Other side is only interested in chaos. Never let a crisis go to waste.
7 Likes
Umm… have you thought about the effect on popularity of that person among their electorate?
1 Like
Like most things, you can’t let what other ppl think of you stop doing what is right and that’s the problem. Politicians don’t want to lose that honey sweet job of voting “present”.
3 Likes
Since the law didn’t stop him, it is an ineffective law. Since it prohibits only law abiding citizens, it is an infringement.
Yes, something needs to be done. I’m 100% on board with funding for mental health. If we could get to the root of what causes a person to do something like this, maybe we could have a better preventative measure. All while understanding that all the prevention in the world, won’t stop someone hell bent on committing an act like this.
To the question of “what if 3/4 of the parade goers were armed”, I’ll give my opinion. I would like to believe, as the gunshots started, at least one armed citizen would have shot back. Maybe even found a way onto that roof, and engaged the killer.
9 Likes
…
I’m wondering if attacker would even think about confrontation knowing the most of people at Parade was armed.
Bad and crazy people with guns can be stopped only with good people with guns… There’s no Law that
can stop bad people from doing bad things…
Unfortunately we found the statement “politics is a bi#%h” to be true again… 
5 Likes
Exactly. We don’t just accept any other type of mental illness. We have numerous psychiatrists, etc., all trying to help those with other forms of mental illness, but this type of mental illness is today viewed as “normal”(?!).
4 Likes
When Charles Whitman went on his rampage, it was the combined efforts of law enforcement and armed citizens that ultimately brought him down.
4 Likes
Old good times…
4 Likes
It’s not your fault. We’re all in this together.
Just because one specific law did not stop him does not mean that law does not have value or should not exist. Why “throw the baby out with the bathwater”?
So you’re saying “a law ought not to exist because it doesn’t stop 100% of murders?” Which laws should we do away with?
“You won’t give up your rights?”
My rights are not for me to give up or keep, my rights are given to me by others, by the public/society, influenced by referendums, voice of others, and legislators. I don’t live in a vacuum.
Whoever said “previous laws that they enacted, that they said would stop this kind of thing”; Was wrong. Even worse for whoever believed it. They were not made to stop all 100% of harm or violence by firearms, they were made to mitigate them, and they do, in therein lies part of their worth.
“Why should a new round of the same laws do any different”? Is that not another generalization? So, are you saying no new laws, or no changing of the laws? Sorry, but that just does not sound logical to me.
What exactly is it that you are proposing, no FOID, no permits, no age limits, no background checks, more similar to that time period of 1700 to 1900?
Some persons who do have background checks are indeed denied/rejected; I even saw it happened to someone at the gun-shop on one of my visits. Lots of FFL Dealers here on these pages.
One other idea might include a thorough review of how he slipped through the cracks, and try to fill more of those gaps, including enforcement.
I read that he stated homicidal ideation in 2019. I don’t know yet what exactly happened to him thereafter. But 911 should have been called, then he taken to an ER, then the healthcare staff should have reported him to the state FOID bureau. Then we he applied for FOID, or if he had one, that department could have canceled or denied his FOID, and or when he tried to purchase, the state should have denied him. I myself, used to be a mandated reporter.
That process works, I’ve seen it work, but there are a lot of moving parts.
I try not to complain that laws do not work, because if I do, “You know who” will make laws stricter, but I think it goes way beyond laws, it is multifaceted, and there is no easy answer.
So far, nothing being proposed would prevent me from owning firearms, or ammo and a wide array. Therefore, I’m biased, what is bothering folks, what would they lose, won’t just/good citizens still be able to bear arms? If you pass the background checks, then what do you have to be afraid of? Why on earth would you ever lose your firearms?
I look at the photo of the two young parents of a 2-year old, who were killed on Independence Day; Reports read that this shooter stated he drove to WI to conduct another mass shooting the same day, they found another rifle with him in his car, but it was unclear why he changed his mind.
Could a law have actually helped here?:
Maybe a law helped catch him, and helped prevent him from more killings?
Reports indicate “he identified through surveillance video and by tracing the gun he left at the scene”. It was laws, ideas, and a system which went into having video (CCTV), and gun tracing.
Some cities help residents and businesses pay for CCTV’s. Not everything has to be a law, but a program, a system, process in place that can help. It will never be 100% fool proof, but “necessity is the mother of invention”.
