Another Texas school shooting

[SHUHoopsFan]

Modernizing the Second Amendment? I am not sure what you mean by modernizing. However, banning assault weapons does not violate the second amendment. So that is not really a factor. Moreover, there are limits on the 4th Amendment. The greatest protection of the 4th Amendment is to be free from the government searching your home unless they have a search warrant backed by probable cause.

However, even here, there are exceptions to the great protection that citizens have with the 4th Amendment. There can be exigent circumstances which dictate the police go inside a house without a warrant. For example, police chasing a person who just committed an armed robbery in hot pursuit. There could be community care taking reasons like a family member asking the police to check on elderly parents who they have not heard from. So,there is not an absolute protection from your house to be free from searches without a warrant. So, what you call my "crying" is just US Constitutional law.

Btw, you do not have any solutions but it does seem that you would be in favor of a ban on assault weapons which makes perfect sense.

Of course I don't have solutions. I don't have all the data. The fact you think I would have solutions without all of the data is ridiculous. The US Government I'm sure has tons more data than you know about and you expect answers. Any answers you or I have are just silly unless you can solve this issue without all the facts.

I've been saying for weeks. If you can give me the comfort of knowing every single assault rifle is off the streets, ban them. Last thing this country needs is bad dudes with assault weapons and good guys without them. I don't know how many times I have to make that same point. Which is why I'm curious how many crimes do assault weapons in the hands of good guys stop? You choose not to address that at all. I'm sure you have answers without considering that fact. That was the major part of my previous post that you flat out ignored. I remember reading years ago criminals in countries with high gun ownership look into the house they're robbing 3-5 times more.

As for the 4th amendment. I'm not for going into homes, but if you're on the street and cops think you're up to no good, let them search. If you're clean, it will take 5 minutes of your day. If you got something on you that you shouldn't, the streets are now safer. How can anybody be against keeping our streets safer for kids from drug dealers, guys with guns, etc. in a proactive rather than reactive manner. Clearly every power Bloomberg gave the police to do their job was dismantled and crime has skyrocketed in NYC. It keeps getting worse, and not just in NYC, but all the major cities. Maybe, just maybe, if the true goal is making the country safer for all, we should go back to letting police do their job the way they were allowed to under Bloomberg in a lot of the major cities. But if there are more important things than safety, then keep the current system going.

 

[Pirata]

As far as self defense, you think it is better when an intruder is coming in your house to go into the locked cabinet unlock it, get your magazine and grab that AR as opposed to reaching over the nightstand and grabbing. a handgun? So no it is not great for self defense. So there are no reasons where there exists as good alternatives or better . How many times do you want me to address this?

Your posts shows your ignorance of weapons and defense. If we are ever going to make progress on legislation, both sides need to understand each other. You are using the argument that the AR is not good for home defense to declare that there is no reason for anyone to own them. It's an invalid argument and will not help move the needle forward on legislation.


The AR-15 has many advantages for home defense.

I doubt you will read the links so here is a summary.

• More accurate.
• More accurate at greater distances. (Rural homes, long driveways, apartment hallways, large homes, back yard, front yard)
  • See my suggestion about going to a gun range. Try to hit a target at 25 feet with a pistol and then try it with an AR. Tell me what your think.
• Less recoil, easier to shoot. (the wife does much better with the AR)
  • Fire the Glock 4 times fast and see what happens to your accuracy. Fire the AR 4 times fast and note the difference.
• LESS likelihood for over-penetration (You eloquently, but wrongly argued a pistol has less)
• Higher capacity magazine
• Short Barrel (Carbine vs long gun)

You should consider going down to a gun range and shooting a 9mm Pistol and shooting an AR.

See for yourself.

Most people will tell you to have both. The AR has some disadvantages over a pistol, and so having both mitigates that.

You have wrongly convinced yourself that an AR is not a good defense weapon. In doing so, you cannot see why passing legislation will be difficult. You ignore facts and ignore the experience and knowledge of others on a subject you know little about.

