Texas shooter struggled with mental health, family dysfunction, was fascinated with guns

Peron ally......I agree with the licencing The analogy of driving a car and having to prove you CAN SAFELY operate a vehicle..( passing driving lessons and test)......, getting the license to do so fits in principle with gun ownership and use

Why should the standards and expectations be less for owning and using a lethal weapons.

It seems the answers are there.........but there is no motivation to act on them for fear of an uprising / revolt.

Key factors: Strict background checks on ALL weapons buyers.
Proof of training/ experience in handling a weapon........


A waiting period between time of application and receiving weapons.

Any history of violence or active/ chronic mental problems would rule out the person from purchasing.

Regular review and test of shooting skills. (mandatory)..........

Strict Restrictions on military style weapons...........as no one needs that for "protection"

The buyer has to justify owning a gun...........ie provide a valid reason ....... "self protection"is to o vague ........and kind of a catchall (slogan)

But The gun culture is too entrenched now. It seems to have decided that the deaths we see with monotonous regularity are the acceptable cost of owning guns. Bottom line: All those thoughts and prayers...................are just hypocracy

The anguish of the survivors a temporary thing for those not directly affected........and all the protests, and promises are empty rhetoric.And the gun lobbies are running the country.........

 

How many vehicles do you own that are registered/licensed with/by the federal government?

Are you aware every state that wishes to register semiautomatic weapons does so? Are you aware concealed carry permits are close to what I have said is intellectually consistent (licensing public use, not ownership) and many states have forsaken this licensing in favor of “constitutional carry”? Twenty-five states are now constitutional or permitless carry and that number is increasing.

When licensing is debated rationally over time, licensing requirements seem to diminish. When laws are pushed through on emotional waves directly after shooting episodes licensing requirements are sometimes added. I see emotion driven decisions as problematic on multiple levels.

I respect your opinion, and I’m glad federalism is still enough in play you can have what you want. But it’s far too authoritarian for me and I believe the unconstitutionality of many state laws will probably be their demise over time.

 

I would like to point out that a fascination for guns is not indicative of a mental illness or the desire to kill. These demonizing words of guns does nobody any good.

 

It is unconstitutional. Even the license for full autos

 

The point is that the user........(driver ,weapons owner......shooter)..............should have a license to operate.

and one should QUALIFY for this " license to operate"...........

Seems the rules for getting a drivers license and driving are stricter than they are for owning and using guns. That makes very little sense.......as maybe a car can be a weapon.......it is a far cry from being the kind of weapon the gun is. Seems that everyone wants o be their own version of "dirty harry"

 

Well, one is not a constitutional right and the other is, so there's that.

 

Registration doesn't necessarily have to be through the federal government, we have federal laws on vehicle registration even though the registration itself is done through the state. Although in my personal opinion, a federal registration would work better for selling weapons across state lines and background checks. In regards to a license for ownership vs license for use, that is something that is acknowledged in my prior posts, however I still wouldn't call it a preemptive punishment. A weapon license isn't preemptive punishment for owning, the same way a driver's license isn't preemptive punishment for driving.

A license also doesn't mean law abiding citizens can onw a gun, 89% of adults in the US already have a license for driving, they could do the same for some weapons.

 

Can you direct me to the federal laws on vehicle registration? Did you know in Hawaii vehicle registration is done through local government, not the state?

So the state registration systems in existence now are not enough? You don’t think states have the right to decide how to register firearms even though you are fine with states deciding vehicle registration and driver’s license requirements? I guess since we already have what you want (registration of firearms at state level) I’m confused as to what you really want. Are you upset with your state for not having licensing requirements? You wish to overrule the will of the people of your state if you don’t have licensing requirements?

Have you completely abandoned your seat belt analogy? Why are you ignoring the fact we can own unregistered vehicles and we can drive them without a license?

What is your stance on voter ID? Does it infringe on the right to vote? How does intensive background checks, registration, and regulation of firearm ownership not infringe? Who pays for it? Does the person purchasing the firearm pay fees? Are you ok with a poll tax? Why not if not? Can you show driving on public roads is a constitutionally protected right intended to be free from infringement?

Would you impose driver’s licenses on those who do not use vehicles on public roads? If not, why not?

Again, I respect your opinion but it’s not based in logic.

 

To own or to operate in public places? As I pointed out what you want is already in place at the state level. Are you opposed to state’s rights and democracy at the state level? Why do you want federal law to overrule the will of the people in different states?

Can you define “operate” in the context of both vehicles and firearms?

I don’t think applying logic is wanting to be Dirty Harry. I understand the vehicle analogy is what the “drivers” (pun intended) of firearm control put out there in their media delivered memos. But when you look with a critical eye the logic of the analogy breaks down quickly. You have to conflate operation on public roads with ownership of personal property which are two VERY different things. And as I keep pointing out we already have the option of licensing for use in public places (and ownership even though it violates federal law) if states want it. It seems half (and counting) don’t want more restrictions on firearms in public, but less. Why can’t we respect state level democracy? Why can’t we be happy getting what we want in our state instead of forcing other states to do our will as well?

