The mass shooting today.

ml1 said:

The reality is that as much as right wing people like to talk about secession, it's not going to happen. Their city dwellers aren't likely to vote in favor of leaving the U.S. to become part of a new ultra-right wing country.

The states that seceded in 1860 did not hold referendums on the issue.  Most of the secession votes took place in secessionist dominated state legislatures and there were many amongst the general population who were dissatisfied with the outcome.  German settlers in Central Texas fought something close to a civil war inside the Civil War.

In any case, I don't think the US will vote to divide as much as it will simply fall apart. Do you think California would have submitted to Trumpist rule if the orange man had succeeded in overturning the 2020 election?

Jaytee said:

I think we don’t have the unity other countries have today. There’s a deep divide in America that is fracturing it beyond repair. So much hatred and animosity towards each other it’s frightening. 

Fair enough but I'm thinking there is something unifying about the fact that children are being killed. Isn't a mother in Tennessee feeling the same despair as the mother in Connecticut?  Conservative voters often were motivated by the issue of Roe v Wade. Now that it is overturned I thought the right to life voter might join with Dems to fight for the right to life for students. 

drummerboy said:

For one thing, the protests in Israel and France have very clearly defined goals. Like during Vietnam the goal was simply "Stop the war". It's easy for people to get behind that.

What exactly would be the goal of protests against mass shootings? Enactment of meaningless gun control laws? There has to be something that really fires people up as a solution to the problem. And I don't see anything like that.

400 million guns,

Our gun culture has so polluted us that there is no short term solution to the problem.

Other than repealing the 2nd amendment (which I wish more people would talk about) and starting over again, we're going to have to deal with this problem for many, many years.

I'm thinking that there must be some meaningful gun control laws. Someone stated in a discussion this morning that banning assault weapons would not stop all mass shootings but wouldn't it be worth it if it saved the children in this shooting.

I'm not saying that would be the one issue worth marching for. It would have to be a list of issues and I'd like to hear some of them that might be on the table.

I'm reading the article in Vox that you posted and stopped to think about the claim that 3% of our citizens own the majority of the weapons.

I'd like to find a source for as many suggestions as possible.

Sure we can all find fault with them, ( I refrained from using the phrase, "shoot them down") one by one, background checks, banning assault weapons, red flag laws etc. but somebody out there has ideas and we can't push them to the side because they were met with opposition before.

I'm going back to reading the article that you posted.

Morganna said:

Fair enough but I'm thinking there is something unifying about the fact that children are being killed. Isn't a mother in Tennessee feeling the same despair as the mother in Connecticut?  Conservative voters often were motivated by the issue of Roe v Wade. Now that it is overturned I thought the right to life voter might join with Dems to fight for the right to life for students. 

I wish I could share in your optimism but, in the 20 years since Columbine and 10 years since Newtown, things have only gotten worse. If this was going to happen, surely it would have happened after Parkland but polling in Florida indicates that support for Shooter's Rights has only increased since that atrocity.

The fact is that a vocal minority of Americans vehemently support Shooter's Rights and, under the US Constitution, the opinions of the majority aren't worth a hill of beans if they don't happen to live in a very specific set of tiny (population wise) states.

Yes, I know your legislative background is very different, making it more difficult to get quick action on gun/weapons reform. 
yes, I also understand that in our case 35 years is not quick reform action. However, the spark for current action is due to recent shocking incidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/03/australian-firearms-registry-in-sight-after-police-ministers-agree-to 
We do have a powerful shooters lobby, it’s even represented in federal parliament with its own political party. Some things need better ethical oversight, for communities to function safely. Ease of movement is one of them. 

GoSlugs said:

I wish I could share in your optimism but, in the 20 years since Columbine and 10 years since Newtown, things have only gotten worse. If this was going to happen, surely it would have happened after Parkland but polling in Florida indicates that support for Shooter's Rights has only increased since that atrocity.

I was late in sharing my enthusiasm (and optimism) when I saw the youth of Tennessee pouring into Congress to protest for gun control. Of course before I could open my laptop to type, my TV screen was flooded with the frustrating images of 2 of 3 Democrats, who joined the protest, being voted out of Congress.

So file my optimism under On Hold.

Morganna said:

I was late in sharing my enthusiasm (and optimism) when I saw the youth of Tennessee pouring into Congress to protest for gun control. Of course before I could open my laptop to type, my TV screen was flooded with the frustrating images of 2 of 3 Democrats, who joined the protest, being voted out of Congress.

So file my optimism under On Hold.

The US is on hospice care as we slide towards the inevitable abyss.  We should stop entertaining unfounded optimism and start preparing for whatever comes next.

