Mother Mistakes Daughter for Intruder, Shoots and Kills Her.

[franklin]

Why does America have such a uniquely high violence rate? Additionally, what policies are conservatives bringing forth to reduce these gun violence rates? I would love to hear of some concrete examples

I fixed that for you.
Kids...

 

[Stoked]

Actually this is changing some things. Some federal agencies will now start (they had not before) contributing info to a list on who is prohibited from purchasing, owning or transporting a firearm.

 

[Bronco70]

I have no problem with the concept of mandating or expanding background checks and/or training wherever possible. That being said...

There are far too many guns already in circulation to hope that tightening up background checks at gun shows will solve the problem. This is a warm fuzzy measure calculated to make you believe the gov't is trying to protect you. If someone wants a gun for nefarious purposes, there are plenty of outlets. But gun violence is merely a symptom of the problem.

Life in the USA is not what it was 20 years ago. We have become, collectively, an angry people. We are not only easily offended, but we seem to actively seek out reasons to be so. We cannot say anything disparaging about anyone, ever, even if our intent was not malicious. So now every kid grows up learning that anyone who disagrees with them is their enemy, and that they should be enraged if they sense anything that could possibly be disrespect. When everyone is angry, bad things happen.

Learning to get along and respect each other despite our differences would go a long way toward solving this problem. Much further than these knee jerk gun control actions.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[BabyPeterzz]

BP, are you aware that anyone in the business of selling firearms already has to run background checks, even at gun shows? Are you aware that people who make a portion of their living off firearms sales but who do not have an FFL are already breaking the law and are routinely prosecuted? Are you also aware that even with this new law I could set up a booth at a gun show and sell firearms without conducting background checks?

The new law is incredibly weak and vague. The private sell loophole (AKA gun show loophole) has not been closed. This was a dog and pony show and for some reason you see it as a win.

Yes, I know it's not perfect. But ideological shifts start with ideological acts. The fact that all gun control legislation has been dead on arrival, since the Brady Act and The Assault Weapons Ban, shows that even small gestures like these EA's are just the beginning. He's moving the ball, even if it's just a yard, and it's more than what's been done in over 10 years.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I have no problem with the concept of mandating or expanding background checks and/or training wherever possible. That being said...

There are far too many guns already in circulation to hope that tightening up background checks at gun shows will solve the problem. This is a warm fuzzy measure calculated to make you believe the gov't is trying to protect you. If someone wants a gun for nefarious purposes, there are plenty of outlets. But gun violence is merely a symptom of the problem.

Life in the USA is not what it was 20 years ago. We have become, collectively, an angry people. We are not only easily offended, but we seem to actively seek out reasons to be so. We cannot say anything disparaging about anyone, ever, even if our intent was not malicious. So now every kid grows up learning that anyone who disagrees with them is their enemy, and that they should be enraged if they sense anything that could possibly be disrespect. When everyone is angry, bad things happen.

Yeah, and gun laws have nothing but loosened over those 20 years and look at where we are. We've never tried tightening things up, and some are so against it off principal they won't even entertain the alternative. All I'm hearing is "This is not the solution because it doesn't fix the problem, so don't do it." So what is the solution? Doing absolutely nothing? Removing more restrictions? War hawks have a lot in common with gun advocates, they refuse to acknowledge history, even stuff that's happened less that 10 years ago.

Learning to get along and respect each other despite our differences would go a long way toward solving this problem. Much further than these knee jerk gun control actions.

Sure, but let's be realistic here. Which one is more likely to happen and produce any result? I'll bet on the latter.

 

[Bronco70]

Yeah, and gun laws have nothing but loosened over those 20 years and look at where we are. We've never tried tightening things up, and some are so against it off principal they won't even entertain the alternative. All I'm hearing is "This is not the solution because it doesn't fix the problem, so don't do it." So what is the solution? Doing absolutely nothing? Removing more restrictions? War hawks have a lot in common with gun advocates, they refuse to acknowledge history, even stuff that's happened less that 10 years ago.



Sure, but let's be realistic here. Which one is more likely to happen and produce any result? I'll bet on the latter.

You must have missed the first paragraph of my post. I forgive you.