 

Sure, there are multiple federal laws on vehicle registration, most of them are designed as a means of protecting commerce between states and between countries
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/31704

In regards to weapon registration, I do believe it is a benefit for gun owners to have some level of involvement from the federal government for when weapons are being moved to, or delivered through other states. There should also be a shared database on criminal records between states, as well as tracking people who might show have a record from federal authorities specifically.

In regards to the risks that firearms to others, we're talking about machinery which is designed for the specific purpose for killing, so naturally the risk that we take in firearm ownership linked to these weapons falling into the wrong hands. It's not responsible and law abiding gun owners that are the risk, so much as it is the irresponsible and psychotic individuals and their easy access. A person who is responsible and law abiding should have no problem getting their license, just as they don't have any problem getting their driver's license. The general purpose of firearm licenses is to reduce the risk of dangerous individuals from getting these weapons.

This is part of what I am talking about




I do believe that this is preventable, because if you look at the countries that have already implemented these licensing requirements, they all saw a significant decrease gun related deaths, especially mass shootings. We are the only country in the world that sees individuals do this kind of damage on such a regular basis. Does this have to do with the fact that the US makes it easier for these psycho to get access to these weapons than anywhere else? Of course it does


In regards to voter ID laws, I believe that voting should remain free. Weapons aren't free, they're something we typically have to purchase, same thing for vehicles, but if we're going call ourselves a country that practices free elections, then people should not be required to pay in order to vote. I have no problem with voter ID laws, provided that the ID required to vote doesn't cost the voter anything.

 

That is not a law requiring or implementing registration. It’s affirming the right of states to manage their affairs without violating rights of citizens of other states.

My dad was just getting into the trucking industry at the time of that law being implemented. I remember it well. There we’re fears that states would interfere with interstate commerce at that time. That law made sure states could still do as they pleased on licensing requirements up to the point they harmed others. Just like the not wearing a seatbelt compared to speeding analogy.

We have all that with vehicle registration and states still make the decisions and implement them. It’s not particularly complicated to drive across state lines…people do it quite often actually without a bit of trouble!

We also already have all that with firearms. In 2017 I believe there were approximately 112,000 violations of 4473 applications for firearm purchase. Under 13,000 were investigated. Only 12 were prosecuted. We aren’t using the tools we have now to keep guns away from the wrong people.

And any state that wishes to can add to what we have.

Should you have any problem being required to get a license to have alcohol in your house? Or foods/drinks with high sugar content? Both kill far more than firearms and it’s because of irresponsible use, not use by responsible individuals. Why license firearms and not things that kill far more?

Can you supply actual evidence of what you claim for all the countries that implemented such requirements? Do you have sufficient data preceding and following implementation to show a statistically significant change, let alone a causal relationship? Someone claimed this for Canada a couple days ago snd I asked for evidence. I’m still waiting. Are you quite sure there is evidence for all these countries backing what you claim?

How do you explain the nearly 50% decrease in firearm homicide in the US between 1993 and 2005? Were you aware this happened? Can you point to any law or restrictions that would have caused this?

Why are mass shootings increasing in the US even though law has not become more permissive but actually less permissive in many places in regards to licensing, regulating and banning?

Did you know from 1980 to 1995 the firearm homicide rate in Australia fell from 0.8/100,000 to about 0.35/100,000? Then after the drastic measures in 1996 the rate fell from that .35 to .17 over the same time period as the first approximately 50% drop? Probably not because graphical representations of data you see most often exclude data previous to 1996 passage of new law credited with reducing firearm homicides. These tricks fool most who are not critical thinkers. I invite you to look at the actual evidence, not just parrot media and politicians on this subject. As I said earlier, both sides are playing us on this issue. If saving lives is the goal, being played isn’t going to accomplish that. We are going to have to base our decisions on actual evidence, not emotion.

No, we don’t actually have to purchase weapons. That is a common misperception.

So you are saying even though owning a semiautomatic firearm is a right, you would limit ownership to only those who can afford to exercise it in the face of licensing fees? One reason I’m opposed to current tax stamp requirements for short barreled rifles/shotguns, automatic weapons, and suppressors is how it limits ownership not on merit but on financial means. That’s not ethical. You can’t limit any right by economic barrier regardless of whether you like the right or dislike it. Allowing wealthy people to use illegal drugs without consequences while imprisoning less privileged is a similar atrocity. I don’t think we should add more elitist barriers to participation in society.

 

Gun registration can be done through the states, however through universal background checks, and transferring/selling firearms between state lines, there needs to be at least some federal involvement. Whether that is federal registration, or other forms other involvement

As for drug consumption, again my basic principle for civil liberty is self ownership of one's own body. I do not support policies which violate this basic principle, but I am okay with requiring a license for selling certain drugs.

