• Want to add an app icon for this forum to your mobile device's home screen? Check out this thread to see how.
  • Have an event you want to share? Check out the new forum event calendar and how-to use it in this thread here.
  • To both new members and existing members, please read this thread about posting your topics in the correct sub-forum. It makes my job (and my life) a lot easier!

One week, three mass shootings?

OP
Westtown Willy

Westtown Willy

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
796
Location
West Chester, PA, USA
Look at the Las Vegas shooter who killed all those people. The FBI dug really deep into that guys past and couldn't find one single thing about why he did it or what his motivation was.

Last I remember reading, no one around him said he displayed any traits or characteristics of a guy who was about to go kill all those people. One day he just apparently decided to go do it.

My point being that even rigorous background checks and psych evaluations can't prevent all of this stuff.
Chris, I don't think anyone is naive enough to think any measure will prevent all of this. There's always going to be that guy (really those guys) that literally slips under every imaginable radar; the Vegas type will be the first guy in the hypothetical post-2nd Amendment "gun free" America that'll still show up with a fully automatic machine gun & mow down a crowd for sure. But don't forget they're not all like that, plenty of them shoot up red flags all over the place before hand, no pun intended.

What changed?
shit if we knew that no one outside of northern California (& some serious foodies elsewhere) would've ever heard of a town called Gilroy, much less Columbine, Sandy Hook....

It's amazing as I sit here & think about these little corners of our country that'll forever be known for the massacres that occurred there. Kinda fucked up isn't it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris

chino1969

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
562
Location
Oxford, PA
I get that in a perfect world, anyone who owns a gun would have a rigorous background that includes lots of data to support the decision to grant or restrict the right. (I.e. something like @chino1969 describes having gone through).

But I don't think it's incredibly realistic to expect that this can be done for everyone in the U.S. There's just too many people without enough measured background on mental health, warning signs, etc. to be able to make the decision in many cases, nor could the quality of check being done for armed professionals be kept up when applied to the full population of citizens who aim to own a gun.

I mean, this is why I'm not surprised that so many of the previous mass shooters have plenty of overlooked warning signs that were missed by current background checks and are uncovered when swarms of journalists decide to investigate.

Seems to me the most common sense solution would include:
1) Making the sale of rapid-fire designed guns that are designed to perform well beyond what any reasonable hunter would need, illegal on a federal level(outside of for military/police use). Experts on gun models and such should decide which guns fall in this category, of course.

2) Fund efforts to remove illegal guns from black markets and give current legal owners of rapid-fire weapons a chance to turn in their weapons for a reasonable compensation.

3) Standardize background checks on all levels and have them apply to any situation where guns are sold (I.e. include gun shows and such. Not just gun stores). Background checks may not be perfect, but if we're going to do them, we might as well do them right.

I'm sure this argument would still be highly opposed in the U.S., but until there's either some great suggestion from gun-rights advocates that would actually make a meaningful change to gun violence without restricting ownership rights, this is the best we've got.

I mean, compare what our situation is to the U.S. to what happens in Australia when a maniac wants to go on a killing spree:

(This "terrifying carnage" in Australia ended with 1 dead and 1 injured. The attacker was restrained by a group of people who were armed with nothing but a milk crate, lol.)
Item #1 was tried with The U.S. Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 when it was allowed to fade into oblivion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
 

Equilibrium31

TJ Addict
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
1,073
Location
Burnsville, MN, USA
Compare those numbers during the 50's, 60's or 70's. Hell, most of us grew up watching westerns where the gun settled many disputes and there was a clear cut line between good and bad. Mattel and other toy manufacturers sold cap guns like The Fanner Fifty and Greenie Stickum Caps were the cat's ass. Many of us had BB guns or pellet guns by the age of 12 and a .22 LR semi auto like the Marlin Glenfield or similar before the age of 16. So what in the hell changed in our culture/society since that time? Gun stores at the time were stocked with every type of weapon imaginable. The Ruger Mini 14 was introduced in the early 70's and has as much lethality as any AR platform, being semi auto, chambered in .223 or 5.56, along with the capability to accept 30 round magazines. The Mini 14 was originally advertised as a handy gun to have in the pick up truck to dispatch unwelcome critters on the farm or ranch. What changed?
What hasn't changed between then and now?

