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

[Soli]

Regarding psych evals, I give you history.

Yeah it's wiki history, but pretty good none the less.

Bottom line, any such system of evaluations to determine who gets to exercise their rights will, not may, be used to target political enemies.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Just opinion again but I dont think we can solved the perceived problem because our culture has pretty much be destroyed. At best a man should work to survive the destruction.

Media plays up gun violence, as they call it, to get legislation passed to take our rights away. Swamp not only empties the jail full of criminals in the name of covid but is letting hundreds of thousands of criminal jump the border. Of course crime will go up.

We don't have a gun violence problem, we have bad government in both parties.

 

[baker3gun]

Is that 122 million now?

82 million right about now, IMO. Stats in this post: https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...se-active-shooters.370605/page-5#post-2938336

If there is a source or analysis available that provides a more accurate estimate, please give a link. I'm always on the lookout for latest reliable data.

Thx.

 

[Longwalkhome]

82 million right about now, IMO. Stats in this post: https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...se-active-shooters.370605/page-5#post-2938336

If there is a source or analysis available that provides a more accurate estimate, please give a link. I'm always on the lookout for latest reliable data.

Thx.

I have had good luck when I want an answer to a question by doing a Bing search. Its an answer, I have no idea whats true or a lie anymore but here is their answer to how many gun owners in America.

Gun Ownership by State 2024

 

[baker3gun]

... Bottom line, any such system of evaluations to determine who gets to exercise their rights will, not may, be used to target political enemies.

Worth reading twice, so I quoted it.

 

[baker3gun]

@Longwalkhome - Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[AnOregonian]

No disrespect however this particular part of your post is nearly VERBATIM of part of what my lib family member espouses.

Unfortunately he NEVER can specify exactly how any of it COULD be done - always that it just SHOULD be done....

That's the problem. It's pretty what should happen, nobody has any idea how to go about it

IMO, you are correct in identifying the political need for gun owners to unite and stand on ground that is politically viable.
It is a political need: if we don't organize effective support, we will continue to lose this political battle.

Only a small fraction of America's 82 million gun owners use gun discussion forums.
The huge body of people who need to unite or to be united in support of 2A, don't use gun forums.

The people who do use gun forums are apparently those people concerned enough about their right to arms to join discussion forums to talk about it.

Generally, if you go on any gun forum and suggest that gun owners need to meet at the table to compromise and find a path forward, you get shouted down, because you are making that suggestion to the fraction of gun owners who are engaged enough in exercising the right to arms that they know better.

IMO - this is a flaw of gun forums. The broad perspective you will find here is true, accurate, and evidence-based, but the membership tends to smash outsiders in the face with it, instead of inviting them to join it, which is not a good strategy for swelling the ranks.
This is where gun-forums need to improve. We need to inform, and to invite. Not face-smash. Food for thought for members of gun forums...

Let's move on to your perspective, which is wrong.

You need to read world history.
The 5000 year history of government is a history of oppression of human freedom, rights, and equality.
Government has always been an engine of oppression.
Our best ancient societies were all discriminatory and elitist.
Class distinctions always existed and were almost always enforced to the detriment of rights and equality.
Slavery was a constant.
Slavery is bad, but everyone always did it, in all directions, throughout every millenia.

The world's first legislated unconditional equality for all persons came into existence for the first time in the 1960's.
Prior to that, no society ever had a law or even an intent to protect equality for all persons.

If you read at all, you must know that elements of American government are clearly intent on bankrupting this nation and stripping its citizens of the right to arms.
You must know that the bastion of liberty (a free press) has failed it's core mission of unbiased propagation of truth to members of society.

So you can't say silly things like, "Oh, that could never happen in America."
Oppression CAN and ALWAYS HAS and ALWAYS WILL happen in any society, and can definitely happen here.

