I live in North Austin. there was a mass shooting at my neighborhood target.

[Javaman]

and of course they say the shooter had mental issues. well no fucking shit.

the next question is: how does a guy who has mental issues get his hands on guns? Texas. right wing. 2nd amendment morons.

[malaise]

1. Every effin day of the week

Glad you’re OK

[mahina]

90. me too!

[TnDem]

2. Do you own a gun?

[edhopper]

3. What the ever loving fuck

does that have to do with anything?

[TnDem]

4. Simple question, that's all

[sarisataka]

5. Let's say hypothetically the answer is yes...

What then?

[TnDem]

11. A person needs to understand the issue

if they own a gun or are familiar with them, then they probably know more about the issue than someone that doesn't or has no exposure to guns.

[Torchlight]

17. Would that same standard apply to automobile homicides?

[TnDem]

21. Not so much

Vehicles generally all operate the same and almost everyone knows how to operate one...Firearms, usually not so much.

When someone starts a discussion about firearms, many times it is an emotional discourse rather than actual facts. This is mainly because the person starting the discussion has no clue about firearms, how they operate, how they are bought, sold, maintained, laws pertaining to them and so on.

[mahina]

26. So do you think whether someone owns a gun or not defines their right to thoughts on mass shootings?

Curious perspective. How do you justify that?

By that reasoning, all the Republican men have no right to an opinion about abortion, right?

Thanks for your perspective.

[StarryNite]

32. Bingo!

[TnDem]

42. No, but not understanding the subject whatsoever

..makes you unable to articulate a specific point except emotional ones, which sum the issue up as "we have to do something...ANYTHING", instead of rationally understanding the issue they are trying to discuss.

[mahina]

46. But how could you possibly know what point they want to articulate based on whether they own a gun or not?

Please define the term “rational.”

In my case, I do not own a gun because my friend’s mother shot and killed her, her baby sister and her father during a mental episode. I understand how lives are lost and ruined in a few moments and for me, the risks outweigh any possible benefit.

People break into houses all the time and steal guns. People walk in during burglaries.

I also do not own a gun because I know that it is very likely that it will be used against me in my own home and that I am far safer using pepper spray or some non-lethal weapon

I grew up in a home with a Vietnam veteran who volunteered to go to Vietnam and served in the Special Forces. He taught me how to defend myself. He taught me not to keep a gun in the house.

Do you think I am not worthy of an opinion because I don’t meet your criteria? Is that “rational?”

[TnDem]

49. We all have opinions and we should

It's just when the minutiae of the subject starts to get discussed, about specifics and not emotion, that's when the discussion often goes wild with disinformation.

And a gun in my home is not likely to be used against me...I am not sure what you mean by that, so I won't comment further.

[mahina]

52. Ok. But what does the word "rational" mean?

[TnDem]

55. Rational means NOT EMOTIONAL

It means to discuss something without lashing out with emotion, and stick to absolute facts...That is rational understanding as I stated.

Emotional responses are, name calling...Vague phrases like "common sense", (means tens thousand different thing to ten thousand different people).."for the children", etc...They do nothing for the discussion because they are emotional and non-specific.

It is the hoplophobia version of "thoughts and prayers".

[mahina]

84. Cool I learned a new word, hoplophobia. Irrational fear of firearms. But they are the leading cause of death

in Americans aged 0-24.
So, not irrational.