In regards to what kind of rights we have to firearms, there are different forms of what we call "rights". Some of our rights are things which the state has a legal obligation to provide for us. For example, the right to a fair trial, this is a right which we are guaranteed, even if we cannot afford our own attorney, the state will provide one for us. Another example that a lot of people do not know about is that the postal service is actually a constitutional right. Even if you live at the bottom of the grand canyon, you have a right to the postal service which the state must provide, however you still have to pay a fee via postage stamp. In regards to guns, they are not a right which the government must provide for us, they are something which we must acquire on our own, be it through transaction, or a gift. The licensing fee for firearms should work similar to the postage fee we pay, it should be used primarily to pay for the basic expenses of the process, and not be used for additional revenue, or be raised for the purpose of discouraging people from attaining their weapon. We pay for the background check, and other expenses involved in the process, that's it

In regards to gun control reducing gun related deaths, I think it's important to also dive into the details of what that actually means for the overall crime rate. There are different kinds of gun related deaths, there are suicides, accidental deaths, and murders. When you reduce gun related suicides, that doesn't necessarily mean you are reducing suicides overall to the same measure. A person my commit suicide through other methods, in which case there is no real statistical change, if one commits suicide via gun vs committing suicide by slitting their writs, the final outcome is the same. The on argument one could make is that suicide attempt by using a gun would have a higher success rate, which would reduce the chances of the person getting the help they need and having a change of heart about taking their own life

As for gun related murders, if we are talking about one person murdering another, you run into the same statistical problem as the suicides. Whether a person murders another with a gun, or uses another weapon, the two are statistically the same. The counter argument to this would be although getting rid of the gun doesn't remove the motive to kill, it is easier to kill someone with a gun than without one, you can also argue that murder with a gun is more likely to hit bystanders who are not the intended target. Ultimately I do not believe gun licenses are super effective at reducing suicides or one on one murders, but they do have some effect. Where I think gun licensing is more effective is in reducing gun related accidents, and mass killing.

When it comes to mass killings, it goes without saying... firepower plays a big role in how many people are going to be harmed. Unlike the suicides and 1 on 1 killings, the scenarios that involve a gun vs those that do not involve a gun are not statistically the same. This is especially true for weapons that are designed with more offensive force, like semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. The lone psycho is going to be able to do a lot more damage when they have easy access to these weapons.

As for why the US saw a decrease in gun related homicides from 1993 to 2005, the beginning of 1994 was when the Brady Act was put into effect, which was one of our biggest federal gun control laws in our history, however the decrease in homicides probably had more to do with the overall crime rate decreasing during that time.

Finally, getting into gun control in other countries. That is a discussing that involves statistics to get into, which is a lot of work for a discussion on a forum. I do not have the statistics memorized from every country I have read about, but I can say in the years I've spent reading about these other countries and their numbers, I have yet to see a single country that hasn't been able to successfully reduce their overall gun related deaths after implementing their licensing laws. If you know of any that I do not know about, then I will be glad to read about it and give you my opinion. As for Australia, their overall gun homicides were indeed going down before their 1996 law, as to how effective the law was at reducing gun homicides (or overall homicides for that matter) is hard to determine. The most significant evidence is the fact that out of that time period, the years 1997 and 1998 combined saw the biggest decrease in overall gun related deaths, but this is overall gun related deaths, and not homicides specifically

The most noticeable statistical change for Australia is in their mass shootings. In the 1980s and earlier 90s, mass shootings had become a common problem for Australia. Including shootings where a single person was able to kill 5 or more people, they had two in 1987, one in 1988, one in 1990, one 1991, one in 1992, and two in 1996, including their biggest one ever in which 35 people were killed and 24 more were injured. These are the events which lead to them passing their licensing laws. When Australia passed their licensing law, they went 22 years without an incident, until 2018 when a man killed his family in his home. That's 8 mass shootings in under 10 years compared to 1 in over 20 years. Those are their before and after statistics on mass shootings for their 1996 law

 

Here are the things that don't add up for me.

1. He stopped attending school at some point last year. That should be a red flag.
2. His grandfather said that he didn't have a driver's license and didn't know he could drive.
3. He asked his sister to purchase weapons for him (before his 18th birthday) and she refused.
4. Where did he get the money to purchase so many weapons and ammunition?
5. Why did he target an elementary school? Why didn't he target his peers at the HS he previously attended?

HIPPA makes it difficult for people to disclose certain information but threats of harm toward oneself and/or others are the exception.

So, maybe the background searches need to be reworked somehow. I know there is a cutoff to buy certain pesticides unless one is a professional horticulturist/gardener. I know deposits of $10,000 in any US bank will get flagged and reported. It doesn't seem like it should be hard to have some upper limit on weapons and ammunition within a specific time frame.




https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...mos-texas-shooter-texts-autopsy-b2090112.html

 

So we have everything you desire already, agreed? We have the ability for states to register as they choose and we have an elaborate NICS system and NFA registry in place and operational.

So a license similar to an FFL for those who sell firearms, which we have. But even though these drugs kill orders of magnitude more people than firearms, they do not need to be licensed nor does the consumer?

Where in the equation do you put alcohol consumption which is associated with a large portion of firearm crime and suicide? As alcohol consumption by itself is associated with far more death than firearms, and a large portion of firearm deaths are associated with alcohol, how can we register/license/background check for firearms but not alcohol if greater societal good or saving lives is the goal?

Our constitution provides the right to keep and bear arms without infringement. I have never seen that granted for postal service or voting.

