Another week, another mass murder

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

The family of the Indiana shooter reported him as a danger , the FBI closed his case. If you see something say something, right.

 

Nope. Slippery slope.  I don't like you or your politics?

 

Hello FBI.  Yeah it's Chef Jim....yes me again.  This dude Alf.   I heard him saying some crazy ***** about how he wants to blah blah blah.   

 

What if you don't even own a weapon?  I just don't like you.  

 

As of now we have no means (at least not that I know of) to check up on current gun owners.  My wife has had her permit (I had a medical marijuana card and at the time couldn't get a permit...damn stoners) since 2013 and has never had to renew it or heard anything from ATF or whoever controls that. 

[Motorin']

13 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

No pictures yet. I smell a narrative misfit. 

[SoTier]

14 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Well let me lay this out again

 

1.  Make it a requirement to have gun permits renewed on a regular basis.   Requiring deep dive background checks and going through a CE style classes in order to renew the permit

2.  You fail the background check and it is determined (not sure what the metrics would be) that you could be a threat to yourself or others you lose your permit.  Do you lose your guns at that time?  I would think so.  

3.  There should be deep dives into a person's background before they get their first weapon and renew their permit.  Including but not limited to social media and interviews of people you are associated with  

 

None of my ideas restricts the access to firearms by people of sound mind.  

 

You and others on the left can wring your hands and focus on the weapons of choice and not the brain that chose to use it for harm. 

 

Thank you for delineating what needs to be done, because you are one of very few on the right on  PPP who supports sensible restrictions on the people who use guns.  The general mindset of many conservatives -- and certainly the political stance of almost all Republican politicians -- remains the NRA goal of insuring that any nut can acquire as many guns of any kind that he/she can amass.  They hollowly offer platitudes like "thoughts and prayers" but do nothing.  They don't even try.

 

My only difference with your suggestions is that I would ban the military style semi-automatic rifles for civilian use, which are not sporting guns -- unless you consider killing people a "sport".   There are semi-automatic shotguns and rifles used for hunting and target shooting which should be allowed.  We need to come up with a legal definition that separates sporting guns from the people killers, which has been an excuse for doing nothing about these most lethal weapons for decades.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Nope. Slippery slope.  I don't like you or your politics?

 

Hello FBI.  Yeah it's Chef Jim....yes me again.  This dude Alf.   I heard him saying some crazy ***** about how he wants to blah blah blah.   

 

What if you don't even own a weapon?  I just don't like you.  

 

As of now we have no means (at least not that I know of) to check up on current gun owners.  My wife has had her permit (I had a medical marijuana card and at the time couldn't get a permit...damn stoners) since 2013 and has never had to renew it or heard anything from ATF or whoever controls that. 

 

[Chef Jim]

25 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Thank you for delineating what needs to be done, because you are one of very few on the right on  PPP who supports sensible restrictions on the people who use guns.  The general mindset of many conservatives -- and certainly the political stance of almost all Republican politicians -- remains the NRA goal of insuring that any nut can acquire as many guns of any kind that he/she can amass.  They hollowly offer platitudes like "thoughts and prayers" but do nothing.  They don't even try.

 

My only difference with your suggestions is that I would ban the military style semi-automatic rifles for civilian use, which are not sporting guns -- unless you consider killing people a "sport".   There are semi-automatic shotguns and rifles used for hunting and target shooting which should be allowed.  We need to come up with a legal definition that separates sporting guns from the people killers, which has been an excuse for doing nothing about these most lethal weapons for decades.

 

I have news for you. All guns can be used as “people killers”. 

[ALF]

14 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Nope. Slippery slope.  I don't like you or your politics?

 

Hello FBI.  Yeah it's Chef Jim....yes me again.  This dude Alf.   I heard him saying some crazy ***** about how he wants to blah blah blah.   

 

 

Make a false report , go to jail

[Chef Jim]

13 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

Make a false report , go to jail

 

Prove you're not mentally unstable?  See I just reported I thought you were mentally unstable.  I saw him doing________  I heard him say ________ .  I want to ***** you up it's easy.  Remember the law is to protect society from bad things.   Sure that can be done now but this could go very far in the wrong direction.  So we potentially locked up one person but we could have potentially save many lives. That's a win in those that want to protect us from bad things.   In my idea those with guns will have to "prove" their mental stability annually.  

