I just want to express my grief.

[Nix]

I would 'mostly' say that you live in an area with reasonably high crime, not that it is particularly unsafe to your bodily health.

Although kudos to you for sticking it out, I would have moved out of sheer annoyance and financial cost (assuming this sample is at one residence, and not spread out over a twenty plus years or something).

The fact that your house was hit by any drive by rounds is terrifying, and I'm glad you and yours weren't injured by that event.

What's a 'half' basement? 

My previous post was slightly misleading. My crime experiences as listed took place over the past 30 years and in five different locations (D.C., MD, CO, WY, and MT).

My "half-basement" was a set of rooms, below the ground floor, set into a grade so that some were subterranean in the front, but the rest at ground level (with windows and a door) at the back.

In my assessment (I guess this is all subjective), I've lived in "low crime" areas, and, despite a few bullets hitting the house in CO, very safe places. (I had several worrisome encounters with black bears in the same CO location. That coincidence seems a bit incongruous, and, with hindsight, kinda funny. The bears seemed like more of a concern.)

ADD: and why the hell aren't you asleep in bed now?

[Aloha]

Just to address this point, I'm not really sure why this would be a statistic of note, although I'm sure plenty of people here called for knife regulation. The UK has a population roughly 8 times higher than NYC (67.22 mil vs 8.38 mil), it would be a little concerning for NYC if our overall crime stats didn't at least peak higher on occasion, if not outright higher.

Its of note due to a call for regulation of the knife and not the core issues.  From my understand its the same approach called for here, ban yet not address the root cause.  The idea that UK knife crime, in particular murders for the first time in modern history were higher than NYC is noteworthy.  I'm not sure if you are saying knife crime or murders should peak due to your population being nearly 8 times that of NYC?  We have guns and they kill far more than knives yet it wasn't so.  I don't know with what those were killed in NYC with but we know it was knives in UK.  With already strict laws more laws didn't appear to do much. 

London's murder rate had grown by nearly 40 percent in three years 2015-2018, while police figures show that New York's has fallen by 87 percent since 1990 ( this is 2018 reporting ) and NYC has guns and knives.  Y'all just have knives.

Its noteworthy not to say, UK has crime and so do we.  Its noteworthy due to the reaction that was simply ban, stricter laws, yet not much else. 

I wont post UK stats on knife crime since the 2018 blip.  It sure seem not much has changed simply due to any additional knife law or restrictions. 

I did my best to restate why I posted what I posted.  Gun bans and stricter controls ALONE are not the answers and not a quick fix/solution they hope it will be.  This is a much to complex an issue, just like the issue with knife crime in the UK.  It'd be nice to say otherwise but it just isn't so.

By they way.  Thank you for your posts.  I really do appreciate your perspective.  I want to tell you living here in California with a high crime rate and gun violence I don't feel unsafe.  I do not own a gun nor do I have plans to.  My concerns are more about law makers thinking a law fixes anything.  Once the law is passed everyone goes back to their "world" till the next mass shooting takes place. 

Its really upsetting to know many of these had at least a chance at being prevented.       

[nate j]

Are there other studies similar to this that show a different trend?

The consensus seems to be that the results are inconclusive, or that there is not enough data to establish statistical significance.
Referring again to https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/07/bill-clinton/did-mass-shooting-deaths-fall-under-1994-assault-w/

From a 2004 study: “"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement," Koper wrote.”

Another researcher:  "That doesn’t mean that the ban was ineffective — only that we don’t know and probably cannot determine the answer given that the outcome of interest (mass shootings) is so rare."

“In a 2018 article, Smart reviewed two studies on the impact of the ban. She said strictly in terms of statistical methods, the results were "inconclusive."”

Yes so I was focussing on the difference after the ban rather than before it because is more statistically significant.