Item #1 was tried with The U.S. Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 when it was allowed to fade into oblivion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Yea, there's not a huge difference in overall homicides as many of those studies show, but the death toll of mass shootings definitely seems to be higher since that law was removed.
1565722832538.png


Kinda sounds like a contradiction, but when you consider that mass shootings are a relatively small portion of the deaths that come from gun violence, it makes sense why trying to track down how much of an effect a law that only really helps reduce deaths in mass shootings would change for overall gun deaths.
Although mass shootings are covered extensively in the media, mass shootings in the United States account for only a small fraction of gun-related deaths.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States


So, even if there is a real efficacy to any assault gun type ban, it's relatively small in the overall landscape of gun violence since so much of gun violence is from smaller scale homicides and such. I'm assuming that we probably agree on this. However, the events themselves are so graphic and have such a big impact on the communities where these mass shootings occur, I'd say that the benefit is still larger than the raw body count would imply since these events make a big impact to the communities where they occur, leaving many with PTSD and similar trauma and others with a general distrust of overall safety.

Considering that these types of guns are only really needed by private citizens for recreation, I don't know that I really see why we shouldn't restrict them.
 

Sundowner

Gold, Sarajevo, '84.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
1,091
Location
Republic of Dave
Considering that these types of guns are only really needed by private citizens for recreation, I don't know that I really see why we shouldn't restrict them.
Should that same theory be applied to other things that are used by private citizens for recreation, and that are misused by irresponsible and/or malicious people to cause harm? Alcohol, cars that can drive faster than the speed limit, etc, etc? How does restricting my rights solve the problem if I'm not the problem?

Also, I'd argue that the media focus on mass shootings is highly counterproductive to solving gun violence issues; it obscures the other issues due to the perceived severity, and those issues continue to go unresolved while likely adding to the overall difficulties.
 

Equilibrium31

TJ Addict
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
1,073
Location
Burnsville, MN, USA
Should that same theory be applied to other things that are used by private citizens for recreation, and that are misused by irresponsible and/or malicious people to cause harm? Alcohol, cars that can drive faster than the speed limit, etc, etc? How does restricting my rights solve the problem if I'm not the problem?

Also, I'd argue that the media focus on mass shootings is highly counterproductive to solving gun violence issues; it obscures the other issues due to the perceived severity, and those issues continue to go unresolved while likely adding to the overall difficulties.
Well, the same theory is already applied to these things, right? To be able to drive a car, you need to pass a driving test and get registered with the government. If you're found at risk (get a DUI, go blind, are involved in vehicular manslaughter etc.), your driving license can be revoked. Some types of cars are also entirely restricted from street use (ex. you can't take an F1 car out on the highway).

With alcohol, there's plenty of laws and restrictions around who can consume it, how they can consume it, where they can consume it, etc. More extreme recreational drugs are entirely outlawed, so even if someone was able to smoke crack in their home by themselves without hurting anyone else, it's still illegal.

Is that really so different from guns?

I mean, our laws aren't entirely rational since intoxication with alcohol is much more likely to result in physical harm or death than someone who just smoked a joint, but there's a cultural element around what we as Americans feel is acceptable that plays a role as well. Pot is (or at least has been) seen as much more taboo than alcohol and regardless of actual facts, was seen as more harmful, so it's been more harshly regulated. Alcohol on the other hand is so ingrained as part of our culture that the attempt to make it fully illegal completely backfired.