[oldmanfan]

25 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Prove you're not mentally unstable?  See I just reported I thought you were mentally unstable.  I saw him doing________  I heard him say ________ .  I want to ***** you up it's easy.  Remember the law is to protect society from bad things.   Sure that can be done now but this could go very far in the wrong direction.  So we potentially locked up one person but we could have potentially save many lives. That's a win in those that want to protect us from bad things.   In my idea those with guns will have to "prove" their mental stability annually.  

I like your ideas on this.  I do think we have to decide, as Scalia suggests in Heller, what arms we as a society deem appropriate for ownership.  I am fine with people having guns, but question the need for guns where you can shoot potentially hundreds of bullets in a minute.

[Chef Jim]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I like your ideas on this.  I do think we have to decide, as Scalia suggests in Heller, what arms we as a society deem appropriate for ownership.  I am fine with people having guns, but question the need for guns where you can shoot potentially hundreds of bullets in a minute.

 

If you noticed my idea says nothing about what types of guns we can own.  Eliminating what types of guns we can own will NOT fix this. 

[Niagara Bill]

38 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Prove you're not mentally unstable?  See I just reported I thought you were mentally unstable.  I saw him doing________  I heard him say ________ .  I want to ***** you up it's easy.  Remember the law is to protect society from bad things.   Sure that can be done now but this could go very far in the wrong direction.  So we potentially locked up one person but we could have potentially save many lives. That's a win in those that want to protect us from bad things.   In my idea those with guns will have to "prove" their mental stability annually.  

If there were no guns available thd mental situation would be less concerning

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

If you noticed my idea says nothing about what types of guns we can own.  Eliminating what types of guns we can own will NOT fix this. 

We disagree on that. 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, Niagara Bill said:

If there were no guns available thd mental situation would be less concerning

 

You get right on that great idea of yours.  

[Unforgiven]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

This is probably a lot more true nowadays...I'm willing to bet a large portion of hard core

leftists use pot.

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

We disagree on that. 

 

So if someone with mental issue that causes a proclivity to kill will not care what type of gun is available to them. 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So if someone with mental issue that causes a proclivity to kill will not care what type of gun is available to them. 

Yes, but there’s a difference between a gun that shoots a few bullets vs. dozens in a given time period.

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes, but there’s a difference between a gun that shoots a few bullets vs. dozens in a given time period.

 

What number of shots over what period of time would be acceptable to you? 

 

A few bullets.  

[BillStime]

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What number of shots over what period of time would be acceptable to you? 

 

A few bullets.  

Six or less in a minute just as an example. That might have saved a couple people here in Indy the other day.  Or some kids at Sandy Hook.  Or some folks in Las Vegas.  Or so on.  
 

Limit the ammunition it gives people time to take cover and/or use their own gun to take out the shooter before he can kill more people.  Rather than absolutist positions, have a calm and reasoned discussion.

[SoTier]

20 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

If you noticed my idea says nothing about what types of guns we can own.  Eliminating what types of guns we can own will NOT fix this. 

 

Partly true.   An experienced muzzleloader user can get off maybe 2 shots in a minute.  A lucky shooter with a semi-automatic rifle can get off 20-30 rounds in a minute.  An experienced shooter can reload and get off many more shots.   Limiting the types of guns civilians can own won't stop the entire problem but it can certainly lessen the carnage.

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, SoTier said:

 

Partly true.   An experienced muzzleloader user can get off maybe 2 shots in a minute.  A lucky shooter with a semi-automatic rifle can get off 20-30 rounds in a minute.  An experienced shooter can reload and get off many more shots.   Limiting the types of guns civilians can own won't stop the entire problem but it can certainly lessen the carnage.

 

It’s basic math

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Quote

Officials said the gunman, a 19-year-old, was a former employee of the company whose mother had warned law enforcement officials last year that he might try to attempt “suicide by cop.” An F.B.I. special agent confirmed that the gunman had been interviewed by federal agents in April 2020, and that he was put on an “immediate detention mental health temporary hold.”

