California active shooter.....Here we go again...

[titsonritz]

Exactly!

Liberals/democrats have never had a 'thing' that has been attached to them as a group, or assigned as an 'element' to the level and degree that guns have to conservatives/republicans.

You mean other than abortion?

 

[Rkangel]

You mean other than abortion?

Also responsible for more annual deaths than firearms.

 

[titsonritz]

Also responsible for more annual deaths than firearms.

...and not even close.

 

[Certaindeaf]

You mean other than abortion?

And other people's money.

 

[Knobgoblin]

You can not strike deals with communists/marxists, it doesn't work that way.

Stalin loved making deals, and then defaulting on them ASAP.

 

[baker3gun]

I really respect how you approach the subject and agree with much of what you've said, but concessions are going to be necessary if we want to avoid bans.

Concessions to what? What would you like to concede to?

Greater than 99.9% of all guns in America are never used in crime. Greater than 99% of all gun owners never commit violent crimes with guns. Guns don't cause crime. Gun ownership does not cause crime. This is immediately obvious.

Gun control laws don't prevent crime. Again, immediately obvious. People who want to commit crime don't care about laws that prohibit crime or any other law. They don't care about laws that require their friend to run a background check on them before selling them a gun. They don't care about mall-wide or school-wide bans on guns. They don't care about prohibitions on drive-by shootings.

We Americans recently already made the only reasonable concession that might reduce the number of guns available to criminals: Brady Act and ancillary legislation. Look what the govt does with our concession. Nothing. They don't keep adequate records and they don't prosecute denials and they ignore straw purchases. So we conceded to that law but it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because it's not applied or enforced.

What other gun control law would you like to concede to?
If guns and gun ownership don't cause crime, and gun control laws don't prevent crime, why are you so eager to concede to more senseless gun control laws that are always passed under the guise of crime prevention but never prevent crime?

You advocate for concessions. Spell 'em out. Say what concessions you want the rest of us to make, and demonstrate how those concessions will solve some societal problem.

Before you start, go here and scroll down to Mexico: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/illicit-drugs .
And read this: https://www.brookings.edu/research/mexicos-out-of-control-criminal-market/ .
FYI - the CIA used to publish a trove a tonnage stats in their online World Factbook. Their website recently changed, I couldn't find my old links this morning. The quantities of drugs coming from and through Mexico into the U.S. is nothing short of astounding.
The point is this: laws that make wanted commodities illegal are ignored by criminals. If tons of drugs can come across that border, tons of guns can too.
So as you formulate your concessions of our natural human rights, try to remember that the goal is to affect criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Think about what you're suggesting here at the end. Solve problems like crime and violence in society first? That's literally impossible, cannot and never will be accomplished. Humanity is inherently bubblegumed, there will always be criminals and violence. This is incredibly naïve, sounds like it could be made into a sequel of the giver, some fantastic world where crime and violence have been solved...

Ah, you jumped to an extreme so that you could employ an emotional plea and you even couched an ad hominem attack.

You put words in my mouth so that you could then rant about nothing and call me naive.
That makes you look stupid. You shouldn't do it, unless of course you like to look stupid.

I never said "solve" or "eradicate" crime. My suggestion is to effectively manage crime by attacking the underlying causes of crime and by effectively managing the people who commit crime. The goal is to reduce crime to the lowest achievable level, not eradicate it. That is a rational and reasonable goal, but you jumped right past it so that you could resort to emotional plea and name-calling.

Facts: the welfare state creates crime-incubator communities, our criminal justice system is ineffective, and we have a growing number of people in elected positions who tacitly or even overtly support defunding law enforcement.
Those are real problems. Gun control laws will not help solve those problems, at all.

Since "crime prevention" is always the guise underlying proposed gun control laws even though guns and gun ownership don't cause crime and gun control laws don't prevent crime, smart people can easily find two reasons to pursue more effective crime prevention policy:
1 - to improve society by preventing more crime.
2 - to erode irrational political support for gun control. If crime is reduced, political support for gun control will be eroded. If they can't waive the "crime prevention" flag as often, what other flag can they waive to convince people that the citizen right to arms is bad?

And I'm extremely amused by the others who are faulting me for not having a solution. Sorry I don't have a golden bullet guys, just because someone don't see a solution doesn't mean they can't see the problem. Talking about the problem is the best way to form potential solutions...

Yah, but you have to say something worth hearing, which so far you have not.

This is a discussion forum. It's okay to think out loud. You did. Then some people showed you how your perspective is baseless.

What next?

Will you alter your perception to one that is better supported by facts and reason?

Or will you stick to your emotion-based, unfounded personal opinion that "concessions must be made!"

 

[Mikej]

Concessions to what? What would you like to concede to?

