We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[Blue Jays]

"...Not particularly. His gun ownership led him to escalate the situation, place himself in further danger, and kill a 14 year-old. There's nothing positive to take from this outcome..."

Incorrect.
The six assailants (armed with knives) who sought to victimize an elderly man got themselves charged with murder.

"...You think a 14 year old boy deserved to die for trying to steal a car?..."

Incorrect.
He died because he and his fellow knife-wielding criminals advanced towards the elderly man rather than fleeing.

They arrived in a stolen vehicle and later led police on a high-speed chase.
They were apprehended after a foot chase when their stolen vehicle ran out of fuel.

[murphy]

Incorrect.
He died because he and his fellow knife-wielding criminals advanced towards the elderly man rather than fleeing.

Oh so they should have fled instead of the old man? He gets to escalate the situation by bringing a gun outside with him when he thinks people are stealing his car, but they should have fled? Until he went outside (towards them) with a gun, he wasn't in any danger.

[Blue Jays]

The 75 y.o. elderly man heard a noise. He walked onto his front porch.
He is allowed to be armed in his own house. The half-dozen armed thug youths opted to confront him.

The smart criminal should use that golden opportunity to jump into their other stolen car and flee.
Do you think the six youths with knives had good intentions for the old man? Why carry knives while stealing cars?

[murphy]

The elderly man heard a noise. He walked onto his front porch.
He is allowed to be armed in his own house. The half-dozen armed thugs opted to confront him.

The smart criminal should use that golden opportunity to jump into their other stolen car and flee.
Do you think that the six youths gripping knives had good intentions for the old man?

He opted to confront them and escalate the situation when he walked out with a gun. He didn't call the police, he walked out with a gun. A smart homeowner would call the police, lock and barricade multiple doors and make sure themselves and their family is safe rather than getting closer to criminals in the middle of a felony. You seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions about how this went down. One knife was found and only two of them were walking towards this old man, but yeah keep saying thugs and paint pictures of all of them gripping knives.

[davids]

regarding a drop in gun deaths...me, too. absolutely, me too. but...i believe there are <1,000 deaths due to long-guns each year. of that, in 2017 ~550 were d/t AR's specifically. that is a little over 3.5% of all homicides, and roughly 1.5% of all firearm deaths of any kind. banning / re-shaping AR's will hardly dent these #'s. the intentions are great, but

davids: somehow, no matter how i try to express myself (lack of eloquence?), you and other take the stats and issues i raise as some way to try and deflect from gun violence - that somehow i'm trying to convince you gun deaths are trivial in relation to other risky behaviors. truly i am not. i'm trying to gauge how we in society, and more specifically the good folks in this forum, are willing to react to any given issue in order to try and change a societal behavior and move towards a more desired outcome (using enforced legislation and taxes, for example) how far are we willing to go on this issue (or other risky behaviors) in terms of bans, laws, taxes is pretty telling to me in how we react to something on an emotional level, rather than a more logical approach.

i'll try one more approach to see if this resonates: in the environmental and wildlife protection world they used to have a phrase called "the fusby effect". why was it that pandas and lions and other cute cuddly animals got all the attention and the doated $$$, and newts, frogs and insects....well, did not. of course, it's cause they ain't cute and cuddly. i think AR's elicit the REVERSE fusby effect - the carnage, the images, the hyper-media attention draw us in and shake us to our very core. the response is "black rifles = bad!! black rifles = evil!!" i totally get this response. my point in raising all the other issues is actually simple - no matter how small the # of AR deaths each year is in relation to nearly everything else in our world, they are deemed evil. and by extension, their users are evil, insecure, lacking enlightenment. even though AR's kill relatively few people each year they are the very personification of evil in our modern world and "must go", even though from a logical standpoint there are many more ways we could preserve human life. but hey, most of us want our booze, our speeding, our drugs, pools, etc (our freedoms!). i'd bet my very life that the impact of opioid dumping by pharma companies will more than surpass whatever tragedy guns bring about, whether it be actual death, the economic toll in many neighborhoods, destruction of the family...the list is long. i know we as a society are fighting this in the courts now and we are more aware, but this is truly causing "mass casualties" and is creating pools of dead bodies "en masse". AR deaths, as tragic as they are, pale in comparison to many things.

doesn't mean, "but, but, but... what about XYZ??? leave my guns alone" it means...why all the focused outrage on this one area day after day after day, when carnage exists all around us and nary a change is enacted. because...hey...for many on this forum, guns aren't part of YOUR culture, so who gives a fuck if that right has to go. i'm sure someone will read this and still not try and understand my concern. when we base all of our decisions, especially decisions that involve millions of law abiding citizens, no matter how well intentioned those decisions are, if they come primarily from an emotionally based viewpoint, i don't see that as good for our society. if we did, then we could/would limit many, many aspects of our lives. are you truly ok with that approach??

if i have offended, i apologize. after following this thread for 19 pages and for posting more in 3 days than the past 11 years, i realize, like i always do, that there really is no end to this argument, no middle ground to be had because...."black rifles are evil!" will always get you top spot on the podium of the Moral Outrage Olympics.

