When I was young gun owners were responsible, evidently that was a long time ago

[ripcord]

https://www.vvng.com/store-owner-arrested-after-shooting-inside-the-mall-of-victor-valley-and-striking-a-9-year-old-victorville-girl/

The 20-year-old co-owner of Sole Addicts was arrested for attempted murder following a shooting inside the Mall of Victor Valley that left a 9-year-old girl wounded after he allegedly chased shoplifters and fired multiple rounds striking the victim, officials said.

On April 12, 2022, at 6:28 p.m. Sheriff’s Dispatch received multiple calls reporting gunshots heard inside the Mall of Victor Valley with a reported juvenile gunshot victim.

“Through investigation, deputies determined the suspect Marqel Cockrell is the co-owner of Sole Addicts who chased two shoplifters out of his store. Cockrell fired multiple shots at the shoplifters. Cockrell’s shots missed the shoplifters and instead hit the 9-year-old female victim,” stated the sheriff’s news release.

The young girl was getting ready to take pictures with the Easter Bunny when she was struck.

After the shooting, Cockrell fled the scene. At about 9:00 p.m., Nevada Highway Patrol located Cockrell in his vehicle and took him into custody. Cockrell, a resident of Adelanto, was booked in at the Clark County Jail on an extraditable warrant, for attempted murder, in the amount of $1,000,000.

Where are all these idiots coming from, I have been around guns my whole life and have a concealed carry permit but this is among the most irresponsible gun owners I have ever heard of. Nothing you own is worth the thief's life much less that of an innocent bystander, this is why we can't let everyone carry a firearm and sensible gun laws are needed. A firearm is used to defend yourself or someone else from death or harm, it isn't to be used to shoot down a fleeing thief, or because someone disrespected you or anything else. This is why we can't have nice things.

[SoCalDavidS]

1. It's So Much Safer With MORE Guns! The More The Better!

[LastDemocratInSC]

7. An armed society is a safe and polite society

only if the armed individuals have no ammunition.

[Towlie]

31. Yes, gun owners were responsible - for all of the shootings.

 
?

... and they still are.

[Hoyt]

2. Gun-humpers have never been safe.

[Jerry2144]

3. If only all those guns

Were water pistols or fart guns or Atari duck hunt guns. That’s all that idiot should ever be allowed to have

[maxsolomon]

4. I don't remember this magical time.

When were you young? Before the fire lance was invented in 12th Century China?

[Ferryboat]

5. Ripcord is absolutely right

When I was a kid gun safety was drilled into you if your parents allowed you to handle a weapon. God help you if you shot at animal's without the intention of eating them.

Gun safety SHOULD be required in school if for no other reason than to recognize unsafe gun handling by those who shouldn't be holding one.

[Hoyt]

10. Critical Gun Theory should be taught, kids you don't need a gun tucked in

your pants.

[Jilly_in_VA]

13. Not unless

you want to shoot your own equipment off, which has happened more than once.

[multigraincracker]

15. Excellent idea.

The world was a better place under "duty to retreat".

[Hoyt]

16. Exactly.

[Johnny2X2X]

6. When I was young, gun owners were dipshits then too

Saw people doing all types of stupid things with their guns, usually while drinking beer and whiskey.

[Elessar Zappa]

8. Murder rate with guns was higher 50 years ago.

There’s always been irresponsible gun owners.

[Scrivener7]

34. Link, please.

[yagotme]

63. 1990-2018

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate

[Scrivener7]

64. This is murder rate and has nothing to say about guns, and it is for 30 years.

[yagotme]

65. How's this?

https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html

[Scrivener7]

66. That's 20 years. But we do know that ALL violent crime is down since the 90s,

though it is trending upward again in the past 5 years. The authors of Freakonomics tried to figure out what was the reason for that. They plugged in every variable they could think of, like police numbers, gun numbers, attendance at religious institutions. They threw in every factor they could think of.

None of the factors they tested correlated except the availability of abortions from 1974 to the mothers of the children who would reaching the age at which they could commit a violent crime in the 90's. That was the only factor they could say with certainty contributed to the crime rate falling.

But at any rate, this doesn't support the poster saying that the crime rate with guns is lower than it was 50 years ago.

And even in the face of lower gun homicides, we are still faced with the explosion in active shooter incidents. These are not included in the gun homicide numbers.
?w=524

[yagotme]

70. 2d paragraph down.

"Looking back 50 years, a Pew Research Center study found U.S. gun homicides rose in the 1960s, gained in the 1970s, peaked in the 1980s and the early 1990s, and then plunged and leveled out the past 20 years"

[Scrivener7]

71. And how does that say that gun homicides today are lower than 50 years ago?

[yagotme]

73. 50 years ago equals 1970's

"Gained in the 70's". If there's a gain, then 2 more increases, then a plunge, one can surmise that the level is now comparable/less than the prior 50 year time slot. Anyway, there is a graph further down the thread, so...