The Pros and Cons of The Home Defense AR-15

It's a stock statement of the gun control crowd: “No one needs an AR-15 for self-defense.” We hear it during every debate on so-called “assault weapons” bans or other gun control measures....

www.guncrafttraining.com

Home Defense: Why you should use an AR-15

Imagine this for a moment: It’s 4 AM and you’re resting quietly on your bed. Suddenly, you hear your door break open from a violent kick. You hear the

sofrep.com

169 - Our Rifle Bias: Setting Up The Best Gun for Home Defense

We have a fact- and practicality based rifle bias.. The best firearm for most fights, and likewise the best gun for home defense, is usually a rifle.

gunmagwarehouse.com

 

[cernjSHU]

Your posts shows your ignorance of weapons and defense. If we are ever going to make progress on legislation, both sides need to understand each other. You are using the argument that the AR is not good for home defense to declare that there is no reason for anyone to own them. It's an invalid argument and will not help move the needle forward on legislation.


The AR-15 has many advantages for home defense.

I doubt you will read the links so here is a summary.

• More accurate.
• More accurate at greater distances. (Rural homes, long driveways, apartment hallways, large homes, back yard, front yard)
  • See my suggestion about going to a gun range. Try to hit a target at 25 feet with a pistol and then try it with an AR. Tell me what your think.
• Less recoil, easier to shoot. (the wife does much better with the AR)
  • Fire the Glock 4 times fast and see what happens to your accuracy. Fire the AR 4 times fast and note the difference.
• LESS likelihood for over-penetration (You eloquently, but wrongly argued a pistol has less)
• Higher capacity magazine
• Short Barrel (Carbine vs long gun)

You should consider going down to a gun range and shooting a 9mm Pistol and shooting an AR.

See for yourself.

Most people will tell you to have both. The AR has some disadvantages over a pistol, and so having both mitigates that.

You have wrongly convinced yourself that an AR is not a good defense weapon. In doing so, you cannot see why passing legislation will be difficult. You ignore facts and ignore the experience and knowledge of others on a subject you know little about.

The Pros and Cons of The Home Defense AR-15

It's a stock statement of the gun control crowd: “No one needs an AR-15 for self-defense.” We hear it during every debate on so-called “assault weapons” bans or other gun control measures....

www.guncrafttraining.com

Home Defense: Why you should use an AR-15

Imagine this for a moment: It’s 4 AM and you’re resting quietly on your bed. Suddenly, you hear your door break open from a violent kick. You hear the

sofrep.com

169 - Our Rifle Bias: Setting Up The Best Gun for Home Defense

We have a fact- and practicality based rifle bias.. The best firearm for most fights, and likewise the best gun for home defense, is usually a rifle.

gunmagwarehouse.com

I have been to the range and shot. And yes not sure about now but I have been able to hit the target quite accurately with a 9 mm sig sauer.

I have never shot an AR-15. I don’t doubt it’s more accurate at distance.

The link you showed that both a 9mm and AR go through 11 panels of Sheetrock. But what about wood? This showed that the AR penetrated wood far greater then the 9mm. 5 compared to 2. As you know wood is also inside walls and of course we have furniture. So your argument about over penetration was not valid and limited.

Interestingly enough, in this video, the guy hit his target on the first shot with the 9mm and shotgun but missed his first attempt with the AR-15. Lol.

The debate is that there is no reason to have an AR-15 because there are just as good alternatives out there for home protection. I can be persuaded by a carve out exception ie a rancher to protect livestock. Maybe there aré others. But not for the masses.

Btw, never said that passing legislation would be easy to. Assault weapons. That is due to Republican opposition. However, it is the right thing to do and it was done before and it can be done again.