I agree that, at first glance, the data appears to show either a very small (probably not statistically significant) decrease from pre-ban to during-ban, and a larger (possibly significant?) increase from during-ban to post-ban.  Comparing pre-ban to post-ban, though, suggests to me that (assuming post-ban is significantly higher) the increase is mostly driven by factors other than whether or not the ban is in place.

Another favourite saying of mine is the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Good one!

What were the other restrictions? (I'm not arguing magazine capacity was solely responsible.)

The federal magazine capacity restriction was part of a large package known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.  This act was over 300 pages long.  It also banned “assault weapons” (which it defined as firearms on a specific list, plus any other firearms that met certain specified criteria), and contained a number of other provisions not directly related to firearms, such as increased funding for prisons, police, crime prevention programs, and prevention of violence against women; expanded both the number of federal offenses and the number of federal offenses eligible for the death penalty; tightened monitoring of sex offenders; etc.

Hardening: I don't know how US schools work, are the entire premises not fenced with restricted access? That's how schools generally are here, and that's with a sense of keeping... certain kinds of adults off the premises. I raise this because I assume a school to be naturally more hardened as a place than a public supermarket, but I realise that assumption may be geo-biased.

There may be schools that are fenced all the way around with restricted access gates, but I have never seen one, so I’m pretty comfortable saying that it isn’t the norm here.  Sad to say, but from what I’ve read of Uvalde, their security seems pretty typical of what I’ve seen here in the US:
- Most exterior doors are locked most of the time
- There may be some security cameras, but there may be significant gaps in camera coverage and likely no one assigned to continuously monitor the live feeds
- There may be police assigned to the school, but even if there are, they are probably spread too thin; commonly a single officer per school, or even a single officer covering multiple schools
- Classroom doors can generally be locked from the inside

So I'm understanding your break down of the legislative system, Congress (?) is dependent on population, but the Senate is more susceptible to how many states fall into which camp? And for a law to pass you need both houses and the president to all agree?

If I understand that correctly, I'm not surprised the status quo largely stays the same.

Pretty close.  Representation in the House of Representatives is basically proportional to population, but each state has equal representation in the Senate.  The Senate and House of Representatives collectively are referred to as Congress. 


The majority of bills that become law are passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then agreed to (either explicitly or implicitly) by the president.

If a bill passes both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but the president disagrees, he may veto it.  If 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate support the bill, they may override the president’s veto and the bill becomes law.  This scenario is less common, but it does happen.  Historically, only about 7% of regular vetoes have been overridden.

[Syncop8r]

It has been mentioned a few times that if the "bad guys" can't/won't access guns then they will use other means (eg running over people with cars/trucks, setting off explosions etc).

While this is true, it seems to me that there are a lot more motivated "bad guys" in the US by comparison with other rich, developed countries (mine amongst them).

I'm not so sure the US has such a larger proportion of unhinged people. Some have mentioned prescription drugs being doled out too easily so perhaps there's that.

Whilst some would still use other means to commit mass killings in the absence of assault rifles etc, I don't think those methods have the same appeal to the perpetrator and there would be far less mass killings.

[Nix]

Whilst some would still use other means to commit mass killings in the absence of assault rifles etc, I don't think those methods have the same appeal to the perpetrator and there would be far less mass killings.

Hard to say. Again, the use of assault rifle type weapons for homicide is relatively low. Horrific, but low.

According to the analyses I've read, e.g. a Dept of Justice review, during the assault weapons ban, homicides with those types of weapons did go down; however, homicides by other means went up. And this was during a period when around the world homicides went down in general. The takeaway was that the assault weapons ban (with a 10-round magazine limit as well) did little to impact overall homicide rates. Other firearms were substituted for the assault weapons.

A Rand meta-analysis entitled The Science of Gun Policy looked at selected studies that met certain scientific criteria, e.g. they excluded some gun industry sponsored "studies". In the chapter on assault rifles, they sum up "we find inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings." [Italics original]

The Rand study does come up with a good list of recommended gun-law and other legal changes, but those are fights for another day.

