Get Your Grump on Thursdays - Was (What's chapping my @ss today?)

[bigbill]

If you want to start a conversation regarding the specifics of researching and developing a meaningful gun control policy in the US, RAND is a good place to start. Somehow it seems to work in Europe, Australia and other nations. I shot cans and bottles and other crap with my Dad at my uncle’s (all Marines) farm starting when I was 12 and I passed the ROTC rifle marksmanship class when I was in college, but I’ve never believed that I should have the right to own an AR-15 or carry a concealed weapon. I live in Pennsylvania and having just checked the state website, there are 1.6M concealed firearm permits currently issued in the state…that translates to over 15% of the population of the state over the age of 18 has a license to carry a concealed handgun. That number of course doesn’t include automatic weapons, hunting rifles and the assortment of guns purchased “off line” at gun shows. That should scare the shit out of people.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html

It works in European countries and Australia because of how the governments were formed. The right to bear arms was written into The Constitution that is the foundation of the country. Americans have more freedoms than citizens in Europe and Australia, but that is a double edged sword. The term AR-15 gets thrown around because someone decided it was an assault rifle. It may look like a military weapon, but it's just a semiautomatic rifle that is mostly blacked out. The US military rejected it in favor of the M-14. Like I posted earlier, I can get an equally capable hunting rifle in the same or larger caliber, mount a scope on it, and go hunting. It has the same rate of fire and capacity as an AR-15. AR is Armalite Rifle company and an AR-15 is their 15th design and has been around since the 50s.

The age for a concealed carry permit in PA is 21. You can't purchase an automatic weapon without a shit-tonne of permits and licenses. If you buy a gun at a show, you still get a background check. Normally, there is a table set up where the buyer pays a fee for the check. I live in Arizona which does not require a permit for concealed or open carry. I moved here from Texas, which at the time I moved in 2018, open carry was legal, but you had to have a concealed permit along with the classes and range time associated with getting it. I have a concealed carry pistol, but I've never concealed carried. If I felt like I needed to carry a gun, I'd rethink my plans and reconsider where I live. We're moving to Wyoming next spring and they don't require a permit for concealed or open carry. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone open carry in Wyoming. Here in AZ, I see old men in sweatpants with a large pistol on their hip shopping in Walmart. But, the only shootings that get reported around here are usually drug related by people who can't legally own a gun.

[robin3mj]

I’ve seen a number of articles this week saying that prosecuting the parents of school shooters is a symptom of a failed system and thus not fair. My question is, why cant we do both? With a Supreme Court in the pocket of the gun nuts for the foreseeable future, we should be doing everything we can to prevent future shootings, even if it’s at the margins.

The Michigan case and this one are beyond egregious in terms of parental culpability, but if said prosecution stops one of the next thirty murders in a fcking classroom, then it’s a worthy cause while this backwards country begins to attempt to try to think about maybe considering it’s worthwhile to not have its children slaughtered during the school day.

[bigbill]

I’ve seen a number of articles this week saying that prosecuting the parents of school shooters is a symptom of a failed system and thus not fair. My question is, why cant we do both? With a Supreme Court in the pocket of the gun nuts for the foreseeable future, we should be doing everything we can to prevent future shootings, even if it’s at the margins.

The Michigan case and this one are beyond egregious in terms of parental culpability, but if said prosecution stops one of the next thirty murders in a fcking classroom, then it’s a worthy cause while this backwards country begins to attempt to try to think about maybe considering it’s worthwhile to not have its children slaughtered during the school day.

Parents have to be held accountable and prosecuting a few makes national news, perhaps getting some parents to pay more attention to what their kid is reading, games they're playing, and who they're hanging out with. I always thought that schools should be able to issue a letter to parents when their child is in trouble or is somehow at risk, to recommend locking weapons away. You can't demand it without a constitutional fight, but a letter will carry some weight in court.

I did too many deployments and have many friends who did the same. I've lost 14 friends to suicide, and one of the lessons learned is to have a buddy who will take your guns while you're in a bad place. Parents should be able to do the same with a gun safe.

[Tom]

Maybe I live in a dreamland but maybe a few of those kids doing barricade and stay silent drills will realize us adults have thoroughly screwed up and it's on them to fix it because we haven't figured out how to make it happen.

[rwsaunders]

The age for a concealed carry permit in PA is 21.

You have me even more concerned Bill, as now that equates to 17% of the people over 21yo in the keystone state have a license to carry a concealed firearm. No firearms training is required…just a criminal background check.

