Active shooter takes hostages at Yountville (Napa) VA Home

[72SBC]

Lot's of bad info on PTSD in here. You can have PTSD and be an active, functioning member of society. You can have PTSD with anything, so that person can't own a gun?

"Oh I see you have PTSD over watching someone drown, sorry buddy, prison time."

 

[LongGoneJohn]

How many shots are usually fired in police shootings before the threat is stopped? Seems banning semi autos would significantly limit my ability to stop a threat, Nevermind multiple threats.

Magazine bans and "assault" rifle bans have been ruled as Constitutional by SCOTUS? Have they? I don't think so. In fact, didn't SCOTUS rule that DC and Chicago handgun bans were unconstitutional? Some states (and cities) are successful for long periods of time in creating illegal laws. It takes a lot for them to be eventually overruled.

Yes they upheld handguns in Heller. They even used wording that seems to indicate it protects semi autos. Unfortunately since that they've refused to hear cases regarding carry, wait periods, "assault weapons" laws, and magazine limits. Even in heller they referred to laws that are common on the books regarding regulation of certain types of firearms as being presumptively legal. So yes, by lack of hearing or in some cases by an actual ruling, a lot has it's Been deemed legal.

Calfiornias ridiculous magazine ban hasn't been decided as to whether it'll be heard yet - but I suspect it won't be.

 

[NorCalAthlete]

This is another part I have a problem with. Just as most anti-gunners are clueless about guns and propose "solutions" that won't actually do anything (and often will cause more harm than good), most gun advocates aren't necessarily experts on mental health or anything else either. So it's far easier to rely on what you know and say "hey, your crappy gun ban will not solve anything". The second we put forth a proposal for the root cause of the issue, we're tiptoeing into similarly uninformed territory. The difference is, most of us are at least cognizant of our ignorance and do our best to caveat things, research, and make sure we're actually even in the right ballpark as far as effectiveness. The same can't be said for many of those who propose wildly unconstitutional, unworkable, unfeasible gun bans and then when told they're wrong, insist that "at least they're doing something" or "well YOU propose a solution then." The problem is, either way gun owners lose if we have focus on guns as the problem, when the vast majority don't think guns are the root cause at all. Either way it'll end up with more gun rights being chipped away while the violence continues unabated because the loudest voices with the biggest mouthpieces steadfastly refuse to look at any other solutions to the violence problem we have, instead continuing to narrowly and stubbornly focus on only guns.

 

[Schnellbandit]

Yes they upheld handguns in Heller. They even used wording that seems to indicate it protects semi autos. Unfortunately since that they've refused to hear cases regarding carry, wait periods, "assault weapons" laws, and magazine limits. Even in heller they referred to laws that are common on the books regarding regulation of certain types of firearms as being presumptively legal. So yes, by lack of hearing or in some cases by an actual ruling, a lot has it's Been deemed legal.

Calfiornias ridiculous magazine ban hasn't been decided as to whether it'll be heard yet - but I suspect it won't be.

First of all, SCOTUS didn't write the 2ndA as you previously said. Next, when you say things like "wording that seems to indicate" you are attributing something that is only acknowledged by those who think and believe the same things you do.

Words like "deemed", " indicated" and so on can mean anything you want them to in the same manner in which you interpret the 2A.

I've highlighted the part of your statement that can be easily used to say anything about anything and in effect is meaningless.

 

[Schnellbandit]

The idea that some compromised position is the way to engage in a discussion with those seeking to ban guns is a non-starter.

What rights were ever secured through the process of giving them up?

There is always the idea that everyone needs to give up something to get something and that there needs to be a win-win. That is not the case. When talk starts about compromise just so that those seeking to retain rights have a seat at some table is the proposal, one might as well throw in the cards because you've lost before anything got started.

There does not have to be a win-win. If the right is secured and that is a win, no problem with those trying to take them away being losers.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

First of all, SCOTUS didn't write the 2ndA as you previously said. Next, when you say things like "wording that seems to indicate" you are attributing something that is only acknowledged by those who think and believe the same things you do.

Words like "deemed", " indicated" and so on can mean anything you want them to in the same manner in which you interpret the 2A.

I've highlighted the part of your statement that can be easily used to say anything about anything and in effect is meaningless.

I feel like you're just arguing I argue. I can't imagine how much of a joy you must be to talk to in person. When a justice says "commonly owned firearms for any common lawful purpose including self defense", it does tend to indicate semi-autos are protected under that ruling. It's not whether I agree or disagree, it's reading the ruling and applying basic logic.

Nonetheless, I'm done here. It's apparent you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and basically just want to go down the "no!" route. And that's fine. That's your perogative. Personally I think the longer we stick our head in the sand, the faster the anti-gunners will make the rules for us.

