JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
So here it is:
It is my feeling that semi-automatic, combat-style rifles with the ability to accommodate large ammunition capacities should not be readily available to the public. At the very least, these types of weapons should require additional licensing and training, analogous to the additional licensing required for operating semi-trucks. It is patently obvious that such restrictions would, at the very least, reduce the occurrence and magnitude of atrocities like these.
My opinion on these kind of "common sense" gun laws would be different if they werent based on a prohibition model or agenda. Start with removing all the gun free zones like schools, let teachers who can arm themselves, provide funding for armed staff at all schools. The right of the people to bear arms was put in place for threats to our country like cowardly mass shootings. These are all ideas that have been presented and largely rejected by most all Democrat politicians leaving our children defenseless. When I see gun free zones removed and armed school officers unable to stop or reduce these kinds of mass shootings then we can talk about further infringements because its clear these psychos are not picking hard targets to take their anger out.
 
If you like

1653544557355.png

You will love this joker:

 
@taters613 , thanks for your post. I appreciate and get the inclination for doing something.

You may consider this article about how a ban on semi-auto rifles may actually drive shooters to use more deadly weapons - handguns. https://hwfo.substack.com/p/doctors-are-wrong-about-firearm-effectiveness?s=r

Reasoning is simple - handguns are easier to conceal and you can carry more ammo for them, so you will get more victims. As someone else mentioned, the VT shooter used two handguns of common 9mm and 22 caliber.

This author has written some very interesting articles which may be of service to other members:

Everyone's Lying about the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide
- about how the gun deaths statistic including suicides skews the public into believing all gun deaths are homicides.

The Gun Homicide Epidemic, Isn't
- reviewing the flawed perception that gun homicides are worse than ever (hint: they are down overall over the past few decades)

The Magic Gun Evaporation Fairy
- about how the culture here prevents are real gun confiscation (like Australia/England did).

Lying with Gun Data, Again
- more about statistics and how they can be used badly

And, some other gun-related articles he has:

The Left Is Making the Wrong Case on Gun Deaths. Here's a Better Case.
- on how re-framing the gun deaths case as a men's health/suicides problem would help focus efforts on the effective places to reduce the gun death numbers

The Gun Solution
- reviews a study on the most effective laws to curb gun homicides, and proposes a compromise of (tweaked) universal BGCs, no guns for people with violent misdemeanors (not just felonies), in return for removing SBRs and silencers from NFA jurisdiction.



And, I would be remiss not to mention Sam Harris's "The Riddle of the Gun" and his follow-up "FAQ on Violence" that were written in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, and are still relevant today. He makes an ethical case for guns as self-defense. He is also not an absolute 2A-er, he would propose much stricter regulations/background checks/training.
 
Sometimes stats can be comforting. The half glass full view of this tragedy is that 99.99999991% of the US pop survived the massacre.

This may not be comforting to all but it puts the risk into perspective. For those parents that still perceive that risk as being to high, you might consider homeschooling.
 
Last Edited:
Reports are now starting to come out that the dude was barricaded in a classroom for almost an hour before police made entry.

And I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.

We know that engaging active shooters is absolutely paramount to minimizing loss of life. This dude had cops in tow when he crashed. And there appears to have been some rounds exchanged initially. But why did it take almost an hour for the police to make entry? Certainly they would have heard the shooter executing students inside the classroom...wouldn't they?

I really hope I'm wrong on this but this is starting to look like Parkland where some cops sat outside until braver cops showed up to make entry. I REALLY hope that isn't what happened.

Same thing happened in Florida...

 
I will also spitball some other thoughts. They are not fleshed-out suggestions, more observations and thinking aloud:

1. Both recent mass shootings with ARs were purchased by people under 21. Since Federal law already bans sales of handguns to under-21ers, a ban on sales of long guns to under-21s too would have had some effect on these two shootings (the 18yr olds in question would have to get their guns somewhere else, probably illegally).

The valid point will be made that with effort, the would-be shooters could find guns anyway. While this is true, it is not an airtight argument, as the extra effort would no doubt deter some (but not all) criminals. 2Aers often say, "gun bans are ineffective b/c criminals will get their hands on them anyway!" This slides by and does not address the reality of what would happen, which is that some, but fewer, criminals will get their hands on them. We do not apply the same logic to murder (or other criminal acts we want less of) - we are OK with bans on murder because we know it reduces the murder rate, and we don't say "well, don't ban murder, because criminals will murder anyway!" I point out this flawed argument because it does not resonate well with the anti-gunners, and to point 2Aers to use more effective ones (or, concede the point).