ETA: "Equals" sign not appearing...

[Scrivener7]

74. Rose in 60s, rose in 70s, rose in 80s, fell in 90s, leveled out. That says

nothing about gun homicides now being lower than 50 years ago.

[iscooterliberally]

9. I had a couple of close calls when I was a child.

My then 5 year old brother put a .38 slug into the wall right next to where I was sitting. He wasn't aiming at me, he just wanted to squeeze the trigger on dad's new gun. I was 7 at the time and that wasn't my first bad experience with a fire arm. JFK was president when I was born. There have been irresponsible gun owners for as long as there have been guns. It's just that in today's world there are many more people and many more guns. Also, news is pretty much instantaneous.

[Scrivener7]

11. When you were young, they didn't hand out "Man Cards" with guns.

[Kaleva]

12. Back when I was young, you could take your gun to school during hunting season

You had to show the bus driver that the gun was unloaded and when you got to school, you gave the principal the gun and ammo and he kept them in his office, unsecured, until school was let out

[Elessar Zappa]

17. There were school shootings, even back then.

Usually not mass shootings but one on one.

[Kaleva]

21. 1764. When a group of Native Americans shot and killed a teacher and several students.

1868. A boy and some friends got into a shootout with a teacher at his home. 3 dead.

[Elessar Zappa]

25. Yes.

There has always been much gun violence unfortunately.

[Kaleva]

26. But it was years between such events.

[Elessar Zappa]

28. If you look up the history, at least since 1960 or so,

there’s been school shootings yearly, mostly just one victim as I said. What’s gone up a lot is the yearly mass shootings we have now.

[VarryOn]

14. The vast majority of us gun owners are responsible...

In my case, I grew up with a full gun cabinet and a dad who instilled gun safety. The worst ass whippin' I ever got was putting a .22 in the gun cabinet with a bullet in the chamber.

But, I certainly recognize there are problems.

[Hoyt]

18. Kids today are growing up with assault style rifle in their homes and

Confederate flags and trump posters on the wall. Gun laws allow Rittenhouses and Zimmermans to walk down the streets armed.

We aren’t talking 22s and 410s, anymore.

[Scrivener7]

23. If you were responsible gun owners, you would be the loudest voices demanding that your hobby

be regulated so that it cannot cause carnage in the streets every day.

The vast majority of gun owners are murderously complacent about the impact of their hobby.

That's not responsible.

[Kaleva]

27. And if you cared about the issue, you'd be taking extraordinary action yourself.

But since you don't, then it isn't much of a concern for you.

That is your right.

[Scrivener7]

32. Good lord! Are you still trying to get people to join you in your hunger strike??

Have a sandwich, man! You're being ridiculous!

[Kaleva]

39. It is your right to not care much about about this issue.

For you and many others, it's an interesting topic of coffee table conversation.

[Scrivener7]

41. As it is your right to troll people who have lost a loved one due to this issue.

But you would never sink that low. I just know you wouldn't.

[Kaleva]

47. I'm just telling you scientific facts

It's human nature for a person who is facing a situation or issue of great importance to take vigorous action in dealing with the situation.

[Scrivener7]

49. Isn't it nauseating when you realize how base and sick trolls can be? I always find it so.

[Kaleva]

50. Some feel contempt for and loathe those who talk tough but do nothing.

I find them amusing. Like a schoolyard bully who puts on a show but one punch sends them off running.

MLK, Malcom X, John Lewis, Gandhi and so many others didn't run.

[Scrivener7]

52. We have had this conversation before. You assert your "scientific fact" that a person

who is not staging hunger strikes or losing their family or living like MLK and Ghandi is not serious in their political views.

Now you add that those who do not stage hunger strikes, lose their families or live like MLK or Ghandi are amusing, contemptible and worthy of loathing.

Always in these conversations, we get to the point where I ask you this same question which you have yet to answer: Are YOU staging a hunger strike, losing your family or living like MLK or Ghandi?

From what you have said today, I would have to add that, according to what you have said about those who don't, you MUST be or you would have to be swimming in self-loathing and contempt.

So which is it? The hunger strike or the self-loathing?

[Kaleva]

53. Quote the posts I made here about gun control. Are they similar to yours?

The stronger a person feels about a situation or issue, the more effort they are going to put forth in addressing it and the greater the risk they are willing to assume. MLK, Gandhi, Malcom X, John Lewis and others were willing to risk everything fighting for what they believed was right. At the other end of the spectrum, people who think an issue or situation is of little importance will do nothing in response to it.

Most people are somewhere between the two points. A person concerned about gun control may call or email representatives, write letters to Editors, donate time and money to gun control organizations, peacefully protest outside a shooting range or gun shop and such. They don't spend much time talking tough on an internet discussion board because they're busy actually doing things to further their cause.