I don’t view making changes as an inconvenience. As a firearm owner, I value life. I used to work with gunshot wound victims, paraplegics, quads, and have family and friends who sustained such wound as well.
My concern is that there needs to be more freedom for us to conceal carry in more places; but outside of that, I’m not worried of losing my right because fortunately I’m mentally sound, and have a passing criminal background check. I don’t need more than 10 rounds in a rifle. Don’t even need a rifle other than a one-shot bolt for hunting. I’m good.
I think it’s sad shooters like Mr. “Crimo” who are the hurting our cause more than even the anti-gunners per se. It’s surreal, even his name, just too odd. Can’t make this up.
When you say “We find that the perp was known to law enforcement. In but a few rare occasion, the perp purchased his weapons legally”; Sorry kind Sir, but what is your point?
Violent shooter had a prior run in with police, no surprise there. A few purchased legally; So what about that are you trying to say?
Someone should have caught it and done something about it? Some obtained firearm illegally, some legally, ok so what; Maybe it needs to be tackled from all side, just not sure where you are going with that.
“Another shooter specifically stated that he chose his target due to the heavy gun control, as they wouldn’t oppose him during his crime”; So your point is???
I heard some great ideas in other posts, about how to address violence related to firearms. Why in heaven are people still gathering like this in large groups? It’s 2022, we are the most free country when it comes to firearms. Thinking outside the box is not a new concept.
Loosen gun control, so more people can have guns, so to scare him away? Your solution is even more guns? U.S. has more firearms per person than another other country.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe we have mass shootings because it’s too easy to obtain?
I already know you and others don’t want sacrifice more of your rights. It’s on 99% of the posts here.
I woke up, and realize I have to share this country with another half whom I disagree with; But I also agree with the other half. I realize that no matter how much I want something, it’s not for me to decide, but others will help decide for me, whether I like it or not.
Still, there are some specific areas in firearm rights that I do feel more strongly about, and I certainly will do what I can so that we do not lose some of those rights. I’m not completely one-sided, especially in the end.
It’s gotten pretty drastic out there with the criminal shootings. I’m surprised things aren’t worse for us right now. I feel blessed. Just my two cents.
You know what they say about opinions, everybody’s got one. Once someone starts to say something as though it is fact, true for all, that they are right, that comes off as too subjective, as though they speak for all, and hard to me to even pay attention, and I can’t pay attention or read on. One loses me. One hint is when they do say “I think, I feel”.
I think we kinda gotta share this world with others. I need others from the other side to listen, so I want to be careful, not to push them away if I want their ear. If I want change to go a little more my way, I need them. Humility goes a long way.
I’m far from a military tactician, but to me, no matter how many good guys had guns, that mass shooter had the upper hand. I also wonder if even if good people started shooting back, how in the heck would any one distinguish good guys from bad? I just have a tough time thinking that more armed citizens at that parade would have stopped him. Seven deaths and 47 injured.
To compare the Highland Park incident to another, I get it, but maybe the scenario was different, position, etc. Lot of moving parts and risks there. High risk for “friendly fire”.
Wondering though, where all of these mass shootings just as bad before the Spring of 2020? I noticed that was when there was more turmoil including Corona Virus, and protests around violence towards African Americans. Then we saw the highest number of firearms sales ever. I among them.
Do you all think that rise in sales caused the increase in mass shootings? IDK. Looking to you all.
On a positive note, beneath all this I think I have more in common with you all, as I keep coming back. No love lost. Stay safe.
Inalienable rights are not given by anyone, save God. They are not up for a vote, referendums, nor legislative action, aside from their guaranteeing against infringement.
No, the laws have not done that, neither are laws written to mitigate anything. Laws are written to provide punishment for acts that are counter to what the law declares can be done, whether or not the law is Constitutional, just, moral, etc.
And were those people actually criminals or just mis-identified? As these stats show, only those that can pass background checks get them, bar the extraordinarily rare few. Here is some information to digest or ruminate on:
| Fiscal Year 2017 | |
|---|---|
| Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) | |
| Firearms Denial Cases Investigated and Prosecuted | |
| Federal NICS Transactions | 8,606,286 |
| Denials | 112,090 |
| ATF Field Division Investigations | 12,710 |
| United States Attorney’s Offices Prosecutions | 12 |
These abysmal results came at what cost? In 2021 the number of background checks has almost tripled. How much of our money was spent checking backgrounds? Do you not believe that money could have been better spent on things that would actually provide additional safety, such as school safety, etc.?
