Another mass shooting

[zsn]

Don’t know if it’s possible, but how about serializing bullets (serialization of bottles of pills is currently the law) and hold the seller of said bullets liable if used in homicide? I know it’s provocative but since nothing seems to work………ostensibly the ammo is used for hunting or target shooting, so no issue there.

Alternatively, limit on ammunition purchases- buy small quantities at the range and use them there, maybe turn in casing to buy the next quantity on the range and at the store

[KUTradition]

we can’t even get all guns registered

[jfish26]

we can’t even get all guns registered

Lol you silly, did you think the militia was supposed to be well-regulated or something?

[TDub]

Don’t know if it’s possible, but how about serializing bullets (serialization of bottles of pills is currently the law) and hold the seller of said bullets liable if used in homicide? I know it’s provocative but since nothing seems to work………ostensibly the ammo is used for hunting or target shooting, so no issue there.

Alternatively, limit on ammunition purchases- buy small quantities at the range and use them there, maybe turn in casing to buy the next quantity on the range and at the store

those are potential solutions for cities.

There's no "range" here. People shoot at a pit, or a field, or the woods, on their properties. Nowhere to turn in your casings etc.

Also most people I know around here save their casings to reload their own bullets at home. So there isn't anything to turn in anyway.

Ammo purchases are already limited for the most part.


You're always going to get resistance but the only first step forward is getting rid of the AR style platforms. Leave the long rifles, shotguns and most handguns alone for now. Baby steps forward or....go for the throat and end up accomplishing nothing.

[Shirley]

Don’t know if it’s possible, but how about serializing bullets (serialization of bottles of pills is currently the law) and hold the seller of said bullets liable if used in homicide? I know it’s provocative but since nothing seems to work………ostensibly the ammo is used for hunting or target shooting, so no issue there.

Alternatively, limit on ammunition purchases- buy small quantities at the range and use them there, maybe turn in casing to buy the next quantity on the range and at the store

those are potential solutions for cities.

There's no "range" here. People shoot at a pit, or a field, or the woods, on their properties. Nowhere to turn in your casings etc.

Also most people I know around here save their casings to reload their own bullets at home. So there isn't anything to turn in anyway.

Ammo purchases are already limited for the most part.


You're always going to get resistance but the only first step forward is getting rid of the AR style platforms. Leave the long rifles, shotguns and most handguns alone for now. Baby steps forward or....go for the throat and end up accomplishing nothing.

^^^ x 100

[Sparko]

Agreed

[Shirley]

Alex Haskell
@AlexHaskellTV
·
16m
#BREAKING
A member of law-enforcement has told all reporters along Meadow Road in Bowdoin to turn their camera lights off because of a dangerous situation.

This is where law-enforcement are investigating at a home in connection to Robert Card.
@newscentermaine

[zsn]

Don’t know if it’s possible, but how about serializing bullets (serialization of bottles of pills is currently the law) and hold the seller of said bullets liable if used in homicide? I know it’s provocative but since nothing seems to work………ostensibly the ammo is used for hunting or target shooting, so no issue there.

Alternatively, limit on ammunition purchases- buy small quantities at the range and use them there, maybe turn in casing to buy the next quantity on the range and at the store

those are potential solutions for cities.

There's no "range" here. People shoot at a pit, or a field, or the woods, on their properties. Nowhere to turn in your casings etc.

Also most people I know around here save their casings to reload their own bullets at home. So there isn't anything to turn in anyway.

Ammo purchases are already limited for the most part.


You're always going to get resistance but the only first step forward is getting rid of the AR style platforms. Leave the long rifles, shotguns and most handguns alone for now. Baby steps forward or....go for the throat and end up accomplishing nothing.

That’s fair. Sad part is that The Greatest Country Ever is suffering from a tyranny of the minority at all levels. From election of our President down to common sense regulations for firearms purchases. A very powerful minority is preventing what an overwhelming majority supports.

[jfish26]

there’s something oddly familiar about those characteristics

Uh.

https://x.com/theplumlinegs/status/1717 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

Mike Johnson has flirted with sanitized great replacement theory, hinting at an elite plot to supplant US voters with migrants. He said Dems want to turn "illegals into voters" and seek the "destruction of our country at the expense of our own people."