EDIT - The point I meant to make in the preceding 6 sentences: freedom is new, power always corrupts, no government stays good unless it's citizens keep it good, the beginnings of erosion of lawful protection of freedom and rights ARE ALREADY OCCURRING in America. We are not talking about some hypothetical here, this stuff is already happening, pieces of the puzzle are already in place.

Less than half the world's population today lives in a free society.
Net indicators of societal freedom are actually declining worldwide and have been for 15 years.
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2020 see also https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world
Freedom is on the decline.

This is happening less than 200 years after the political ideas and policies that promote and protect liberty and human rights exploded across the globe for the very first time ever in human history.
Basically, your our generation is participating in the wrecking of the first-ever large-scale political experiment in democratic rule and preservation of liberty.
Edit - change to "our".

The people who attack the citizen right to arms are either uniformed (your comments suggest that you may be a member of this segment),
or they are evil.

The solution to that societal problem is to inform uninformed people, and politically defeat evil people.

The citizen right to arms does not cause any problem in our society.
The right to arms does not cause crime.
Stats - https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...se-active-shooters.370605/page-5#post-2938336
Crime cannot be prevented by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens, nor by eroding the only true foundation of lasting freedom (the citizen right to arms).

The citizen right to arms creates a peaceful deterrent to the ambitions of tyrants. You can't oppress an armed population, so why even try?
If the right to arms doesn't cause any problem, and only serves as a barrier to oppression, why get rid of it?

In this light, your assertion that we as a society need to establish government-enforced prerequisites for exercising the citizen right to arms, is childishly foolish.

If you give this government or any government the power to disarm the people, eventually, the people will be disarmed.

Disarmed populations always eventually become oppressed populations.

The rule of law alone has never and will never preserve liberty or rights or equality anywhere.

The correct mission for any freedom-loving American is to disseminate the truth, which is that the citizen right to arms does not cause any societal problem in America, and that no problem in America can be solved by restricting the right to arms.

If you want to prevent crime and irrational attacks perpetrated by insane people, you don't need to regulate guns, you need to regulate crime and mental illness.

As you must know, the criminal justice system in America is nearly 100% ineffective.
95% of all criminal prosecutions end in plea bargain to lesser crime or reduced sentence.
Recidivism rates exceed 70%.
Prison is a crime school.
Our courts and jails are overwhelmed because we don't have enough courts or jails to handle our large and growing number of criminals. Why not get more courts and jails until crime is effectively discouraged, leading to decreased crime, leading to reduced need for courts and jails?

We don't have enough psychiatric facilities to accommodate even half of our population affected by serious mental illness.
Our current solution for management of mental illness is non-management.
Half or more of our population of people afflicted by serious mental illness live on our streets or rot untreated in prisons until their release date, then they live on the streets.

Steer the focus to fixing those problems; not making concessions or compromise to gun control policy.

Hope this helps.

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. 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...

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...

 

[titsonritz]

That's the problem. It's pretty what should happen, nobody has any idea how to go about it

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. 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...

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...

Show me one single time the other side gave "concessions".

Here's my proposed concession, don't try to take my guns and I won't shoot you, sounds pretty fair to me.

 

[AnOregonian]

Show me one single time the other side gave "concessions".

Here's my proposed concession, don't try to take my guns and I won't shoot you, sounds pretty fair to me.

View attachment 898684

Lmao. I feel ya, but historically any time people don't meet in the middle then either one or the other wins completely. Sadly I don't think we have the numbers or public momentum to come out on top of the anti gunners. They have the youth by the balls so basically it's only a matter of time before they start getting what they want. I don't like any of this just trying to give a realistic layout of the battlefield...

 

[CRBMoA]

OK - If that is the hill you want to die on, please show us ignorant plucks when the Anti-gunners have conceded ANYTHING?

Cause it's all give and take, right??

 

[AnOregonian]

OK - If that is the hill you want to die on, please show us ignorant plucks when the Dems have conceded ANYTHING?