Any fee paid by the licensee is an impediment to exercising the right. I agree supplying firearms is not a government service provided by government in contrast to postal service. Perhaps if licensing came with the service of gunsmithing a fee could be justified.

Contrary to providing an attorney for trial, the right to firearms requires government to NOT interfere.

Agree we must not conflate murder/homicide, accidental death, and suicide. I see mass shootings as murder, that’s why I’m trying to focus on homicides here. Suicide is irrelevant to our discussion because offing oneself with a firearm is just as much my right as killing myself with booze or in a car without a seatbelt. My body, my choice.

Accidental death from firearms is an important issue but also irrelevant to the homicides this debate is predicated on.

I have seen other PF members post studies that conflate suicide and firearm suicide in the study. I don’t see any validity to such a study…

The other day I posted a some interesting information on Australia suicide. Here are links if you are interested. There is so much misinformation and disinformation around I fear we will never arrive at truth as a society…

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073474056/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073473924/

Agree murder is murder. Weapon doesn’t matter. I understand the argument certain weapons are more efficient But that efficacy is a factor in legitimate uses as well as criminal uses. We can’t forget that important fact.

I think where we disagree here is my goal is reducing ALL murder by addressing propensity to violence. You seem fixated on mass shootings that are statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of violence in the US. It’s like spending millions of dollars creating a government administration requiring me to be licensed to own cows, dogs and horses because they kill twice as many as mass shooters annually. It’s a waste of resources and it’s essentially a bandaid on an arterial bleed because as you say the perpetrator still has the desire to kill or maim. You have spent massive resources to (maybe) prevent a statistically insignificant amount of death and you haven’t done anything to address the actual problem—propensity to violence.

Actually an individual’s skill in weapons use is far more germane to “body count”. But yes the argument can be made at times certain weapons make even an idiot more lethal. Then there are the cases like the Aurora Batman shooter where choice of a 100 round drum magazine actually saved lives because if he had been using standard 30 round mags his main weapon would not have become inoperable.

Something that really makes me scratch my head with licensing requirements is usually people are expecting some training to go along with the licensing. I’ve seen several anti gunners on PF advocating for mandatory training to possess assault weapons etc. This seems nuts to me. Someone who is intent on committing mass murder can be licensed. Only 8% of mass shooters have serious mental illness. Most have no problem passing background checks. What prevents them from taking a class and being licensed and registering their weapon? They mostly are big planners as well, spending months making elaborate plans. Now the kicker. You put these guys through training and they are going to learn to run that gun much better than what they learned in their favorite video game.

Any quality instructor makes sure you know your weapon as part of training. Most safety training also makes you a more efficient operator of the weapon. Essentially mandated training is going to increase the lethality of the shooter regardless of the firearm choice. That this isn’t part of debate boggles my mind. I suppose the average anti gunner has so little knowledge of weapons and their use it doesn’t occur to them.

Excellent! I had hoped for a bit of love for the assault weapons ban part of the legislation but we are on the right track. You are probably aware research on the Brady Act shows no to little effect. There is no conclusive evidence it reduced homicides etc.

I mention the assault weapons ban because I see a lot of buzz in the media about how it worked to limit mass shootings. I guess because it supposedly stopped sales of assault weapons. But it didn’t. There were more companies selling AR-15s and other “assault weapons” at the end of the ban than the beginning. Post ban ARs were being purchased all over the US during the ban, and the fact they didn’t have a birdcage flash suppressor and a bayonet lug didn’t prevent any mass shootings!

Yes! We need to focus on why crime rates go up and down, not a tiny subset of weapons used in rare crimes.

My point is we can’t know if the passage of laws had the effect that is reported. The US saw a 50% reduction in firearm homicide without a law similar to the Australian NFA. Australia saw a 50% reduction before and after the NFA. It’s fun to say the NFA was responsible, but it’s not supported by any evidence. If I make a million dollars in the stock market over a five year period and one day I take off one shoe, do thirteen jumping jacks, and then eat a fruitcake, the million dollars I make the five years after that day isn’t necessarily a result of my activities on that one day. If I made two million dollars the five years after there would at least be reason to look for a causal relationship!

The drop in firearm deaths after the Port Arthur shooting is almost entirely attributable to it being a one time event. Thirty-five deaths in one year over average was such an anomaly with their already low firearm death rate there had to be a record drop the years after. It’s just math. The only way it wouldn’t happen that way would be to have a similar event the years immediately following Port Arthur.

We had better agree on the definition of mass shooting before we go any farther. You pick.