The other valid point against a ban on under-21 sales is that the ban would harm the many under-21s who are legally good gun owners.

2. There is a lot of real emotion which makes some deaths more horrid than others. This leads us to disproportionately allocate mental and physical resources to rarer, but more horrible, tragedies (like school shootings and airplane terrorists), instead of more common but "less" horrible ones (like car crashes, knife murders, drownings). This is not fair from a stats point of view, but also how our psyche works. It also speaks to our humanity that we take extra effort to care about the more vulnerable ones in our society, and it is not necessarily wrong to disproportionally care about these rare/horrible-r events (Sam Harris makes the same point in The Riddle of the Gun). Making public policy based on emotions seems incorrect, but we have done this already and most of us find it OK - no one (read: not many) is screaming to dismantle TSA at the airports even though the rate of dying on an airplane from a terrorist attack is also miniscule. No one wants reduced regulation on nuclear power plants even though they kill far less than the adverse effects of coal mining. There are certain events which we cannot tolerate and we spend to make sure they don't happen.

I guess my point here is that school shootings may be a real tipping point for even traditionally pro-2A citizens, and that talking raw statistics is not directly helpful to address the real emotional response that school shootings provoke.

Another way the emotional response is evident even in the way anti-gunners approach gun bans - ban semiauto rifles because they seem scary but are actually less deadly than handguns. But the emotional response to semiauto rifles takes up the emotional oxygen in the room. Handguns are "acceptable."

This brings me to another "emotional" question - I am very curious with the image that the AR-15 has in these mass shooters. Like, if they actually are more attracted to using ARs in these shootings, would they actually not have done them if they only had access to handguns? This is something we can probably never know.
 
Focusing on an inanimate tool as the source of the problem is insanity. The root cause of unjustified killings are people. Period.

To stop this we need to know how to stop people from wanting to kill other people. Until you do that mass killings will still happen, even if you ban and confiscate guns. They will be done with knives (see china), poisonous gas (see Japan) or explosives made from fertilizer (see Kansas City) and any number of other methods.

This is a cultural/social problem and until you address that it will keep happening no matter what you ban and how effectively you ban it.
Can't fix that human condition to commit murder, remember Cain killed Abel with a stone. The problem is the heart….
 
I will also spitball some other thoughts. They are not fleshed-out suggestions, more observations and thinking aloud:

1. Both recent mass shootings with ARs were purchased by people under 21. Since Federal law already bans sales of handguns to under-21ers, a ban on sales of long guns to under-21s too would have had some effect on these two shootings (the 18yr olds in question would have to get their guns somewhere else, probably illegally).

The valid point will be made that with effort, the would-be shooters could find guns anyway. While this is true, it is not an airtight argument, as the extra effort would no doubt deter some (but not all) criminals. 2Aers often say, "gun bans are ineffective b/c criminals will get their hands on them anyway!" This slides by and does not address the reality of what would happen, which is that some, but fewer, criminals will get their hands on them. We do not apply the same logic to murder (or other criminal acts we want less of) - we are OK with bans on murder because we know it reduces the murder rate, and we don't say "well, don't ban murder, because criminals will murder anyway!" I point out this flawed argument because it does not resonate well with the anti-gunners, and to point 2Aers to use more effective ones (or, concede the point).

The other valid point against a ban on under-21 sales is that the ban would harm the many under-21s who are legally good gun owners.

2. There is a lot of real emotion which makes some deaths more horrid than others. This leads us to disproportionately allocate mental and physical resources to rarer, but more horrible, tragedies (like school shootings and airplane terrorists), instead of more common but "less" horrible ones (like car crashes, knife murders, drownings). This is not fair from a stats point of view, but also how our psyche works. It also speaks to our humanity that we take extra effort to care about the more vulnerable ones in our society, and it is not necessarily wrong to disproportionally care about these rare/horrible-r events (Sam Harris makes the same point in The Riddle of the Gun). Making public policy based on emotions seems incorrect, but we have done this already and most of us find it OK - no one (read: not many) is screaming to dismantle TSA at the airports even though the rate of dying on an airplane from a terrorist attack is also miniscule. No one wants reduced regulation on nuclear power plants even though they kill far less than the adverse effects of coal mining. There are certain events which we cannot tolerate and we spend to make sure they don't happen.

I guess my point here is that school shootings may be a real tipping point for even traditionally pro-2A citizens, and that talking raw statistics is not directly helpful to address the real emotional response that school shootings provoke.