I think that's why the U.S. could never pull off the level of gun laws that Australia implemented. Trying to make guns completely illegal would entirely backfire, regardless of how many lives politicians believed it would save. But there is some room for restrictions that could put some limits on use beyond what we currently have without going to that sort of extreme, right?


Oh, and definitely agreed with your point on the media. But the trauma impact on these communities is still massive, even without the 24/7 coverage on headline news networks. News networks just spread the hysteria further, but they always will on stories like that. Check out the way that news network talked about that knife attack in Australia that I linked earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sundowner

Baltimoreed

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
226
Location
Aurora, NC
You ask ‘what changed since the 60s or 70s?’, the internet has changed everything in America and in the world. In the 60’s you could go to the public library or bookstore if inclined to get a copy of Mein Kamph or any other extreme religious or political diatribe but today you don’t need to go anywhere or spend a dime, just click your mouse to be exposed to 100x more evil than any book because it’s in real time with real people talking just like we are. Without giving away our fundamental rights there is no easy fix other than better mental health screenings [thorough background checks] and for the average American to become armed, as trained as possible and responsible for his/her and their families safety. Ultimately we don’t know who the bad guy is until he identifies himself by killing or attempting to kill his first victim. Law enforcement response has improved and they don’t stand around waiting anymore but they can’t be everywhere. It’s only the fake ones that get tricked by the feds and get caught beforehand.
 

Sundowner

Gold, Sarajevo, '84.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
1,091
Location
Republic of Dave
Well, the same theory is already applied to these things, right? To be able to drive a car, you need to pass a driving test and get registered with the government. If you're found at risk (get a DUI, go blind, are involved in vehicular manslaughter etc.), your driving license can be revoked. Some types of cars are also entirely restricted from street use (ex. you can't take an F1 car out on the highway).

With alcohol, there's plenty of laws and restrictions around who can consume it, how they can consume it, where they can consume it, etc. More extreme recreational drugs are entirely outlawed, so even if someone was able to smoke crack in their home by themselves without hurting anyone else, it's still illegal.

Is that really so different from guns?

I mean, our laws aren't entirely rational since intoxication with alcohol is much more likely to result in physical harm or death than someone who just smoked a joint, but there's a cultural element around what we as Americans feel is acceptable that plays a role as well. Pot is (or at least has been) seen as much more taboo than alcohol and regardless of actual facts, was seen as more harmful, so it's been more harshly regulated. Alcohol on the other hand is so ingrained as part of our culture that the attempt to make it fully illegal completely backfired.

I think that's why the U.S. could never pull off the level of gun laws that Australia implemented. Trying to make guns completely illegal would entirely backfire, regardless of how many lives politicians believed it would save. But there is some room for restrictions that could put some limits on use beyond what we currently have without going to that sort of extreme, right?


Oh, and definitely agreed with your point on the media. But the trauma impact on these communities is still massive, even without the 24/7 coverage on headline news networks. News networks just spread the hysteria further, but they always will on stories like that. Check out the way that news network talked about that knife attack in Australia that I linked earlier.
You hit the nail on the head as I had hoped: "our laws aren't entirely rational" is the perfect way to say it. And yes, certain cars are restricted and you have to pass basic tests in order to drive...and that's entirely acceptable to our culture, and a very wise idea...but people still drive without a license all the time. And no, we don't allow the F1 cars you mentioned on public roads, but the people that own high-end cars aren't going to do that...just like the people that own high-end guns aren't the ones that are taking them out and fucking around with them at someone else's expense. As always, the problem is the people that just don't give a fuck about anyone else, and whom have no problem causing havoc at anyone else's expense. Same goes for alcohol, which is just as ingrained in our culture as guns are...but the difference is that we recognize the user to be the problem with alcohol. Or with reckless driving. Or with anything else that's a problem due to misuse. This issue has NOTHING to do with availability, because anyone can walk into a store and buy a gallon of cheap vodka or a keg of beer or a car that can drive fast enough to kill anyone that gets in the way...or a cheap, throwaway gun... and they can do terrible things with any of those. Reduce access all you like, and the problem will still exist. I'm not saying that we should do nothing about it; I'm saying that we need to understand before we act...and actually get some rational laws for once.
 