 

It's not that I am unconcerned for the overall homicide rate, it's that I do not believe gun control is the primary solution to that problem, there are other factors at play that contribute to that problem. In regards to drug addiction, I do not support policies which violate one's right to self ownership of their own body. The kind of drug policies I would advocate would look something like the drug reform implemented in Portugal. Portugal is the only country I know of to implement a sweeping new policy on drug laws, and reduce their overall drug related death rate by over 70%. If you're not familiar with what was done in Portugal, then I suggest looking it up

As for the second amendment, it is important to look into what is actually written down

"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"

So first thing to address is what this means in terms of gun control. Does it mean that citizens have a legal right to all arms without needing a permit?
The Second thing to address is what has changed since the second amendment was written

The short answer to the first question is no, we in fact already do have these requirements for certain arms, and we have multiple supreme court rulings on this matter to formally substantiate this status of the second amendentment. The second amendment does not mean we cannot put a license requirement on certain weapons

As for what has changed since the second amendment, well for starters arms technology is drastically different, and we no longer use a citizen militia as the primary security for our state. In fact few countries do, one of the rare examples of a modern country still using a citizen militia as its military is Switzerland. Switzerland is the closest modern example of what the US used as its military force when the second amendment was written, and is the model example of what I think our gun control laws should look like here in the US.

The way it works in Switzerland is you have three categories of permits 1. No acquisition permit needed 2. Shall-issue acquisition permit, and 3. May-issue exceptional acquisition permit

Simple hunting rifles that are single shot, double barreled, or bolt action are some examples of category 1. For category 2 weapons, you must pass a background check and a regular mental screening evaluation in order to receive and maintain your license, and certain violations may cost you your license. Some examples of category 3 weapons are your fully automatic and explosive arms, these weapons not only require a license, but a specific purpose for ownership, including but not limited to militia duty.

This is in my opinion, a proper example of a well regulated militia. Although the US does not use a militia anymore, I still believe the right to arms should remain a right of the people, however while I do not believe the lack of a militia should mean stricter gun laws, I also believe that our gun laws should be made more lax due to the lack of a militia. We ought to still design our gun laws as if we were using a well regulated militia, and I believe Switzerland is our best modern example of what that looks like

Getting back into mass shootings, the US legal definition of a mass shooting is a single incident in one location in which 4 or more people (not including the gunman) are harmed. Going by this definition, Australia has had one mass shooting since they implemented their 1996 law. The US has had 16 of these occur since the Uvalde one week ago.

 

1) There is no education level required to obtain a right. See voting tests.
2) He stole his grandmother's truck. State ID is a thing so are passports.
3) Which she didn't report, which would've been a felony so you can guess why she didn't. No report, no history, no bounce on a 4473.
4) Unknown. Probably theft, prostitution, or drugs.
5) Unknown, though he crashed his truck there and got in a gunfight on the lawn so idk it could've been a target of opportunity.

2 Rifles and less than 500rds of ammo is a light day as far as firearms purchases go. I've bought 4 firearms and over a 1000 assorted rounds in a day before, with carry slings, optics, magazines etc. And sold same. And purchased again etc.

Show me the right to keep and bear pesticides

 

I never said there was. I said that him dropping out of school was a signal to his family and possibly school guidance counselors that he was struggling.

What is your point? He didn't have a driver's license - which is what one needs to drive LEGALLY. Plus, it was said he never took driver's ed. He had to have practiced with somebody.

Again, pointless. She could have talked to other family members about those concerns.

Responsible parents know where their kids/grandkids are and what they are doing.

It was not. He talked about it on social media.

Bravo. /smdh

Show me the requirement that I have to pay for prisons to keep out-of-control people because their parents failed to do their duty to society?

 

I'm not the one preventing citizens from being armed so they can defend themselves and their charges.

 

And THEY would be the people required to take the steps to put him on a psych hold. Do you imagine that there is no process for that in backwards Texas? Do you think we're all hicks that ride horses to school?

He didn't LEGALLY drive his grandmother's truck which he STOLE. Are you.... just now realizing that people drive illegally all the time? Heck I bet he wasn't INSURED EITHER. O THE HUGEMANATEE

Practiced what? He wrecked in a ditch, he ain't Steve McQueen here.

Yes she could and should have and didn't. Now point me to the gun control law that would've made her non-report make it to the NICS database professor.

Yes and people are not responsible. We've been over that.

He talked about a school shooting to a friend in private chat, not generally on social media. He didn't talk about doing THAT school. Again: Where would that make it to NICS?

Its not a big deal man, you've never bought and sold tools before?

You don't have to pay for prisons: They're murderers, we give them the needle. And frankly we would still have county hanging trees for executions and could streamline the process for a red handed crime like this one if you hippies would let us.

 

So “my body my choice”…until I want to choose what firearm I can use to put a bullet in my brain. Then you want to “help” me make that decision.

Agree there are many factors to firearm homicide—for both single and multiple victim incidents.

For the most part I’m a fan of Portugal’s drug laws. I don’t think they go far enough but it’s better than what we have. I’ve kept tabs on the results over time. I’d say it’s definitely an improvement in human rights with minimal unintended consequences.

Having requirements does not mean they don’t violate the constitution. I think the Heller vs. DC decision makes that pretty clear. That said, correct or not, they (infringements) aren’t likely to go away in my lifetime.

What do you think “shall not be infringed” means?

This argument fails the logic test. It’s also factually incorrect as I will show below. Technology is irrelevant. The 2A was written to include arms useful in defending against modern armies. That hasn’t changed. I’m sorry to say humanity has not evolved in 200+ years to the point there is no longer need for power in the hands of citizens. To claim so, you would also have to accept the argument the press ought not to be free now because they can more easily propagandize or sow disinformation because of new technology and platforms.