My complaint about these analyses is that 1) there were still plenty of assault rifle type weapons around during the ban, 2) some studied bans were local and may not account for cross-border access, 3) there were still plenty of 10-30 round magazines around, 4) 10 years may not be sufficient time to evaluate such a policy, after all there was some drop seen in homicides with assault rifle type weapons. Might a 20-year ban (or permanent ban) not show different results?

These analyses often cited as "proving assault weapon bans don't work", may actually point to a different conclusion: a national ban wasn't in place for long enough or ban enough weapons. Nevertheless, the intuitive notion that assault weapon bans alone will reduce mass shootings has not been borne out to date.

[Sos24]

It has been mentioned a few times that if the "bad guys" can't/won't access guns then they will use other means (eg running over people with cars/trucks, setting off explosions etc).

While this is true, it seems to me that there are a lot more motivated "bad guys" in the US by comparison with other rich, developed countries (mine amongst them). 

So putting aside the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of any laws restricting access to guns and ammunition, what are the factors leading to so many US citizens deciding to go off the rails and kill as many innocent people as they can ? 

I don't think simply blaming "mental illness" as a catch all is a good enough explanation, there must be some underlying factor/s that exist to a much greater degree in the US than elsewhere.  There are plenty of disaffected people in other countries too, but very few transition to mass murder.

Is it more poverty, more broken homes, more personal violence, less empathy, greater desire for independence, difficulty obtaining healthcare (including mental health),more feeling of hopelessness, more exposure to racism or some other factors that explain the disparity ?

As for the cause, you are pretty much on target with several studies. 

Here is an article that outlines some commonalities in school shooters.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/when-disaster-strikes-inside-disaster-psychology/201803/profiling-school-shooters

And Here is a pretty good summary in a glance of what many studies have shown as “risk factors” for youth becoming violent in general.

Here is the source, which also lists some of what is called “protective factors” or things that reduce the risk of violent behavior.

https://rems.ed.gov/Docs/SAMHSA_AddressingYouthViolence.pdf

[Sos24]

I saw a comment regarding “Red Flag” laws, which I can’t find now but want to discuss.

First the US does prohibit people who have been “adjudicated as mentally defective” to own guns.  For the purposes of the law “mentally defective” is defined as:

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include -
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant…

[I will not discuss (a)(2) because it isn’t really applicable here and I have very strong feelings]

The problem with this law is that a mental health professional must initiated the process and many won’t due to “patient-doctor confidentiality” and fear of patients not seeking treatment out of fear.  There is also no requirement for doctors to submit patient records of those they consider a danger to the NCICS (background checking system) because of patient confidentiality.

So what would theoretically stop many people who are a known danger from owning a gun fails to do so.

My research into this and other things, led me to be a big advocate for “Red Flag” laws before they even existed.  My thought was there needed to be a way where family members who had strong reason to believe a person “was a danger to himself or to others” could initiate the process to get a person legally adjudicated, so the existing law would kick in.  Something like a court ordered evaluation and determination by a board.

So when “Red Flag” laws started to be proposed, I was strongly behind them.  Once I actually saw what was in the proposed legislation, my support quickly decreased.

This is where a good concept in theory can become not so good in execution, at least in my opinion.

A basic summation of how many “Red Flag” laws or proposals work
- someone goes to police to have the paperwork drawn up and presented to a judge.
       —some limit who that someone to family or policy, others include teachers, coworkers, close acquaintances, etc)
      — in most cases, any type of judge will do
- If the judge deems that there is sufficient evidence to believe the accused might be a danger, he issues an emergency or temporary warrant
- The police then serve the warrant to the accused and seize any and all guns.  This is the first time the accused is made aware of anything
- If the accused does not agree with the warrant then he must schedule a hearing date.  Some limit how long the hearing can be after the temporary.  If the accused does nothing, the emergency/temporary becomes regular/permanent and the accused cannot own guns for minimum 1 year
- At the hearing the accused gets his first opportunity to defend himself.  Also, per most laws, the burden of proof is on the accused.  So he must prove he is not a danger, rather than the person who brought the accusations proving that the accused is a danger.
    -- There do not have to be any medical or mental health professionals present or consulted at any point.
   - - If the accused want a lawyer, he must pay for him and any court fees out of his own pocket
    -- The accused does not need to be found guilty of any crimes in order for the order to stay in place or be extended.