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/16/us/indianapolis-fedex-shooting.amp.html%3f0p19G=0232

[SoTier]

2 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/16/us/indianapolis-fedex-shooting.amp.html%3f0p19G=0232

 

Does anyone know what “immediate detention mental health temporary hold” actually means?  Does it mean that if he underwent a background check to purchase a gun that he'd be denied?   I saw a report that the police or the FBI confiscated the gun he owned in 2020, but he obviously acquired a new one.  
 

[Chef Jim]

25 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Six or less in a minute just as an example. That might have saved a couple people here in Indy the other day.  Or some kids at Sandy Hook.  Or some folks in Las Vegas.  Or so on.  
 

Limit the ammunition it gives people time to take cover and/or use their own gun to take out the shooter before he can kill more people.  Rather than absolutist positions, have a calm and reasoned discussion.

 

Ok I can probably squeeze off 40 in less than a minute with my pistol and I'm nowhere near a expert.  Do you shoot?

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

Ok I can probably squeeze off 40 in less than a minute with my pistol and I'm nowhere near a expert.  Do you shoot?

No I don’t.  Is that because you rapidly change magazines?  Then perhaps we focus on changing that aspect.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Does anyone know what “immediate detention mental health temporary hold” actually means?  Does it mean that if he underwent a background check to purchase a gun that he'd be denied?   I saw a report that the police or the FBI confiscated the gun he owned in 2020, but he obviously acquired a new one.  
 

Don’t know, was wondering same. Apparently they heard enough to confiscate a weapon. If he was able to legally buy another that’s a big problem.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Don’t know, was wondering same. Apparently they heard enough to confiscate a weapon. If he was able to legally buy another that’s a big problem.

Need to get a handle on that for sure.  There are so many things that could be done.  The absolutist positions paralyze any progress.

[Chef Jim]

14 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It’s basic math

 

No it's physics.  

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

No I don’t.  Is that because you rapidly change magazines?  Then perhaps we focus on changing that aspect.

 

I can change magazines.  Not sure if you'd call it rapidly but yeah.  See you're arguing a point you don't know much about.  

 

So what aspect of the reloading of magazines would you suggest?  

20 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Partly true.   An experienced muzzleloader user can get off maybe 2 shots in a minute.  A lucky shooter with a semi-automatic rifle can get off 20-30 rounds in a minute.  An experienced shooter can reload and get off many more shots.   Limiting the types of guns civilians can own won't stop the entire problem but it can certainly lessen the carnage.

 

 

Lessen it?  Then what?  

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

No it's physics.  

How would you limit the ability of this kid in Indy to shoot dozens of bullets in a minute?  You don’t see that as a problem?

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

How would you limit the ability of this kid in Indy to shoot dozens of bullets in a minute?  You don’t see that as a problem?

 

When I asked you how many bullets in a minute you said less than six.  That's laughable.  A typical mag holds 10 rounds. I can easily unload all rounds in under 10 seconds.  How long did the Austin Texas shooter take to kill 15 people in 1966?  I'll answer for you. An hour and a half.  So again it's not the weapon of choice.  Killers gonna kill 

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

How would you limit the ability of this kid in Indy to shoot dozens of bullets in a minute?  You don’t see that as a problem?

 

Ideally?  Do the best you can to make sure he never gets ahold of a weapon.  Any weapon.  But good luck with that. 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

When I asked you how many bullets in a minute you said less than six.  That's laughable.  A typical mag holds 10 rounds. I can easily unload all rounds in under 10 seconds.  How long did the Austin Texas shooter take to kill 15 people in 1966?  I'll answer for you. An hour and a half.  So again it's not the weapon of choice.  Killers gonna kill 

 

Ideally?  Do the best you can to make sure he never gets ahold of a weapon.  Any weapon.  But good luck with that. 

I agree with the latter.  Question:  do you think that every one of these mass shooters over the past decade or so would have failed a background check?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Unforgiven said:

This is probably a lot more true nowadays...I'm willing to bet a large portion of hard core

leftists use pot.

I’m warming up to the idea myself.  Been a long time since college, and I

seemed pretty happy then.  And if not happy, hungry.  And yeah, people were always laughing at me and out to get me but i

made it. 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree with the latter.  Question:  do you think that every one of these mass shooters over the past decade or so would have failed a background check?