Thanks for that thoughtful and eloquent response.

I think my bias was to see your posts as reasons to do nothing, rather than attempts to gauge attitudes.

I completely agree that our national debate (such as it is...) is distracted by the horrific spectacles of mass shootings. They do not account for the vast majority of gun deaths. Despite the small number (relative to the overall number) of deaths, I'd recommend that the US take action to remove civilian access to automatic/semi-automatic weapons, accessories, and ammunition. I am not knowledgeable about the specific products, so that's as far as I'd go.

Most US gun deaths are suicides. So I would make it harder for civilians to obtain and to keep their guns. I'd require training, testing and licensing before you could purchase a gun. Much like we do with cars. I'd explore Red Flag laws that could be used to remove guns from civilians who are showing signs of mental distress that could dispose them to harming themselves or others. These removals could be temporary or permanent depending on the individuals.

I'd require gun manufactures to add more safety features to their guns. Fingerprint locks, etc. Again, I have almost no knowledge about the available technologies. We should make guns harder to use, especially guns that are not acquired legally (after the training, testing & licensing process).

I'd provide more funding for, and access to, mental health services, including suicide prevention and domestic abuse services. I'd provide more educational, job training and business development opportunities in economically depressed areas of the country.

We know that homicide rates are off the charts in certain US cities - St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and Baton Rogue are the top five in 2017. Why are their murder rates so astoundingly high, while so many other cities are quite low? I'd fund research, I'd encourage partnerships and dialog between cities that have effectively lowered their gun violence rates and those that have not.

[thollandpe]

Any form of gun control I’d support would have to contain an equal amount of emphasis on supplying law enforcement with the tools it needs to protect the public from the folks that do the most damage.

And here’s somebody asking for those tools, to protect the public from a guy who did a lot of damage.

Our officers deserve protection and they don’t deserve to be shot at by a guy for hours with an unlimited supply of weapons and an unlimited supply of bullets.

So it’s disgusting and we need to do something about it, and we need to do something about it quickly.

Hear hear.

[Blue Jays]

The elderly man should not need to call the police each time he hears a small noise.
It could be wind blowing an empty garbage can over. It is HIS house and property.

The 75 y.o. opted to be reasonably prepared while taking care of his home.
He happened upon six armed thugs (already in possession of a stolen car) who opted to attack him.

The criminal youths should have recognized they were "busted" and just immediately flee.
Nope, their warped sense that the old man’s vehicle was rightly theirs is what escalated the situation.

[murphy]

The elderly man should not need to call the police each time he hears a small noise.
It could be wind blowing an empty garbage can over. It is HIS house and property.

The 75 y.o. opted to be reasonably prepared while taking care of his home.
He happened upon six armed thugs (already in possession of a stolen car) who opted to attack him.

The criminal youths should have recognized they were "busted" and just immediately flee.
Nope, their warped sense that the old man’s vehicle was rightly theirs is what escalated the situation.

You make it sound like he stumbled upon them by accident. He heard a noise and has said to news outlets that he knew someone was stealing or attempting to steal his car. He went out there with a gun knowing that. I am sorry, aren't you supposed to call the cops for crimes? Isn't that pretty much their purview?

No, that old man killed a 14 year old. A boy. A criminal, yes, but a boy. No judge, jury, or trial as is the norm for criminals, but a swift execution.

[zachateseverything]

The elderly man should not need to call the police each time he hears a small noise.
It could be wind blowing an empty garbage can over. It is HIS house and property.

The 75 y.o. opted to be reasonably prepared while taking care of his home.
He happened upon six armed thugs (already in possession of a stolen car) who opted to attack him.

The criminal youths should have recognized they were "busted" and just immediately flee.
Nope, their warped sense that the old man’s vehicle was rightly theirs is what escalated the situation.

Is his life in danger if he steps outside his house? Most likely not.

What is the real impact to him if the youths had managed to steal the car before police arrived? He's out his ~$100 comprehensive deductible. His rates probably don't go up.

Maybe your priorities are different but I'm not inserting myself into a dangerous situation for $100.

[Dallas Tex]

You think a 14 year old boy deserved to die for trying to steal a car?

No, but he definitely deserved to be shot for trying to stab a 75 year old man while trying to rob him.