I’ve only seen a couple articles with statistics on “Red Flag” laws and those I did had the number around 80% of the cases never being extended beyond the emergency/temporary order.  The articles portrayed this as the laws worked and the conditions was just a temporary one that was resolved.  The reality was that when the accused had an opportunity to defend himself, the accusations were deemed in valid or unsupported.

So I agree “Red Flag” laws would be a good thing in theory and if they worked to really identify those who are a “danger to themselves or to others”.  Unfortunately, based on how most the laws are written and executed they seem not to truly respect the rights of the accused, do not have a consistent or objective standard of proof for determining the accused is a danger, and provide opportunity for a vindictive person to take away someone’s property (guns).

[Nix]

I agree. It seems most "red flag" laws do not provide due process to the accused. I'd be much happier if there were a proper hearing involved, with representation.

[nate j]

I saw a comment regarding “Red Flag” laws, which I can’t find now but want to discuss.

First the US does prohibit people who have been “adjudicated as mentally defective” to own guns.  For the purposes of the law “mentally defective” is defined as:

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include -
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant…

[I will not discuss (a)(2) because it isn’t really applicable here and I have very strong feelings]

The problem with this law is that a mental health professional must initiated the process and many won’t due to “patient-doctor confidentiality” and fear of patients not seeking treatment out of fear.  There is also no requirement for doctors to submit patient records of those they consider a danger to the NCICS (background checking system) because of patient confidentiality.

So what would theoretically stop many people who are a known danger from owning a gun fails to do so.

My research into this and other things, led me to be a big advocate for “Red Flag” laws before they even existed.  My thought was there needed to be a way where family members who had strong reason to believe a person “was a danger to himself or to others” could initiate the process to get a person legally adjudicated, so the existing law would kick in.  Something like a court ordered evaluation and determination by a board.

So when “Red Flag” laws started to be proposed, I was strongly behind them.  Once I actually saw what was in the proposed legislation, my support quickly decreased.

This is where a good concept in theory can become not so good in execution, at least in my opinion.

A basic summation of how many “Red Flag” laws or proposals work
- someone goes to police to have the paperwork drawn up and presented to a judge.
       —some limit who that someone to family or policy, others include teachers, coworkers, close acquaintances, etc)
      — in most cases, any type of judge will do
- If the judge deems that there is sufficient evidence to believe the accused might be a danger, he issues an emergency or temporary warrant
- The police then serve the warrant to the accused and seize any and all guns.  This is the first time the accused is made aware of anything
- If the accused does not agree with the warrant then he must schedule a hearing date.  Some limit how long the hearing can be after the temporary.  If the accused does nothing, the emergency/temporary becomes regular/permanent and the accused cannot own guns for minimum 1 year
- At the hearing the accused gets his first opportunity to defend himself.  Also, per most laws, the burden of proof is on the accused.  So he must prove he is not a danger, rather than the person who brought the accusations proving that the accused is a danger.
    -- There do not have to be any medical or mental health professionals present or consulted at any point.
   - - If the accused want a lawyer, he must pay for him and any court fees out of his own pocket
    -- The accused does not need to be found guilty of any crimes in order for the order to stay in place or be extended.

I’ve only seen a couple articles with statistics on “Red Flag” laws and those I did had the number around 80% of the cases never being extended beyond the emergency/temporary order.  The articles portrayed this as the laws worked and the conditions was just a temporary one that was resolved.  The reality was that when the accused had an opportunity to defend himself, the accusations were deemed in valid or unsupported.