[KUTradition]

there’s something oddly familiar about those characteristics

Uh.

https://x.com/theplumlinegs/status/1717 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

Mike Johnson has flirted with sanitized great replacement theory, hinting at an elite plot to supplant US voters with migrants. He said Dems want to turn "illegals into voters" and seek the "destruction of our country at the expense of our own people."

i was thinking randy, but obviously that fits too

[twocoach]

Don’t know if it’s possible, but how about serializing bullets (serialization of bottles of pills is currently the law) and hold the seller of said bullets liable if used in homicide? I know it’s provocative but since nothing seems to work………ostensibly the ammo is used for hunting or target shooting, so no issue there.

Alternatively, limit on ammunition purchases- buy small quantities at the range and use them there, maybe turn in casing to buy the next quantity on the range and at the store

I am not a fan of putting a company out of business and putting their employees out of work if some person with zero red flags buys their ammo and murders 20+ people. That just seems like piling suffering on to more suffering.

[TDub]

this Maine dude was hospitalized this summer for hearing voices telling him to shoot up a military base.


maybe..just maybe...that was a sign and his access to guns and certification as a firearms instructor shouldve been revoked.

[twocoach]

this Maine dude was hospitalized this summer for hearing voices telling him to shoot up a military base.


maybe..just maybe...that was a sign and his access to guns and certification as a firearms instructor shouldve been revoked.

Yes, I fully support people with confirmed mental health red flags being denied the right to purchase additional firearms. But did he already own any weapons at the time? Would you support the confiscation of already owned weapons after a confirmed mental health report? Would it lead to at-risk people no longer seeking out mental health care if they thought it would result in their possessions being taken from them?

[KUTradition]

this Maine dude was hospitalized this summer for hearing voices telling him to shoot up a military base.


maybe..just maybe...that was a sign and his access to guns and certification as a firearms instructor shouldve been revoked.

more than that, i believe he was actually expelled from training for those thoughts (he’s an army reservist)

and yes, this is a perfect example of why red flag laws (that are actually enforced) represent a reasonable step in the right direction

[TDub]

this Maine dude was hospitalized this summer for hearing voices telling him to shoot up a military base.


maybe..just maybe...that was a sign and his access to guns and certification as a firearms instructor shouldve been revoked.

Yes, I fully support people with confirmed mental health red flags being denied the right to purchase additional firearms. But did he already own any weapons at the time? Would you support the confiscation of already owned weapons after a confirmed mental health report? Would it lead to at-risk people no longer seeking out mental health care if they thought it would result in their possessions being taken from them?

I think thats a very slippery slope.

I do think that if someone is hospalized specifically for having gun rampage thoughts....it might warrant at least a temporary restriction of access to firearms.

[zsn]

Don’t know if it’s possible, but how about serializing bullets (serialization of bottles of pills is currently the law) and hold the seller of said bullets liable if used in homicide? I know it’s provocative but since nothing seems to work………ostensibly the ammo is used for hunting or target shooting, so no issue there.

Alternatively, limit on ammunition purchases- buy small quantities at the range and use them there, maybe turn in casing to buy the next quantity on the range and at the store

I am not a fan of putting a company out of business and putting their employees out of work if some person with zero red flags buys their ammo and murders 20+ people. That just seems like piling suffering on to more suffering.

The only (literally) purpose for this product is to kill or train for killing (target practice). Killing other humans (in war or in the commission of a crime) or killing animals. I understand that there may be an element of sport (as in Olympics) but let’s set it aside for a moment.

So when you as a company makes a product whose sole intention is to kill you have to take on additional responsibility. If it means buying expensive liability insurance so be it. Other manufacturers of products whose sole purpose is to kill (pesticides etc) have been held accountable for human deaths related to the use of their products.

[twocoach]

this Maine dude was hospitalized this summer for hearing voices telling him to shoot up a military base.


maybe..just maybe...that was a sign and his access to guns and certification as a firearms instructor shouldve been revoked.