 

[HALL85]

If we really wanted to save lives from gun violence there are two measures that would have the greatest impact:
- Pass legislation AND enforce highly punitive measures for using a gun in the commission of a crime. No three strikes, no bail, plea bargains, etc. Automatic minimum jail terms; no parole. Similar laws/enforcement for people that transport guns illegally or don’t store them securely.
- Prevent people with mental health issues from purchasing guns. If you have been diagnosed with mental illness or prescribed medication, disqualification.

42% of households own firearms and the vast majority do so safely and legally. Aggressively address those that don’t.

 

[cernjSHU]

If we really wanted to save lives from gun violence there are two measures that would have the greatest impact:
- Pass legislation AND enforce highly punitive measures for using a gun in the commission of a crime. No three strikes, no bail, plea bargains, etc. Automatic minimum jail terms; no parole. Similar laws/enforcement for people that transport guns illegally or don’t store them securely.
- Prevent people with mental health issues from purchasing guns. If you have been diagnosed with mental illness or prescribed medication, disqualification.

42% of households own firearms and the vast majority do so safely and legally. Aggressively address those that don’t.

In NJ we already do have highly punitive laws and mandatory minimums that I have already given on a previous post.

I agree with you that if you use a gun in the commission of a crime that you should be detained in jail pending trial. We are failing there but that is due to bail reform. Having no plea bargains is not possible. The system would collapse without it.

As far as people who illegally transport guns is a far more difficult thing. We have people who come from other states who have valid permit to carry from their state, but then come into NJ and they are found with a gun in their vehicle. It would be unfair to jail these people. There are people who accidentally forgot their gun in a bag as they go to the airport and get caught there. This happens from time to time.

While barring people with mental illnesses is a good thing, the problem is actually identifying people with mental illness who have not committed a crime. Is a person who has anxiety barred? What about depression? Who is going to report this and to whom? The devil is in the details and this is why it is something we want to happen but in practice it is just hard to effectuate.

 

[HALL85]

In NJ we already do have highly punitive laws and mandatory minimums that I have already given on a previous post.

Laws are useless if the arrest and conviction rates don’t support it. If these cases are plea bargained, or the conviction rate is low, than what you are suggesting is worthless.

I agree with you that if you use a gun in the commission of a crime that you should be detained in jail pending trial. We are failing there but that is due to bail reform. Having no plea bargains is not possible. The system would collapse without it.

As far as people who illegally transport guns is a far more difficult thing. We have people who come from other states who have valid permit to carry from their state, but then come into NJ and they are found with a gun in their vehicle. It would be unfair to jail these people. There are people who accidentally forgot their gun in a bag as they go to the airport and get caught there. This happens from time to time.

Disagree. If you’re going to own a gun, it’s your responsibility to know all of the laws and transport restrictions. “The dog ate my homework” does not apply. No excuse for “accidentally” forgetting. Law abiding gun owners know the law, respect them and abide by them.

While barring people with mental illnesses is a good thing, the problem is actually identifying people with mental illness who have not committed a crime. Is a person who has anxiety barred? What about depression? Who is going to report this and to whom? The devil is in the details and this is why it is something we want to happen but in practice it is just hard to effectuate.

If you have mental illness you should be barred from owning a gun period. This would give families increased influence to prevent a family member from having a gun. It would take some work to figure it out, but certain clinical diagnoses would be one way to do it. Also, if you were prescribed a drug for depression, bipolar disorder, etc., once again prohibits ownership.

 

[BrooklynPirate]

 

[BrooklynPirate]

 

[SHUSA]

its pretty crazy how little outrage, or even commentary over the heinous response from police. dispicable. and how they are threatning the parents to stay quiet. this is why people have a terrible impression of police.

these police are pathetic humans. i cant comprehend it

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

its pretty crazy how little outrage, or even commentary over the heinous response from police. dispicable. and how they are threatning the parents to stay quiet. this is why people have a terrible impression of police.

these police are pathetic humans. i cant comprehend it

The reason people have terrible impressions of every group of people is because we always highlight the worst. Somehow douchebag athletes and musicians get a pass. Who do people have a positive view of the media, politicians, police, priests?

