Pattern Ghost

Thanks. I'm frankly getting sick of these shootings. If we banned semi-auto centerfire rifles outright -- flat out ban, no grandfather clause BS, no concessions -- I'm not sure I'd be too strongly opposed at this point. If a few million responsible people had to lose some of their weapons and it meant one kid's life would be spared, that'd be a fair trade. On the other hand: There had damned well be other equally strong measures going into place at the same time that more directly prevent the killings. God knows what mischief a trip to your local hardware store or car rental place can produce*, so you'd better be taking a hard line on implementing other useful measures as well. *ETA: Then again, most of these killers are low skill morons, so depriving them of their easiest tools may be pretty effective.

And do you think that's what I'm saying? ETA: Not to be confrontational: I just hope you don't think that's what I'm saying. I wrote that while distracted by pain. The thing about the "Biden plan" that annoyed me was just that it was a whole lot of nonsense measures. I'm about as sick of these events as anyone.

It seems like she went directly to the upstairs window and shot whoever she could along the way, so that she could engage the police when they arrived. The intent was definitely suicide. She left messages to that effect shortly before going in.

No worries, LL. That last post was pretty rushed, b/c I realized I had to go pick up my wife from her commute. Maybe I can better clarify my position: It's not so much that we need to worry about the Walter Mitty types. They aren't the ones actually putting this perception of guns that you're concerned about into the heads of the shooters. That's a wider cultural problem. It's a problem with glorification of violence in the media. It's a problem of these shooters always becoming a national story (not an easy one to solve.) As for the dummies, I think it's a bad assumption that the responsible gun owners don't make an effort to educate them. Go to thehighroad.org. It's a well-moderated gun forum that makes an effort to present responsible information. Read through the sticky posts by the moderators. Read responses to some of the threads there where someone is in need of guidance. There will always be people giving sound advice, like clearing out of an area and helping others evacuate during a mass shooting, and there will always be a few young bucks (or old dummies) saying that they're not cowards, they'd go take on the shooter, yada yada yada. It's the same old refrain. We've had that dichotomy so long that it's a trope in many genres of fiction, like Westerns. It's not like the responsible, intelligent people don't try. It's that we exist on a bell curve. There's only so much you can do to combat the environment someone grows up in and is exposed to constantly. There's only so much you can do to combat tribalism and emotion-driven thinking. So, as much as I detest the Orwellian approach that's currently en vogue, I'm beginning to wonder if it might have utility. I'd much rather try real solutions in the meantime, though. I don't think we stand that far apart here, LL. You're a good guy. I'm . . . well, I'm me. We're just coming at it from different perspectives. Which is kind of nice, as it promotes thinking.

Again, you're talking about the profoundly stupid portion of the population of gun owners. They won't be swayed by me or you. Only generational change will get rid of that crowd, or reduce them. And, again, they aren't really the root problem. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Here's the thing: Most of that is benign. The vast, vast majority of gun owners or participants in "gun culture" are harmless. The problem is that many of them are profoundly stupid, but they are mostly harmless. Getting rid of gun culture is only necessary if you want tighter restrictions on firearms. (Which may be a useful thing. Canada's own model isn't too onerous. It's just a tiny bit far for me, but not shabby.) If you eradicated gun culture, you won't have addressed the root problem that drives these violent crimes. The mass shooter events are people who are either radicalized or deeply disturbed on some level that goes much deeper than you describe. And that's only a small fraction of gun deaths in this country. The vast majority of gun violence is economically driven, and criminal on criminal (with innocents often caught between). De-stigmatizing mental health care, effective use of red flag and involuntary psych admission laws (like California's 5150 code), and public education for spotting signs of this level of untreated anger or depression are what will help prevent a shooter like this latest from taking action. We also need to do much, much more to curb gang violence, on so many levels: both in gang interventions (teaching them not to murder each other), gang diversions (protecting children from getting forced into gangs), killing the drug and human trafficking trades, and providing real economic opportunities to every one of our communities . . . and probably more. It's a big task. One other thing that might help, that I may only see get worse in my lifetime, is if our freaking leaders quit acting like children and started getting along well enough to do their basic job.

Not to be contrarian, but I didn't see much reason there. It looked like Biden's staff just puked up every idea the Democrats have come up with over the last twenty-five years or so, including imaginary technologies. Seems like Biden didn't actually "plan" anything, or put any thought into it, TBH. Not to mention: The dems can take control of Congress, but they have a Supreme Court who is going to shoot down almost anything they pass. To solve these issues -- and I'm not discounting gun legislation here -- they need to come up with something that's actually practical and passes constitutional muster, and work across the aisle. Which isn't happening with the current and apparently unceasing extreme polarization of our political parties. The only alternative is that they play the long game and change the public opinion on private firearms ownership, so that they can eventually have the numbers to amend the constitution. Which is what they're doing. I'm sure they're aware of the impracticality of most of their proposals, but by inventing a new language around firearms, they can slowly turn the public opinion on firearms over a few generations. They only left off one motto there: "Guns are doubleplus ungood." ETA: That cultural shift may ultimately be a good thing, but not if the root causes of violence aren't also addressed. I'd like to hear more actionable near term solutions along with the usual rhetoric.