[72gmc]

You have me even more concerned Bill, as now that equates to 17% of the people over 21yo in the keystone state have a license to carry a concealed firearm. No firearms training is required…just a criminal background check.

More pride in training and attendant certification/registration would make me feel a bit better. Perhaps a return to original purpose for the NRA.

[BBB]

It works in European countries and Australia because of how the governments were formed. The right to bear arms was written into The Constitution that is the foundation of the country. Americans have more freedoms than citizens in Europe and Australia, but that is a double edged sword.

Sorry, I have a bone to pick here. I'm not sure Americans have more freedoms than Australians. At all.

How's the legal right to get an abortion for example? The only gun I will see in a shopping centre (to use your Walmart example) is if the police happen to be in the shopping centre.

In any event, how is being able to own or shoot a gun equate to 'freedom'? School aged kids having to practice barricading classrooms would suggest exactly the opposite of freedom (imo). They are kids. No one should be shooting them and they should not be compelled to learn how to barricade classrooms to possibly make them feel safe.

Australia and the US - the independent versions and not the British colonies - were formed in different circumstances. I agree there. But, the right to bare arms is a British concept. It was expounded by an English legal academic following centuries of religious conflict (starting when Henry wanted to divorce his wife) As I understand, it was designed to allow one side (or other other) to resist being put to sword (so to speak). In my view, equating freedom via a legal concept dreamt up in less enlightened times seems stuck in a time warp.

Just a different point of view from Oz. And a relatively safe and free one at that.

[bigbill]

You have me even more concerned Bill, as now that equates to 17% of the people over 21yo in the keystone state have a license to carry a concealed firearm. No firearms training is required…just a criminal background check.

What would you have them do? They should go to a class, which isn't focused on firearm training, but on the legal ramifications of carrying a weapon and how to do so safely. And the PA check is more than a criminal background check, it also has mental health checks, dishonorable discharge prohibitions, the judgement of the issuing authority, and checks on drug use. I live in a neighborhood with a large number of people carrying weapons, because it's rural Arizona. There are no permits or background checks here, a person has to be legal to own a weapon, but there's no check before someone straps on a gun and strolls around in public.

Gun control discussions are overly simple, as if one size fits all when it comes to control or laws. I'm not sure about where you live, almost all the shootings around here involve felons or people who shouldn't have a gun, but get one anyway. Does PA have a high murder rate from concealed carry individuals? I think we're spending too much time trying to equate gun ownership to mass shootings. The most recent one, as far as the news reports, involved a 14 year old who lived with his abusive father, who bought him an AR. That in itself is a crime and he's being charged with second degree murder. The gun laws are in place and he chose to violate them. It didn't matter what kind of gun, he could have purchased his son a Marlin lever action 30-30, so we need to stop focusing on AR style weapons as the problem. Another thing I hear is people shouldn't have automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is a machine gun, not something the general public is allowed to own without a bunch of permits and licenses. Most concealed carry handguns are semi-automatic, each time you pull the trigger it shoots one bullet. An Ar has the same rate of fire. An AR is a rifle so it has higher muzzle velocity and the rounds can do more damage, but it can't fire faster than a pistol.

I think the answers lie in holding parents responsible, allowing schools more leeway to expel or refer troubled kids for mental evaluation, an enforcement of parental controls on violent computer games, and having more security in schools. My son's name was on a list confiscated from a kid who brought a large hunting knife to school. The principal and superintendent got an arrest and committal order for the kid with the knife and he was immediately placed in custody and sent off for evaluation. This was in Paris, Texas, I doubt many other school districts in the country have the ability to act that quickly, but it is possible. But even more than all that, parents have to be involved with their kids to know when something isn't right. You can't assume the school has your back, they only see your kid about 40 hours a week and he/she is just a face in the crowd. Parents should know what their kids are doing and at least practice some common sense about firearms and keeping them locked away.

I'll be in Pittsburgh all week, I'll keep my head on a swivel.

[bigbill]

Sorry, I have a bone to pick here. I'm not sure Americans have more freedoms than Australians. At all.

How's the legal right to get an abortion for example? The only gun I will see in a shopping centre (to use your Walmart example) is if the police happen to be in the shopping centre.

In any event, how is being able to own or shoot a gun equate to 'freedom'? School aged kids having to practice barricading classrooms would suggest exactly the opposite of freedom (imo). They are kids. No one should be shooting them and they should not be compelled to learn how to barricade classrooms to possibly make them feel safe.

