We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[Ras72]

Regarding the woman shooter question - the one that comes to mind is the YouTube shooter. YouTube headquarters shooting - Wikipedia
The other one that pops up on the radar was a woman infatuated with the Columbine shooting... Teen '''infatuated''' with Columbine and deemed a threat is found dead; wrote about suicide, guns in apparent journal

[vertical_doug]

There is not one solution here since the causes of mass shootings do vary, and more importantly, the bigger issue may just be the high level of gun related deaths in the US. Whether or not, red flag laws etc, will actually help prevent mass shootings is an open questions, the laws will help prevent gun-related suicides. I doubt you can get an assault weapons ban, but just preventing some suicides will lead to a larger overall reductions in gun-related deaths. There are approx. 21,000 gun related suicides per year. How do you deal with the 14,000 homicides, that's another matter all together.

[colker]

That doesn't make sense.

Exactly.

[colker]

There is not one solution here since the causes of mass shootings do vary, and more importantly, the bigger issue may just be the high level of gun related deaths in the US. Whether or not, red flag laws etc, will actually help prevent mass shootings is an open questions, the laws will help prevent gun-related suicides. I doubt you can get an assault weapons ban, but just preventing some suicides will lead to a larger overall reductions in gun-related deaths. There are approx. 21,000 gun related suicides per year. How do you deal with the 14,000 homicides, that's another matter all together.

A mass shooter is a suicidal taking along w/ him as many as possible. No mass shooter ever planned escaping.

[sk_tle]

What's the analysis for a woman that owns and/or carries?

I think you already know that and want to play with me but I will oblige and explain. This concept of penis compensation hasn't to be taken litterally but embrace all kinds of frustrations or unwell being. They can be physical, societal or related to income or lack of thereof.

I think we call that a porte-manteau expression in english, right ? The funny thing is we use another word in french : mot valise (litterally suitcase word)

[XR2]

Much of the content here showcases the real problem. That would be the unwillingness of either side to come to the table ready to compromise and actually accomplish something. Finger pointing insults and name calling are the cornerstones of gridlock.

[e-RICHIE]

Much of the content here showcases the real problem. That would be the unwillingness of either side to come to the table ready to compromise and actually accomplish something. Finger pointing insults and name calling are the cornerstones of gridlock.

Short of owning a pistol for the shooting range, or a shotgun for hunting (neither of which I'd ever do), what reason is there to own a military or assault or automatic weapon? Is it the second amendment thing at work? Once it's explained to me maybe then I can walk to the table.

[moondog-sparky]

Short of owning a pistol for the shooting range, or a shotgun for hunting (neither of which I'd ever do), what reason is there to own a military or assault or automatic weapon? Is it the second amendment thing at work? Once it's explained to me maybe then I can walk to the table.

as a gun owner and enthusiast, and a civil liberties champion, this article speaks to me. not 100% in agreement with all points, but it highlights the issues i think MOST gun owners identify with. having said that, i am in favor of MUCH stricter gun control in terms of background checks...but as i stated previously, the devil is in the details of the implementation (& that is generally where the hangups are in terms of advancing any meaningful legislation).

Defending The Indefensible | The Grumpy Pundit

i would especially encourage you to focus on the section regarding NEED. for the angi-gun folks, this question of NEED and justification of purpose comes up a lot. as an aside...i just read an article in the Guardian that actually questions the NEED for air conditioning given the pace of global climate change and the lives AT RISK d/t this... they specifically note that AC us is a largely american phenomenon...and it puts our children and children's at risk in the future. yes, i completely understand that gun control, AC and climate change are worlds apart.....but once you have the dialogue about NEED you open the door to many things. it would certainly be argued by many "enlightened" folks that climate change is the single largest issue in our times with the potential to impact millions, if not billions, of lives in the coming decades / century. how much would you give up, seriously, in order to address this? at what point will we begin to question the NEED for a 10,000 sq ft mansion? private planes? yachts?? what next - you have too many SUV's? and ultimately, you have too many kids...increasing the carbon footprint exponentially as each of them have kids.

civil liberties are not always important to us at any specific point in time, but when you do need them, they can be awfully hard to get back. no matter how emotional an issue is, i think we should never react blithely or quickly with the simple "most obivous and easy" solutions to address complex issues.

again...want gun control. but want to do it such that it truly limits bad folks without just sweeping up law abiding people along with it.