I find it amusing the AR-15 is nearly 70 year old technology but it’s considered too “ modern” to be covered by the 2A.

Interesting but I’m not naive enough to believe we can emulate Switzerland. We don’t like drafts in wartime, we aren’t going to accept universal mandatory military service. Few military aged young people today in the US are physically fit enough for service.

Wow, who pays for regular mental health screening of somewhere around 7 million AR-15 owners and goodness knows how many semiautomatic handgun, Ak-47’s, FAL’s, etc. etc. owners? Before you said the firearm owner should pay. In the US that’s $100-$200 each evaluation. That’s certainly a financial barrier to ownership.

The US most certainly does use militias. Since the US military took National Guard under its’s wing in 1903 with the Dick Act, the unorganized militia and state defense forces were recognized to keep from violating the terms states agreed to at ratification of the Constitution and subsequent additions of states as they were formed. The two branches of the militia existing after 1903—organized (National Guard and state defense forces) and unorganized (males aged 17-45)—went through some growing pains until the unorganized militia was firmly defined and made permanent in 1956.

So not only do we have well regulated organized militia (NG and State defense) we have the unorganized militia that is as regulated as it’s members wish to be. (I’m likely better regulated than someone opposed to ownership of firearms). I believe 23 states have active defense forces today. My state’s defense force is inactive, but the structure remains in place for quick reactivation. For reactivation to be possible there must be armed members of the unorganized militia to draw from. Thus, the reason for not infringing on the right of the people to be armed remains as important as it ever was.

You are welcome to admire Switzerland, but our system of militias is mature and functions just as it was intended—a hedge against foreign or domestic oppression of the people and oppression of states by a centralized federal government.

Would you like to research that paragraph a little and amend it? As written it is not accurate. I’ll give you a chance to correct the errors as they may be unintentional.

 

I definitely wouldn't consider a gun license to be an infringement on one's status as the owner of their own body. It would be no more an infringement than a driver's license, or a pilot's license.. even if you wanted to commit suicide by crashing a plane, I wouldn't call the license an infringement on your status as the owner of your own body. A couple other things to note is 1. When you commit suicide by firearm, you are potentially putting other people at risk, the bullet doesn't stop moving after it enters your brain, and 2. One definitely doesn't need things like 30 caliber magazines for killing themselves. Those high capacity magazines aren't made for suicide, they are made for shooting a multiplicity of targets.

In regards to the US's use of militias, what I said was the US no longer uses a citizen militia as the "primary security for our state". That is what I meant in my follow up mentioning of militias in my post as well, but perhaps I should have consistently elaborated that its no longer our primary defense. As for what I believe "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” means. I believe it means that the people have a right to be armed, but I also do not believe that this right was intended to be unregulated. We've had regulations on firearms at the state and local level since the foundation of our constitution, and since the Madison administration, we have been passing gun regulations at the federal level as well. Naturally, as the technology of arms has advanced, the necessity for certain licenses and regulations has increased, kind of like how the advancement of transportation technology has increased the necessity for licenses and regulations.

I also wouldn't consider a $100 to $200 licensing fee for certain weapons to be unreasonable. People pay upwards of $1,000 to buy an AR rifle, the gun isn't free to begin with. As long as the fee is only being used to cover the basic expenses of the process, I have no problem with it. I would argue we pay a much bigger price not having those licenses. The fact of the matter is if you were to decide to go on a shooting rampage, you're going to be able to do a lot more damage with a semi-automatics and high capacity magazines. I don't believe licensing and mental health screening will completely eradicate mass shootings, but I definitely believe it would significantly decrease the frequency in which they occur, as well as the magnitude of their occurrence.

In regards to what I said about the definition of mass shootings, the definition I described was not a legal definition, but rather the definition used by the GVA.. that is my mistake. In Australia the definition of a mass shooting is when 5 or more people (not including the gunman) are killed. When Australia passed their 1996 gun licensing requirements, these mass shootings went from occurring 8 times in an 8 year period, to 1 time in a 22 year year period.

 

A drivers license is not required to own a car. A pilot’s license is not required to own a plane. A license is not required to own or consume alcohol although it is by nature a toxin that has a main function destroying (killing) and disrupting living organisms.

To point 1. Using alcohol, being overweight, and using illicit drugs puts others at more risk than suicide. Can you point to statistics on how many people are killed by suicide bullets passing through brains and killing bystanders? Do you know what happens to hollow point or polymer tipped bullets when they meet tissue?

To point 2. Please don’t parrot talking points you’ve read from journalists. It destroys your credibility. There have only been three or four (can’t remember) mass shootings in the US with 30 caliber magazines. Unless you are referring to 9mm handgun magazines.

Yes, I know journalists don’t understand firearm terminology. That’s why their opinions have little value. It’s like virology with Covid. People who don’t know a virus from a prion or bacteria probably shouldn’t be drivers of epidemiology based policy. Nor should people with no understanding of firearms be driving policy in that regard.