oh oh... "Firearms are the leading cause of death in children and youth 0 to 24 years of age in the United States. In 2020, firearms resulted in 10 197 deaths (fatality rate 9.91 per 100 000 youth 0–24 years old). Firearms are the leading mechanism of death in pediatric suicides and homicides. Increased access to firearms is associated with increased rates of firearm deaths. Substantial disparities in firearm injuries and deaths exist by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation and gender identity and for deaths related to legal intervention. Barriers to firearm access can decrease the risk to youth for firearm suicide, homicide, unintentional shooting injury, and death. Given the high lethality of firearms and the impulsivity associated with suicidal ideation, removing firearms from the home or securely storing them—referred to as lethal means restriction of firearms—is critical, especially for youth at risk for suicide. Primary care-, emergency department-, mental health-, hospital-, and community-based intervention programs can effectively screen and intervene for individuals at risk for harming themselves or others. The delivery of anticipatory guidance coupled with safety equipment provision improves firearm safer storage. Strong state-level firearm legislation is associated with decreased rates of firearm injuries and death. This includes legislation focused on comprehensive firearm licensing strategies and extreme risk protection order laws. A firm commitment to confront this public health crisis with a multipronged approach engaging all stakeholders, including individuals, families, clinicians, health systems, communities, public health advocates, firearm owners and nonowners, and policy makers, is essential to address the worsening firearm crisis facing US youth "
today.https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/6/e2022060071/189687/Firearm-Related-Injuries-and-Deaths-in-Children?autologincheck=redirected

So I guess I wonʻt be using that new word (for me) much until we can bring the stats way, way down.

And brah...capping NOT EMOTIONAL smells emotional.

I am super curious about your tagline, that you donʻt post often but when you do it is tactical (or was it strategic...) and political. I donʻt disagree but wonder what purpose it serves in your view?

Cheers.

[TnDem]

87. I'm glad you asked

I have popped in and out of here for 20 years usually with a similar message...I am tired of losing the vast swaths of rural United States because my own party doesn't understand the four corners of their own party. They certainly don't understand the gun issue, the specifics and legal terminology about the gun issue, and how it relates to many in their own party. It always ends up with emotion and the thought process that seems to go with "I think this way, so all Democrats must think this way", when it is abjectly not true..

If you want to win nationwide elections, shut up about guns...You will lose rural areas in droves every.single.time.

[mahina]

92. I read you on this specific point and agree.

[Cirsium]

59. All opinions are not equal

Indeed! Let's discuss the minutiae of the subject. You don't seem very knowledgeable in this area.

Gunshot Wounds: Ballistics, Pathology, and Treatment Recommendations, with a Focus on Retained Bullets

As the epidemic of gunshot injuries and firearm fatalities continues to proliferate in the United States, knowledge regarding gunshot wound (GSW) injury and management is increasingly relevant to health-care providers. Unfortunately, existing guidelines are largely outdated, written in a time that high-velocity weapons and deforming bullets were chiefly restricted to military use. Advances in firearm technology and increased accessibility of military grade firearms to civilians has exacerbated the nature of domestic GSW injury and complicated clinical decision-making, as these weapons are associated with increased tissue damage and often result in retained bullets. Currently, there is a lack of literature addressing recent advances in the field of projectile-related trauma, specifically injuries with retained bullets. This review aims to aggregate the available yet dispersed findings regarding ballistics, GSW etiology, and treatment, particularly for cases involving retained projectiles.

The civilian use of firearms is a common cause of traumatic injury in the United States. It is estimated that an average of 120,232 firearm injuries occurred yearly from 2009 to 2017. Knowledge regarding gunshot wound (GSW) injury and management was chiefly derived from experience garnered during the major wars of the 20th century. Existing guidelines were written when high velocity firearms and deforming rounds, which create more extensive tissue damage, were predominantly restricted to the military. However, advances in weapons technology and the increased accessibility of military grade firearms to civilians has changed the nature of domestic GSW injury, thereby complicating clinical decision-making.

Despite the prevalence of GSWs, especially in high volume trauma centers, treatment decisions are still largely driven by anecdotal beliefs. A common myth is that the heat produced by gun powder ignition during firearm discharge is sufficient to sterilize the bullet. Wolf et al disproved this notion by coating bullets with a small amount of S. aureus, firing into sterile ballistics blocks, and culturing the same S. aureus from the bullet tracts. A GSW creates an open path of entry in which projectiles and their components can transport bacteria and debris from the skin flora, clothing, environment, or other intermediate targets directly into a wound. Despite the evolution of understanding with regard to possible infection, historical misconceptions have likely played a role in the lack of lucid consensus on antibiotic use in GSWs.