I just watched the body cam footage (not going to post it here, it's on YT) of the police response. From the time they entered the building, it took just over two minutes to kill the shooter. Good work on the part of responding officers. The shooter was on the second floor, in an open space, apparently shooting out a window, rather than holed up in a classroom this time. They seemed intent on getting killed by police, as one source reported a text sent of the "I'm going to die today, you'll hear about it in the news" variety (paraphrased).

That didn't look competent at all to me.

Surveillance video of the shooter. No shooting aside from shooting out a glass door. Spoilered for discretion, nonetheless: I have some thoughts on this, but as the unpleasant ones are foremost, I'm just going to leave this here and get some sleep.

Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence

I left CA in 2003, so I'm not up to date with their laws. What restrictions are in place? How are their numbers before and after the restrictions? Did they grandfather in any existing weapons?

I think they missed a key point (based on the quote, haven't read the article), which is why it didn't become popular earlier? Americans have a long history of embracing surplus military weapons, from those old, sturdy wood and steel bolt actions to M1 Garands. So, why not the AR? Because the M16 had a poor reputation out of the gate. People looked at the plastic furniture and called them Mattel guns. They were much derided right up until I went into the service in 1986. So, what changed? Marketing, sure. But I'm going to posit three main influences on the popularity boost: First, Glock's own marketing. Suddenly, plastic guns were magical! Glock perfection. Plastics and polymers gradually became acceptable sometime (I'm guessing, based on memory, not statistics) sometime in the early 90s. Second, was the adoption of the M4 format, shorter barreled carbine version of the rifle. I was issued an M16 A1 or A2 (depending on unit or mission) in the 80s and early 90s. These were full length rifles with fixed stocks. The M4 shaved a good amount off the barrel length, and came with ergonomic improvements like an adjustable stock. This made the rifle much handier and useable. Third, of course, is the Assault Weapon Ban. Telling people they can't have something is a sure way to sell that thing.

I'm not sure on that sanity bit. If you went to the ER in CA (or anywhere) talking about imaginary threats and technologies, you'd be held for psych evaluation, for example. And yet CA has codified these things into law. Not to mention the requirements to add to the list of allowed firearms being so restrictive as to be unconstitutional. CA is playing the same game with microstamping that TX is playing with its heartbeat abortion law: Making a requirement that looks like there's some small exception in the law that doesn't exist in actuality. Texas allows abortions as long as there isn't a fetal heartbeat. But that can start -- depending on how you look at it -- as early as four or five weeks (there's a "heartbeat" but as I understand it not a proper heart, just a tube structure), while the average time it takes a woman to discover she's pregnant sits out at 5.5 weeks (and probably a lot later in many cases). So, effectively no abortions. Meanwhile, California requires a firearm to be on its roster of allowable guns to have a feature that isn't viable and doesn't exist (microstamping). This type of tactic is dirty whether one agrees the end result is desirable or not. I personally think we have a bit too much ends justifies the means mentality in this country these days.

Yeah, it is. The explanation of why it's legal is pretty convoluted though. Good example of engineering around legal lingo. It's technically not a shotgun, just a "firearm" due to overall length, barrel length and being initially manufactured as a non-shoulder fired weapon. (That's a rough explanation, and you'd probably want to do a search for a better one.) Edit: Oops, I guess that was pointless, as others have covered it. Thanks guys.

The phrase you're looking for is "public domain superheroes." There are sites dedicated to these. Many golden age characters may still be under copyright.