And when the legislators decide you do not need that, are you still good?
You want more freedom to carry in more places, yet many of the laws being passed to “make us safe” increase the number of places where one cannot carry. Passing a background check does not make one mentally sound. Furthermore, those that are seeking to deny our rights believe that firearm owners are insane because in their mind we own firearms because we want to kill people.
So as long as you are not inconvenienced, passing laws that deny others rights is acceptable? Will you be upset when it inconveniences you? What about when you are determined to be a prohibited person?
I am not afraid. Why would you lose your firearms? Because a law was passed making those arms illegal. “Good citizens” will not be able to continue to “bear arms” when that has been made excessively difficult and expensive. Have you not read about what NYS is proposing now that their law on who is “allowed” a CC license/permit has been overturned by the SCOTUS? It is already very expensive and difficult to obtain a firearm in NYS. They are going to increase the hurdles and further limit where one is “allowed” to carry to the point where a law-abiding citizen will not be able to carry in public due to all the restricted areas.
But you seem to be quite naive. You need to delve deeper into your proposals and research what is occurring in other states.
Which did not prevent the crime.
We all value life, hence the reason we believe in self-defense. Preventing or limiting the means of self-defense does not make us safer - your victims bear that out. Not likely they were shot by people obeying the current laws, but more laws that further restrict our rights, those same people will follow?
The vast majority of them are owned by old, wealthy white men. For example, have you ever seen the Petersen collection at the NRA museum? What is on display is only a mere fraction of his collection, and that is only one old, wealthy white guy. Should we pass laws making it even more difficult and expensive to own firearms? Ever heard of the Jim Crow laws? Minorities and women have the lowest rates of firearm ownership, but that’s okay because you have yours.
Because that solution has proven not to work based on all the laws that have already restricted our rights.
So you will just submit to becoming a prohibited person because “others” helped you decide that?
Let me know which ones those are so I can lobby against those, while you lobby against the rest of ours. It seems you need some pain to understand why we will not submit.
7 Likes
I hope to never get on your bad side! 
You are truly a man of unparalleled wisdom.
Go ahead and read the very good reply that @Dave17 posted.
He says pretty much what I wanted to and much better than I could.
5 Likes
You lost me at
Maybe where YOU come from, or want to be.
I am a Citizen of America, land of the free (And home of the brave).
Ever heard of inalienable rights? (These are not laws, as laws are written by mankind)
- To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).
- To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free.
- To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)
- To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.
- To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.
- To worship—or not worship—God in the manner one chooses.
- To associate with—or disassociate from—any person or group.
- To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media.
- To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy).
- To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.
- To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
- To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.
- To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
- To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment.
- To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
- To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.
7 Likes
You cannot eradicate EVIL, even if you were to take away everyone’s guns.
You only keep the people that would fight back from having a reasonable chance.
Ever hear of a guy named Jim Jones? He killed over 900 people (1/3 of them, children)
DON’T DRINK THE KOOLAID.
4 Likes
Japan does not allow its citizens to own guns, with tiny exceptions. Yet, someone just shot former Prime Minister with this.
6 Likes
@Elza1 and @Wolfwalker, I appreciate the kind words.
1 Like
Once you allow the Government to take a right or a freedom away it becomes VERY difficult to get them back. Further if you allow Government to make decisions on these types of things they will take away your AR-14s, and also your AUTOMATIC 9s which according to Biden blow the lung right out of your body, these are the people you want deciding your freedoms?
5 Likes
That is precisely the point here, what is legal today could be deemed illegal tomorrow.
All it takes is one or two election cycles and you can go from Tea Party to Barry Obama. The brilliance of our fore fathers to take some things out of law and place them as rights is on full display here. Those that would say “Maybe just a little bit…” don’t seem to understand the difference between what is a God Given right and the fickle laws of man.
4 Likes
There is a whole generation that doesn’t think this way and considers it being racist. I am a free person which means I can associate with whomever I wish or not. I don’t have to like every person or race. I only have to understand that my rights end where theirs begin and vice-a-versa.
5 Likes
if I’m following the story correctly, Abe was/is not the current PM but a former elected one.
2 Likes