Cause it's all give and take, right??I'm not talking abo

Well you're barking up the wrong hill, I'm not on that hill, lol. I'm just speaking generally about human history, better outcomes are had when people meet in the middle somewhere.

I would never expect the dems to be reasonable or make concessions, after all they are reactionary and illogical. But they don't really have anything on the line here... We all do. It would be in best interest to stem this kind of BS by beating them to the punch with common sense ideas. Otherwise they just go full bore on their ideas which are always stupid and involved bans.

 

[RVTECH]

but concessions are going to be necessary if we want to avoid bans.

But what is to say if 'we' give concessions this will avoid bans?

The only way we would 'avoid bans' would be by entering into a legal agreement with whoever wants to ban them. In effect it would be a 'trade' and not a 'concession'.

And this brings up another issue - with whom would we make this 'agreement' ? Who or what is the primary authority of ALL gun control?

The only way an agreement could be made would be through Federal legislation. Aside from this there is really no one, or any organization where an agreement would have any effect.

 

[CRBMoA]

What does, "meet in the middle" mean to you?

Bob has $100.00

Dave has zero.

Dave believes he has the right to control some of Bob's money.

So, to be reasonable, Bob should give Dave a portion of the $100.00 to control, in the spirit of compromise and all, right?

To some of us, that is a non-starter.

 

[titsonritz]

Well you're barking up the wrong hill, I'm not on that hill, lol. I'm just speaking generally about human history, better outcomes are had when people meet in the middle somewhere.

I would never expect the dems to be reasonable or make concessions, after all they are reactionary and illogical. But they don't really have anything on the line here... We all do. It would be in best interest to stem this kind of BS by beating them to the punch with common sense ideas. Otherwise they just go full bore on their ideas which are always stupid and involved bans.

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

 

[Idaho44]

What did the other side give up in the compromise? Did they meet in the middle of nothing for something? Where is the equity of compromise if you have nothing (goods, services etc.) to offer in return for something?

 

[RVTECH]

Where is the equity of compromise if you have nothing (goods, services etc.) to offer in return for something?

And here is an excellent opportunity to re-post something I have previously:

As I have said before many times - the undeniable fact remains to the dems/antis 'gun control' is purely a conceptual undertaking for them because they have NOTHING to loose and because of this they will simply continue to respond in this manner while we, with MUCH to loose, are scrambling like rats leaving a sinking ship.

It's like this with nearly ANY liberal 'cause'. The MOST who protest AGAINST something have virtually no interest, experience or investment in what they are protesting or want to control/eliminate.
Any attempt to 'convince' them of anything is falling on deaf ears. Their words are resolute and unwavering. We are a joke to them. They are laughing at us because they know we are on the defensive. They know among ourselves, and on forums such as this, the members are posting unending, redundant and rhetorical statements about them and their misguided beliefs.

We are simply telling ourselves the same things over and over we already know - I think the original was 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns'.

Until the dems and antis understand and experience the emotion of a potential loss such as we stand to this is NOT going to change - and nothing to lose is a very powerful weapon.

 

[Koda]

You cant compromise with someone who doesnt have anything to give up.
They are not the ones who want to own guns.

 

[Rkangel]

I am going to be very honest and say my capacity for compassion is about tapped out. People are dying at such a large rate, that I can't feel compassion or grieve for all the lives lost. I still feel bad for the innocent young children that are killed but all the others are just another news story. Same goes for covid deaths, war deaths, etc. I will let the families and friends of those who died, do the grieving.

And this is precisely the problem with the 24 hour news cycle. Ratings. To get viewers they need more tragedy. Soon everything becomes a tragedy. Add the psychological goals of using 24/7 fear-porn to desensitize the viewer and dehumanize opposition. I believe that has been their intent.

 

[RVTECH]

You cant compromise with someone who doesnt have anything to give up.
They are not the ones who want to own guns.

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.

 

[Caveman Jim]

You cant compromise with someone who doesnt have anything to give up.
They are not the ones who want to own guns.

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'" JFK