You may be fine with it coming to the "from my cold dead hands" scenario, that's fine. I'm trying to avoid that.

 

[Schnellbandit]

I feel like you're just arguing I argue. I can't imagine how much of a joy you must be to talk to in person. When a justice says "commonly owned firearms for any common lawful purpose including self defense", it does tend to indicate semi-autos are protected under that ruling. It's not whether I agree or disagree, it's reading the ruling and applying basic logic.

Nonetheless, I'm done here. It's apparent you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and basically just want to go down the "no!" route. And that's fine. That's your perogative. Personally I think the longer we stick our head in the sand, the faster the anti-gunners will make the rules for us.

You may be fine with it coming to the "from my cold dead hands" scenario, that's fine. I'm trying to avoid that.

Nice try with the personal, save it.

Seeing through the cloak is pretty easy, approach with compromise. Who said there needs to be a compromise, you? How thoughtful.

Anti-gunners? Did you read your opening salvo? All of your ideas are giving up something for nothing.

No one starts a discussion having already had much of what they see as rights taken away and ok, lets go forward from here.

If you want to be serious, how about lets remove all gun controls and then sit at the table and have the discussion you think will secure anything but less than what exists now?

No one has burried any heads in the sand, they've seen what the end goal is of the gun control. crowd. Your approach is appeasement ends badly in any scenario.

Explain how anything you've said does anything to restore those benefits of rights already taken away? You can't. The only thing you've come up with is how much more to give away so that they don't take it all. What a position to have.

And just a heads up, go down the personal insults road and you'll start getting back the same. I don't mention what an horror it must be to have a discussion with you in person so why not just shunt that away?

 

[LongGoneJohn]

I get it. Your main concern is giving up something is pointless because no matter what they'll just keep taking.

We have the same fear there which is why I'm
Unsure I could support a compromise at this time.

And your idea about removing all controls and starting over isn't a bad one either.

 

[Schnellbandit]

Who would enter into a discussion with a neighbor who encroached on their property, continued to do so incrementally and begin the discussion with something like:

"For openers, how about you only take another 3 feet, let me keep the garage and we can go on from there?"

These are rights we're talking about, not a here you go and what will you let me keep? The function of the discussion is the same.

I wouldn't even start the discussion with anything other than it is my property, you get off of it. There is no compromising with those who start from the position of how much of something they will take from you. Thats been tried before, what did it lead to? On a global scale, millions of dead people.

In this case, when someone wants to restrict rights and they won't even start with the root cause and address that, any discussion as to how little they can be contained so as not to take more is just appeasement amd solves nothing except allowing them to get closer to their goal of banning guns altogether.

There are some rights, mostly affecting women; ask them how much they are willing to give up as a starting point so that they don't eventually lose those rights?

See what they tell you and listen to how they say it. Then see if they are even willing to discuss it from the perspective of how they compromise so you won't push harder.

Discuss the root causes that lead to mass shootings? Sure. Work together on that? 100%. Start with gun control? Not a chance, not even sitting down at that table.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Just so long as you know that people ARE sitting down at that table - and we - gun owners, are not actively a part of the discussion.

I just don't see how that ends well, for anyone.

 

[byke]

Unfortunately, I think that attitude is what will lead to something worse. Sit at the table and maybe lose A & B, or tell them to fuck off and they'll put A, B, C, D, E, F & G up for vote and cross your fingers them pesky millennials vote your way. Might turn out much worse.

 

[Abacinator]

Mandate a license for gun ownership that includes a training requirement. Make licensees re-qualify every other year. No bans on specific kids of guns. No magazine restrictions, no sbr restrictions. No categorizing of guns that look a certain way. Enhanced penalties for crimes committed with guns.

 

[#1Freak]

Didn't think about that. Good point.

Again though, if we don't become the defining part of the discussion, "they" (anti-gun left) will. So again, I think it's important that we are driving the discussion.

What other solutions does anyone have? Are there any? None? I agree that statistically it's actually a non issue - but to the general uneducated public and to our legislators, it is an issue....

My solution is posred eariler

 

[Schnellbandit]

The gun control side will define and drive what they want regardless of any efforts by those in support of the 2A. That has been proven over and over.

There is a refusal by the gun control groups to acknowledge any cause but guns.

I ask, does anyone on the gun control side worry about the 2A side defining anything and as a result offer anything? They offer nothing except saying they aren't trying to do exactly what they have incrementally done for decades.

All anyone has to do is look to the laws already implemented and ask how many have been eliminated through gun control support? Zero. They have always, without exception, expanded those laws claiming they need just a little more to make it effective.