GoSlugs said:

Morganna said:

I was late in sharing my enthusiasm (and optimism) when I saw the youth of Tennessee pouring into Congress to protest for gun control. Of course before I could open my laptop to type, my TV screen was flooded with the frustrating images of 2 of 3 Democrats, who joined the protest, being voted out of Congress.

So file my optimism under On Hold.

The US is on hospice care as we slide towards the inevitable abyss.  We should stop entertaining unfounded optimism and start preparing for whatever comes next.

How are you preparing for "whatever comes next"?

PS  I am genuinely interested.  As, I similarly see many storm clouds and squalls on the horizon.

It’s not a mass shooting, but I’m horrified at two recent US events: the young man shot when arriving to collect his 2 brothers (he was at the wrong address, but really??). And the young woman shot while still in her friend’s car as they used a driveway to make a U-turn to leave a narrow street:  again, what?? Who does that? Yells, and shoots, then tries to shoot at the police?!

https://abc7chicago.com/kansas-city-mo-shooting-ralph-yarl-wrong-house/13139470/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65307556

joanne said:

It’s not a mass shooting, but I’m horrified at two recent US events: the young man shot when arriving to collect his 2 brothers (he was at the wrong address, but really??). And the young woman shot while still in her friend’s car as they used a driveway to make a U-turn to leave a narrow street:  again, what?? Who does that? Yells, and shoots, then tries to shoot at the police?!

https://abc7chicago.com/kansas-city-mo-shooting-ralph-yarl-wrong-house/13139470/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65307556

Agreed, unfathomable behavior with horrifying consequences.  It would be interesting to see if these folks were sober when they acted.  Just horrible on every level. 

Well, one is in his mid-80s and apparently is known to be irascible. Here, that would make it quite difficult for him to own a gun in the first place.
 He shattered his glass front door; here, nasty people like him would sue the young man for breakage as it’s ‘he’s the reason I had to break it’.

Unbelievable. *shaking my head*

I used to wonder about societies that practice human sacrifice.  But then, I realized that we engage in human sacrifice on a grand scale on the alter of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't recall The Gun making an appearance in American Gods -- I don't know if Gaiman missed that, if it's a new deity, or if it's an old one in new form. It's a bloodthirsty one in any case.

The problem is that people are educated, by lobby groups and media and social influences, to see the use of a gun as a solution to a ‘problem’.

The fact is that the moment a gun comes into it, your problems are only just beginning.

Until people in the US stop seeing guns as the solution to a wide range of situations, nothing can possibly change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/24/instacart-delivery-driver-shooting-florida/

Is there any good faith reading of the second amendment that equates a right to bear arms with a right to shoot without consequences? Behavior like this should be criminal and should be prosecuted. The right to bear arms ought to imply a strong obligation to bear them responsibly.

PVW said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/24/instacart-delivery-driver-shooting-florida/

Is there any good faith reading of the second amendment that equates a right to bear arms with a right to shoot without consequences? Behavior like this should be criminal and should be prosecuted. The right to bear arms ought to imply a strong obligation to bear them responsibly.

Apparently, shooter has different set of facts.  Shooter alleges driver drove over his foot, driver drove erratically and driver drove at him.  Local LE agreed that both parties, driver and shooter, would not be charged ( as each party apparently had reasonable basis for their actions).

Most interesting to me is that a story with two sides can be so easily sensationalized merely by ommitting various facts.

PS I have problems with shooting at car tirez as that was driving away.

Link:  https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/actions-of-gunman-instacart-delivery-driver-justified-in-davie-shooting-incident-police/3019765/

Yeah, forgive me if I give less credence to the man shooting than to the guy just trying to do his job.

PVW said:

Yeah, forgive me if I give less credence to the man shooting than to the guy just trying to do his job.

LE who are on the ground at the scene made a determination regarding facts that is contrary to your version.  I believe that the sensationalized version of the facts (that you have adopted) played into your anti-gun/anti-2A bias.  IOW, you have powerfully demonstrated confirmation bias.   Thanks for the demo.

Yes, I definitely have a bias against irresponsible gun owners. And no, I don't trust the police to fairly and accurately report and respond to such situations. And there is an overwhelming mountain of examples to support this.

People looking for trouble will generally find it. What kind of person goes out into his front yard with a gun in the first place?

PVW said:

Yes, I definitely have a bias against irresponsible gun owners. And no, I don't trust the police to fairly and accurately report and respond to such situations. And there is an overwhelming mountain of examples to support this.

Who do you trust to fairly and accurately report the facts?

