and nothing but crickets from the big tough 2nd Amendment folks on the DS. Color me surprised!

Walked into a conference room yesterday and they were debating I1639. Got on FB yesterday evening and they were complaining about I1639 comparing vehicular accidents to gun deaths.

A very sad night in LA. Sounds like the suspect had mental issues. Ex Marine and had been evaluated for mental health issues. I heard the magazine that was used was illegal in California.

I don't think the Constitution writers imagined semi automatic and automatic weapons.

What laws could have prevented this?

He was using an illegal magazine, so that law did not help.

So you need a law that says all veterans who served in combat loose their second amendment rights because they could pose a risk to society. This would have to be the case because all veterans who served in combat have PTSD or have experienced PTSD.

In fact your just going to have to outlaw everybody who has had a traumatic experience from possessing guns because all of them have experienced PTSD.

Every cop, every fire fighter, every ambulance worker and every ER doctor and nurse, everybody who has ever been in a traumatic event or witnessed one will have to have their 2nd amendment rights revoked because any of them could pose a risk to society.

You need to evaluate everybody on an annual basis who owns firearms to make sure they are fit to possess them.

The truth is you could do all of these things and it would have no impact on mass shootings, homicide or suicide with guns.

If someone is going to do something like that sometimes they show warning signs and sometimes they don't. Its like when someone wants to actually kill themselves they don't tell anybody they just do it. If someone wants a gun legal or not they can get one and use it, no law would prevent these shootings.

The only thing what would work is if they removed the 2nd amendment and destroyed all guns in America, then people would use knives or shovels instead to do mass killings.

They also didn't imagine the internet..

So you can send your response with a fvckin carrier pigeon....

I'm your Huckleberry. Let's rap. What's on your mind eddie?

Nick, what I'm looking for is to have the NRA et al. come to the table with something other than "We need more guns" or "We need to enforce the laws already on the books". It appears the latest shooter is another person who got their gun legally, had no prior criminal record and his first crime was mass murder. We have had at least 23 deaths in the last two weeks that we know of that fits this description, there probably are more that didn't make the National news. As Hank points out, 1639 will do nothing to eliminate this problem. But, it passed in a landslide because there was no alternative. In the absence of anything from the gun activist community, the general population will reach the proper and inescapable conclusion that the gun activists care more about the right to keep and bear arms than they do about people's lives. That is a position that will lead to more and more 1639's. So, what have you got, or do you want to be the victim of the population that quite frankly finds the gun activist communities position wrong?

Edwardo,
The government is completely ignorant towards implementing or enforcing the laws on the books already.

Read here idiots:
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local...e/281-612381518

It goes without saying there are laws against owning the mags the shooter used.
Did it stop him????
Nope.
Why??
Because the employees sucking the government tittt only care about getting a check for doing nothing.

Passing more laws is laughable.
Not to mention laws are for lawyers and pussies.

Someone should have been packing and shot him between the eyes.
Unfortunately he had to do it himself because the criminal was the only one packing.

Harden the soft targets and these pukes will just go jump off a bridge instead.

WDFW and Hankster have illustrated my point. WDFW wants more guns, the only problem with that is that the more guns will be in the hands of law abiding citizens who got their guns legally and are one bad day away from becoming a mass murderer. Hank, people do something because doing nothing means that more people will die and that is not acceptable to the majority of the population.

How will you come to grips with this? If you do nothing, it sends the message that the right to keep and bear arms is more important than people dying from gun violence. You may not want to face this fact, but the majority of people find that to be a ridiculous position. So, they do something, not effective, but something. Eventually they will get to the point where they say "The 2nd Amendment needs to be modified or eliminated". If you can't see this arc, you aren't paying attention.

What I find interesting, (if that's appropriate in cases like these) is, if there are soooo many guns out there, why is no one shooting back? I mean, you rarely hear of anyone returning fire? The assailant is in a crowded venue and is firing for minutes, and the victims are hiding. Is there no one in any of these places with a carry license that can engage the perpetrator? Just doesn't seem plausible with "so many guns on the streets". In a lot of these shootings, as soon as law enforcement engages the shooter, he turns the gun on himself. Perhaps if someone immediately returned fire, it would save lives. Also, by returning fire, gun advocates could enforce the argument that guns are needed for self protection. Just saying...

What do mentally ill people, that plan on committing mass murder, have against country music?