OK, I'm going to go on another meandering post here with my current thoughts re: gun laws. As before, I'm using a post as a jumping off point, but that isn't meant to single out Old Man. That'd be mean. We need to be nice to our elders. The problem with features lists is human ingenuity. Someone will engineer something just as capable in short order. Here's a more effective features list: 1. Is a long gun(rifle or shotgun). That means it can be fired from four points of contact. A handgun, you get two hands, that's it. A long gun, you have a hand on each end, a shoulder and a cheek. That adds massive stability, and increases hit probability exponentially for an average shooter. No brace nonsense here, since they're all designed to allow four points of contact. (They seem to be out for now anyway.) 2. Fires calibers commonly used in long guns. So, none of those Shockwave** type non-shotguns, pistol-grip shotguns, or AR/AK pistols, braces or not. That's it. Super easy to enforce feature list. But what to do with it? Here's one way to look at it: I remember my very first introduction to the concept of "rights" in grade school. We were introduced to the concept that rights weren't absolute with the old saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." That's a fair standard. How can it be applied to a right to keep and bear arms? Well, inside your house, and on your private property, you're a lot less likely to do collateral damage. So, have your long guns at home. They're actually great at repelling mutant zombie hordes. As a bone to the pro-gun crowd, get rid of the short barreled rifle and short barreled shotgun restrictions in the NFA. It won't matter in step 2. When you step out into public, you are now at much higher risk of shooting someone who isn't you, or stuck living with you. You're now in the public space, and everyone around you has a right not to have your bullets lodged in their tender parts. But we have that pesky Second Amendment, with that pesky "bear" word. Still: No long guns outside. If you're going hunting or to train, fine. Transport them locked up and unloaded. (Most states have laws about transporting firearms in your vehicle along those lines already.) Do your activity. Pack up. Go home. Don't bring them to Starbucks or just haul them everywhere you go, "just in case." Walter Mitty is not invited into the public sphere, sorry. So, that leaves handguns. Now, we aren't limiting handguns so much. For one, they were specifically called out in the Heller decision as the example of a weapon commonly in use, and thus held to a higher standard as far as restrictions go. And, frankly, they do a lot less collateral damage (though may be slightly more likely to cause it due to being more difficult to aim) than long guns. Around 80% of handgun shooting victims survive if given immediate aid and taken to a trauma center, due to the their wounding characteristics (poking holes rather than liquidating interior body parts with hydrostatic shock). Does that mean we allow just anyone to carry a handgun in public, any which way? Nah. Nobody likes having holes poked in them, or being in that other 20%. Now, if you've got your firearm to protect your home and keep it at home, fine. No requirements aside from the normal background check. There are ample firearms safety resources available. My state (WA) incentivizes safe storage for firearms by removing the sales tax from safes. Something similar could be done for safety training, perhaps. But training requirements for exercising a fundamental right at the most basic level is probably a bit much. (Though there are lots of things to do to encourage both safe storage and general safety.) But you want to take your weapon outside? You'd better be a) a damned good shot, b) inoculated to stress by fire/no fire training and testing, c) very thoroughly vetted by a background check, and d) very well-versed in self defense laws. School shootings aside, I'm also getting annoyed by just plain idiot shootings where people imagine themselves to have all kinds of non-extant rights, like the right to start an altercation then shoot the person when you get your ass kicked by said person, or the right to stand on your lawn and point your weapons at people who aren't on your curtilage. This carry permit should also be national, same as a driver's license. (It'd be a heck of a lot harder to get than a DL, too.) So, now you have probable cause to stop folks with rifles or shotguns who are running amok. You allow anyone who wants to and who can qualify, to carry outside the home. Is it idiot proof? No. Does the simple definition necessarily prevent anyone from engineering around it? Eh. I came up with that on the fly, so maybe not, but the general idea of long guns stay at home, handguns can come out if they're in responsible and skilled hands should be easy enough to grasp. None of this solves any root problems, because the tools used to commit the crimes do not cause the crimes. But it's more sensible than other toothless bans, while still allowing the exercise of the right mostly unimpeded. Frankly, your brain is a better self-defense tool than a firearm. Not associating with idiots and following some basic situational awareness and crime prevention practices will do more to keep you safe than a gun. I still believe it should be an option on the table, but as the years pass, I see more and more that we just don't live in a society that's really mature enough for all of the responsibilities that come with our rights. So, now I'm sitting at: Raise gun ownership age to 25 Keep long guns at home, no additional restrictions to purchase or possess than normal background checks (but fix that system) Take the SBR and SBS off the NFA (because it won't matter so much at home) Carry outside the home only if highly qualified, but it's a national carry Red flag laws are problematic from a 4th amendment perspective, but appear to be needed (haven't gone into this lately) Red flag laws should have serious consequences for abusers whether it's false reporting or losing or damaging property (guns) Background checks for all transfers of firearms ownership National reporting requirements for law enforcement that are consistent for all crime reporting Provide enough funding for the ATF for it to enforce current laws* *I haven't gone into this, but this is to address the straw purchaser concerns. I keep seeing these numbers of suspected straw purchases being traced back to certain states or even certain dealers, and a lot of whining about what a big problem this is. Why? If you know the origin point of the weapons points to particular dealers, why haven't those dealers been shut down by ATF stings yet??? Either someone is lying about these numbers or the ATF isn't being funded enough to do their jobs. I suspect the latter, though I've seen enough of the former to not take it off the table. ** Picture of a Shockwave under spoiler tag, for the curious. It's another of those engineering around a definition things:

Also in the news: Kenya and Uganda passing what's probably the most anti-LGBTQ+ legislation ever: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/uganda-lgbtq-bill-united-states-republican-anti-gay-connection/

I wouldn't be surprised.