Yes, I fully support people with confirmed mental health red flags being denied the right to purchase additional firearms. But did he already own any weapons at the time? Would you support the confiscation of already owned weapons after a confirmed mental health report? Would it lead to at-risk people no longer seeking out mental health care if they thought it would result in their possessions being taken from them?

I think thats a very slippery slope.

I do think that if someone is hospitalized specifically for having gun rampage thoughts....it might warrant at least a temporary restriction of access to firearms.

But that's what I mean. "Restriction of access to firearms" is a very broad statement that needs to be clearly defined. It implies "access to any firearms whether already owned or not" and the implications of that are way different than just "you can't buy any more guns from this point forward". If you do not seize all weapons that they own, then you haven't really shut off access to firearms; you've just shut off access to ADDITIONAL firearms. It's not a slippery slope. It's a legitimate necessity to define the parameters of exactly what the restriction includes.

[twocoach]

Don’t know if it’s possible, but how about serializing bullets (serialization of bottles of pills is currently the law) and hold the seller of said bullets liable if used in homicide? I know it’s provocative but since nothing seems to work………ostensibly the ammo is used for hunting or target shooting, so no issue there.

Alternatively, limit on ammunition purchases- buy small quantities at the range and use them there, maybe turn in casing to buy the next quantity on the range and at the store

I am not a fan of putting a company out of business and putting their employees out of work if some person with zero red flags buys their ammo and murders 20+ people. That just seems like piling suffering on to more suffering.

The only (literally) purpose for this product is to kill or train for killing (target practice). Killing other humans (in war or in the commission of a crime) or killing animals. I understand that there may be an element of sport (as in Olympics) but let’s set it aside for a moment.

So when you as a company makes a product whose sole intention is to kill you have to take on additional responsibility. If it means buying expensive liability insurance so be it. Other manufacturers of products whose sole purpose is to kill (pesticides etc) have been held accountable for human deaths related to the use of their products.

You can't say "I understand that there may be an element of sport (as in Olympics) but let’s set it aside for a moment" and then claim threat their only purpose is for killing.

So long as people have a legitimate claim to them for non-killing purposes then you would be very hard pressed to hold them liable, in my opinion. I think you'd have a really hard time getting that to hold up in court, which is exactly where such legislature would end up.

Look, I am as anti-gun as most around here but I think we need to be very realistic and very specific. Any legislature that is created regarding serious regulation of access and ownership of these weapons is going to have to be rock solid because it is 100% guaranteed to end up on the docket of the Supreme Court.

[TDub]

Yes, I fully support people with confirmed mental health red flags being denied the right to purchase additional firearms. But did he already own any weapons at the time? Would you support the confiscation of already owned weapons after a confirmed mental health report? Would it lead to at-risk people no longer seeking out mental health care if they thought it would result in their possessions being taken from them?

I think thats a very slippery slope.

I do think that if someone is hospitalized specifically for having gun rampage thoughts....it might warrant at least a temporary restriction of access to firearms.

But that's what I mean. "Restriction of access to firearms" is a very broad statement that needs to be clearly defined. It implies "access to any firearms whether already owned or not" and the implications of that are way different than just "you can't buy any more guns from this point forward". If you do not seize all weapons that they own, then you haven't really shut off access to firearms; you've just shut off access to ADDITIONAL firearms. It's not a slippery slope. It's a legitimate necessity to define the parameters of exactly what the restriction includes.

it's a slippery slope as in the ramifications of the decision after it is defined.

Are people going to be less likely to seek help if that is on the table? Most likely yes.

Do I like the idea of somebody being able to make those decisions for somebody else AND seize their property. Not particularly.

Will it prevent deaths? Possibly

Will it create a buzz storm of anti government sentiment and "they're coming for your guns"? For sure.

Is all of that going to prevent other potential legislation from occuring that might start to make progress on the situation? Potentially yes.



All in all, as a gun owner and as a hunter and as a person who doesn't love government control over personal decisions I am selfishly frustrated.

I'm frustrated that these whackjobs are creating these scenarios where we have to legitimately discuss normal people losing their rights because they can't just sit the fuck down and not go on rampages. They should just punch a wall or kill themselves instead of putting everyone else through this.

