Another mass shooting

[PhDhawk]

i do believe that no person outside the active military should be allowed to own one of those guns that can shoot a hundred rounds in a minute.

Since 1986.

I mean, sure, if you ignore that whole decade where bump stocks were allowed.

[twocoach]

Whats your theory for why they've increased? Honest question

I know we all agree that shootings are a bad thing and a problem. Let's change the discussion to what is causing the increase in them

The increase in mass shootings correlate to the lifting of the assault weapon ban.

There were mass shootings in the 80s and early 90s too tho. And many other ways to commit mass homicide. Including some bombings shortly after that which were far deadlier

Returning to the volume of mass shootings from the 80s and 90s would be a profound improvement that would save a lot of lives. Stop with the "All or Nothing" shtick.

[randylahey]

The Oklahoma city bombing killed 168 people and injured many more. It was the deadliest case of domestic terrorism in US history. It happened in 1995...

And the US responded by putting a fleet of regulations on the ingredients used to make that bomb and as a result, we have not seen a similar incident since. Thank you for making our point.

There have been other bombings since. And other ways of creating mass homicide. I didnt make your point, I made mine. Bad people will find ways to do bad things.

[randylahey]

Murder was outlawed in 1790, in the very first act of congress.

How is it weve had so many murders since then?? With such a law

[KUTradition]

coyDC strikes again

Nah. I just asked a question based on Fish's statement. And again, I'm curious about Fish's perspective specifically. I don't give a fuck about what you think, cuz you're not interesting at all.

that’s absolutely a compliment coming from you

[PhDhawk]

I'd never seen someone reductio ad absurdem their own argument before.

See something new everyday.

[twocoach]

The Oklahoma city bombing killed 168 people and injured many more. It was the deadliest case of domestic terrorism in US history. It happened in 1995...

And the US responded by putting a fleet of regulations on the ingredients used to make that bomb and as a result, we have not seen a similar incident since. Thank you for making our point.

There have been other bombings since. And other ways of creating mass homicide. I didnt make your point, I made mine. Bad people will find ways to do bad things.

Sometimes people's poor impulse decision to do something bad is thwarted when they cannot legally gather the materials needed to commit the crime. The shooter in Buffalo is on record as saying that he wanted to commit his crime earlier but it was illegal for him to buy guns at the time because he was too young. As soon as it was legal for him to do so, he did so and then he committed his crime. Would he have committed the crime if he was never able to buy those guns? You seem certain the answer is yes but there is no proof that supports your claim.

I have stated it countless times and here's one more... it is not a realistic goal to 100% eliminate all of these cases. All you can do is try to make it harder for them to happen. Putting roadblocks up and setting red flag points buys time and puts eyes on cases where someone may have bad intentions.

[twocoach]

The shooter who killed six people at a private school in Nashville purchased at least seven guns legally and locally, according to Metro Nashville Police Chief John Drake. This while being treated for mental disorders and with their parents on record as saying that the person was not stable enough to own guns.

[DCHawk1]

coyDC strikes again

Nah. I just asked a question based on Fish's statement. And again, I'm curious about Fish's perspective specifically. I don't give a fuck about what you think, cuz you're not interesting at all.

that’s absolutely a compliment coming from you

Are you made of rubber and I of glue?

[KUTradition]

Nah. I just asked a question based on Fish's statement. And again, I'm curious about Fish's perspective specifically. I don't give a fuck about what you think, cuz you're not interesting at all.

that’s absolutely a compliment coming from you

Are you made of rubber and I of glue?

some days…

[DCHawk1]

i do believe that no person outside the active military should be allowed to own one of those guns that can shoot a hundred rounds in a minute.

Since 1986.

I mean, sure, if you ignore that whole decade where bump stocks were allowed.

Fair point.

[DCHawk1]

that’s absolutely a compliment coming from you

Are you made of rubber and I of glue?

some days…

The only reason I asked Fish is, as I said, I am curious. He is an anomaly, at least on this board: i.e. a lawyer who was at one point at least marginally right-leaning, who has, moved away from that position.

Given that the origin of rights is one issue that traditionally separates right from left, I am curious what his views on this are and if they had changed as well or remained stable.

I know it's a bit outside the current debate over whether Randy is a violent rube or the rest of you are violent gun grabbers, but...c'est la vie...

[TDub]

The increase in mass shootings correlate to the lifting of the assault weapon ban.

There were mass shootings in the 80s and early 90s too tho. And many other ways to commit mass homicide. Including some bombings shortly after that which were far deadlier

Returning to the volume of mass shootings from the 80s and 90s would be a profound improvement that would save a lot of lives. Stop with the "All or Nothing" shtick.

the all or nothing thing is usually something that comes from the "guns are bad" portion of the population.....and a large reason why more legislation hasn't been enacted. Its the whole....starting with reasonable changes and then adding to it until essentially guns are banned and not allowing anything in between to become talking points.


