not. My point was and is simple. Possibly too simple for K to grasp. The thug had a gun and used it in committing a crime. The thug had the gun despite the restrictive gun laws. The person being attacked legally possessed a gun and was able to change the outcome of the encounter. But....it's important to add the caveat, "in this case." I fully recognize that the thug may have had no intention of firing the gun. When the lady pulled her gun that could have caused the thug to fire and kill her. Owning a gun has risks. Brandishing or firing a gun has more risks. I recognize and understand the statistics. Not having a means of self-defense also has risks. It's a choice that some people want the right to make. Some or many choose to not have a gun. That's fine and I sincerely hope that they won't ever regret that decision. Others have made a different decision. That's also fine and, again, I hope that they won't ever regret that decision.

Yes, and that is a choice that the gun owner made. Apparently some would rather have the choice to be able to defend themselves against a thug while accepting the other risk. It seems that some just don't want to take the risk of being attacked with no viable means of self protection.

Too funny. I never said anything about RATE. I only stated current stats. I doubt that any of the 600+ dead would care that the death rate was lower in Chicago than other locations. The point is that certain restrictive gun laws are not effective and Chicago continues to demonstrate that. 600+ dead should not be considered success even though the RATE is lower than other places.

Chicago - 600+ gun deaths so far this year, 20 last week. Lightfoot hasn't taken any affirmative steps but she is good at whining. The restrictive gun laws comment was directed at the fact that the criminal had a gun. Criminals do not follow the law and that's one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun.

A woman in Chicago with a concealed carry permit fought back with her gun against two armed would-be carjackers who approached her while she was in her car. "Thank God I had my gun, or I’d probably be dead right now." Her identity has not been released to the public. The 42-year-old woman was getting into her car outside a bank in Chicago’s Roseland neighborhood on Monday afternoon when the suspects approached her and pulled out a handgun. She had just gotten cash from the bank, which was still in her hand. "I had just come out of the bank and was sitting in my car about to lock my door to pull off in leave, and he opened my door and put a gun in my face," the unidentified woman said of one suspect. She then pulled out her own firearm and shot at the suspects. "And when he saw me get mine, he looked surprised – and I started shooting, and he started running," she told CBS Chicago. "He ran." Yes, having a gun is a choice and it has potential consequences. Evaluate the risks and make a choice. In this instance the lady was able to defend herself because she had a gun. Again, in a city with restrictive gun laws that clearly don't work.

Seems that most underestimated the will of the Ukrainian people to protect, and now take back, their country. There will be a ton of suffering this winter. I'm wondering if they will start throwing missiles at Russian infrastructure to give Putin another reason to just stop.