...

As a bullet enters the skin, tissue accelerates radially and is displaced centrifugally. The size of the entry wound is transiently larger than the caliber of the bullet, but typically the defect reversibly contracts to a diameter smaller than the cross-sectional area of the bullet due to the highly elastic properties of skin. Additionally, entry wound defects can differ depending on the shape of the implicated bullet. The effects of penetration are further complicated by the presence of intermediary targets such as clothing, glass, or wood, which can alter the shape, fragmentation, or trajectory of the projectile.

Internally, bullets cause crushing or laceration injury leaving “permanent” tissue cavitation along their course. The magnitude of this permanent cavity is determined by the bullet caliber and its deformation or fragmentation within the body. A small and intact bullet traveling at a lower velocity will create a permanent cavity similar to its caliber or entry orientation. Additionally, a “temporary” cavity is created surrounding the primary cavity as the bullet stretches and strains tissues past their elastic limit. This continued, radial acceleration and the extent of damage are primarily determined by the bullet’s velocity and the tensile properties of implicated tissues. High-energy projectiles are associated with temporary cavities reaching up to 10–30 times the size of the permanent cavity, while lower-energy projectiles create temporary cavities that are relatively the same size as the permanent cavity. Additionally, the amount of yaw demonstrates a positive relationship to temporary cavity size. In all, GSWs from high-energy projectiles tend to result in greater and more diffuse damage, whereas low-energy projectile damage is typically restricted to the path of bullets and secondary missile fragments.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9462949/

[TnDem]

65. Good job on the cut and paste

I am quite aware of the specifics of what gunshot wounds look like.

[mahina]

54. If not able to define the term ʻrationalʻ here then

Respectfully, pot, meet kettle.

[TnDem]

56. I just did

It's hard to answer three people at once.

[Cirsium]

68. Well...

I wonder why so many people are disgusted with your posts?

[mahina]

71. Fair. So,

In my case, I do not own a gun because my friend’s mother shot and killed her, her baby sister and her father in their beds (and crib) during a mental episode. I understand how lives are lost and ruined in a few moments and for me, the risks outweigh any possible benefit.

People break into houses all the time and steal guns. People walk in during burglaries.

I also do not own a gun because I know that it is very likely that it will be used against me in my own home and that I am far safer using pepper spray or some non-lethal weapon. Updated with sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/ "Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Linda L Dahlberg 1 , Robin M Ikeda, Marcie-Jo Kresnow

also https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home"
Authors: Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes

I grew up in a home with a Vietnam veteran who volunteered to go to Vietnam and served in the Special Forces in the tri-border region. He taught me how to defend myself. He taught me not to keep a firearm in the house.

Do you think I am not worthy of an opinion because I don’t meet your criteria? Is that rational?

[TnDem]

86. NIH to tell me that my gun is more dangerous to me than an intruder?

Hardly.

So, your "source" is a federal study from a group of with hoplophobia or with an anti-gun agenda?

Do you even realize how out of touch that is for most rural Democrats?

[mahina]

89. Well it sure is a pity that people donʻt understand what research is and how it is published.

My "source." Ok brah. If not on the National Institute of Health website, where would you suggest that I look for credible peer reviewed journal articles? What would merit some consideration for you? How about the New England Journal of Medicine? I gave you a link to a study there above.

What is it about the National Institute of Health that makes you cross anything published there off as a potential credible source? Please don't say that it's because Dr. Fauci changed his mind when new evidence came on the horizon about Covid because if you say that I'll have to think you're either playing me or are just not a serious person. Should we hold the first opinion tight after new evidence is known? Good luck with that.


Off-topic but I was wondering if you knew that there was a report that could clear your name of pedophilia and it was in your control to release it, would you do it?