Most media have powerful incentives (namely, money derived from increased internet clicks) to sensationalize news.  Again, IMHO, the media's narrative is hooking you by playing into your bias.

RealityForAll said:

LE who are on the ground at the scene made a determination regarding facts that is contrary to your version. I believe that the sensationalized version of the facts (that you have adopted) played into your anti-gun/anti-2A bias. IOW, you have powerfully demonstrated confirmation bias. Thanks for the demo.

PVW linked to a news article that contains the shooter’s account and the police determination. He then asked a question and opined that the reported behavior — shooting at a car that was driving away, which you, too, “have problems with” — should be criminally prosecuted.

Where’s the sensationalism?

As a general rule, when one person has a gun and the other doesn't, I'll grant the person without the gun the greater benefit of the doubt. If one is going to claim the right to carry a deadly weapon, one must also bear the weight of that as well.

PVW said:

People looking for trouble will generally find it. What kind of person goes out into his front yard with a gun in the first place?

Excellent question!  DoIng so in NJ could cause legal trouble for the property owner.  Especially, if the firearm was unholstered and loaded, or the property owner stepped off his/her property.

As you know, laws regarding the use, storage, licensure and transportation  of firearms is primarily a state law issue.  My understanding is Florida is a stand your ground state (which does NOT envision the property owner retreating).

Different states have different rules, regulations and laws.  Which can be confusing and lead to different outcomes with identical facts.

I've shot guns before. Not especially powerful guns. Mostly when I was younger, in the context of Boy Scouts. Once or twice when I was younger out at a high school friend's farm (I grew up in the midwest). One thing that was always stressed in Scouts when handling firearms was responsibility and safety -- keep the safety on until you're ready to shoot, never point the gun at someone, always treat the gun as if it's loaded even if you think it's not.

I personally have no use for a gun. I don't hunt. I live in suburban NJ. I don't lead a lifestyle where firearms really make sense or are needed or are part of any of my hobbies. But I understand some people do. And we do have a place for firearms explicitly called out in our constitution. But I strongly believe that rights also come with responsibilities, and modern gun culture just seems ever more extreme and irresponsible. It's not just the mass shootings and the suicides, it's the underlying deference to and excusing of irresponsible gun usage and what I think can fairly be called second amendment idolatry. I just can't get into the mindset of someone who sees someone their impulse is to go out gun loaded and safety off. What is wrong with people that this is seen as a normal, defensible thing to do?

PVW said:

 If one is going to claim the right to carry a deadly weapon, one must also bear the weight of that as well.

You can just as easily assert that an uninvited guest should be wary when entering the private property of another.  Especially where the stand your ground law is applicable and you are uninvited. 

Driving towards the property owner (where property owner views such driving as a threat), running over property owner's foot and causing property owner to jump out of the way is the opposite of being wary.

If you're a delivery worker, your job is literally to approach the private property of strangers. Perhaps anyone with a gun ought to be required to have a sign posted warning that they are armed, and all service and delivery providers -- the postal service, Instacart, Amazon, etc -- should have a policy refusing to service such properties? Utility service will be difficult too, so maybe no water, power, or sewage service either? Let irresponsibly armed sit there in the dark where they are a threat to no one but themselves.

Of course, a lot of these states that have these reckless stand your ground laws also allow concealed carry, with ever fewer restrictions on permitting. So even just going through your day you have to be careful not to listen to music too loudly or just look suspicious to the wrong person, lest you get shot.

PVW said:

I've shot guns before. Not especially powerful guns. Mostly when I was younger, in the context of Boy Scouts. Once or twice when I was younger out at a high school friend's farm (I grew up in the midwest). One thing that was always stressed in Scouts when handling firearms was responsibility and safety -- keep the safety on until you're ready to shoot, never point the gun at someone, always treat the gun as if it's loaded even if you think it's not.

I personally have no use for a gun. I don't hunt. I live in suburban NJ. I don't lead a lifestyle where firearms really make sense or are needed or are part of any of my hobbies. But I understand some people do. And we do have a place for firearms explicitly called out in our constitution. But I strongly believe that rights also come with responsibilities, and modern gun culture just seems ever more extreme and irresponsible. It's not just the mass shootings and the suicides, it's the underlying deference to and excusing of irresponsible gun usage and what I think can fairly be called second amendment idolatry. I just can't get into the mindset of someone who sees someone their impulse is to go out gun loaded and safety off. What is wrong with people that this is seen as a normal, defensible thing to do?

All great points.  Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts.  What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.  I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet.  And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber.  Upon, seeing the shotgun,  and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled.  Police were called and invader arrested.

All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.