Another way the emotional response is evident even in the way anti-gunners approach gun bans - ban semiauto rifles because they seem scary but are actually less deadly than handguns. But the emotional response to semiauto rifles takes up the emotional oxygen in the room. Handguns are "acceptable."

This brings me to another "emotional" question - I am very curious with the image that the AR-15 has in these mass shooters. Like, if they actually are more attracted to using ARs in these shootings, would they actually not have done them if they only had access to handguns? This is something we can probably never know.
I may be in a minority of gun owners but I believe strict nationwide gun bans will work to reduce frequency of shootings. I don't believe the tradeoff is worth the liberty that would be lost.
 
Sounds like the local police got shot up and needed the Feds to bring in a tactical unit.

"The shooting began to unfold on Tuesday morning, when the local police department in Uvalde received a 911 call around 11:30 a.m. saying that a truck had crashed at Robb Elementary School and that a man had emerged from it carrying a long rifle and a backpack.

At least one armed law enforcement officer from the Uvalde school district was at the school. That officer exchanged gunfire with the gunman, but the gunman was able to get past the officer, the official said, citing the initial reports.

The gunman then entered through a south door at the school. After he was inside, two officers from the Uvalde Police Department arrived on the scene, engaged the gunman and were immediately met with gunfire, the official said. Both were shot.


It appeared that the gunman was contained in one classroom at that time, and the officers were unable to enter it. He remained there until a tactical unit from the border patrol killed the gunman, shortly after 1 p.m., the official said, citing state police reports."
Could you provide the link to this? I have only found one post from BBC that mentions the three police officers that were first to engage.
 
I may be in a minority of gun owners but I believe strict nationwide gun bans will work to reduce frequency of shootings. I don't believe the tradeoff is worth the liberty that would be lost.
Just like Prohibition reduced drinking or the War On Drugs reduced addiction and overdoses?
 
Just like Prohibition reduced drinking or the War On Drugs reduced addiction and overdoses?
"We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level."
 
What if we require everyone of high school age to go through boot camp during summer break. All of them would have to go through the physical and mental evaluation that our volunteer military currently have to as well.

It doesn't even have to be the full 8 weeks, it could be a shorter period since it will be 4 summers.

At least then, we will have mental evaluations of every person. Plus it will teach all of them proper weapons handling.

We could even use the Israeli model of mandatory service for 2 years post high school. Isreal requires 2 years of service, either military or civil service.
 
What if we require everyone of high school age to go through boot camp during summer break. All of them would have to go through the physical and mental evaluation that our volunteer military currently have to as well.

It doesn't even have to be the full 8 weeks, it could be a shorter period since it will be 4 summers.

At least then, we will have mental evaluations of every person. Plus it will teach all of them proper weapons handling.

We could even use the Israeli model of mandatory service for 2 years post high school. Isreal requires 2 years of service, either military or civil service.
That sounds like a serious loss of liberty?
 
Just like Prohibition reduced drinking or the War On Drugs reduced addiction and overdoses?
They really only need compliance from retailers to make a big dent in the sales of firearms and related items. Imagine the States did away with the 2A and other Amendments and made possession of all firearms, parts, ammo and components illegal. Then they followed up with high level of investment in enforcement personnel and very severe penalties. You would likely see a pretty high level of compliance among retailers.
 
They really only need compliance from retailers to make a big dent in the sales of firearms and related items. Imagine the States did away with the 2A and other Amendments and made possession of all firearms, parts, ammo and components illegal. Then they followed up with high level of investment in enforcement personnel and very severe penalties. You would likely see a pretty high level of compliance among retailers.
or start a civil war.
 
They really only need compliance from retailers to make a big dent in the sales of firearms and related items. Imagine the States did away with the 2A and other Amendments and made possession of all firearms, parts, ammo and components illegal. Then they followed up with high level of investment in enforcement personnel and very severe penalties. You would likely see a pretty high level of compliance among retailers.
Probably true about the retailers. No Walgreens or CVS sells heroin, but how easy do you suppose it would be to find some on the street? It will be the same thing with guns.
Look at the money spent today on drug interdiction. Yet despite the profligate spending, drug use is at its highest. The point is people who really, really want something always find a way to get it, be it booze, drugs or guns.
Forget Prohibition etc., how well has the law against murder worked?
 