I'm not opposed to tightening up the system, but it doesn't address the root of the problem. I don't believe it's an either/or situation. We can try to make it more difficult for bad people to get guns, but it isn't going to make much difference if we're okay with everyone continuing to hate each other.




Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Gameface]

Yes, I know it's not perfect. But ideological shifts start with ideological acts. The fact that all gun control legislation has been dead on arrival, since the Brady Act and The Assault Weapons Ban, shows that even small gestures like these EA's are just the beginning. He's moving the ball, even if it's just a yard, and it's more than what's been done in over 10 years.

So based on this I can only assume that to you "common sense gun regulation" means any regulation that moves the ideological needle towards greater gun control.

 

[Miggs]

The best advice I've been fortunate enough to receive is that you should not "clear" your house. Absolutely get to you children and make sure they are safe. Then get them all to a safe area. In your case the upstairs was safe. Now, call police and remain in a position between any possible threat and you children. If noises happen insist they present themselves. That's it. Be in the best possible defensive position and be ready to defend that position. It's your house. You know the choke points, you know the fatal funnels. Use that information to your advantage, don't give an inch, but don't throw the hail mary pass, either. This is not a do or die situation. It's your house. Your home court. Make them try to beat you. They can't!

Not preaching. I think you did far better than most would have in the situation. And I'm not saying I would have been someone who would have done better. Sitting at my computer I can analyze in a way I couldn't in real life. I would want to know what was making the noise. I would want to check everything out so that I could go back to sleep. I'm not a pro. I'm not an expert. I express my opinions here but they are just that. I'm not a firearms authority. I don't own any firearms. I sold all mine because it's a responsibility I don't want to bare. I prefer drinking to worrying about bumps in the night,

I do not own a gun but have often thought about how I'd handle a situation should I recognize an intruder is in my house and I have to say, this advice is pretty much exactly what I would do.

I would go immediately tell my wife to call 912 while I go across the hall, get my daughter, bring her into our bedroom, close and lock the door, and then hand her off to my wife as I push the armoire in front of it to act as another line of defense. That could all be done in less than 10 seconds.

Don't get me wrong. I'd have a strong urge to take matters into my own hands. I'd have a desire (and fear too while doing so) to go downstairs and confront the intruder and beat the ever living **** out of him. But I wouldn't, not because I don't have a gun, but because of the unknown and the unnecessary risk it's putting me and my family in. The example of what I said I would do pretty much completely shields me and my family from any harm and hopefully would help result in a capturing of the perpetrator by police. But playing superhero could result in me being shot and killed and the scumbag them coming upstairs to do the same to my wife, child and dog. To everything precious to me in my life. Armed and trained or not, I still wouldn't know what I'm walking in to. And while I understand the desire to fight back and stop this type of thing from happening to not just you but anyone else as well, it's imo a foolish approach.

 

[fishonjazz]

Life in the USA is not what it was 20 years ago. We have become, collectively, an angry people. We are not only easily offended, but we seem to actively seek out reasons to be so. We cannot say anything disparaging about anyone, ever, even if our intent was not malicious. So now every kid grows up learning that anyone who disagrees with them is their enemy, and that they should be enraged if they sense anything that could possibly be disrespect.

This

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Yeah, and gun laws have nothing but loosened over those 20 years and look at where we are. We've never tried tightening things up, and some are so against it off principal they won't even entertain the alternative. All I'm hearing is "This is not the solution because it doesn't fix the problem, so don't do it." So what is the solution? Doing absolutely nothing? Removing more restrictions? War hawks have a lot in common with gun advocates, they refuse to acknowledge history, even stuff that's happened less that 10 years ago.



Sure, but let's be realistic here. Which one is more likely to happen and produce any result? I'll bet on the latter.

I would bet that the president's actions have caused a surge in gun sales. Was that the intended consequence? It certainly seems like an easy one to predict.

Gun education programs seem like a good step in the right direction. Does anybody think that inner city kids grow up with healthy ideas about guns? Think about the television they watch, the video games they play, the violence they are surrounded by (especially if gangs play a role in their neighborhood). Bronco's ideas seem productive. The president's actions do not. That's just me.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I do not own a gun but have often thought about how I'd handle a situation should I recognize an intruder is in my house and I have to say, this advice is pretty much exactly what I would do.