Greater than 99.9% of all guns in America are never used in crime. Greater than 99% of all gun owners never commit violent crimes with guns. Guns don't cause crime. Gun ownership does not cause crime. This is immediately obvious.

Gun control laws don't prevent crime. Again, immediately obvious. People who want to commit crime don't care about laws that prohibit crime or any other law. They don't care about laws that require their friend to run a background check on them before selling them a gun. They don't care about mall-wide or school-wide bans on guns. They don't care about prohibitions on drive-by shootings.

We Americans recently already made the only reasonable concession that might reduce the number of guns available to criminals: Brady Act and ancillary legislation. Look what the govt does with our concession. Nothing. They don't keep adequate records and they don't prosecute denials and they ignore straw purchases. So we conceded to that law but it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because it's not applied or enforced.

What other gun control law would you like to concede to?
If guns and gun ownership don't cause crime, and gun control laws don't prevent crime, why are you so eager to concede to more senseless gun control laws that are always passed under the guise of crime prevention but never prevent crime?

You advocate for concessions. Spell 'em out. Say what concessions you want the rest of us to make, and demonstrate how those concessions will solve some societal problem.

Before you start, go here and scroll down to Mexico: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/illicit-drugs .
And read this: https://www.brookings.edu/research/mexicos-out-of-control-criminal-market/ .
FYI - the CIA used to publish a trove a tonnage stats in their online World Factbook. Their website recently changed, I couldn't find my old links this morning. The quantities of drugs coming from and through Mexico into the U.S. is nothing short of astounding.
The point is this: laws that make wanted commodities illegal are ignored by criminals. If tons of drugs can come across that border, tons of guns can too.
So as you formulate your concessions of our natural human rights, try to remember that the goal is to affect criminals, not law-abiding citizens.



Ah, you jumped to an extreme so that you could employ an emotional plea and you even couched an ad hominem attack.

You put words in my mouth so that you could then rant about nothing and call me naive.
That makes you look stupid. You shouldn't do it, unless of course you like to look stupid.

I never said "solve" or "eradicate" crime. My suggestion is to effectively manage crime by attacking the underlying causes of crime and by effectively managing the people who commit crime. The goal is to reduce crime to the lowest achievable level, not eradicate it. That is a rational and reasonable goal, but you jumped right past it so that you could resort to emotional plea and name-calling.

Facts: the welfare state creates crime-incubator communities, our criminal justice system is ineffective, and we have a growing number of people in elected positions who tacitly or even overtly support defunding law enforcement.
Those are real problems. Gun control laws will not help solve those problems, at all.

Since "crime prevention" is always the guise underlying proposed gun control laws even though guns and gun ownership don't cause crime and gun control laws don't prevent crime, smart people can easily find two reasons to pursue more effective crime prevention policy:
1 - to improve society by preventing more crime.
2 - to erode irrational political support for gun control. If crime is reduced, political support for gun control will be eroded. If they can't waive the "crime prevention" flag as often, what other flag can they waive to convince people that the citizen right to arms is bad?



Yah, but you have to say something worth hearing, which so far you have not.

This is a discussion forum. It's okay to think out loud. You did. Then some people showed you how your perspective is baseless.

What next?

Will you alter your perception to one that is better supported by facts and reason?

Or will you stick to your emotion-based, unfounded personal opinion that "concessions must be made!"

This ^^ is very good.

I just want to know exactly WHAT concessions we fire arms owners/2nd Amendment supporters need to embrace to get the far left out of our lives? Specifically please. Are we talking the crazy stuff like, Cali's "Bullet Button" and that goofy, fricken piece of plastic on the grip, no flash hider and background check on ammo? Or having to let a gov employee come to your house and count your ammo, make sure your safe is "Approved" like England does?

Seriously, just what GD compromises are the pro compromise people GUN OWNERS suggesting!?

 

[arentol72]

Once again.. that is impossible. California has strict draconian gun laws preventing such things. Ive been assured this by all the mental midget California politicians and their overreaching laws.

Not only that, if he was a VTA employee I bet his employer explicitly disallowed employees to bring firearms on the premises. Being an employee he knew this, and thus had complete assurance nobody there would have an effective means with which to defend themselves. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

I don 't see how people don't get that no law ever will stop someone like this, but the threat of their being a dozen armed people turning on them immediately, reducing the success of their attack, and not guaranteeing their death at the end, might.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Jonathan Tatone, LA county firefighter did the same type thing earlier this week.

What are the chances he saw this previous incident and took it as inspiration ? We are all well aware that media coverage of these incidents has encouraged their repetitive cycle in the past 30 years. Desperate acts of loneliness in a crowded world .
2021 hasn't peaked quite yet I'm sorry to say.

 

[Koda]

Dont forget about all the compromises gun owners have already been forced to make.

 

[CRBMoA]

Concessions to what? What would you like to concede to?