So I agree “Red Flag” laws would be a good thing in theory and if they worked to really identify those who are a “danger to themselves or to others”.  Unfortunately, based on how most the laws are written and executed they seem not to truly respect the rights of the accused, do not have a consistent or objective standard of proof for determining the accused is a danger, and provide opportunity for a vindictive person to take away someone’s property (guns).

I agree. It seems most "red flag" laws do not provide due process to the accused. I'd be much happier if there were a proper hearing involved, with representation.

I agree.  Red flag laws are just one example of a gun control idea that might sound good, but has serious problems in practice.  I’m really surprised more of those laws haven’t been struck down under the 5th Amendment (and possibly 4th and 6th as well).

Another example:  expanded background checks.  Sure, this might sound logical and sensible, but when you think about the transfers that then might (depending on how the law is worded) become illegal or be required to pay a fee and go through a FFL dealer:
- A father wants to gift a firearm to his adult son.
- A sister wants to purchase a gun from her brother.  (Both adults)
- A friend invites another to his hunting cabin, and wants to loan him a firearm for the weekend.
It doesn’t make much sense.  It’s important to note that making or attempting to make a straw purchase of a firearm is already a federal crime.

“Assault weapons” bans, because the questions of who “needs” or is entitled to have “assault weapons” aside, if we’re defining what an “assault weapon” is based on largely cosmetic characteristics like pistol grips and heat shields, what exactly are we really accomplishing?

[Sea Monster]

“Assault weapons” bans, because the questions of who “needs” or is entitled to have “assault weapons” aside, if we’re defining what an “assault weapon” is based on largely cosmetic characteristics like pistol grips and heat shields, what exactly are we really accomplishing?

I have no idea what sneaky confusing legislation has actually been proposed, but I would hazard a guess that the "layman" would consider anything with automatic fire and a large, removable magazine capacity to be an "assault weapon"

A more conservative layman might also include anything with a semi automatic and removable magazine to be an assault weapon.

[Syncop8r]

1) I would avoid using "statistics" reported in the media concerning mass shootings and to support or to rebut calls for stricter gun control laws in the US. There is a lack of consensus on a definition for mass shootings. I have seen reports on the number of mass shootings in the US in 2022 up to the current date ranging from 4 to 240+. I found many articles online that repeated numbers to support the focus of the article without a thorough examination of how the numbers were derived.

The statistics I referenced were more than just reported in the media, they are from a population-based study by a group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons (DiMaggio).

I agree a consensus should be reached on what constitutes a mass shooting for the purposes of statistical analysis.

• The FBI defines it as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter.
• The Gun Violence Archive defines it as follows: "While they are generally grouped together as one type of incident they are several with the foundation definition being that they have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident."

[Aloha]

It would seem the powers that be should at the very least clearly define mass shooting. 

[Syncop8r]

It would seem the powers that be should at the very least clearly define mass shooting.

According to the FBI's definition, if someone goes out and shoots a mass of people (say 1000) and none of them die, that's not a mass shooting. 

[Aloha]

 

[Adam5]

According to the FBI's definition, if someone goes out and shoots a mass of people (say 1000) and none of them die, that's not a mass shooting. 

Yeah, it is not a very good definition. Clearly the intent of the shooter is more important to note than his or her efficiency at killing people.

[Farmer X]

Places of Worship - This was just a curiosity to me, these are generally gun free zones? Is this just typically nonChristian/Catholic places of worship? I assumed there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and the bible belt, but might be way off there.

Many of them are. But as you've noted, it can vary according to region.

I have no problem with any individual of sound mind and proper training in the use of a firearm owning one, including an AR-15. I would prefer that firearm owners be required to demonstrate the possession of both.