Las Vegas and now this.

Forget guns.

Time to make country music illegal.



A Sheriff deputy was killed in the line of duty as he stepped in to the place to stop the attack. He was armed, gun drawn, and in the ready. And he failed.

Why do you think an armed person, not paying any attention whatsover to a "potential mass shooting situation", having a good time, drinking, playing some pool, dancing, would do any better after someone fires off a high capacity magazine in to the crowd? That armed person is either dead and nevers realized a bullet cracked them in the brain, or was truly smart at got the fvkc out of there ASAP. No one walks in to a bar expecting to come across a mass shooting, nor is anyone in that bar prepared, at that moment, to do anything other than follow a basic survival instinct.

It's a falicy to believe that more armed people in this bar would have changed the ultimate outcome. Every last firearms instructor, tactical or otherwise, will tell you the same thing. If you don't know it's coming, there's really very little you can do about it or have anything in your control.

Only Donald Trump (or Chuck Norris) could have been in that bar and would have shot that dude in the head the second he drew our brought out his Glock. The Don has said so himself, many a time.



Wow. That's about the dumbest thing anyone could have said.

Really?

How about this - for all the liberalness you preach, vote for, and pretend to be, tell me what Washington, which is a huge liberal state, as a massive homeless, mentally ill, and heroin/drug problem?

Why does a state, which has one of the better economies in the nation, absolutely SUCK at taking care of thier own citizens?

Maybe ever consider that all of these mentally ill people running around, that are getting NO HELP WHATSOFVCKING EVER, are the ones also running around committing these acts of crime?

OH wait, they are.

And Washington and the rest of the nation is doing NOTHING for them.

Sure, blame the guns. I'm sure it makes you sleep well at night. Hypocrite.

". . . it sends the message that the right to keep and bear arms is more important than people dying from gun violence."

And there you have it Eddie. For a lot of gun rights advocates, in a nation with an annual average of 30,000 firearm deaths, mass shootings are a statistical outlier, and just a sad and tragic part of the cost of freedom in gun-stoked America.

The best estimate I have read is that universal background checks, organized and managed in a federal database might reduce gun violence by up to 2%. Coordination between mental health care and law enforcement might reduce it by another 5 to 10%, depending on what "coordination" means and results in. The upshot (no pun intended) is that in a nation of 360 million Americans with over 300 million firearms, gun related violence and death will occur. Period. That ain't gonna' change without outright gun seizures nationwide. Feel-good legislation isn't going to feel good for long when it is obvious that it doesn't prevent and significantly reduce gun violence.

Excellent synopsis Paker. No wonder you are the chosen one.

Yeah, if only there were a bunch of drunk college kids with guns in that bar, all I see is positive outcomes from this.

As long as gunowners answer every question with "more guns", then the rest of society will make rules for us. This is just the beginning.

You can choose to be part of the solution, or you can choose to continue being part of the problem...just don't whine about the problem when you are part of causing it.

I didn't vote for this initiative, and I am pretty sure that a lot of it will be found unconstitutional, in any event...but the next one may not be.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. The perception that gun rights are more important than peoples' lives is out there because for many, it's the truth.

On Facebook, the shooter posted a chilling final message about gun control and how 'prayers and tears' were not enough to stop atrocities such as the one he committed. "Yeah.. I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'.. or 'keep you in my thoughts'... every time... and wonder why these keep happening." If we pass gun control, he wins. Glad to see you are on the same page as the shooter, Eddie. This was an act of political terrorism to further gun control and the victims were presumed by the shooter to be conservatives because they were at a country music concert. Are you really going to take the words of the mad man who shoots people as important? I'm not, just like I'm not going to take mad men like Eddie's words as important either.

This happened in the most gun regulated state, he used a handgun not an "assault rifle." You would literally have to ban guns in their totality to be any stricter. Even then criminals would still choose to keep theirs while everyone else turns them in. Yet again, the obvious problem here is mental health. But, it will be blown off for more gun control marches and other bullsh!t. Why didn't all those tough bans in CA stop this guy from legally buying a handgun in CA AFTER police had been called out to check his mental health? You live in a fantasy world. Even if magically you eliminated all guns on the planet, then a guy with a kitchen knife will kill a room full of unarmed people.