[moondog-sparky]

i would also like to point out that you can't lay all the blame at the feet of republicans and conservatives. just because a given resolution gets voted down by the R's, don't think for a minute that the D's don't benefit from this - it gives them additional "ammo" to attack their "enemy", which helps as talking points to continue the dissemination of fear...and fear sells, which helps them consolidate power and money. and while i know they truly believe in gun control, i personally feel they want power and money....far more. and this ongoing argument back and forth does nothing but help them.

never underestimate the need for one side, either side for that matter, to have a known and well identified enemy up on which to ascribe fear and loathing - and the willingness for people to respond to this to grant them the powers they need to address this.

[thollandpe]

Much of the content here showcases the real problem. That would be the unwillingness of either side to come to the table ready to compromise and actually accomplish something. Finger pointing insults and name calling are the cornerstones of gridlock.

I disagree strongly with this. There has been zero legislation advanced in my adult lifetime that had a draconian prohibition, or came even close to taking people’s guns away. Yet any restriction whatsoever has been aggressively lobbied against and killed. Even tangentially-related bills like the Violence Against Women Act are opposed (and defeated) by the NRA and Republicans.

Many of the common-sense gun laws people are asking for are already well down the path to compromise by the time they’re drafted.

“Both sides do it” is usually a lazy argument, politics is not Newtonian. Unless there’s an equal-and-opposite organization to the NRA I’m not considering.

TH

[theflashunc]

i would also like to point out that you can't lay all the blame at the feet of republicans and conservatives. just because a given resolution gets voted down by the R's, don't think for a minute that the D's don't benefit from this - it gives them additional "ammo" to attack their "enemy", which helps as talking points to continue the dissemination of fear...and fear sells, which helps them consolidate power and money. and while i know they truly believe in gun control, i personally feel they want power and money....far more. and this ongoing argument back and forth does nothing but help them.

never underestimate the need for one side, either side for that matter, to have a known and well identified enemy up on which to ascribe fear and loathing - and the willingness for people to respond to this to grant them the powers they need to address this.

That is some weaksauce bother-siderism nonsense.

We have people in this country who have survived multiple mass shootings. Or survived one mass shooting only to die in another. And those calling for reform to try to prevent that are selling fear? Cmon man.

[moondog-sparky]

That is some weaksauce bother-siderism nonsense.

We have people in this country who have survived multiple mass shootings. Or survived one mass shooting only to die in another. And those calling for reform to try to prevent that are selling fear? Cmon man.

did not mean to imply survivors / victims of violence directly. but, surely you can see how an entrenched politician might benefit from the never-ending boogeyman? please tell me you are at least skeptical of your politicians, of any flavor, to at least question their motives? yes, they want gun control...but if it does not get passed does that not benefit them with some pretty heavy finger-pointing and fear mongering for MORE support, MORE votes, MORE power? and yes, BOTH sides of the aisle use this tactic. i guess that makes me different than you...i am always skeptical of the motives of my leaders, as it is not always 100% the way they tell me it is.

to be clear, i'm not saying the intentionally sabotage their cause. but, if they were truly trying to get common-sense legislation they could offer up resolutions that appease both sides of the argument. but instead, resolutions are often draconian in nature and result in a stalemate - which they can then capitalize on my denouncing the "gun-loving hillbillies and their ilk". surely you can see this ploy being used on nearly every decisive issue in this country? push for absolutism rather than meaningful compromise and then blame the other said for failure. both parties use it to great effectiveness.

[e-RICHIE]

I'm not reacting blithely or quickly. All I wanna know is why people need (or should have) the firearms I mentioned above.

And yeah. We have other issues too. The environment. Consumption. Overpopulation. The list is long. But I'm asking about only what I'm asking about. A person needs an assault weapon? A machine gun? That's all I'm asking about.

as a gun owner and enthusiast, and a civil liberties champion, this article speaks to me. not 100% in agreement with all points, but it highlights the issues i think MOST gun owners identify with. having said that, i am in favor of MUCH stricter gun control in terms of background checks...but as i stated previously, the devil is in the details of the implementation (& that is generally where the hangups are in terms of advancing any meaningful legislation).