Equilibrium31

TJ Addict
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
1,073
Location
Burnsville, MN, USA
You hit the nail on the head as I had hoped: "our laws aren't entirely rational" is the perfect way to say it. And yes, certain cars are restricted and you have to pass basic tests in order to drive...and that's entirely acceptable to our culture, and a very wise idea...but people still drive without a license all the time. And no, we don't allow the F1 cars you mentioned on public roads, but the people that own high-end cars aren't going to do that...just like the people that own high-end guns aren't the ones that are taking them out and fucking around with them at someone else's expense. As always, the problem is the people that just don't give a fuck about anyone else, and whom have no problem causing havoc at anyone else's expense. Same goes for alcohol, which is just as ingrained in our culture as guns are...but the difference is that we recognize the user to be the problem with alcohol. Or with reckless driving. Or with anything else that's a problem due to misuse.
Agreed with what you said pretty much up to this point. It's always the assholes and criminals that fuck up things for the rest of us.
1565731581493.png


This issue has NOTHING to do with availability, because anyone can walk into a store and buy a gallon of cheap vodka or a keg of beer or a car that can drive fast enough to kill anyone that gets in the way...or a cheap, throwaway gun... and they can do terrible things with any of those. Reduce access all you like, and the problem will still exist. I'm not saying that we should do nothing about it; I'm saying that we need to understand before we act...and actually get some rational laws for once.
You are right that there will always been ways around laws and restrictions, but that doesn't mean those laws are entirely useless. They don't *fix* the problem. What they do is keep that problem from being worse.

I mean, look back at the chart from the assault weapons ban.
1565731754783.png


That ban clearly didn't fix the problem. There were still a lot of mass shootings and I'm sure many of them involved the use of assault weapons obtained illegally. However, after that law was repealed, the problem got worse.

And I think that's all people like me really expect from gun laws. Not a solution to the problem, but at least something to keep things from getting worse.
 
OP
Westtown Willy

Westtown Willy

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
796
Location
West Chester, PA, USA
Should that same theory be applied to other things that are used by private citizens for recreation, and that are misused by irresponsible and/or malicious people to cause harm? Alcohol, cars that can drive faster than the speed limit, etc, etc? How does restricting my rights solve the problem if I'm not the problem?

Well, the same theory is already applied to these things, right? To be able to drive a car, you need to pass a driving test and get registered with the government. If you're found at risk (get a DUI, go blind, are involved in vehicular manslaughter etc.), your driving license can be revoked. Some types of cars are also entirely restricted from street use (ex. you can't take an F1 car out on the highway).

You left out the even more common, for example ‘cars that can drive faster than the speed limit’ (which is all of them except maybe TJs :) ARE restricted by 1001 traffic signs. Go too fast, get a ticket, don’t stop where you’re supposed to, get a ticket, stop where you're not supposed to…. Pile up a stack of tickets & your ticket to drive gets pulled for a period of time.

But on the flip side we’re really not even comparing appropriate fruit here. There are precious few things on this planet that rise to the level of a fundamental right found in & guaranteed by the constitution, guns just happen to be one of those few while things like cars & guitars & booze & on & on & on are decidedly not, none of those things have the protections afforded to guns from a constitutionally protected strict scrutiny standpoint anyway.

This is such a fascinating topic.
 

chino1969

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
562
Location
Oxford, PA
What hasn't changed between then and now?