Banning guns, always leads to more violence:
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/383...g-homicide-rate
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2...cides-on-record
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-guns-20180524-story.html

Your fairy-tale story will never happen. Death is part of life. Cigarettes, cheeseburgers and hammers each kill more people than firearms. You’re more likely to die in a work related accident than a victim of random gun violence. You’re welcome to leave the country (since you aren't a real American anyway, Eddie). The laws aren’t changing because of your feelings. Freedom isn’t free, fa99ot. There is risk, there is responsibilities. Innocent people die early all the time and will continue to. Wolves will always exist and sheep will always be preyed upon. If you want to live in a world where the docile masses are kept like sheep in a pen, content to graze on the rations allotted to then by the shepherd, go do that somewhere else. This is America, the land of the FREE AND home of the BRAVE.

The problem isn't "gun violence" it's violence, not the gun. The tool is not violent, it is the person wielding it. Focusing autistically on the tool distracts from the real issues (mental healthcare, criminal gangs, etc.) causing the violence. Getting stabbed to death doesn't make you any less dead.

There is always the simple simpleton's solution to end gun shootings and that is more gun regulation.

First off, nobody is arguing FOR automatic weapons, nice straw-man. But let's imagine what the founders intended.

I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founders intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the Gov'ner?" as I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, but it misses entirely due to smooth bore and it hits my neighbors dog. I run to the top of the stairs to my black powder cannon loaded with grapeshot. "Tally ho lads!" I cry out as the grape shot shreds two men to pieces. The sound and extra shrapnel set of car alarms all over the neighborhood. Fix bayonet to musket and charge last terrified rapscallion while shouting "Take this scallywag!" He bleeds out waiting for the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. I look up at the American Flag waving from my flagpole and a tear comes to my eye. All just like the founders intended.

Then again, freedom of the press only applies to printing presses that were available to the founding fathers. You can't have these high capacity semi-automatic printing presses just printing out entire books at the push of a button. Also, you can't just have a guy type something out and send it around the world on the internet, he should have to stamp it out page by page on an old school printing press and hand out flyers on the street corner like Thomas Paine. Just like the founders intended. People shouldn't be allowed to advocate 2nd Amendment restrictions online, only if they are using a 1700's printing press, otherwise freedom of the press doesn't apply right? The founders never would have imagined the internet to let dumbfvcks like you annoy people online would they?

Parker, you may believe that my statement is dumb, that's your right. However, twice is the last 2 weeks a law abiding citizen having gained their guns legally have become mass murderers. I'm of the belief that any mass murderer is mentally ill, but somehow these guys slipped through the cracks. Clearly the tool (the gun) is not the total cause, but just as clearly the tool contributes to the cause.

One of the reasons that I am a gun control advocate is that I have lived in a country that had such strict gun control that even the cops didn't carry guns. Was it a non-violent society? Not in any way imaginable. But, it was generally a non-fatal society when violence occurred. And for all those 2nd Amendment folks that talk about hammers, knives, cars, and cheeseburgers, those facts are pretty pesky things. And it makes you look stupid in the eyes of the people. Todd is right, this arc is unmistakable. We will see more of 1639 type laws until finally they get to the point of tackling the 2nd Amendment. If you as gun owners want to influence the decision, you best come to the table. If not, you will be the victims of the majority.

And your solution is? …….

Clearly this is your preference, so move back. Why try and ruin our country when this is our preference?



But those facts are facts, so how do they make me look stupid when all violence (not just gun violence) is not even in the top 10 killings of Americans and these other things are?



The tyranny of the majority will be violently resisted by the majority of gun owners. That is why we have guns to resist government tyranny, from an elected majority. Problem with you is that you are too dumb to hold within your mind a concept of what it would take to disarm America. If the political will actually existed to do it, AND if you could somehow muster the numbers of men it would take to ransack every home in America. Not only do we not have the number of willing men to do it, but even if we did, the absolute devastation of civil war and the bloodbath that would ensue would likely not even result in disarmament even if their side somehow won.

Steele, you have finally said something I can agree with. The genie is way out of the bottle, the confiscation of guns in this country is likely never going to happen. So, what is your solution? Are you willing to add a life sentence without the possibility of parole for any crime committed with a gun? And are you willing to pay for that? What is your answer? I don't believe that the majority of gun owners are going to take to the streets and fight the Government, but you might be right. It will be a very one-sided fight, but like you said with knives, dying with moral correctness still leaves you dead.