Defending The Indefensible | The Grumpy Pundit

i would especially encourage you to focus on the section regarding NEED. for the angi-gun folks, this question of NEED and justification of purpose comes up a lot. as an aside...i just read an article in the Guardian that actually questions the NEED for air conditioning given the pace of global climate change and the lives AT RISK d/t this... they specifically note that AC us is a largely american phenomenon...and it puts our children and children's at risk in the future. yes, i completely understand that gun control, AC and climate change are worlds apart.....but once you have the dialogue about NEED you open the door to many things. it would certainly be argued by many "enlightened" folks that climate change is the single largest issue in our times with the potential to impact millions, if not billions, of lives in the coming decades / century. how much would you give up, seriously, in order to address this? at what point will we begin to question the NEED for a 10,000 sq ft mansion? private planes? yachts?? what next - you have too many SUV's? and ultimately, you have too many kids...increasing the carbon footprint exponentially as each of them have kids.

civil liberties are not always important to us at any specific point in time, but when you do need them, they can be awfully hard to get back. no matter how emotional an issue is, i think we should never react blithely or quickly with the simple "most obivous and easy" solutions to address complex issues.

again...want gun control. but want to do it such that it truly limits bad folks without just sweeping up law abiding people along with it.

[monadnocky]

I always hear how we should be "skeptical" of those who hold public office whenever issues related to guns or gun control is mentioned, but nobody brings up skepticism when bridges need to be repaired, children in poverty need to be fed, or an aircraft carrier needs to be built. Curious how "healthy skepticism" results in do-nothingism, which we seem to be champs of for this one issue only.

[XR2]

Short of owning a pistol for the shooting range, or a shotgun for hunting (neither of which I'd ever do), what reason is there to own a military or assault or automatic weapon? Is it the second amendment thing at work? Once it's explained to me maybe then I can walk to the table.

I disagree strongly with this. There has been zero legislation advanced in my adult lifetime that had a draconian prohibition, or came even close to taking people’s guns away. Yet any restriction whatsoever has been aggressively lobbied against and killed. Even tangentially-related bills like the Violence Against Women Act are opposed (and defeated) by the NRA and Republicans.

Many of the common-sense gun laws people are asking for are already well down the path to compromise by the time they’re drafted.

“Both sides do it” is usually a lazy argument, politics is not Newtonian. Unless there’s an equal-and-opposite organization to the NRA I’m not considering.

TH

Thank you both for reinforcing my point. I advanced support for neither side yet you both spoke only of what you want not to mention putting conditions on coming to the table. Hence meaningful progress remains stifled. We are all Americans in this and there is no simple solution but for anything to be possible we must lay aside what we want and pursue common ground on what we seek. Which in case you've forgotten is less dead humans.

[moondog-sparky]

I'm not reacting blithely or quickly. All I wanna know is why people need (or should have) the firearms I mentioned above.

And yeah. We have other issues too. The environment. Consumption. Overpopulation. The list is long. But I'm asking about only what I'm asking about. A person needs an assault weapon? A machine gun? That's all I'm asking about.

and that is my point...in a free world, the question of need should not be the deciding factor in deciding whether a liberty is justified or not. (i'll allow that "within reason" must be recognized...and that is absolutely the rub of this issue). we can't own our own howitzers, for example. i think for most responsible gun owners, personal firearms (handguns & rifles) that are in "like kind" to the police force and general infantry are in their mindset (as i type this i see a huge can of worms being opened...but i am trying to answer your question as openly and honestly as i know how). these types of firearms are seen as basic to maintaining liberty and protecting family and property.

i do respect your question on this and not trying to sidestep it, just not sure how to answer it as i don't think gun owners need to demonstrate need in order to discuss the question intelligently with others. rather, i think the other side needs to demonstrate that the issue is so severe that drastic legislation to curtail this must be enacted. looking at stats (yes, those pesky stats again!), i don't see that we have arrived at that point. long gun deaths of any kind are <850/year. mass shootings with AR's specifically are <300/deaths per year. tragic? abso-freaking-lutely! enough to impact millions of law abiding gun owners to the point we legislate them out of existence? not yet for me.