I bet that guy's neighbors loved him. Yeah, I'm assuming the gender here, but I think it's a safe bet a guy came up with that. ----- Separating post on totally different subject that shouldn't have been merged -------------------- According to the article, they were "outgunned": Seems like the odds are in their favor TBH. What was the excuse once they retrieved the rifles and the shields? Just more excuses for cowardice.

They've had an AI coding assistant as part of GitHub for a while called Co-Pilot, and decided to use that brand for all their new AI integration.

I'm not splitting any hairs, LL, and I see where you're coming from. That doesn't change my opinion that marketing doesn't drive gun violence. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to looking at it. It's not a contentious point for me, and I'm open to having my opinion changed. I think there's a divergence of viewpoint here, and that's OK. We're all adults, and we've known each other for a long while, albeit virtually. I think that the idea of a kid being taught how to use firearms is somewhat shocking to you, where it's not to me, provided that it's handled responsibly. Teaching kids to respect firearms from an early age, in my opinion, heads off more trouble than it causes. Unless the adult responsible for that child is an idiot. And we have plenty of them. Now, I'm going to say something that I think you may -- at least partially -- agree with. I've been ruminating about this age thing a bit these past couple of days. I think it's pretty well-established that young males are not fully mentally developed, particularly when it comes to impulse control, until around 27 years old. I strongly suspect that the age of 25 to rent a car was set by actuaries who looked at traffic accident data to arrive at that number. So, why are we letting 18 year olds (for long guns) and 21 year olds (for handguns), own firearms? We can argue that an 18 year old can be drafted and can join the service and carry a firearm. Heck, I was in charge of the arms room for my unit when I was 21 years old, along with our ammo depot. But there's the rub: The military strictly controls when and where its troops can carry their issued firearms. (War zones being an obvious exception.) And the military hammers discipline into the troops constantly. Even then, we had negligent discharges by impulsive young men who would be considered experts at handling firearms, due to poor decision making. So, I'm not alarmed by children who are well-supervised enjoying shooting. I am unconvinced that marketing drives mass shootings any more than video games do. Those aren't the root causes of the issue, just more political flag waving and glad handing to get votes, perhaps with some misguided good intentions mixed in. But . . . I am wondering if we need to consider upping the age to own any firearms? And a few other things. I may put together a more comprehensive post on what I think productive crime reduction and gun legislation might look like later. What I don't think it looks like is slapping a bunch of children's bandages on a gushing wound that should be handled with a tourniquet*. Which is what Biden's latest list of do nothing looks like to me. As for the YT sponsorship: No surprise, there. I didn't watch all the way to the end myself, just scanned some of her videos because I was curious about her gun safety. Knowing this doesn't change my earlier opinion about the impact of marketing (and to be clear: I do despise a lot of the marketing). *That would be a metaphor for school shootings. I'm really, really getting tired of those.

It looks like they're marketing to adults to me. If a family has a child they want to teach to shoot at a younger age, then a scaled-down firearm is a reasonable purchase. FWIW, the manufacture's website has an age verification on it. It's easy enough to lie on those, but shows intent. That's the YouTube channel of a little girl who has better firearms handling and safety than a lot of adults. It'd be interesting to see a study done on the influence of marketing on criminal activity. I'm going to guess the causality to be rather low, tbh. People kill for a lot of reasons, but I seriously doubt even the most over the top mall ninja marketing is a major factor. I think the question of whether it's safe to allow a child to shoot comes down to the family. Some families are idiots, and allow young children access to "their" firearms (illegally, btw), resulting in incidents like that kid who shot a family member with their Crickett .22. Some families are too stupid to teach basic firearms safety, like my first cousin once removed's idiot husband allowing her little brother to shoot across a roadway. If you have good adults setting good examples, kids can safely enjoy recreational shooting. Those good families aren't cranking out school shooters. The bad ones should be held accountable. Most jurisdictions in the US, as far as I know, don't allow minor unsupervised access to firearms. The problem may be more that the laws have no real enforcement teeth. I've not got the energy to research that one, but it seems to be often the case that there are laws on the books without proper mechanisms and penalties in place to enforce them.

This happened today: FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer I'm sick, and it's late, so I'm going to reserve comment for now and let everyone else digest these for a bit. I'll post some of my own comments later.

Some people need to learn religious freedom isn't the freedom to inflict your religious beliefs* on everyone else. *Or misbeliefs, in most cases.