[TnDem]

94. I see, the old "When did you stop beating your wife" trick

I don't need a "peer reviewed" study from anyone to understand that I am personally better off with a firearm in my home than not having one.

[mahina]

95. Do you. I couldn't give a rats.

Again, you are conflating what the study showed with research- you know, facts- and my post which contained my opinion.

God love you. Bye now.

[iemanja]

108. In other words, rather than evidence, you rely on emotion.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

109. BOOM!

[mahina]

93. Also that is not what the study said at all. You are conflating the data and my post.

But you knew that right?

Gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death for people in the US aged 0-24.

This is pretty recent. Is it fine?

[TnDem]

96. Without looking, that sounds correct

And almost every single time, it will consistently concentrate in urban areas, usually by gang violence...Even in rural states, the urban areas of those states are where most of the killing happens.

[mahina]

97. Yes, people are concentrated in urban areas. No, it is not gang violence.

Yeah, congratulations, you win, but not the prize you want.

Cities are also where you will find the highest concentration of humans.

I don't think you're even serious.

I've spent all the time that I have to share with you. Good luck out there.

[TnDem]

99. More humans and more gang concentration

And much more gun death, no matter what the gun laws in the city are...Chicago has some of the harshest gun laws in the nation and the highest inner city death rate.

[Oeditpus Rex]

114. Incorrect

But in line with the"facts" constantly used by "firearms enthusiasts" and right-wingers.

https://everytownresearch.org/report/city-data/#:~:text=people%20in%202023.-,The%202022%20to%202023%20gun%20homicide%20count%20and%20rate%20percent,the%20South%20(%2D7%20percent).]

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-have-the-highest-murder-rates/]

[Cirsium]

51. I'm so emotional

For some odd reason people being gunned down bothers me. Maybe I should get a gun so I can understand what is wrong with me.

[quakerboy]

67. That is an absolutely rediculous statement

Guns are definitely not more varied than vehicles. Being a car driver and using a motorcycle with no training is a bigger variation, in my opinion, than going Black powder to semi auto. And I guarantee id be safer sans training using virtually any gun that could be handed to me than I suspect I would be if you dropped me into a semi truck without any training.

[Grolph_]

103. Your assumption about vehicles is incorrect

Very many people do not know how to drive.

[iemanja]

107. Being emotional about the loss of life?

As opposed to not caring?

[Cirsium]

58. The issue

The issue is the damage high velocity projectiles do to soft tissue. Are you a trauma surgeon? If not you should probably gracefully bow out of this discussion. You seem pretty emotional.

After all, a person needs to understand the issue. If they have worked with trauma victims or are familiar with them, then they probably know more about the issue than someone that doesn't or has no exposure to that.

[TnDem]

83. Except that's not the issue

Most of us understand trauma wounds. I do, but that's not the issue here at all, and wasn't even mentioned until someone decided to interject it.

I am asking if anyone can actually articulate a solution using actual facts and not emotional arguments.

[Cirsium]

101. That is the issue

I care about the victims, not the shooter. The victims are the issue for me, not the weaponry.

I am asking if anyone can actually articulate a solution using actual facts and not emotional arguments.

Thanks for the laugh.

[TomSlick]

70. To be clear. Is it your position non-gun lovers don't understand the issues?

Anyone can understand what guns can do to people. Anyone can understand that some people; the mentally ill, people with criminal records, etc, should not have access to weapons. Anyone can understand that thoughts and prayers are not working.

Of what "issues" are non-gun lovers uninformed?

[mahina]

80. I think you bring up an excellent question

I am one that deserves consideration

[TnDem]

81. What are most uninformed about? The law both state and federal to start..

Every single discussion on guns ends with absolute rubbish, non-truthful assumptions based on fact especially regarding gun laws, (especially federal), definitions of firearms both legal and practical, what "mentally ill" is legally defined as, and not what the National Enquirer defines it as.

I, and most people that understand the issue just shake our heads at the nonsensical emotionalism and then everybody wonders why the issue can't be even be discussed, much less resolved.