Yea, there's not a huge difference in overall homicides as many of those studies show, but the death toll of mass shootings definitely seems to be higher since that law was removed.
View attachment 109752

Kinda sounds like a contradiction, but when you consider that mass shootings are a relatively small portion of the deaths that come from gun violence, it makes sense why trying to track down how much of an effect a law that only really helps reduce deaths in mass shootings would change for overall gun deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States


So, even if there is a real efficacy to any assault gun type ban, it's relatively small in the overall landscape of gun violence since so much of gun violence is from smaller scale homicides and such. I'm assuming that we probably agree on this. However, the events themselves are so graphic and have such a big impact on the communities where these mass shootings occur, I'd say that the benefit is still larger than the raw body count would imply since these events make a big impact to the communities where they occur, leaving many with PTSD and similar trauma and others with a general distrust of overall safety.

Considering that these types of guns are only really needed by private citizens for recreation, I don't know that I really see why we shouldn't restrict them.
here are many recreational activities
You hit the nail on the head as I had hoped: "our laws aren't entirely rational" is the perfect way to say it. And yes, certain cars are restricted and you have to pass basic tests in order to drive...and that's entirely acceptable to our culture, and a very wise idea...but people still drive without a license all the time. And no, we don't allow the F1 cars you mentioned on public roads, but the people that own high-end cars aren't going to do that...just like the people that own high-end guns aren't the ones that are taking them out and fucking around with them at someone else's expense. As always, the problem is the people that just don't give a fuck about anyone else, and whom have no problem causing havoc at anyone else's expense. Same goes for alcohol, which is just as ingrained in our culture as guns are...but the difference is that we recognize the user to be the problem with alcohol. Or with reckless driving. Or with anything else that's a problem due to misuse. This issue has NOTHING to do with availability, because anyone can walk into a store and buy a gallon of cheap vodka or a keg of beer or a car that can drive fast enough to kill anyone that gets in the way...or a cheap, throwaway gun... and they can do terrible things with any of those. Reduce access all you like, and the problem will still exist. I'm not saying that we should do nothing about it; I'm saying that we need to understand before we act...and actually get some rational laws for once.
I could not have framed my response any better than you just have.
 

chino1969

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
562
Location
Oxford, PA



You left out the even more common, for example ‘cars that can drive faster than the speed limit’ (which is all of them except maybe TJs :) ARE restricted by 1001 traffic signs. Go too fast, get a ticket, don’t stop where you’re supposed to, get a ticket, stop where you're not supposed to…. Pile up a stack of tickets & your ticket to drive gets pulled for a period of time.

But on the flip side we’re really not even comparing appropriate fruit here. There are precious few things on this planet that rise to the level of a fundamental right found in & guaranteed by the constitution, guns just happen to be one of those few while things like cars & guitars & booze & on & on & on are decidedly not, none of those things have the protections afforded to guns from a constitutionally protected strict scrutiny standpoint anyway.

This is such a fascinating topic.
Great response.
 

chino1969

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
562
Location
Oxford, PA
What hasn't changed between then and now?


Yea, there's not a huge difference in overall homicides as many of those studies show, but the death toll of mass shootings definitely seems to be higher since that law was removed.
View attachment 109752

Kinda sounds like a contradiction, but when you consider that mass shootings are a relatively small portion of the deaths that come from gun violence, it makes sense why trying to track down how much of an effect a law that only really helps reduce deaths in mass shootings would change for overall gun deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States


So, even if there is a real efficacy to any assault gun type ban, it's relatively small in the overall landscape of gun violence since so much of gun violence is from smaller scale homicides and such. I'm assuming that we probably agree on this. However, the events themselves are so graphic and have such a big impact on the communities where these mass shootings occur, I'd say that the benefit is still larger than the raw body count would imply since these events make a big impact to the communities where they occur, leaving many with PTSD and similar trauma and others with a general distrust of overall safety.

Considering that these types of guns are only really needed by private citizens for recreation, I don't know that I really see why we shouldn't restrict them.
My point about asking the question 'what has changed between earlier decades and now' requires a deeper philosophical, cultural and spiritual answer, not yet another ineffective law to placate the emotional side of the issue.