Often, a person's rhetoric suggests they believe themselves to be a crusader but their total lack of action places them at the opposite end of the spectrum. Talk doesn't mean much when there is no action.

IMHO, you'd be more convincing here if you matched your rhetoric to level of action you yourself are taking on this particular issue.

[Scrivener7]

54. I notice you are encouraging people in another thread to sign up to fight in Ukraine.

When are you shipping out?

Also, your "scientific fact" that people who feel strongly about a political issue and who speak about it on discussion boards are not doing anything about it is simply bizarre. I guess your "scientific fact" must lead you to believe that everyone on DU is a political dilettante, so why would you want to be here among people you find so contemptible? That's quite irrational.

And PS: Still no answer on whether you are staging a hunger strike, so I have to assume you're going with the self-loathing.

[Kaleva]

55. There are folks who are willing to put at risk the lives of others.

But they themselves are not willing to go for various reasons.

"And PS: Still no answer on whether you are staging a hunger strike, so I have to assume you're going with the self-loathing."

Why would I go on a hunger strike? Read my posts about gun control and compare them to what you've posted on the same subject.

[Scrivener7]

56. Shipping out soon, are you?

[Kaleva]

61. For what reason?

I wished one person who was thinking of going over to volunteer the best of luck and to stay safe.

As for those who are advocating an escalation, I have asked them if they have informed their loved ones that they consider them to be expendable. You won't find posts made by me advocating escalation by getting NATO directly involved. So, there's no reason from me to ship out.

[Scrivener7]

62. No, that's not what you were doing. You were telling someone that he should sign up to fight

who said he had already done his military service.

But, as you are NOT following your own advice and staging any hunger strikes, we must assume that there is NO political issue that you feel strongly about. Otherwise you would certainly be acting according to your own vaunted principles.

And given that you don't feel strongly about any political issue, you must be here for some reason other than to discuss political issues you feel strongly about.

What could that be?

[Kaleva]

67. You don't care much about gun control but you still discuss it.

Your lack of action proves it's not a big issue for you and that's okay because this is a discussion board and it doesn't matter how little or how strongly one feels about the topic in order to opine about it.

I like to garden and I have made many posts in the gardening group here at DU.

I like to save money and cut costs so I've made many posts in the Frugal Living Group.

I like humor so I read and post in the Lounge and Weird News Group.

Your comment:

"And given that you don't feel strongly about any political issue, you must be here for some reason other than to discuss political issues you feel strongly about.

What could that be?"

I've been here a long time and will be here for much longer.

Your comment:

"No, that's not what you were doing. You were telling someone that he should sign up to fight

who said he had already done his military service."

Can you provide a quote of where I said that? Below is the exchange I had with ColinC:

"Kaleva

81. It's easy to be brave when there is little to no risk for the individual

I concede that some may have already considered loved ones and friends to be expendable.

ColinC

87. I am still in the military

I would likely be one of the first to go. And yes, I voted "yes."

Kaleva

89. I wonder how many who voted "Yes" would be the 1st to go?

And how many who voted the same wouldn't go themselves but are fine with others going?

I'm too old and decrepit to go my self so I'm not going to vote to send others. 30 years ago when I was in the military, I'd follow lawful orders of course.

ColinC

100. I think to have a moral opinion is different from whether one is willing or able to be directly

involved in every action that is a consequence of those opinions."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16570293

Your comment again:

"And given that you don't feel strongly about any political issue"

I care strongly for that which I can make an actual impact or have influence or control over. You won't catch me talking tough while hiding behind a fake name about things out of my control or on issues on which I'll make little to no effort to amend. I accept what our leaders (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer and others) are doing or trying to do.

[Scrivener7]

68. TLDR. Enjoy your lunch

[Kaleva]

69. Enjoy your lunch too!

I actually have to log off and run some errands. Take care. Go out and fight for what you believe in. You could make a difference. Who knows?

[Kaleva]

48. I'm just telling you scientific facts

It's human nature for a person who is facing a situation or issue of great importance to take vigorous action in dealing with the situation.


Not everyone who loses a loved one to a drunk driver joins MADD and dedicats a good portion of their lives helping to enact tougher drunk driving laws. The loss of a loved one may be hurtful but that doesn't mean the person who suffered the loss has strong feelings about the issue of drunk driving itself. The actions or non-actions taken by the person in response tell the story.

My wife and I lost our home to a fire some years ago. In our current home I installed smoke detectors on every floor that are tied in together so that if one goes off, they all go off. There's a carbon monoxide detector in the living room and in each bedroom. There's a fire extinguisher in the basement, the kitchen and in the upstairs hallway. All the bedrooms upstairs have an emergency fire escape ladder. I think you'd agree that because of the house fire, I have some concern about such events and that is supported by the actions I have taken.