Australia and the US - the independent versions and not the British colonies - were formed in different circumstances. I agree there. But, the right to bare arms is a British concept. It was expounded by an English legal academic following centuries of religious conflict (starting when Henry wanted to divorce his wife) As I understand, it was designed to allow one side (or other other) to resist being put to sword (so to speak). In my view, equating freedom via a legal concept dreamt up in less enlightened times seems stuck in a time warp.

Just a different point of view from Oz. And a relatively safe and free one at that.

All good points. The abortion issue is not black and white. States manage healthcare, and the use of the 14th amendment doesn't always apply since 36 of 37 states in existence at the time of the 14th amendment (1868) had abortion laws in effect. So, the SCOTUS didn't ban abortion, it pushed it back to the states. Abortion is still legal with restrictions that vary state to state. It's a tricky legal battle that will likely never be completely resolved unless a national legal mandate is written into law, and even that will be challenged as unconstitutional. The U.S. never had a national mandate for states to make COVID vaccines mandatory, because healthcare is state managed and the SCOTUS decided that only federally funded and managed by the federal government organizations could mandate vaccines.

I agree that, at times, the US Constitution gets in the way of what we consider common sense today. The problem is the bounds put in place limit the courts on what can be decided. Common sense says we do something about guns, but that is overly simplistic. We have to look at US culture and why mass shootings occur. We blame a gun, and there is some legitimacy in that argument, but the gun doesn't act alone. We also politicize every shooting, so we insert division based on whose version was published first. For example, a mass shooting will occur with the shooter using a pistol or shotgun. Within a few hours, politicians will call for the elimination of AR-15s. The division makes the crime about a banning a gun instead of addressing a root cause. The cause is never a gun or a person, the root cause analysis requires serious folks to put aside politics and the interests of the gun lobbies.

You are spot on concerning a time warp. The SCOTUS is bound by precedence and constitutional interpretation. The court cannot make law, only hand down decisions based on existing laws. Many of the laws concerning abortion came into being in the nineteenth century and several still exist today. But, it is up to the state to enforce restrictions or eliminate them, so that falls to the voters that elect state level officials. Since no discussion is complete without some historical context, we like to say the government and courts should jive with popular opinion. In 1896, the SCOTUS decided Plessy v Ferguson in the favor of Judge Ferguson, legalizing Jim Crow Laws concerning segregation, which remained legal until the the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The court was following popular opinion in the 1890s and it stuck around for 70 years. If people want the laws to reflect their values, then the hard work has to happen at the state and national level. Until then, the courts are limited by the laws.

I am a recovering engineer and since 2021, I have been a historian. I have an MA in American History and I'm writing my thesis for a military history MA that I will complete in November. My current focus is information warfare and propaganda. My thesis subject is western Pennsylvania between 1750 and 1774, and the root causes of the American Revolution.

I did too many deployments, but I'm thankful that I got to work with the Australian military on several occasions. My son is a US Marine in flight school and will likely be in the western Pacific following flight school and qualifications in the F-35. I hope he's in Western Australia so I can visit.

[marley]

Teachers with guns (remember the single middle-aged substitute cat lady you used to terrorize or the alcoholic civic/shop/gym teacher) - these people with guns will save us......

My son was in first grade when Sandy Hook occurred nothing has changed and nothing will in terms of guns - hell JD said school shootings are a fact of life

[Scott G.]

Big Bill, I blame the American Revolution on Oliver Cromwell.
Wasn't the 2nd Amendment to protect us from standing armies ?,
see Oliver Cromwell above.

[vertical_doug]

The constitution is pretty arbitrary in its interpretation by the court. I say the current court is making law as it goes along..

We definitely cannot own a new machine gun regardless unless it was made and registered before 1986. You cannot buy and own armor piercing ammunition.

Compared to the single shot musket from the time of the constitutional convention, everything looks like a machine gun.

I think the root cause is the gun issue raises too much money for both democrats and republicans. Neither are incentivized to find a solution or make radical change.
Permanent crisis is good for the business of politics, and they just take turns.

[zachateseverything]

What would you have them do? They should go to a class, which isn't focused on firearm training, but on the legal ramifications of carrying a weapon and how to do so safely. And the PA check is more than a criminal background check, it also has mental health checks, dishonorable discharge prohibitions, the judgement of the issuing authority, and checks on drug use. I live in a neighborhood with a large number of people carrying weapons, because it's rural Arizona. There are no permits or background checks here, a person has to be legal to own a weapon, but there's no check before someone straps on a gun and strolls around in public.