I always marvel at some of our high performance sports cars available to anyone. Does anyone need a Porsche capable of reaching 160 mph when max. of most speed limits do not exceed 70 mph?

A group of law abiding gun owners who have a Constitutional right to own these weapons should not be restricted by the actions of crazed individuals. Solve the problem by curing the disease. This is what our lawmakers should be focusing on.
 

chino1969

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
562
Location
Oxford, PA
Well, the same theory is already applied to these things, right? To be able to drive a car, you need to pass a driving test and get registered with the government. If you're found at risk (get a DUI, go blind, are involved in vehicular manslaughter etc.), your driving license can be revoked. Some types of cars are also entirely restricted from street use (ex. you can't take an F1 car out on the highway).

With alcohol, there's plenty of laws and restrictions around who can consume it, how they can consume it, where they can consume it, etc. More extreme recreational drugs are entirely outlawed, so even if someone was able to smoke crack in their home by themselves without hurting anyone else, it's still illegal.

Is that really so different from guns?

I mean, our laws aren't entirely rational since intoxication with alcohol is much more likely to result in physical harm or death than someone who just smoked a joint, but there's a cultural element around what we as Americans feel is acceptable that plays a role as well. Pot is (or at least has been) seen as much more taboo than alcohol and regardless of actual facts, was seen as more harmful, so it's been more harshly regulated. Alcohol on the other hand is so ingrained as part of our culture that the attempt to make it fully illegal completely backfired.

I think that's why the U.S. could never pull off the level of gun laws that Australia implemented. Trying to make guns completely illegal would entirely backfire, regardless of how many lives politicians believed it would save. But there is some room for restrictions that could put some limits on use beyond what we currently have without going to that sort of extreme, right?


Oh, and definitely agreed with your point on the media. But the trauma impact on these communities is still massive, even without the 24/7 coverage on headline news networks. News networks just spread the hysteria further, but they always will on stories like that. Check out the way that news network talked about that knife attack in Australia that I linked earlier.
Australia does not have anything similar to our 2nd Amendment and neither do any of the countries who have enacted sever gun laws, restrictions or confiscation; big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Equilibrium31

Sundowner

Gold, Sarajevo, '84.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
1,091
Location
Republic of Dave
I mean, look back at the chart from the assault weapons ban.
View attachment 109778
Does anyone else see what I see, there? A steady rise that's unaffected by the laws, and which is punctuated by particularly violent years. If I'm being objective, I have to admit that it looks like the laws in place both before and after the Ban are just as ineffective as the ban itself, because the problem has continued unabated. I'm not so sure that I want more policy-making that's as ineffective as what I see in that graph.
 

chino1969

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
562
Location
Oxford, PA
Does anyone else see what I see, there? A steady rise that's unaffected by the laws, and which is punctuated by particularly violent years. If I'm being objective, I have to admit that it looks like the laws in place both before and after the Ban are just as ineffective as the ban itself, because the problem has continued unabated. I'm not so sure that I want more policy-making that's as ineffective as what I see in that graph.
I am seeing the same as you.
 

Equilibrium31

TJ Addict
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
1,073
Location
Burnsville, MN, USA
You left out the even more common, for example ‘cars that can drive faster than the speed limit’ (which is all of them except maybe TJs :) ARE restricted by 1001 traffic signs. Go too fast, get a ticket, don’t stop where you’re supposed to, get a ticket, stop where you're not supposed to…. Pile up a stack of tickets & your ticket to drive gets pulled for a period of time.

But on the flip side we’re really not even comparing appropriate fruit here. There are precious few things on this planet that rise to the level of a fundamental right found in & guaranteed by the constitution, guns just happen to be one of those few while things like cars & guitars & booze & on & on & on are decidedly not, none of those things have the protections afforded to guns from a constitutionally protected strict scrutiny standpoint anyway.