When people don't even understand the specifics they want to propose, it will immediately go nowhere but handwringing.

[TnDem]

88. It's not "gun lovers", it is..

An understanding of specific laws, specific legal terms, specific solutions and specific facts regarding firearms as a whole.

Merely calling all rural Democratic gun owners as "gun lovers", already has you high speed diving into an emotional decision on the subject.

[TomSlick]

104. I am a lawyer. I understand the laws and legal terms.

I also an Army retiree. I have been trained to use military weapons. I have also been a hunter in the past. I have experience with both hunting firearms and weapons of war and know the difference.

I live in a rural area in a red state, so I understand gun lovers. I know that nothing meaningful will ever be done about the scourge of firearms in this country as long as Americans love their guns more than they love their children.

You need not worry about an emotional old guy like me who fears his grandchildren being sacrificed on the altar of the Second Amendment. Your guns are safe even if the people who live in this country are not.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

110. So what's your specific

reasonable unemotional solution?

[edhopper]

100. But you did not ask if they know about guns

You ask if they own one. As if that is the standard.
I am quite familiar with firearms, I just don't own one,
More than this, I am familiar with the Federalist writings about the 2nd Amendment.
For me that is much more important than owning a gun.
I guess not for you.

[iemanja]

106. If you own a gun, you know more about mass murder?

If you say so.

[edhopper]

6. It's a fucking loaded question

and you know it. It has NOTHING to do with what happened near him.
It's a question with an agenda. Don't play naive.

[TnDem]

9. No agenda here...Again

This is a discussion forum and the conversation is about guns in Texas....

[edhopper]

10. So why does it matter if the OP

has a gun. How could that have any possible bearing on what he said?

[TnDem]

12. Understanding the subject matter

If we are going to discuss a subject, knowing how much the person knows about the subject is germane.

[edhopper]

14. So someone cannot understand the 2nd Amendment

or gun laws unless they own a gun? That is the primary focus of someone being knowledgeable?

[TnDem]

16. It makes it a lot easier to discuss

When someone understands how a simple firearm works...Not just the second amendment, but the actual nuts and bolts of the subject matter.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. That's Quite An Obtuse Position

I hope I don't see you posting anything about music, unless you, like me, are proficient on 5 instruments.
See how little sense your question contained?

[TnDem]

22. I'm glad you are a Maestro

I am proficient in bass guitar, but not five instruments...I have basic knowledge, but I can't play a piano concerto.

[Oeditpus Rex]

20. That

Is absolutely ridiculous.

Do we need to understand the "nuts and bolts" of cars to better discuss a fatal auto accident?

[TnDem]

24. No, because nearly everyone can drive a car

Many times, arguments about firearms are with people that have ZERO knowledge of the subject matter. That makes it wildly difficult to discuss without a bunch of feelz and no actual substance.

[Oeditpus Rex]

25. The subject is not what you insist it is

The subject is random, senseless killing that's common in and to the U.S. Nobody needs to know how guns work to discuss that.

[TnDem]

43. Sure they do

So, specifically, what is your solution to that issue?...Remember, specifically.

[Oeditpus Rex]

60. Which issue?

People not knowing the "nuts and bolts" of guns? People not owning guns? People insisting we need to know the "nuts and bolts" of guns before they can can discuss yet another mass shooting?

[TnDem]

62. One question at a time

Trying to answer them here as you asked:

1) Understanding the "nuts and bolts" is not just understanding precisely how what you want to regulate is important, but also understand the actual laws on the books...SOOO much disinformation because cannot discuss this rationally, but instead emotion often gets in the way and facts be damned.

2) You don't have to own guns, but it helps to understand how they work and function...Also, having a disdain for people that do is a disservice to the Democratic party as whole. Not everyone thinks like everyone else on this issue within this party.

3) Again, discussing a mass shooting is a good thing to do, but as always emotional arguments are standard fare for people that either dislike or don't understand guns and existing gun laws.