One does not “need” alcohol that is involved in a large percentage of suicides. “Need” is irrelevant. Nobody “needs” cocaine or meth but you think they should have it without a license. You want to license things responsible for orders of magnitude less death than drugs. You say you believe in individual rights even ones that harm others—except for a class of firearms. I just don’t see any logic in that argument.

I’ve posted on PF before about standard capacity magazines and why they have utilities far exceeding multiple target engagement. I think we should consider legitimate use of things in the overall equation, especially considering we allow widespread use of things like alcohol that have near zero utility of constructive or positive nature. Here is a re-post

The percentage of national defense achieved by militia vs standing armies is important only in that the larger the standing army, the more important militia is to the security of a free state. Not necessarily to the security of a state, but definitely to the security of a free state.

The Constitution would not have been ratified without provisions for state militia. The concern that only one centralized body could have monopoly on violence was prevalent in participants in the Constitutional Convention and in the citizenry. That’s why the 2A exists. So that states (and citizens) are not subject to a monopoly of power wielded by a federal government.

Today many in government and the citizenry still abhor a monopoly of violence. And without provisions for militias there would be a dissolution of the United States. This is why every Militia Act or amendment to Militia Act since and including the Dick Act included provisions for state militia even after (and especially since) federalization of the National Guard.

In short, the change from militia to standing army for engaging external threats is an argument for the 2A, not against it. Anyone attempting to use the existence of modern US standing army as an argument against the 2A does not understand history, the intent of the 2A, any of the subsequent Militia Acts, or what a union of states signifies in practice.

What does it mean to be “armed” in the context of the original intent of militias being a check on federal monopoly of violence?

You can spend almost any upper-end amount you want for an AR-15 but today one can be had for $400. Before the year of “mostly peaceful but fiery protests” and Covid they could be had for less than that.

I never make bones about my distaste for elitism and I won’t here. The idea that $100-$200 isn’t a barrier to entry for many is distasteful. And the Swiss model you presented required periodic mental health evaluations. I’m curious who pays for periodic hundreds-of-dollar exams for 7 million or more people.

As far as us bearing a bigger price now I would again remind you of the much higher cost from harmful things you are opposed to registering or requiring mental health evaluation to own or use.

I’m attempting without success to get you to apply the same standards equally. You can’t use one definition for one country and a much different definition for another country and then compare the data from the two. I let you pick and you chose the GVA definition. All by yourself with no prompting. You then misrepresented Australia’s data in the context of the GVA definition. Again, I know the media does this, but I’m uninterested in media spin.

Using the definition I let you choose, Australia has had eight mass shootings since Port Arthur.

Does Australia have less mass shootings than the US? Absolutely. So what’s the point of fudging statistics? Why do you think the people you get this information from are misleading you?

We see much of what you base your opinions on is false information you’ve been provided. You’ve been a fine example of civil discourse and I’ve enjoyed it. However, I can’t be convinced of a thing when much of the argument is based on false media sound bytes or false information in general. You have made some good points and I always take good points into consideration.

 

I must disagree that being overweight or drinking alcohol puts others at more than a stray bullet. Besides that, drug use is a different problem with a completely different solution, and as I said before, the solution I would support personally would look something similar to what has been used and worked in Portugal, where they saw a 70% decrease in drug fatalities

As for mass shootings, I support the policies that have been used and worked in various other countries. You can get into the different definitions of mass shootings between nations if you like, and it is a fair to say that it isn't practical to compare different countries numbers that use different definitions, however no matter which single definition you choose to use, the fact of the matter is the US hasn't been able to successfully get its mass shooting issue under control. Even during periods where the overall crime rate and homicide rate have declined, the US's mass shooting rate has only gotten worse. In Australia, they did see a significant decrease in mass shootings when they implemented their new policy, it's not a matter of which definition for mass shootings you use, the fact of the matter is in the late 80s and early 90s they had a reoccurring problem with mass shootings, and when they took action on the matter they saw a significant decrease. I would consider a 70% decrease to be a pretty successful result, but in actuality what they saw was a significantly bigger decrease than 70%.

It's a simple cause and effect, if hand grenades were as accessible in the US as semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines, then they would become a common weapon used in these mass killings. It's not unconstitutional, or a double standard of principles on self ownership to say that civilians shouldn't have easy access to hand grenades.. and we're not even talking about implementing a policy as strict as our restrictions on hand grenades. We're talking about a simple process of licensing and screening, which isn't an outlandish idea, many countries are already doing it, and some of them have a very high gun ownership rate.

Regardless of whether you agree with the policy or not, it must be acknowledged that the US has a reoccurring problem where a single individual is able to go on these mass shooting sprees where they kill upwards of 15 to 60 people, and this keeps happening at a rate that is more frequent than anywhere else in the world. In other countries, only organized terrorist groups with connections and access to explosives and military grade weapons are able to do this kind of damage, but in the US a lone psycho with no connections can go on a mass killing spree with ease. We ought to be asking ourselves why the US is the only country in the world with this problem. Does it really have nothing to do with the fact that we give these psychos such easy access to these weapons? If it doesn't have anything to do with that, then what is causing this?