This is such a fascinating topic.
Yea, the constitutionality is really at the heart of the gun culture. America was founded at a time when a civilian population with muskets was about as powerful as the military was and that made the American Revolution possible. Technology has changed, but that founding belief in the strength of the gun is still very strong.

This is where you get into the cost/benefit side of gun laws. If the benefit of gun laws is decreased deaths from mass shootings, then the cost is freedom in ownership. The weight of cost vs benefit here will be much different for everyone, depending on where they stand. I have a bias in this because I don't plan on owning a gun and I've seen family hurt from ownership, but there's plenty people here with a much different experience and that's certainly just as valid.

However, if you really see the constitutionality as being inherently opposed to any sort of gun legislation, then any law that restricts any citizen from owning a gun is technically in the wrong. I mean, if a 12 year old buys an AR-15 from Walmart and puts it in their backpack to take to school, that should technically be perfectly legal from that perspective. However, if you see any line where there should be *some* restriction to ownership, then it's less about how laws are against the constitutional right and more about *which* laws you think are against the right to bear arms.

Either way, agreed that it's a very interesting topic.

Does anyone else see what I see, there? A steady rise that's unaffected by the laws, and which is punctuated by particularly violent years. If I'm being objective, I have to admit that it looks like the laws in place both before and after the Ban are just as ineffective as the ban itself, because the problem has continued unabated. I'm not so sure that I want more policy-making that's as ineffective as what I see in that graph.
I am seeing the same as you.
Really? Because the numbers from that graph disagree with that perception. Feel free to recreate this if you want, as the full data is apparently downloadable from the source (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/).

But here's that same graph running only through 2004, when the assault ban ended. If you pop in a trend line, your linear equation is Y = -0.0771x + 12.316, which means you have a slope that's technically negative.

1565738967015.png


It's not until you add in the years after the bill expired that you see a positive slope (y = 1.3456x - 2.8095):

1565739068055.png
 
OP
Westtown Willy

Westtown Willy

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
796
Location
West Chester, PA, USA
However, if you really see the constitutionality as being inherently opposed to any sort of gun legislation, then any law that restricts any citizen from owning a gun is technically in the wrong. I mean, if a 12 year old buys an AR-15 from Walmart and puts it in their backpack to take to school, that should technically be perfectly legal from that perspective. However, if you see any line where there should be *some* restriction to ownership, then it's less about how laws are against the constitutional right and more about *which* laws you think are against the right to bear arms.
I don’t see the constitutionality as being inherently opposed to any sort of gun legislation, because it’s simply not. That is not now nor has it been how constitutional rights are interpreted. There is no right contained in the constitution that is limitless/not subject to restriction and review. When I mentioned guns as the most sacred of rights it’s just that, the most sacred because it’s considered a fundamental right, one given by the Constitution (despite the belief of many, myself included, that it’s even stronger than that as an inalienable right but that’s another story). The constitutional implication for fundamental rights is simply this, if the government wants to restrict one the law must withstand strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny the Supreme Court can apply to a legal analysis. Rather than me butchering the other standards of review, what they require & how they differ I’ll copy the well written description from Wikipedia which comports with my recollection of con law class many moons ago & it goes like this:

...the term "standard of review" has an additional meaning in the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, which concerns how much deference the judiciary should give Congress in determining whether legislation is constitutional. Concerning constitutional questions, three basic standards of review exist: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. This form of standard of review is sometimes also called the standard or level of scrutiny.

The levels of scrutiny go from lowest to highest

Rational basis

Generally, the Supreme Court judges legislation based on whether it has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest
. This is called rational basis review. For example, a statute requiring the licensing of opticians is permissible because it has the legitimate state objective of ensuring the health of consumers, and the licensing statutes are reasonably related to ensuring their health by requiring certain education for opticians. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955).