I've no idea what would be the best way to demonstrate soundness of mind. Mental illness has been discussed at great length here, but degenerative diseases often brought on by advanced age concern me at least a little. Training is a little easier to demonstrate, and states that issue concealed carry permits require applicants to demonstrate proficiency (or at least, they should). I've never been a resident of a state that allows carry without a permit, so a resident of such a state would have to chime in as to whether a demonstration of proficiency is required before one is granted the right to carry without a permit.

The police then serve the warrant to the accused and seize any and all guns.  This is the first time the accused is made aware of anything.

Very true. Everyone in the United States is entitled to due process of law. Having read that explanation of how "red flag laws" work, it strikes me that they are uncomfortably close to a bill of attainder...which is strictly prohibited under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

A more conservative layman might also include anything with a semi automatic and removable magazine to be an assault weapon.

That definition would qualify a Ruger 10/22 (perhaps even moreso if it's a takedown type and/or equipped with a suppressor) as an "assault weapon." That example highlights one reason I detest that term: the definitions can be arbitrary and, in some cases, wildly inaccurate.

I'm going off on a tangent here, but I also detest the term "silencer." It is factually inaccurate.

As regards the definition of a "mass shooting," the only clear consensus seems to be lack of a "cooling off" period.

[Sea Monster]

That definition would qualify a Ruger 10/22 (perhaps even moreso if it's a takedown type and/or equipped with a suppressor) as an "assault weapon." That example highlights one reason I detest that term: the definitions can be arbitrary and, in some cases, wildly inaccurate.

and perhaps the Ruger is then?

I suppose you could add "centrefire" or "using a 5.56, 6.8, or 7.62mm or equivalent calibre"

I say "or equivalent" to avoid the inevitable nonsense - the point is a sufficiently powerful cartridge, carried in sufficiently large quantities, fired at a sufficiently fast rate.

I'm going off on a tangent here, but I also detest the term "silencer." It is factually inaccurate.

Suppressor, sound modifying device, sound redirecting device, sound bafffling device....

Silencer probably just sounds cooler.

As regards the definition of a "mass shooting," the only clear consensus seems to be lack of a "cooling off" period.

Broadly I think it's reported as anything more than 4 people....

I think out of convention, if you shoot your partner and three kids, they don't call it a "Mass shooting" in the media, but it might get entered as such in whatever official databases exist.




For those talking about mental health....

the problem there is that...lots of mental health professional are guessing (I'm not taking a shot at them, it's the nature of the profession), and the DSM (now up to 5, which made a heap of changes from 4) might surprise you into its interpretation of mental illnesses,
and at any rate is likely to replaced by the ICD (which is the WHO catalogue, as opposed to the DSM which is an American catalogue) - so overnight someone who was of "sound mind" might not be, and someone who wasn't might be.


We all might sort of know in our guts what is sound mind and isn't....but to actually document and legislate it?

Well, the fact that the DSM is up to version 5, and the ICD is up to version 11 might tell you how much luck they're having with that.


This article (dated now, but contemporary when the DSM 5 was released) might shed some insight on the hazard of clinging to "mental health" as the defining concept for legislation....

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/dsm-5-is-guide-not-bible-ignore-its-ten-worst-changes

[Aloha]

 

Mental illness would be a challenge to legislate let alone try to get a consensus defining what is and what parameters need to be met.   

Good article.  Thank you. 

[Top-Gear-24]

...
I would say that the topic is shifting a little here, you're referring to gun violence in general, but the thread overall is about mass shootings, not general gun violence...

I thought this thread was about expressing grief...

[Fireman]

A CNN piece on how to stop mass shootings.  "80 to 90 percent of the time, shooters tell people what they're going to do."


https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2022/06/11/mass-shooters-prevention-trend-intent-smerc-vpx.cnn

[Nix]

Seven pages on a difficult and painful issue and we haven't gotten the thread locked up. Well done, MTo!   