 

[HALL85]

its pretty crazy how little outrage, or even commentary over the heinous response from police. dispicable. and how they are threatning the parents to stay quiet. this is why people have a terrible impression of police.

these police are pathetic humans. i cant comprehend it

There are bad actors in every profession. Most of the time you don't see it because those professions don't have body cams or hidden cameras (or even worse, they never get found out). If I need to jump into a foxhole and choose one random person with no knowledge of their background, from a group including a politician, journalist, athletics, entertainment or law enforcement....I know who I'm picking.

What these police did in the school is repressible and horrific. No one I can see is disputing that. What commentary are you looking for?

 

[shu09]

its pretty crazy how little outrage, or even commentary over the heinous response from police. dispicable. and how they are threatning the parents to stay quiet. this is why people have a terrible impression of police.

these police are pathetic humans. i cant comprehend it

Concerns about the police response are valid, but let's also not forget the fact that the cause of this tragedy was the nutjob who actually shot people, not the police.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Concerns about the police response are valid, but let's also not forget the fact that the cause of this tragedy was the nutjob who actually shot people, not the police.

Doesn't fit the narrative. Just like we're more concerned where a 10 year old can get an abortion, not that a 10 year old got raped. Are they even looking for the guy?

 

[SHUSA]

i dont think anyone is forgetting that. but this isnt one apple, its essentially an entire force. and the coverup/threatenting/ BLOCKING of parents who tried to actually save their kids.

the police exacerbated the deaths exponentially.

Concerns about the police response are valid, but let's also not forget the fact that the cause of this tragedy was the nutjob who actually shot people, not the police.

 

[shu09]

i dont think anyone is forgetting that. but this isnt one apple, its essentially an entire force. and the coverup/threatenting/ BLOCKING of parents who tried to actually save their kids.

the police exacerbated the deaths exponentially.

I understand the feeling of a parent wanting to run in their and grab their child. But do you just pull up to any active crime scene and demand to be let in? No, and there are reasons for that and for why civilians are not allowed in.

 

[SoOrange84]

Doesn't fit the narrative. Just like we're more concerned where a 10 year old can get an abortion, not that a 10 year old got raped. Are they even looking for the guy?

They have a suspect(scumbag) in custody

 

[cernjSHU]

Laws are useless if the arrest and conviction rates don’t support it. If these cases are plea bargained, or the conviction rate is low, than what you are suggesting is worthless.

Disagree. If you’re going to own a gun, it’s your responsibility to know all of the laws and transport restrictions. “The dog ate my homework” does not apply. No excuse for “accidentally” forgetting. Law abiding gun owners know the law, respect them and abide by them.

If you have mental illness you should be barred from owning a gun period. This would give families increased influence to prevent a family member from having a gun. It would take some work to figure it out, but certain clinical diagnoses would be one way to do it. Also, if you were prescribed a drug for depression, bipolar disorder, etc., once again prohibits ownership.

Let’s talk about people with mental illness. How will the government know that they have even seen a psychiatrist? The forms to buy a firearms ID and purchasers does not state turn over your medical records? So I go for the permit and I lie about having psychiatric issues even though I am taking bipolar medication. Now what? That happens all the time. How do families know if you are applying. Even if they did, in many instances they won’t get involved.

No one wants people with mental illness to get firearms. The questions is how to prevent it? How many people are mentally ill and not diagnosed?

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Let’s talk about people with mental illness. How will the government know that they have even seen a psychiatrist? The forms to buy a firearms ID and purchasers does not state turn over your medical records? So I go for the permit and I lie about having psychiatric issues even though I am taking bipolar medication. Now what? That happens all the time. How do families know if you are applying. Even if they did, in many instances they won’t get involved.

No one wants people with mental illness Ed’s to get firearms. The questions is how to prevent it. How many people are mentally ill and not diagnosed?