 

Of course not. I'm smart enough to realize this is a problem that can't be solved.  Potentially reduced?  Yes but only potentially.  Solved?  Never.  

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m warming up to the idea myself.  Been a long time since college, and I

seemed pretty happy then.  And if not happy, hungry.  And yeah, people were always laughing at me and out to get me but i

made it. 

 

Be careful main. This ain't your college weed.  The amount that I'd smoke in a day in college lasts me 3 months or more.  

[Unforgiven]

15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m warming up to the idea myself.  Been a long time since college, and I

seemed pretty happy then.  And if not happy, hungry.  And yeah, people were always laughing at me and out to get me but i

made it. 

And that's fine, used to casual smoke myself ...I still have to wonder if pot use is directly 

contributing to the surge of mental health issues we've seen over the past decade or so.

Plus the stuff people are smoking is highly messed with...not dads homegrown.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Unforgiven

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

If you noticed my idea says nothing about what types of guns we can own.  Eliminating what types of guns we can own will NOT fix this. 

Sure, but as you point out, neither will background checks. So absent a fix, the objective should be a rational reduction in ability to inflict death. 
 

So as a thought experiment if you had to have a gun fight against someone else, out in public, would you rather a 9mm std magazine pistol or an AR15 with a 30 round clip. assume you have had ample time to practice with either. 

[Chef Jim]

9 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Sure, but as you point out, neither will background checks. So absent a fix, the objective should be a rational reduction in ability to inflict death. 
 

So as a thought experiment if you had to have a gun fight against someone else, out in public, would you rather a 9mm std magazine pistol or an AR15 with a 30 round clip. assume you have had ample time to practice with either. 

Better background checks will not fix this. Nothing will fix this. But working the human angle vs the weapon of choice will work better IMO

 

Regarding your hypothetical situation?  The AR of course. What’s your point?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Better background checks will not fix this. Nothing will fix this. But working the human angle vs the weapon of choice will work better IMO

 

Regarding your hypothetical situation?  The AR of course. What’s your point?

Simple; The less damaging firearms these killers have access to, the less damage they can do. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Of course not. I'm smart enough to realize this is a problem that can't be solved.  Potentially reduced?  Yes but only potentially.  Solved?  Never.  

 

Be careful main. This ain't your college weed.  The amount that I'd smoke in a day in college lasts me 3 months or more.  

I’ve heard that and it’s why I’m still contemplating a year or two after beginning to contemplate.  🙄

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Unforgiven said:

And that's fine, used to casual smoke myself ...I still have to wonder if pot use is directly 

contributing to the surge of mental health issues we've seen over the past decade or so.

Plus the stuff people are smoking is highly messed with...not dads homegrown.

Yup, reasonable concern.  My thought is that a lot of the mental health issue can be traced back to our societal desire to tell every child born over the past 25 years that they have mental health issues, combined with a 24 hour news cycle that reminds them that they should be worried 24 hours a day, and the proliferation of pharmaceutical drugs to treat same. 

[Motorin']

43 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Better background checks will not fix this. Nothing will fix this. But working the human angle vs the weapon of choice will work better IMO

 

Regarding your hypothetical situation?  The AR of course. What’s your point?

 

I do think there is a certain profile for mass shootings, the ones with poor social skills who literally live in their parents basement, who would never have been able to aquire guns had it not been for the internet. 

 

Certainly not all of these events, but a number of them, would have been prevented if it weren't possible to go online and order guns and ammo. 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

52 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Simple; The less damaging firearms these killers have access to, the less damage they can do. 

Disagee. They want to cause as much damage as possible. You really think the FedEx guy would have shot fewer is he had a handgun?

 

This is not a perfect analogy but it’s kind of like reducing drunk driving deaths by making whiskey illegal. 

23 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

I do think there is a certain profile for mass shootings, the ones with poor social skills who literally live in their parents basement, who would never have been able to aquire guns had it not been for the internet. 

 

Certainly not all of these events, but a number of them, would have been prevented if it weren't possible to go online and order guns and ammo. 

 

 

So no guns or ammo available online and the deranged mind just goes “oh well I’ll just watch TV”.