I would go immediately tell my wife to call 912 while I go across the hall, get my daughter, bring her into our bedroom, close and lock the door, and then hand her off to my wife as I push the armoire in front of it to act as another line of defense. That could all be done in less than 10 seconds.

Don't get me wrong. I'd have a strong urge to take matters into my own hands. I'd have a desire (and fear too while doing so) to go downstairs and confront the intruder and beat the ever living **** out of him. But I wouldn't, not because I don't have a gun, but because of the unknown and the unnecessary risk it's putting me and my family in. The example of what I said I would do pretty much completely shields me and my family from any harm and hopefully would help result in a capturing of the perpetrator by police. But playing superhero could result in me being shot and killed and the scumbag them coming upstairs to do the same to my wife, child and dog. To everything precious to me in my life. Armed and trained or not, I still wouldn't know what I'm walking in to. And while I understand the desire to fight back and stop this type of thing from happening to not just you but anyone else as well, it's imo a foolish approach.

Remember, though, in the scenario described that started this conversation there was no actual intruder. Now you're upstairs rearranging the furniture and your wife is calling a phone number (912) that goes nowhere (which I guess at least saves the embarrassment of having the cops show up to discover that you are on high-alert protecting your family from the wind).

 

[Miggs]

Remember, though, in the scenario described that started this conversation there was no actual intruder. Now you're upstairs rearranging the furniture and your wife is calling a phone number (912) that goes nowhere (which I guess at least saves the embarrassment of having the cops show up to discover that you are on high-alert protecting your family from the wind).

I'm sure a ton of 911 calls are false alarms and I'd rather risk embarrassment than me or my family's life.

 

[fishonjazz]

I would bet that the president's actions have caused a surge in gun sales. Was that the intended consequence? It certainly seems like an easy one to predict.

Gun education programs seem like a good step in the right direction. Does anybody think that inner city kids grow up with healthy ideas about guns? Think about the television they watch, the video games they play, the violence they are surrounded by (especially if gangs play a role in their neighborhood). Bronco's ideas seem productive. The president's actions do not. That's just me.

Solid post

 

[BabyPeterzz]

So based on this I can only assume that to you "common sense gun regulation" means any regulation that moves the ideological needle towards greater gun control.

I thought the fact that this is an ideological issue was obvious, so any movement either way would be an ideological shift.

 

[Gameface]

I thought the fact that this is an ideological issue was obvious, so any movement either way would be an ideological shift.

Okay, so I will disregard the brow beatings over being unwilling to accept reasonable regulation as disingenuous.

 

[Stoked]

What do you all think about the feds now compiling info from multiple federal agencies to expand/create a "no fly list" for guns?

 

[Gameface]

What do you all think about the feds now compiling info from multiple federal agencies to expand/create a "no fly list" for guns?

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Stoked]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Hidden in all the Executive Actions is a requirement for federal agencies to supply "relevant info" to an FBI database. That database is used to identify who cannot buy, own or transport a weapon. The Executive Action increased the number of agencies that are contributing info. Basically a "No Fly" list for guns.

What is unknown is what the threshold to make that list is. So either this Executive Action increased that list (what I believe) or created it (I think it already existed).

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Okay, so I will disregard the brow beatings over being unwilling to accept reasonable regulation as disingenuous.

I would say its the anti-gun control's inability or lack of will to accept reasonable regulation is what has made this an ideological issue instead of a common sense policy issue, much like other wedge issues in this country. Just because the issue is politicized not does excuse inaction, in fact its made federal intervention a requirement at this point since one side refuses to come to the table.

 

[Bronco70]

What do you all think about the feds now compiling info from multiple federal agencies to expand/create a "no fly list" for guns?

I have no problem with this premise, if the intent is to more easily identify persons who are not allowed to possess firearms. I might have a problem with who decides how, when and why to "expand" it. If there is a firm set of reasonable criteria, fine. If it's any more subjective or arbitrary than that, not fine.


Sent from the JazzFanz app