[VarryOn]

30. Guns are quite regulated, depending on one where one is...

I would be strongly supportive of so called “red flag” laws, if they could be done constitutionally with due process. The key, it seems, is to keep guns from the wrong hands. The suicidal, the wife a user, the car jacker, the brooding 10th grader everyone is concerned about, or the nut job who continues posting hate-filled and racist rants on YouTube (like this week’s subway shooter).

I’m opposed to blanket regs and laws that end up catching in the nets otherwise lawful gun owners who are behaving.

I’m hardly a gun nut. I have a rifle, a shot gun, and three handguns.

[Scrivener7]

33. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There's blood in the streets. And this doesn't happen

anywhere else. And it's YOUR hobby.

[VarryOn]

35. I wouldn't consider it a hobby for me really...

I have gone plinking at the range since early summer last year. Ammo is to expensive for me to make it much of a hobby.

Woodworking, gardening, and cooking rate much higher in my book.

[Scrivener7]

36. .

[inthewind21]

58. Everyone

Is a "lawful" gun owner. Right up to the very second they aren't. See, Adam Lanza. Jared Laughner, the Columbine boys, the Parkland shooter, need I go on? So, this "lawful " gun owner schtick is getting a bit tired. "I’m opposed to blanket regs and laws that end up catching in the nets otherwise lawful gun owners who are behaving.

[yagotme]

72. Well, not "everyone"...

There are those that are not allowed to have firearms. Convicted felons are one class, for example. But they keep getting them. Theft, or whatever. Maybe it's a people problem, as well?

[keithbvadu2]

19. Joe The Plumber: 'Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Constitutional Rights' To Have Guns

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/joe-the-plumber-guns_n_5397981.html

Joe The Plumber: ‘Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights’ To Have Guns

Ironic how he chose that verb back in 2014.

[JanMichael]

20. Gun deaths by homicide & suicide are not much different from

1900 to now. The rates that is.

When were you born? 1875? Or 1620?

1980 was one of the worst years for gun deaths.

There have always been responsible and irresponsible gun owners. The rates over the decades aren't that much different. Perception is different though because of the stupid Internet.

[Scrivener7]

24. Link please.

[JanMichael]

37. Question - the OP needs a link too, right? It is pure opinion.

[Scrivener7]

38. So there's no source for your statement?

[JanMichael]

40. Why yes there is.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_22-01-26_gundeaths_2/



Death from Guns and Vehicles from 1950.




The US is the worst when it comes to guns but the murder and suicide rates with firearms ebbs and flows.

I think it is hyperbole to state that "when I was young" people treated guns so much better. About the same rate of suicides and murders by guns decade to decade. Is blowing your head off in 1958 with a gun "responsible" gun use? Or shooting someone you are robbing in 1968 "responsible"?

[Scrivener7]

42. I don't see that chart in any of the 4 pages of the source you link. I DO, however, see

this chart:

?w=524

[Thtwudbeme]

43. How odd- the link he posted is from 2022

What link are you seeing?

[Scrivener7]

44. I edited my post. The chart he is showing doesn't seem to show up in the link he gave.

The link he gave is from 2022, but it gives a chart that goes back to 1950. His statement was that shooting incidents have not changed since 1900.

Where are we disconnecting?

Do you find that chart he posted in his link?

[JanMichael]

45. The data on 1900 was not easy to find

And it look like 1900 had similar suicide rates and homicide. After 1910 we really get into the ebb and flow of death. 1930 was bad, 1980 was bad, 1990 was bad, and now 2021 is bad.

https://cjrc.osu.edu/sites/default/files/History%20and%20Criminology%20figures.pdf

Then the 19th century...

https://cjrc.osu.edu/research/interdisciplinary/hvd/homicide-rates-american-west

Ebb and flow meant changes up and down over time. My issue was with the OP title. A certain number of people have almost always been shit with guns.

The good old days weren't that great when it comes to firearm violence.

[Scrivener7]

46. Those are homicide rates. They don't say anything about firearms.

[SmallFry]

22. I missed that magical time.

Apparently by a lot.

Just kidding, I didn’t miss it. Using one’s own surroundings to make grand claims is human nature. The personal anecdote becomes a grand perception.

[inthewind21]

60. It's the norm

If it exists in my small circle it must be the case nationwide. Example: "Everyone in I know is voting for X, therefore Y will never win this state." I have heard that one a LOT! Those I hear it from seem bewildered when their certainty doesn't happen yet they continue to make the same grand predictions based on "every I know is doing..."

[Buns_of_Fire]

29. I can even remember when the NRA was all about gun safety

and responsible ownership. They were even - dare I say - a generally respectable organization.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

51. Same here. Where I grew up in the rural inland Northwest,

everyone had guns for hunting, and I can't remember anyone ever getting shot.