[Sea Monster]

I thought this thread was about expressing grief...

In some western cultures, men are conditioned to be incapable of emotions, so when called upon to be involved in an emotionally supportive role, rather than just "being there", they try to fix the problem....



 

[Aloha]

 

With all respect, we grieve in different ways.  Many try to resolve the "issue"  which is their expression.  Some lament, while others fuss, all are part of the process in general.  We have tip toed thru this whole thread rather well. While we each have our own very personal feelings/attitudes towards it remedies/solutions, I'm fairly sure we are all saddened by what happened. 

In this way we grieve in my opinion.     

 

[Sos24]

With all respect, we grieve in different ways.  Many try to resolve the "issue"  which is their expression.  Some lament, while others fuss, all are part of the process in general.  We have tip toed thru this whole thread rather well. While we each have our own very personal feelings/attitudes towards it remedies/solutions, I'm fairly sure we are all saddened by what happened. 

In this way we grieve in my opinion.     

 

:agree:  My wife tends to get angry and look for the “why” as part of her grief.  At first it was strange to me and took some getting use to, but I’ve come to understand.

To be honest in the US when something like this happen, it is hard to grieve in anyway that people might consider “normal”.   The response of many news outlets, politicians and people is to start immediately advocating for new gun laws.  Before the facts are even known people are villianizing anyone who they feel is not on their side.  The politicians even have the bill already ready, they just put a new name on it and submit it.  It doesn’t matter if you support some of the laws or have other proposals.  If you aren’t 100% behind banning “assault weapons”, banning “high capacity” magazines, “red flag” laws, etc then you “have blood on your hands”. 

This is why to me this thread has seemed very strange.  It has been a civil discussion of people working through thoughts, opinions, facts as a way of trying to understand each other better.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Not to bring this one back up willy nilly, but here is an interesting article:

https://nationalpost.com/news/first-reading-the-newest-liberal-scandal-just-dropped-and-its-a-doozy

Allegedly the government influenced the inquiry to push their anti firearm agenda, to the chagrin of the RCMP.

And people wonder why we don't trust out governments.

Def

[Explorer]

Grew up carrying guns, Target shooting and even competing in target shooting. Had my open carry for many many years and then one day I just realized that in a way- all those years I had essentially been preparing for an enemy that had never come. I thought of all of the time, energy and normal worry and concern that a responsible gun owner has on a day-to-day basis and I saw the colossal waste of my precious energy that I had put into this hobby.

Went down to the gun store plunked all my guns down on the table and put them up for sale. Haven’t looked back since. Not a day goes by that I wish I had held onto one of them actually it’s just the opposite- not a day goes by where I don’t think to myself how it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Because now I feel genuinely free, unencumbered and without fear.  It’s not for everyone but it has really changed my entire life and how I look at the world. Oh yeah... and I buy bear spray now 

[Nix]

Some great points, Explorer.   

I've wrestled with similar thoughts myself.

I live in Grizzly country. Giving up a .44 would be a bold thing to do, even though I carry bear spray.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I'm under no illusions that I'm going to pack enough heat to fight da gubbermint.

I only want guns because I enjoy target shooting and occasionally I'd appreciate the opportunity to discourage a bear or coyote from turning me into a streaming pile of dung.

I just don't don't think a group that routinely lies and steals, and in this case falsified information to manipulate their own enforcement arm to achieve their goals should have any say in what I can and cannot have in my life.

Def

[Nix]

Hard to overvalue freedom.

[Aloha]

Its interesting to hear your experience Explorer, thank you.  Having a chat with my neighbor who is retired LEO, he never carried his gun after he retired.  I asked why and he said he never felt the need or desire.  I don't think either of your thoughts on it are rare.  It is nice to hear them.

For many its not about wanting to carry its about not letting the right erode away.  I think what is missed, at least from my perspective is what the Supreme Court just ruled and what Justice Thomas said "its not a second class right".