 

Well, disagree or not, obesity and alcohol consumption put others at more risk than stray bullets. Let’s do this. I’ll supply some information (data and studies) on how being obese harms others and then you can supply data and studies on harm from stray bullets and we will compare.

One major avenue of harm to others from being obese is automobile accidents. Here is a meta analysis and some pull quotes of studies on how obesity contributes to vehicular accidents.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...s-It-Driving-Us.pdf?origin=publication_detail

]

Another huge contribution obesity makes to non-self harm is in the realm of infectious disease. Obese persons were super spreaders of Covid.

https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/573221-The-3-Factors-That-Make-Someone-a-COVID-19-Superspreader/

But Covid is only a small part of this problem. Over 100;000 Americans die of influenza annually. And the obese are super spreaders of influenza as well.

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/218/9/1378/5051913

More on influenza and increased risk to the public from obese.

The above is responsible for much harm. Imagine the outrage if peer reviewed studies showed owning a firearm doubled the risk of having and automobile accident! The gnashing of teeth over innocent children killed in these accidents would be incessant. But accidents caused by obesity is no big deal. I’ll bet 99% of Americans don’t even know obesity puts others at great risk.

Now to the really harmful effects on others. The social contagion aspect.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/11/5/obesity-obese-people-social/

If you note the date of the link, it is from 2010. Notice the projection in bold. Guess what the obesity rate is today in the US? About 42.5%!

Here is another study.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsa066082

If we consider the statistic of 300,000 annual deaths from obesity in the US in the context of the above peer reviewed research, you can increase your friend’s chance of becoming one of those 300,000 by 57% just by being obese yourself!

More on obesity and all cause mortality.

Again, imagine if firearms were responsible for 300,000 US deaths annually! Imagine if 20% of all cause mortality was from stray bullets!

I’m open to all studies and data you have showing stray bullets do the same or more harm to others than obesity.

Which policies? You have mentioned Australia where AR-15’s are essentially banned and Switzerland where they are not. You say you support ownership but with licensing and registration. But in Australia you can only possess/buy an AR-15 if you can demonstrate you must have it for vertebrate pest/predator control, take multiple day training, wait a month, pay exorbitant price for the product, and only use it on your property. That’s a far cry from simple registration. Which are you advocating for?

If both Switzerland and Australia in your opinion are successfully limiting mass shootings with a magic policy, how can two very different policies have the same result?

If Australia had a spate of shootings in the 80’s and 90’s and the new laws stopped them, what stopped them previous to the spate of shootings in the 80’s and 90’s? Why are the mass shootings here in the US a recent phenomenon when semiautomatic and automatic firearms could be mail ordered in times past with no NICS check or anything ? If access is the cause of mass shootings why the lack of mass shootings at times semiautomatic and automatic weapons were more accessible than today?

Were there a lot of murders by hand grenade before they became regulated in the US? If grenades are “better weapons” than rifles or carbines” why are rifles and carbines used extensively in the military?

Di you know it’s far more difficult to obtain an AR-15 in Australia than a hand grenade in the US? You keep talking about how easy registration would be here but then you compare it to Australia where the process makes it impossible for anyone but those whose livelihood depend on an AR-15 to even apply for approval. I’m not sure what your intentions are at this point. You say you want only registration but then say something similar to Australia that has a de facto ban.

First, would you be surprised to learn that between 2009 and 2015 you would have been far more likely to be the victim of a mass shooting in many other developed nations than the US? Check this out. On a per capita basis the death rate from mass shooting was higher in several other countries. Isn’t actual deaths and death rates what we care about? Or not? Are you sure this can only happen in the US? I’ve posted in this thread about high body count mass stabbings in China. How can that be possible without terrorist connections?


I’ve spent quite a bit of time answering the question of what makes the US different in regards to violence in this very thread. Nobody cares about what makes Americans violent. There is only interest in removing one tool used by violent people. Until there is some interest in reducing violence there is no point trying to emulate countries like Australia with what amounts to bans on ownership.

Also, I’m not convinced it’s wise to take the authoritarian approach here. In Australia they are trying to curb gun violence in Sydney by allowing warrant-less searches on suspected demographics. Once you start granting government privileges of violating rights you eventually end up with a situation the 2A was written to address. You have to remember a large percentage of the US is still comprised of people bearing the genetics of individuals who came here to escape authoritarianism and have the ability to have private property. Cost/benefit analysis requires taking into account the damage to individuals and society that would result from punishment for non-compliance of a registration/licensing scheme in the US. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty certain a good share of firearm owners exercising a right today will not appreciate that same activity being a felony tomorrow when they have harmed nobody. Something to keep in mind. Would civil disobedience be allowed at the same rates it is for other social issues or would we end up with enforcement rates like we see with 4473 violations today with a 0.01% prosecution rate? If we see a higher enforcement rate for licensing than for current purchasing screening what would that mean? Would you accept a 0.01% prosecution rate for violation of licensing requirements you are advocating for here? What does the fact you are advocating for new restrictions when current restrictions are not enforced say about priorities? I don’t know…[/QUOTE]

 

Wouldn’t surprise me if he was a pot smoker too