Gun control discussions are overly simple, as if one size fits all when it comes to control or laws. I'm not sure about where you live, almost all the shootings around here involve felons or people who shouldn't have a gun, but get one anyway. Does PA have a high murder rate from concealed carry individuals? I think we're spending too much time trying to equate gun ownership to mass shootings. The most recent one, as far as the news reports, involved a 14 year old who lived with his abusive father, who bought him an AR. That in itself is a crime and he's being charged with second degree murder. The gun laws are in place and he chose to violate them. It didn't matter what kind of gun, he could have purchased his son a Marlin lever action 30-30, so we need to stop focusing on AR style weapons as the problem. Another thing I hear is people shouldn't have automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is a machine gun, not something the general public is allowed to own without a bunch of permits and licenses. Most concealed carry handguns are semi-automatic, each time you pull the trigger it shoots one bullet. An Ar has the same rate of fire. An AR is a rifle so it has higher muzzle velocity and the rounds can do more damage, but it can't fire faster than a pistol.

I think the answers lie in holding parents responsible, allowing schools more leeway to expel or refer troubled kids for mental evaluation, an enforcement of parental controls on violent computer games, and having more security in schools. My son's name was on a list confiscated from a kid who brought a large hunting knife to school. The principal and superintendent got an arrest and committal order for the kid with the knife and he was immediately placed in custody and sent off for evaluation. This was in Paris, Texas, I doubt many other school districts in the country have the ability to act that quickly, but it is possible. But even more than all that, parents have to be involved with their kids to know when something isn't right. You can't assume the school has your back, they only see your kid about 40 hours a week and he/she is just a face in the crowd. Parents should know what their kids are doing and at least practice some common sense about firearms and keeping them locked away.

I'll be in Pittsburgh all week, I'll keep my head on a swivel.

I agree that we focus too much on the "AR-15" designation. but I think we'd all be better off if ALL semi-automatic long guns and handguns with replaceable magazines went away from the hands of general consumers. Especially when it is mechanically easy to convert many of these semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic.

mental healthcare needs to be more accessible for sure but guns need to be less accessible as well.

[bigbill]

Teachers with guns (remember the single middle-aged substitute cat lady you used to terrorize or the alcoholic civic/shop/gym teacher) - these people with guns will save us......

My son was in first grade when Sandy Hook occurred nothing has changed and nothing will in terms of guns - hell JD said school shootings are a fact of life

This supports what I said earlier about politicizing shootings. The major outlets and the democratic party seized upon a portion of his statement taken out of context. I think Vance is a turd, but taking his statement out of context for political gain only serves to divide. And as I said before, my focus for my thesis involves information warfare and misinformation, and this is an example.

Vance, arguing in favor of more security in schools to prevent shootings while speaking at a rally in Phoenix, said, ‘I don’t like that this is a fact of life . . . but if you are psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets.”

[vertical_doug]

Go back to the Dickey Amendment from 1996 which does not allow CDC funds to be used to study gun violence because it might lead to gun control. I may be mistaken, but the Government doesn't even have a comprehensive database on gun violence. If you don't understand something, how you going to treat it?


I think deep down inside, the gun industry knows if gun violence is studied, they aren't going to like the findings. Instead we spend out money on fortifications. When did a Fort win the war?

D

[j44ke]

Don't make me split this off into a separate thread that will go on infinitum.

Besides it is Tuesday now.

[BBB]

It's a day ending in 'y'. Grumps aren't limited to Thursdays!

[bigbill]

I'm a day early, but I'm in Pittsburgh and had a sandwich and an IC Lite at Primanti's last night. I ate too much and feeling way sluggish this morning. I'll spend seven hours in the Heinz History Center archives today researching colonial western PA. Not really a grump, but maybe I'll try something else off the menu this evening, maybe a pastrami and cheese with a fried egg.

[johnmdesigner]

School (Columbia) has started in my neighborhood again.
I had no idea that using a knife and fork is now considered a lost art.

[GeneK]

School (Columbia) has started in my neighborhood again.
I had no idea that using a knife and fork is now considered a lost art.

Can you elaborate on this (I’m a bit dull in the head these days). I did spend 5 years in your neighborhood in the 1980’s training at St Luke’s, now apparently Mt Sinai West. After all, when it comes to healthcare bigger is better, right? But that’s an entirely different grump.