(i say...hasn't been enacted....because...anymore. I feel nothing happens because the entire fuxking politically active portion of the country has become team sports and no one will actually compromise or cede anything in order to better America because it would look like they were "losing" )

[jfish26]

Are you made of rubber and I of glue?

some days…

The only reason I asked Fish is, as I said, I am curious. He is an anomaly, at least on this board: i.e. a lawyer who was at one point at least marginally right-leaning, who has, moved away from that position.

Given that the origin of rights is one issue that traditionally separates right from left, I am curious what his views on this are and if they had changed as well or remained stable.

I know it's a bit outside the current debate over whether Randy is a violent rube or the rest of you are violent gun grabbers, but...c'est la vie...

I don't think I've got a very neat, off-the-shelf political ideology.

I am definitely somewhere lefter on the spectrum today than I was 20 years ago. Some of that is me moving to the left, some of it is the Republican party moving to the right. But, no doubt that I have become more liberal with age, experience and a degree of material success.

As to where I consider rights to derive from - from a Constitutional interpretation standpoint, I guess I'm more of a pragmatist now than anything else (but it's probably a plurality thing; I think there's a lot of merit to intentionalist theory, too, and less to textualism).

[KUTradition]

Are you made of rubber and I of glue?

some days…

The only reason I asked Fish is, as I said, I am curious. He is an anomaly, at least on this board: i.e. a lawyer who was at one point at least marginally right-leaning, who has, moved away from that position.

Given that the origin of rights is one issue that traditionally separates right from left, I am curious what his views on this are and if they had changed as well or remained stable.

I know it's a bit outside the current debate over whether Randy is a violent rube or the rest of you are violent gun grabbers, but...c'est la vie...

violent gun grabber…giggle

you know i own guns, right?

[jfish26]

As do I.

[Mjl]

Whats your theory for why they've increased? Honest question

I know we all agree that shootings are a bad thing and a problem. Let's change the discussion to what is causing the increase in them

The increase in mass shootings correlate to the lifting of the assault weapon ban.

There were mass shootings in the 80s and early 90s too tho. And many other ways to commit mass homicide. Including some bombings shortly after that which were far deadlier

You're the one who pointed out the dramatic increase as a problem, not me

[PhDhawk]

the all or nothing thing is usually something that comes from the "guns are bad" portion of the population.....and a large reason why more legislation hasn't been enacted. Its the whole....starting with reasonable changes and then adding to it until essentially guns are banned and not allowing anything in between to become talking points.

I see the EXACT opposite.

See randylahey for an example.

I think you've been told ad nausea that banning guns is the ultimate goal. I actually don't know anyone personally (correction, I don't know any American personally) who wants to ban guns. But this is the huge fear propagated largely by the NRA.

I just simple don't see it this way, and I think the fear is unfounded. It's constitutionally protected. It's hard to get a constitutional amendment, it would be really hard to amend something from the Bill of Rights. So, I just don't buy this slippery slope argument.

But, freedom of speech, which is a 1st amendment right, and, I'd argue a much more important and fundamental right, than owning a gun, has ALL KINDS of limits placed on it, and we accept that, and I don't think anyone wants to ban speech. You can't buy or sell child pornography, you can't commit fraud, you can't commit slander or libel, you can't falsely yell "fire!" in a movie theater, you can't threaten people in certain ways.

If we trust there to be certain limitations on a more inalienable right, why can't we do the same for guns. We HAD bans on assault rifles...so it's not Un-American, or unprecedented, or unfair. Same with any number of other regulations.

There's just an enormous and powerful lobby convincing a large portion of the country that ANY form of regulation or limitation is a threat to the American way of life and the solution to all our problems is just more guns.

[KUTradition]

well said

[twocoach]

There were mass shootings in the 80s and early 90s too tho. And many other ways to commit mass homicide. Including some bombings shortly after that which were far deadlier

Returning to the volume of mass shootings from the 80s and 90s would be a profound improvement that would save a lot of lives. Stop with the "All or Nothing" shtick.

the all or nothing thing is usually something that comes from the "guns are bad" portion of the population.....and a large reason why more legislation hasn't been enacted. Its the whole....starting with reasonable changes and then adding to it until essentially guns are banned and not allowing anything in between to become talking points.


(i say...hasn't been enacted....because...anymore. I feel nothing happens because the entire fuxking politically active portion of the country has become team sports and no one will actually compromise or cede anything in order to better America because it would look like they were "losing" )

I couldn't disagree more. I don't see anyone who matters discussing removing all guns from citizens hands and the discussion seems to end with Republicans offering up zero "reasonable changes".

But if it feels better to paint to Dems are the reason those reasonable changes aren't getting made then go for it. I just don't recall actually seeing anything that supports your claim. But if you have, please share a link as I'd like to read it.