[Corso]

He opted to confront them and escalate the situation when he walked out with a gun. He didn't call the police, he walked out with a gun. A smart homeowner would call the police, lock and barricade multiple doors and make sure themselves and their family is safe rather than getting closer to criminals in the middle of a felony. You seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions about how this went down. One knife was found and only two of them were walking towards this old man, but yeah keep saying thugs and paint pictures of all of them gripping knives.

100% Agree.

My firearms instructor (who is retired state police) ran through many situations and the correct answers (mostly mine) was always -in a nutshell- Never pull a gun over any property, never confront anyone, hide, use cell phone, get away if possible, a handgun is a COMPLETE LAST RESORT for self defense.

Unfortunately, many guys in my class (many for renewals), wanted to go cowboy and be confrontational. This actually scared the crap out of me.

[Dallas Tex]

Did you read the link? the NE Journal of Medicine did that. Take your head out of the sand.

Did YOU read the link?

"......Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%."

This is like 60 words in on the link you posted. Tell me how they produce a statistic on suicide in the 2nd paragraph while scrubbing suicidal people out of the data used in their study.

[Dallas Tex]

Is his life in danger if he steps outside his house? Most likely not.

What is the real impact to him if the youths had managed to steal the car before police arrived? He's out his ~$100 comprehensive deductible. His rates probably don't go up.

Maybe your priorities are different but I'm not inserting myself into a dangerous situation for $100.

No. You don't get to steal a car, while the owner watches locked inside the house, and assume that you're engaging in a safe activity.

[Blue Jays]

The elderly man was not walking onto his porch to fight criminals.
He was walking onto his front porch to check the source of a sound. He can do that.

He opted to be reasonably prepared. Good thing, in this case.
Had the 75 y.o. man instead been knifed to death many would just shrug and go to the next thread.

[Blue Jays]

"...Never pull a gun over any property, never confront anyone, hide, use cell phone, get away if possible, a handgun is a COMPLETE LAST RESORT for self defense..."

Of course. This makes complete sense and reasonable people would agree.
Once it became clear it was a crime-in-progress and they were "busted" the thugs should have fled.
Their very entitled and fatal decision was to continue and create a confrontation where none existed.

They six teenagers instead decided to "bring the fight" to the man on his own front porch.
They obviously had the opportunity to flee straight into their stolen Lexus and drive away.
But they had knives. They wanted the old man's Audi so bad. They just needed to take it.

[murphy]

The elderly man was not walking onto his porch to fight criminals.
He was walking onto his front porch to check the source of a sound. He can do that.

He opted to be reasonably prepared. Good thing, in this case.
Had the 75 y.o. man instead been knifed to death many would just shrug and go to the next thread.

Yet again, the old man knew there was a crime in progress as he saw and heard them around his car; he knew they were either stealing or attempting to steal his car. He decided he wanted to live out an old west fantasy so he went outside with his gun.

[Blue Jays]

The six teenagers could have very easily avoided facing murder charges.
They instead wished to continue their felon behavior. They messed with the wrong oldster.

My bet is few would keep posting about a knifed old man.
"Dang. A random victim. Unlucky for him. Oh, well."

[Dallas Tex]

and all of his friends get charged with murder. by my count that's 7 lives ruined.

How many lives ruined? How many lives saved? One criminal dead, five going to jail for murder. Countless crimes prevented, many lives saved.

Do we really need to pretend that these fine young men were on the path to become fine upstanding citizens?

[moondog-sparky]

And here’s somebody asking for those tools, to protect the public from a guy who did a lot of damage.





Hear hear.

first, as i have stated in multiple posts i support more meaningful gun control (i'm sure my position on the details of that would differ than most here on this forum) and would like to see BOTH sides be more proactive and honest on this issue.

second, let me pose a hypothetical and let me know your thoughts. again, and for the umpteenth time, i'm not trying to say "leave my guns alone". i'm truly trying to understand just how far we as a society are willing to go in terms of limiting civil liberties (on a myriad of issues, not just gun control) in order to gain security - particularly, when the issues at hand (mass shootings in this case) are enacted by an exceedingly small portion of folks out of the greater law-abiding population.

let's say we do the right thing and ban semi-automatics (pistol and rifle) out of hand. done. what do you see as the next step in continuing to reduce these types of incidents? surely banning firearms, assuming we agree that this ban will have the largest impact on the issue, is not the sole way to combat this problem, correct? i can assure you that many law enforcement types at both the federal and state level would love to see many "tools" at their disposal to combat not just gun violence, but overall crime in general. to this end...would you be ok with increased surveillance on your personal data and allow the LE agencies to do their data mining (personal location, your web preferences, read your posts to understand your mental health and gauge risk, review your emails and "manifestos", basically your total digital footprint) in order to more rapidly assess and locate potential threats? i'd bet you $100 many of those good folks would contend that this would dramatically help reduce not only our traditional jihadi type terrorists, but also domestic terrorists (white nationalists, erm...white terrorists, anyone?) and if we could stop just 2-3 mass shootings a year we could save up to 100 lives. this should not worry you as you are not guilty of any crimes, right?? i mean, sifting through your info would be completely painless for you since you have nothing to hide... right? it's an important step to combat the increasing rise in domestic terrorism and this important tool would not just save civilian lives, but think of how many LEO's we could potentially protect from going blind into unknown situations? trust us, we're just going for the baddies and the vast majority of will benefit from the security this provides over a whole range of societal ills (drug dealing, organized crime, militia-insurrectionist types...) i mean, what's not to like about this kind of social uplift???