What is the process for mentally ill people obtaining a drivers license? Gotta figure if you're that ill that you would shoot up a parade, you would get behind the wheel and drive right through the crowds. Whatever we do for people to get a drivers license who are mentally ill should be considered for people getting firearms. Probably could do more or at least as much damage with a car as an assault rifle if you really wanted to.

 

[cernjSHU]

Number of mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2024 | Statista

As of September 4, there were two mass shootings in the United States in 2024.

www.statista.com

How do you ignore the stats on this? From 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings during the ban is way down. But for the outlier of Columbine, mass shootings were 2 or less for 8 of the 10 year ban. Contrast that with what has happened after. Before the ban there was an increasing trend of mass shootings. That changed during the ban.

 

[SPK145]

Number of mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2024 | Statista

As of September 4, there were two mass shootings in the United States in 2024.

www.statista.com

How do you ignore the stats on this? From 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings during the ban is way down. But for the outlier of Columbine, mass shootings were 2 or less for 8 of the 10 year ban. Contrast that with what has happened after. Before the ban there was an increasing trend of mass shootings. That changed during the ban.

What this shows is very, very few mass shootings. Potential huge loss of life per incident which brings huge headlines but still a miniscule number of mass shootings. And were all done with so-called assault weapons?

So regulate the 99.99999999% of so-called assault weapons owners that don't mass shoot because of such a minuscule number?

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

They have a suspect(scumbag) in custody

New York Post reporting this guy came to the country illegally. Yikes. Let's see how much coverage that gets.

 

[cernjSHU]

What this shows is very, very few mass shootings. Potential huge loss of life per incident which brings huge headlines but still a miniscule number of mass shootings. And were all done with so-called assault weapons?

So regulate the 99.99999999% of so-called assault weapons owners that don't mass shoot because of such a minuscule number?

So because we have so much gun violence in general forget about what happens when these weapons are used?

This is part of the tools to make our country safer. Why the objection? It’s not a second amendment argument so what is it? Oh there are a lot of safe assault weapon owners.? So what? There are plenty of firearms they can lawfully own.

 

[shu09]

So because we have so much gun violence in general forget about what happens when these weapons are used?

This is part of the tools to make our country safer. Why the objection? It’s not a second amendment argument so what is it? Oh there are a lot of safe assault weapon owners.? So what? There are plenty of firearms they can lawfully own.

Why are you punishing safe assault weapon owners because of what unsafe assault weapon owners do?

 

[HALL85]

Let’s talk about people with mental illness. How will the government know that they have even seen a psychiatrist? The forms to buy a firearms ID and purchasers does not state turn over your medical records? So I go for the permit and I lie about having psychiatric issues even though I am taking bipolar medication. Now what? That happens all the time. How do families know if you are applying. Even if they did, in many instances they won’t get involved.

No one wants people with mental illness to get firearms. The questions is how to prevent it? How many people are mentally ill and not diagnosed?

There are several ways you can handle this. First of all we have these things called electronic health records. Maybe that’s part of the application process. Easier than that…. Have your physician be required to sign off on the application. And if you were being treated with bipolar medication, I’m sorry, you can own a firearm. Lifetime ban.

 

[SHUSA]

There are several ways you can handle this. First of all we have these things called electronic health records. Maybe that’s part of the application process. Easier than that…. Have your physician be required to sign off on the application. And if you were being treated with bipolar medication, I’m sorry, you can own a firearm. Lifetime ban.

where does hipaa come into play?

 

[HALL85]

where does hipaa come into play?

It doesn’t because the applicant has to opt in.

 

[SHUSA]

police chief now saying they cant release body cam footage because of "a faulty file server"... yea ok. always convienient with police that the footage wont work.

this going to criminal level. im starting to wonder if they shot a kid

 

[BrooklynPirate]

police chief now saying they cant release body cam footage because of "a faulty file server"... yea ok. always convienient with police that the footage wont work.

this going to criminal level. im starting to wonder if they shot a kid