I'm frustrated that these fucking psychos are giving regular, legal, trained, safe gun owners and hunters that don't kill people, or flash guns on social media and carry them around like jackasses a bad name because they are out of control.


I dont need an AR. I'm not sure of a good reason in modern times for someone to have one. So, let's start there and get rid of those. If we can take that step and drastically reduce the instances of these types of situations then the rest of these discussions may become more reasonable and we can pare down the details of how mental health and forfeiting of weapons can come into play rationally instead of reactionary and hopefully find solutions that stick long term and can staft to change the culture at its core and not just in a good guy bad guy band aid fashion.



I dont know that I did anything to actually explain my position in that rambling but....im frustrated, like you all are, I just have a different take and starting point on some of this stuff than some here do based on my life experiences and style of living. I dont think that should prevent being able to work through things and find somewhere to start and work towards solutions on all of this. None of these situations are acceptable and I hope you all understand that I agree with that point even as I argue some of your solutions as being unreasonable.

[twocoach]

I think thats a very slippery slope.

I do think that if someone is hospitalized specifically for having gun rampage thoughts....it might warrant at least a temporary restriction of access to firearms.

But that's what I mean. "Restriction of access to firearms" is a very broad statement that needs to be clearly defined. It implies "access to any firearms whether already owned or not" and the implications of that are way different than just "you can't buy any more guns from this point forward". If you do not seize all weapons that they own, then you haven't really shut off access to firearms; you've just shut off access to ADDITIONAL firearms. It's not a slippery slope. It's a legitimate necessity to define the parameters of exactly what the restriction includes.

it's a slippery slope as in the ramifications of the decision after it is defined.

Are people going to be less likely to seek help if that is on the table? Most likely yes.

Do I like the idea of somebody being able to make those decisions for somebody else AND seize their property. Not particularly.

Will it prevent deaths? Possibly

Will it create a buzz storm of anti government sentiment and "they're coming for your guns"? For sure.

Is all of that going to prevent other potential legislation from occuring that might start to make progress on the situation? Potentially yes.



All in all, as a gun owner and as a hunter and as a person who doesn't love government control over personal decisions I am selfishly frustrated.

I'm frustrated that these whackjobs are creating these scenarios where we have to legitimately discuss normal people losing their rights because they can't just sit the fuck down and not go on rampages. They should just punch a wall or kill themselves instead of putting everyone else through this.

I'm frustrated that these fucking psychos are giving regular, legal, trained, safe gun owners and hunters that don't kill people, or flash guns on social media and carry them around like jackasses a bad name because they are out of control.


I dont need an AR. I'm not sure of a good reason in modern times for someone to have one. So, let's start there and get rid of those. If we can take that step and drastically reduce the instances of these types of situations then the rest of these discussions may become more reasonable and we can pare down the details of how mental health and forfeiting of weapons can come into play rationally instead of reactionary and hopefully find solutions that stick long term and can staft to change the culture at its core and not just in a good guy bad guy band aid fashion.



I dont know that I did anything to actually explain my position in that rambling but....im frustrated, like you all are, I just have a different take and starting point on some of this stuff than some here do based on my life experiences and style of living. I dont think that should prevent being able to work through things and find somewhere to start and work towards solutions on all of this. None of these situations are acceptable and I hope you all understand that I agree with that point even as I argue some of your solutions as being unreasonable.

100% agree with you. This is all maddening because the simple solution of "don't fucking shoot people" would be the easiest solution and rob no one of their rights, let alone anyone else's life.

You'd think that with the billions of dollars spent in think tanks to dream up shit that someone could conceptualize a pretty comprehensive solution but no matter what the solution is, someone is going to have "less rights" than before. The sharing of medical information for non-medical purposes, a comprehensive, up to date database on gun ownership, a nationwide integrated system that ties medical and criminal histories together that must be used in all cases of gun purchases including secondhand sales between citizens. It would be a massive undertaking that would spend decades in the court system and the NRA as well as gun and ammo manufacturers would spend every penny they have fighting it all.