[theflashunc]

did not mean to imply survivors / victims of violence directly. but, surely you can see how an entrenched politician might benefit from the never-ending boogeyman? please tell me you are at least skeptical of your politicians, of any flavor, to at least question their motives? yes, they want gun control...but if it does not get passed does that not benefit them with some pretty heavy finger-pointing and fear mongering for MORE support, MORE votes, MORE power? and yes, BOTH sides of the aisle use this tactic. i guess that makes me different than you...i am always skeptical of the motives of my leaders, as it is not always 100% the way they tell me it is.

to be clear, i'm not saying the intentionally sabotage their cause. but, if they were truly trying to get common-sense legislation they could offer up resolutions that appease both sides of the argument. but instead, resolutions are often draconian in nature and result in a stalemate - which they can then capitalize on my denouncing the "gun-loving hillbillies and their ilk". surely you can see this ploy being used on nearly every decisive issue in this country? push for absolutism rather than meaningful compromise and then blame the other said for failure. both parties use it to great effectiveness.

I offered up a half dozen of what has been making the rounds as the middle ground. You dismissed it immediately.

At this point, one side of the argument is okay with the blood in the streets and the chaos on a daily basis. To crib Jefferson, gotta refresh that tree of liberty on a regular basis.

[Cookietruck]

rather, i think the other side needs to demonstrate that the issue is so severe that drastic legislation to curtail this must be enacted. i don't see that we have arrived at that point. long gun deaths of any kind are <850/year. mass shootings with AR's specifically are <300/deaths per year. tragic? abso-freaking-lutely! enough to impact millions of law abiding gun owners to the point we legislate them out of existence? not yet for me.

and this is where there the problem seems to be. majority of people that like guns don't think innocent peoples lives are worth as much as their right to be able to have military style guns.
can't they protect property with a revolver, or their 1911, or some other pistol? how about a .223 with a low capacity mag?
it seems the mindset is give absolutely nothing, there can be no compromise or else it will end with all of hte guns being confiscated, and perhaps, melted and forged into statues of Pelosi.

[moondog-sparky]

I offered up a half dozen of what has been making the rounds as the middle ground. You dismissed it immediately.

At this point, one side of the argument is okay with the blood in the streets and the chaos on a daily basis. To crib Jefferson, gotta refresh that tree of liberty on a regular basis.

cut and pasted your points below - i already addressed the gun show loophole and background checks for private sales on page 6 or 7. no response from you on that issue, even though i spelled out details as to why that resolution was concerning.

Universal licensing requirements and testing
-- Limits on magazine size draconian - to me. reshaping and dramatically changing the platform is not middle ground to me. magazine size is not the underlying issue here.
-- Insurance requirements for firearms owners agree 100% on this one - would pay annual insurance, if required. would be interested in details - would this be implemented such that the insurance rate is reasonable, or would it be high to act as a deterrent in and of itself??
-- Tracking of ammunition sales would be onboard with this, provided it does not limit quick access and availability nor is it intentionally taxed in order to act as deterrent
-- Curbs on semi-automatic weapon sales "curb" or eliminate 100%?
-- Civil and criminal liability for manufacturers and gun sellers open to this, but as with everything else, details and specifics on how it is implemented and what exactly is liability. do we hold bartenders and alcohol distributors liable for drunks? not sure i see a massive difference here...
-- End of the gun show loophole and mandating background checks for all private sales
-- Mandatory waiting periods for firearms purchases fine with this, provided we enact a process that is reasonable and does not create unnecessary delays in order to act as a deterrent to purchase. 5-10 days works for me, as long as that time window respects me as a law abiding citizen.

for MANY gun owners most of the above is doable. but believe it or not, oftentimes the specific details really are meant to act as a deterrent to ALL gun owners, rather than just limit the nutters from getting them. that is not ok with me.

[Scott G.]

But I'm asking about only what I'm asking about. A person needs an assault weapon? A machine gun? That's all I'm asking about.

I'll give you an approximation of the original reason.
Standing Armies were seen as threat to liberty, think military coups.
A citizen militia, being under local control was harder for a would be despot or cabal to use
compared to a standing army paid for by the central government.
Standing armies were also a drain on the treasury.
" a well regulated militia " is an 18th century term for an locally controlled organized trained military unit,
a military version of the volunteer fire department.