Never defend your own position as defined by those who want to degrade it, ignore their definition and instead push your own and never stop because they surely will not.

Ask any gun control advocacy group to engage in a discussion of reducing mass shootings where eliminating or restricting guns is not the root cause as they see it and see if they are even willing to talk. They will not. They will always include gun control and then work to make that the root cause. It is their religion.

 

[bojangle]

Mandate a license for gun ownership that includes a training requirement. Make licensees re-qualify every other year. No bans on specific kids of guns. No magazine restrictions, no sbr restrictions. No categorizing of guns that look a certain way. Enhanced penalties for crimes committed with guns.

Yes! This is the kind of well regulated militia right to bear arms that I support. The gun ownership license and training should include the right to CCW as well. I'd be in favor of keeping full auto guns illegal, or highly restricted, and including things such as bump stocks illegal for turning a firearm into a defacto machine gun. Keep violent convicted felons as prohibited persons. Stuff like that.

 

[planegray]

Mandate a license for gun ownership that includes a training requirement. Make licensees re-qualify every other year. No bans on specific kids of guns. No magazine restrictions, no sbr restrictions. No categorizing of guns that look a certain way. Enhanced penalties for crimes committed with guns.

This is more along the lines I'm thinking of. Make gun ownership more like having a driver's license, with reoccurring certification. Give up on trying to control the situation by controlling the guns or ammo.
I'd far prefer someone looking at each gun owner and verifying their competence to any attempt to define what "sane" is.

Dr. Piney,
The issue you should find with Hammer Hanks 'plan' is how by design it creates criminals where none existed prior. Let's say I own 10 semi auto handguns and rifles. I turn in 7, keeping 3. 1 year and 1 day later I get caught with one, a probable cause search turns up two more and off I go for 45 years mandatory time in the Federal pen.

It's not a plan, it's rambling as part of a larger discussion that should be simply dismissed. Similar to flat earth and fake moon landing claims. People should have the ability to believe what they believe but rational people should not spend energy engaging in the discussion of folly.

Respectfully,

T

where have you been T ?

Yeah, I SAID I didn't much like it ! I give HH credit because my attempts usually end up making me upset, then I get sleepy

 

[#1Freak]

Yes! This is the kind of well regulated militia right to bear arms that I support. The gun ownership license and training should include the right to CCW as well. I'd be in favor of keeping full auto guns illegal, or highly restricted, and including things such as bump stocks illegal for turning a firearm into a defacto machine gun. Keep violent convicted felons as prohibited persons. Stuff like that.

Me too.....but cali. How long till state mandated traing costs 1,000 and the wait time to get into a class is a good 8 months or more? It is good in theorty, but cali wants guns gone

 

[ontherearwheel]

As more and more comes to light, it appears once again a person with mental health issues and volience tendicies was allowed to legally own firearms. He even made threats of volience toward the staff. Google Yountville shooter and read some of the articles......foster care, loner, sound familiar?

So, the answer is to punish responsible gun owners with laws that do not address the unlying causes to this shooting and the Parkland shooting which was allowed to happened because government entities did not do their jobs.

I believe a recent church shooting happen because a branch of the military failed to report the shooter which would have caused a failed background check.

It amazing how many people ignore these facts.

Am I the only one it brothers that we have so many treatment centers for PTSD? That people are sent off to fight in countires that are shitholes, have been for decades, that pose no overt threat to us.

But let's make up some more useless laws..........

War is bad people......wake up.

Oh.....do a little reading about the history of the 2nd admendment. It has nothing to do with self defense....but defense of a country by its citizens.

 

[mean dad]

Damn, a pro-gun enthusiast makes some suggestions and y'all are on him like fuckin wolves.

But it's the anti-gun people that have their heels dug in, right?

 

[ontherearwheel]

For suggestions to be of value, they must address the problem.

The problem.......a licensed firearm instructor had mental health issues......made threats to staff.........shot said staff.

None of those suggestion addressed the above.

I had a uncle that blacked out once for unknown reasons. He went to the doctors to find out why.

Few days later......he got a letter informing him his drivers license was suspended for medical reasons.....ie blackouts.

But this can't be done for owners of guns that are a possible threats to others......which was the reasoning for my uncles driver license .......threat to others because black outs can happen anytime, anywhere.....even driving.

This responsible gun owner, meaning me,is just that..responsible ....same as others. Why is it us that is always targeted with new laws after a irresponsible gun owner does something wrong with their firearm?

Plenty of stabbings......I bet y'all still use knives.........I hear no cries for the banning of sharp knives with pointy ends. Why......cause most of y'all are responible knife owners.

How bout giving up your favorite chef knife in order to prevent future stabbing?