Greater than 99.9% of all guns in America are never used in crime. Greater than 99% of all gun owners never commit violent crimes with guns. Guns don't cause crime. Gun ownership does not cause crime. This is immediately obvious.

Gun control laws don't prevent crime. Again, immediately obvious. People who want to commit crime don't care about laws that prohibit crime or any other law. They don't care about laws that require their friend to run a background check on them before selling them a gun. They don't care about mall-wide or school-wide bans on guns. They don't care about prohibitions on drive-by shootings.

We Americans recently already made the only reasonable concession that might reduce the number of guns available to criminals: Brady Act and ancillary legislation. Look what the govt does with our concession. Nothing. They don't keep adequate records and they don't prosecute denials and they ignore straw purchases. So we conceded to that law but it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because it's not applied or enforced.

What other gun control law would you like to concede to?
If guns and gun ownership don't cause crime, and gun control laws don't prevent crime, why are you so eager to concede to more senseless gun control laws that are always passed under the guise of crime prevention but never prevent crime?

You advocate for concessions. Spell 'em out. Say what concessions you want the rest of us to make, and demonstrate how those concessions will solve some societal problem.

Before you start, go here and scroll down to Mexico: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/illicit-drugs .
And read this: https://www.brookings.edu/research/mexicos-out-of-control-criminal-market/ .
FYI - the CIA used to publish a trove a tonnage stats in their online World Factbook. Their website recently changed, I couldn't find my old links this morning. The quantities of drugs coming from and through Mexico into the U.S. is nothing short of astounding.
The point is this: laws that make wanted commodities illegal are ignored by criminals. If tons of drugs can come across that border, tons of guns can too.
So as you formulate your concessions of our natural human rights, try to remember that the goal is to affect criminals, not law-abiding citizens.



Ah, you jumped to an extreme so that you could employ an emotional plea and you even couched an ad hominem attack.

You put words in my mouth so that you could then rant about nothing and call me naive.
That makes you look stupid. You shouldn't do it, unless of course you like to look stupid.

I never said "solve" or "eradicate" crime. My suggestion is to effectively manage crime by attacking the underlying causes of crime and by effectively managing the people who commit crime. The goal is to reduce crime to the lowest achievable level, not eradicate it. That is a rational and reasonable goal, but you jumped right past it so that you could resort to emotional plea and name-calling.

Facts: the welfare state creates crime-incubator communities, our criminal justice system is ineffective, and we have a growing number of people in elected positions who tacitly or even overtly support defunding law enforcement.
Those are real problems. Gun control laws will not help solve those problems, at all.

Since "crime prevention" is always the guise underlying proposed gun control laws even though guns and gun ownership don't cause crime and gun control laws don't prevent crime, smart people can easily find two reasons to pursue more effective crime prevention policy:
1 - to improve society by preventing more crime.
2 - to erode irrational political support for gun control. If crime is reduced, political support for gun control will be eroded. If they can't waive the "crime prevention" flag as often, what other flag can they waive to convince people that the citizen right to arms is bad?



Yah, but you have to say something worth hearing, which so far you have not.

This is a discussion forum. It's okay to think out loud. You did. Then some people showed you how your perspective is baseless.

What next?

Will you alter your perception to one that is better supported by facts and reason?

Or will you stick to your emotion-based, unfounded personal opinion that "concessions must be made!"

Brilliant! May I steal this?

 

[RVTECH]

Dont forget about all the compromises gun owners have already been forced to make.

Good point.

And these 'compromises' are typically soon forgotten by the antis they very quickly return to where they started with no regard or respect to what 'we' lost.

 

[albin25]

Compromise?
- Criminal..."I'm gonna kill you"
- Victim...."I'd rather you leave me alone"
- Compromise.... "Let's agree to meet in the middle, Permanently disabled it is then"

 

[Rkangel]

Ask yourself...
Do you have the inalienable moral right to defend yourself or others?
Is it more moral to concede these rights to people, organizations, or authorities who are unable or unwilling to defend (if not openly hostile to) those same rights?
Are you OK with ceding individual inalienable rights to the collective/state?
Do you believe that the collective/state is always right, just, or moral?
Do you believe that the collective/state supersedes individual rights and freedoms?
Do you believe that compromising with someone who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain will result in anything but more of your compromise in the future?
Do you believe that the collective/state actually cares about your life or liberty beyond its use as political capital?
Are you willing to trust your life and protection to a system that says we need to reduce the population?
Do you believe there is difference between right and wrong?
Are you willing to defend it?

Continuing to compromise Constitutional rights is like a lamb negotiating with the first wolf to only eat one leg, while hoping that a missing leg doesn't make it easier prey for the next wolf.

 

[baker3gun]

Brilliant! May I steal this?

It's on a public forum.

Sources: see https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...se-active-shooters.370605/page-5#post-2938336