[Oeditpus Rex]

69. And the point you've been trying surreptitiously since your initial post

is that you understand all these things, making you the one most qualified to discuss mass shootings.

We just want them to stop. We don't need to understand all the laws or "nuts and bolts" to want that, nor to talk about wanting that and how to make it happen. And we definitely don't need an agent-provocateur insisting we do.

[TnDem]

91. That is where you are incorrect

If you propose a simple statement to a complex problem, you have to understand all angles of the problem and all solutions to the problem to be able to counter any arguments about the issue. Why, you may say? Because having an intimate understanding of an issue allows you discuss and understand it.

Let me just give an example off the top of my head...Say I make a statement coming from non-specific feelz using a very simplistic statement like "I want drunk driving to stop"....Sounds good right? We all want that.. I do.

Except there are many, many hundred specific legal terms, instances, variables and probably a hundred other things that specifically thwart, stop, impede, go-around, ignore this simple thought...Blood alcohol limits? Were the keys in the ignition? Breathalyzer? DWI versus DUI on BAC? Blood test? Video of field sobriety? Officer certification? Officer record in court? and so on ad nauseum.

So, you see a simple statement like "I want it to stop" is great for a billboard, but the reality is going to be a multitude of specific enforcement avenues that attempt to "make it stop".

So, as I always say, Specifics are everything and understanding these specifics are really everything.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

111. You First

[mahina]

28. brah

[bif]

7. Why ask a question like that?

Seriously.

[TnDem]

8. Curious, why the anger?

Last I looked this is a discussion forum.

[Oeditpus Rex]

23. Where do you see anger?

Flipping it back onto the questioner is quite the right-wing tactic.

[mahina]

72. What in the post denotes anger to you?

[TnDem]

76. Well, immediately getting perplexed

For asking "Do you own a gun" was one. read the thread and you'll see the anger for simply asking a question.

It was meant as a gauge to see if the issue could be factually discussed, or if it was going to go the standard emotional route with nothing really discussed and many tempests of typical wrong information.

[mahina]

79. The thing is that with no further context it came of strongly smelling of an ad hominem attack.

Iʻm not a big fan of grammarly but here is a snippet that may interest you: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/rhetorical-devices/logical-fallacies/

I appreciate the Imgur logical fallacy ref though https://imgur.com/gallery/logical-fallacy-referee-dump-rzSPftq#LBV3hyz

[TnDem]

82. Ad hominem attack?

You need to read the responses to me when a simple question was asked...THAT'S ad hominem, not asking a question.

Of course, I don't ignore anyone, nor do I report anyone no matter what they say, because this is just the internet and this is a discussion board of fellow Democrats, so whatever.

I always ask that key question first now with gun discussions and then I can immediately tell if I am discussing it with someone that understands the specifics in which they are proposing.

[mahina]

85. Perhaps share some context next time unless you really enjoy scrapping

Just a thought. Cheers.

[H2O Man]

112. No one is perplexed.

"Perplexed" is an actual word with a specific meaning. Not a single person who has responded to you has been "perplexed." Perhaps "disgusted" with your attempt to pretend you have superior insight on the issues involved in this discussion. It's best to know the actual meaning of a word, in order to use it correctly. Otherwise, it would appear that your purposely misused the word, seeking an emotional response.

[Javaman]

30. Oh I see what you are trying to do.

Welcome to my little friend: block

Ta!

[ananda]

13. It's the one at I-35 and Anderson?

I used to use the one NW Austin near
the arboretum across from Sprouts.

I stopped going there a while ago.

[TexasTowelie]

15. I posted an article in the Texas Group from the Austin American-Statesman

that said that there were 3 dead. No discussion about how the shooter obtained the gun. I am as bewildered as you are regarding the ease of access to weapons for someone in his mental state.

https://democraticunderground.com/107871765

[TnDem]

18. There are 400 million guns in the US

Gaining a gun is ridiculously easy.