'Let's just rush in because the cops aren't doing anything': Parents frustrated with 'unprepared' police outside Texas school shooting debated storming the building THEMSELVES as gunman holed up inside for 90 minutes

  • Footage has emerged showing the panic-stricken parents of the Texas schoolchildren screaming at law enforcement to enter the school
  • It was unclear whether the footage was shot during the shooting, or after the event when the gunman was already dead
  • Questions are being asked as to why it took 90 minutes between the first 911 call and the gunman being shot dead
MORE on the link.

~~~

MORE came out on Wednesday and on Wednesday evening.

Timelines show 60 to 90 minutes or so. I have NO clue what is accurate there or not since I was NOT there in person.

~~~

The Facebook garbage posts came out as some of you already know on Wednesday too. When I posted many pages back that information was NOT discovered and/or released yet but those other links were available.

The people who wrote that the Mother of the murderer was going to be evicted from the Grandmother's other house is true. Apparently the Mother is a drug addict.

NO news anywhere as I previously wrote about the Father of the murderer. Maybe she had no clue which man got her pregnant if she had multiple sex partners? Beats me.

The Grandfather was already mentioned in THIS thread and he is a felon. What he did for his past crime - I have no clue. But he did STATE on record/film and in transcripts that he would have turned in his grandson due to him not being allowed to have GUNS INSIDE of his home. So he would be protecting his butt and doing the right thing according to the 'law'. Plus he stated that he did not like guns and all of the news about shooting and crime.

The downfall of the young man including more news on Wednesday about his self mutilation - cutting his face has been backed up. Plus the OTHER stuff that I wrote previously before the cutting came out in the news. Old friends and new friends and people who STOPPED being his friend due to his erratic and changing behavior.

I am shocked that the Grandmother who got shot in the FACE is alive. What type of head wound she had or maybe the bullet or bullets grazed her but I read that it was in her face and basically her forehead. I have NO clue about the exact details of that since I did not seriously HUNT it all down in national and international news online.

Here the GRANDMOTHER TOOK IN THE MURDERER when the Mother did not want him around and he SHOOTS her! She gave him a place to stay! And the POLICE had been around the young man and the Mother many times due to their fights and other salami.

IT TAKES A SPECIAL KIND OF EVIL (Sane or insane calculating EVIL!) to shoot his Grandmother who was trying to help him and maybe discipline him for his own good. Plus she even took him out for his birthday!

And it is even a WORSE TYPE OF EVIL, a whole different level, and a preplanned sicko piece of pathetic DNA to CHOOSE to go in and MURDER LITTLE CHILDREN, teachers, etc. They still have MANY WOUNDED from what I read in several papers online. SO add that salami to the list!

The TEXAS radio station that I mentioned many pages back had on the complete Governor's news conference plus the boob tube showed some of it.

There are several LINKS on You Tube if you want to see the complete thing. It shows another flip flopper there - Francis aka Beto. Beto = fake name for a fake person. That has been mentioned here by a couple of posters.

A man in this thread asked about the shooter buying guns legally and not having a DL. He did not own a car and he had NO driver's license. That is TRUE. He must have had a TEXAS state id card.

He did buy his guns LEGALLY. Two rifles. I put up a link for them previously.

He did buy his ammunition but I thought that he bought that locally and NOT online (Someone said it was bought ONLINE on this thread.) but I could be wrong there. I did NOT study where he bought the ammo. So if he bought it ONLINE - did he have his OWN card? It must have been shipped pretty FAST if you look at the time frame from a to z. I thought it was a LOCAL AMMO purchase.

A person can buy a gun with a State ID card. When I bought guns - I used my DL. I no longer drive but when I stopped driving - I made sure that I had my State ID card asap. I needed my State ID card for all of my misc. financial, banking, and many other purposes in life.




May the wounded heal. May the dead rest in peace.

Condolences and prayers are being said for all concerned.

Old Lady Cate
 
Last Edited:
Probably true about the retailers. No Walgreens or CVS sells heroin, but how easy do you suppose it would be to find some on the street? It will be the same thing with guns.
Look at the money spent today on drug interdiction. Yet despite the profligate spending, drug use is at its highest. The point is people who really, really want something always find a way to get it, be it booze, drugs or guns.
Forget Prohibition etc., how well has the law against murder worked?
That is true about somebody who really really wants something. I think the anti-gun nuts realize this and will generally be happy to gain compliance from retailers. In the case of firearms I don't think a majority of people are addicted to them enough to hit up a stranger in the back alley to purchase one. It would depend on the penalties and level of enforcement involved. The drug war has largely been given up on. Addicts are generally treated like victims rather then perps. Penalties have been rolled back, enforcement reduced, etc. That is partly why we have the explosion of drug use now.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top