yes. this seems absurd at face value. but again, for the umpteenth-umpteenth time, if we continue to let our Moral Outrage drive us to the "by any means necessary" type of process and legislation, this is the very kind of discussion we will have in the near future. next up will be drunk driving and speeding, your carbon footprint and waste output, your family size...and ultimately, it could even be your very existence (sure, that last part was added for overly-dramatic effect. :-) ) the point being, aren't we better to go fishing with a spear gun in order to catch the specific criminal, rather than cast a huge net catching everyone up in it and then trusting the government to toss back all the innocents and only keep the "bad guys"? yes, this approach of spear fishing for criminals will result in greater risk to everyone....but that is part and parcel of a free society, in my opinion.

right now the discussion is on AR's - i get it and don't disagree with some of the points on this - but if we just let our emotions drive the process this discussion will begin to take on a whole new shape, and eventually, something that is important to you will come up on the chopping block and you'll quietly say to yourself, " but.. why can't i do that? don't i live in america?"

[murphy]

first, as i have stated in multiple posts i support more meaningful gun control (i'm sure my position on the details of that would differ than most here on this forum) and would like to see BOTH sides be more proactive and honest on this issue.

second, let me pose a hypothetical and let me know your thoughts. again, and for the umpteenth time, i'm not trying to say "leave my guns alone". i'm truly trying to understand just how far we as a society are willing to go in terms of limiting civil liberties (on a myriad of issues, not just gun control) in order to gain security - particularly, when the issues at hand (mass shootings in this case) are enacted by an exceedingly small portion of folks out of the greater law-abiding population.

let's say we do the right thing and ban semi-automatics (pistol and rifle) out of hand. done. what do you see as the next step in continuing to reduce these types of incidents? surely banning firearms, assuming we agree that this ban will have the largest impact on the issue, is not the sole way to combat this problem, correct? i can assure you that many law enforcement types at both the federal and state level would love to see many "tools" at their disposal to combat not just gun violence, but overall crime in general. to this end...would you be ok with increased surveillance on your personal data and allow the LE agencies to do their data mining (personal location, your web preferences, read your posts to understand your mental health and gauge risk, review your emails and "manifestos", basically your total digital footprint) in order to more rapidly assess and locate potential threats? i'd bet you $100 many of those good folks would contend that this would dramatically help reduce not only our traditional jihadi type terrorists, but also domestic terrorists (white nationalists, erm...white terrorists, anyone?) and if we could stop just 2-3 mass shootings a year we could save up to 100 lives. this should not worry you as you are not guilty of any crimes, right?? i mean, sifting through your info would be completely painless for you since you have nothing to hide... right? it's an important step to combat the increasing rise in domestic terrorism and this important tool would not just save civilian lives, but think of how many LEO's we could potentially protect from going blind into unknown situations? trust us, we're just going for the baddies and the vast majority of will benefit from the security this provides over a whole range of societal ills (drug dealing, organized crime, militia-insurrectionist types...) i mean, what's not to like about this kind of social uplift???

yes. this seems absurd at face value. but again, for the umpteenth-umpteenth time, if we continue to let our Moral Outrage drive us to the "by any means necessary" type of process and legislation, this is the very kind of discussion we will have in the near future. next up will be drunk driving and speeding, your carbon footprint and waste output, your family size...and ultimately, it could even be your very existence (sure, that last part was added for overly-dramatic effect. :-) ) the point being, aren't we better to go fishing with a spear gun in order to catch the specific criminal, rather than cast a huge net catching everyone up in it and then trusting the government to toss back all the innocents and only keep the "bad guys"? yes, this approach of spear fishing for criminals will result in greater risk to everyone....but that is part and parcel of a free society, in my opinion.

right now the discussion is on AR's - i get it and don't disagree with some of the points on this - but if we just let our emotions drive the process this discussion will begin to take on a whole new shape, and eventually, something that is important to you will come up on the chopping block and you'll quietly say to yourself, " but.. why can't i do that? don't i live in america?"

The slippery slope logical fallacy is exceedingly strong here.