[cachukis]

33. Somewhat bewildered here.

The poster was curious how the so called analysis
portrayed the shooter as having mental issues then a natural followup as to how one with mental issues could aquire a gun.
Certainly, rhetorical.
A relatively obtuse challenge as to one's possession of a gun ensued.
I am proud of my ability to make connections so I am curious as to how you made yours.

[TnDem]

57. I can tell you many ways that they get them...

But it will be specific responses and not an emotional ones.

[cachukis]

61. I think he posed a quick caveat as to how some one

with mental issues could get a gun. Your myriad reasons would be enlightening.
Nonetheless, how does owning a gun as a mentally ill person, equate the shooting of innocents.
Looking for that understanding.

[TnDem]

63. You are conflating two issues

1) How a person with mental health issues can easily get a gun is/was the crux of that discussion and fairly easy to discuss if you understand specifics about firearms, how they work and the ability to buy or make them.

The second part of what you stated is unclear to me; "owning a firearm as a mentally ill person, equate the shooting of innocents"..I have read that multiple times, and I can't understand the point you are trying to make? A mentally ill person shouldn't own firearms, but first we have to be specific...Define "mentally ill" specifically.

[cachukis]

74. How the firearm works has what? to do with the

acquisition of a mentally ill person?

[TnDem]

98. You mean the acquisition BY a mentally ill person?

A firearm is actually a simple device. it is not complex...Machined with tolerances? Yes...Complex in the basics of how it works? Not at all.

Legally firearms are the serialized receiver or frame of an an entire weapon...That's it... The rest of the "gun" can be purchased on Ebay by a five year old.

Why you may ask? Because every screw, nut, bolt and leather sling is NOT the gun legally..The small serialized receiver or frame is the firearm, not the rest of the parts....Over 90% of most semi-auto firearms are not considered the firearm, just the receiver.

[cachukis]

102. In a nutshell, do the mechanics of gun function

have anything to do with a madman acquiring a gun?

[TnDem]

105. Yes, by all means...

....if the "madman" simply knows how to steady-hand run a hand drill and has an 80% lower and a parts kit, yes, he or his 10 year old son can acquire a legal parts kit and easily build his own.

Also, was this "madman" adjudicated by a court as mentally ill? If he wasn't, then he could go to Rural King and buy whatever he wanted legally...Again, this gets into the minutiae of legal definitions... What is legally defined as "madman"?

This is why I asked if the OP owned a gun, because being able to discuss and explain the legal terms is much easier for me to do on here than everyone continually saying "do SOMETHING"

[walkingman]

34. Too easy, in my opinion. I think our infatuation with guns is strange.

Not sure the attraction - especially assault weapons and handguns. I don't expect anything to change because we have weird priorities and view everything we like or approve of in this country as freedom.

American Exceptionalism!!

[TnDem]

44. Because specific definitions matter

"Not understanding the attraction", "infatuation" are emotional arguments, no specific points.

Just because you don't understand what you call "infatuation", doesn't mean there are tens of thousands of rural Democratic voters like me that aren't infatuated, but do have an interest and sometimes deep understanding about them.

[walkingman]

50. I totally understand your viewpoint - it is what I call an "ammosexual" and

doesn't have anything to do with whether you are a Dem or Repub...rural or urban.

[TnDem]

53. I prefer the term Elmer Keith coined

Which is "hoplophobe"

[jackcrow2001]

38. I own firearms......

I own three different firearms, I know how to operate, break down, clean and maintain them. I have practiced using them, and
received some formal training in use of firearms ( not the ones I specifically own ) when I was active duty in the military. I also know more than a few people who I believe should not have easy access to lethal weapons, I've never advocated banning guns, however I cannot understand why common sense measures like proving competence even to the minimum amount that you need to legally operate a motor vehicle is such a horrible violation to many people who think the second amendment is more vital than the lives of children. I have grown sooo tired of the all or nothing argument, no I don't think that some few common sense measures to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminal or mentally unstable persons will stop all gun violence......but even if just one or two lives could be saved, wouldn't that be worth having to wait a couple days or some small inconvenience between impulse buying the next firearm.