Intermediate scrutiny

Under the Equal Protection Clause, when the law targets a "quasi-suspect" classification, such as gender, the courts apply intermediate scrutiny, which requires the law to be substantially related to an important government interest. It is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny.

Here’s the big one:

Strict scrutiny

If a statute impinges on a fundamental right, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights or the due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the court will apply strict scrutiny. This means the statute must be "narrowly tailored" to address a "compelling state interest."

To really drill down & understand how high a standard Strict Scrutiny is you’d have to read decisions written by the Supreme Court. Even still, despite the belief of many, the right to bear arms most certainly is subject to limitation and restriction provided that laws that do so meet strict scrutiny. This is precisely why you don’t see M1 Abrams Tanks parked in driveways in Florida, or machine gun turrets sticking out of every rooftop as might otherwise be the case in Texas. Yea that was a lame joke, I know some people in Pennsylvania that would have a tank and a turret if it were feasible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Equilibrium31

Equilibrium31

TJ Addict
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
1,073
Location
Burnsville, MN, USA
I don’t see the constitutionality as being inherently opposed to any sort of gun legislation, because it’s simply not. That is not now nor has it been how constitutional rights are interpreted. There is no right contained in the constitution that is limitless/not subject to restriction and review. When I mentioned guns as the most sacred of rights it’s just that, the most sacred because it’s considered a fundamental right, one given by the Constitution (despite the belief of many, myself included, that it’s even stronger than that as an inalienable right but that’s another story). The constitutional implication for fundamental rights is simply this, if the government wants to restrict one the law must withstand strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny the Supreme Court can apply to a legal analysis. Rather than me butchering the other standards of review, what they require & how they differ I’ll copy the well written description from Wikipedia which comports with my recollection of con law class many moons ago & it goes like this:

...the term "standard of review" has an additional meaning in the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, which concerns how much deference the judiciary should give Congress in determining whether legislation is constitutional. Concerning constitutional questions, three basic standards of review exist: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. This form of standard of review is sometimes also called the standard or level of scrutiny.

The levels of scrutiny go from lowest to highest

Rational basis

Generally, the Supreme Court judges legislation based on whether it has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest
. This is called rational basis review. For example, a statute requiring the licensing of opticians is permissible because it has the legitimate state objective of ensuring the health of consumers, and the licensing statutes are reasonably related to ensuring their health by requiring certain education for opticians. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955).

Intermediate scrutiny

Under the Equal Protection Clause, when the law targets a "quasi-suspect" classification, such as gender, the courts apply intermediate scrutiny, which requires the law to be substantially related to an important government interest. It is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny.

Here’s the big one:

Strict scrutiny

If a statute impinges on a fundamental right, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights or the due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the court will apply strict scrutiny. This means the statute must be "narrowly tailored" to address a "compelling state interest."

To really drill down & understand how high a standard Strict Scrutiny is you’d have to read decisions written by the Supreme Court. Even still, despite the belief of many, the right to bear arms most certainly is subject to limitation and restriction provided that laws that do so meet strict scrutiny. This is precisely why you don’t see M1 Abrams Tanks parked in driveways in Florida, or machine gun turrets sticking out of every rooftop as might otherwise be the case in Texas. Yea that was a lame joke, I know some people in Pennsylvania that would have a tank and a turret if it were feasible.
Well damn, if I was president you'd be on my list for Supreme Court nominee, haha!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jamison C and Chris

Sundowner

Gold, Sarajevo, '84.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
1,091
Location
Republic of Dave
One small point:

The Construction does not grant rights; it protects rights that we possess outside of its existence.
 

Squatch

Master Thread Derailer
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
4,950
Location
Everett, Wash, United States
Regarding public reporting: dangerous tactic, my friend. Given the realities of our society, that will turn into the next iteration of revenge-porn. Someone pisses you off and you know they have guns? Report 'em. Even if it goes nowhere, they've taken a hit; personally, I wouldn't want to see that happening.
Well said! (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: chino1969