[TnDem]

41. One problem with that...

...is these media driven key words like "common sense" and the like...Most rural gun owners roll their eyes at that, including many rural Democrats like me...It screams "I don't care what happens, I want to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING"..The problem with stating that we need "common sense" measures, is that your common sense and my common sense might be wildly different...That phraseology is non-specific, and specifics are what really make these discussions fruitiful.

I agree that training is helpful and needed, and arguably even in the spirit of what the second amendment states, which is a "well regulated militia"...Regulated means trained in founderspeak. so we agree there.

The thing about firearms that is so different is that the Constitution provides for their ownership by citizenry....They were very specific to place that as the most important tenet right behind speech.

Another main thing with firearms is people that want to argue about it have no clue about the laws, both federal and state that actually govern the devices...They just make things up because it feels good to say it when none of it is actually factual.

I can tell you this...Nothing and I mean NOTHING loses rural Democrats more than this issue.

[mahina]

73. No argument there.

I wonder why the Republicans made sure the NRA got all it wanted.

Gosh why would Russia want us to shoot each other, and increase mass shootings, and shoot each other with automatic weapons?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/11/nra-russia-money-guns-516804
NRA got more money from Russia-linked sources than earlier reported

https://apnews.com/article/russia-elections-donald-trump-dallas-europe-
NRA linked to Donald Trump-Russia collusion theories

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/16/did-kremlin-give-money-to-nra/
Did the Kremlin Give Money to the National Rifle Association to Help Trump?

[Figarosmom]

27. Watch and see if they say

He had the firearm legally.

[TnDem]

64. Correct

Then we can discuss the specifics of what the media reported as "mental illness" means, and if he purchased it legally and what that means...Specifically

[MrWowWow]

29. Bang! Bang! Bang!

[electric_blue68]

31. Terrible. Sorry to hear this.

[Skittles]

35. to repukes, it's never the guns, it's mental illness

problem is, repukes do not care about mental illness any more than they do about gun carnage

[stillcool]

36. I think mental illness is a societal disease

kind of hard to avoid it when nothing is real

[erronis]

37. Fascinating. When I put tndem on full ignore this discussion went from 32 replies to 5.

Not saying tndem is a rabble rouser, just wasting a lot of everybody's time.

[TnDem]

48. Too bad you can't see this then

But I never put anyone on ignore...never have and never will.

I am open to listen to anyone.

[GreenWave]

39. Does mental issues mean the shooter was a RWNJ?

[TnDem]

47. Who knows...Possibly?

Mental illness spans all parties and belief systems.

[Billsdaughter]

75. What's Next?

"Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People"

Perhaps you would consider doing a bit of research with facts to actually suppprt your self-aggrandized musings which are complete nonsense.

What a waste of everyone's time.

[TnDem]

77. No, reading your post helped with that

Nothing of substance as expected

[groundloop]

40. I didn't see that particular shooting, there's just too many to choose from anymore.

I caught news of three other mass shootings over the weekend near why my adult children live, there are so many that it's just impossible to keep up with them all. The right wing wants to normalize gun violence, all part of life in 'murica where everyone is allowed to contribute to the bottom line of the gun industry.

[Emile]

45. Is Trump sending National Guard to every Target?

[Marie Marie]

66. Or let's even narrow that down - Is he sending troops to Texas??

Sounds to me like crime is outta control in that town.

[hamsterjill]

78. Texas has had its share. I'm sorry that it happened.

Lifelong Texan here. It breaks my heart that nothing ever gets done to stop this. Breaks my heart that innocent people die.

And it scares the hell out of me as to what I would actually do were I faced with a situation like that because THAT is the reality in which we live. I always know where the exits are.

[H2O Man]

113. Recommended.

Thank you for this. I think the value is measured by the attempt to hi-jack the discussion.