Hey, there! Log in / Register
Tens of thousands march, rally for gun control, against the NRA
By adamg on Sat, 03/24/2018 - 3:54pm
It took some 45 minutes for all the marchers who started at Madison Park to fill into the Common, through a single entrance and past a BPD SWAT vehicle to join the thousands of people already waiting for them for a rally for gun control, against the NRA and against the bloodshed that happens time and time again - not just at high schools in well off towns, but in the streets of Roxbury, where Tarek Mroue was shot to death in a road-rage incident.
Leonor Muñoz, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., took to the stage along Beacon Street to recount the day - as did her sister, Beca, a Northeastern student to whom she sent a text as gunfire echoed in the hallways.
Leonor Muñoz struggled as she recalled the sound of an armored cop knocking on her classroom door to escort her and her fellow students to safety - and how she collapsed the next morning when her father knocked on her door to wake her up. I thought it was happening again!" she said, adding, "my trauma isn't going away, and neither are we!"
Marchers and allies filled the field along Beacon and Charles streets (click on photo for a larger version):
The marchers have arrived in the Boston commons! #marchforourlives #Boston @AMarch4OurLives @BostonTweet @universalhub pic.twitter.com/QdVLTT8C0G
— Luisa LaSalle (@llasalle14) March 24, 2018
The marchers entering the Common:
At least one duck over in the Public Garden joined in, as Catboston shows us:
A small band of gun lovers stood halfway up the hill to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument, surrounded by a ring of Boston, State and BU cops - and members of Veterans for Peace. Whenever they tried to make a point with their bullhorn, they were drowned out by bystanders going "Blah, blah, blah!" They left during the first speech.
Stop scapegoating the mentally ill:
Pilotblock photographed the 100 or so people waiting at Harriet Tubman Park in the South End to join the march:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I see no panic here.
Just an anon idiot spouting meaningless nothings.
"You'll still be able to go hunting with junior - but, like our Canadian neighbors, you won't get to play soldier with an automatic codpiece."
Automatic weapons were banned years ago without ATF documentation. You see that full auto in the movies? It doesn't happen. Possession is life in this state. Just having it, not even brandishing it.
So, if you can't add to the conversation it's better if you just put the keyboard down. I know it's hard, but get a life.
You're inventing straw men
You're inventing straw men here. Handy that.
"Misuse of the the US army by the federal government is not the only way society can be tyrannical."
Of course. That wasn't the point. The point is that an armed citizen militia is not going to stand a chance against the military as it exists now. The intention of the amendment no longer serves a meaningful purpose.
"That would make them extra-judicial punishments"
Only if it rises to the level of harassment, assault, or preventing people from accessing public services - and yes, we have laws against that for good reason. People making choices with their dollars or their recommendations are exercising their own freedoms - and most people advocating against hate speech are for the latter, not the former.
I Think
I think the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan would suggest better odds versus the US Government than you have predicted. Asymmetrical warfare doesn't hand a win to the side with the best toys.
I also think it's unfair to argue that "(t)he intention of the amendment no longer serves a meaningful purpose". The founding fathers observed the tyrannical regimes in Europe and tried to give the citizens of the US, as rights, the best tools to fight against our society becoming like any of them. Having the people be armed was one of those ways. You could argue that the actual spark of the American Revolution was when the British tried to disarm the people in Concord.
I can't imagine the strength of emotion it took for people to say "give me liberty, or give me death" (and to actually mean it), but the fact that so many were willing to do just that shows the power of freedom and why we need to give freedom the best chance to survive, instead of salt the soil it may grow in.
Out of curiosity - Would a
Out of curiosity - Would a restriction or a ban on high-capacity magazines strike you as a reasonable limit?
Let's say we're okay if you want to hunt with a small caliber, high-velocity firearm (but I get the impression you end up with fairly shredded meat); but honestly, if you've fired off 10 rounds at a squirrel AND MISSED EVERY TIME, I kind of worry you should slow down for a bit because it sounds like you're a bad shot and endangering the rest of us. OR if you've hit every time and now have 10 dead squirrels, I kind of want you to slow down because you have enough squirrels for a stew and should leave some for the rest of us (and you're scaring off all the good hunting for the rest of us)
It seems to me that forcing one to pause every 10 rounds and spend a couple of seconds reloading is not an unreasonable request during times of peace. If we need a well-regulated militia to form, perhaps we can issue (or manufacture) higher capacity magazines at that time? It's not like they're that hard to make in time of need, but the joker in Florida probably would have had the wherewithal to do it himself. If you think the pause to reload won't help, that's your take on what some would consider common sense; but do you consider it so much of an infringement and so far out of the realm of common sense for the rest of us to try it out?
There's the key words..."a couple of seconds to reload"
If it's not onerous for a hunter, or for self-defense situations, it's not onerous for a murderer either. That is...a 10 round limit won't lower any body counts. If it doesn't improve safety, why should we do it?
Also, I don't hunt but I believe the preferred way to hunt small game is with a scattergun. And depending on where you hunt, they limit you to a 2 round magazine capacity plus one in the chamber. Not for safety, mostly so you don't keep spraying lead everywhere.
Toxic stuff you know. Always wash your hands with cold water after handling unjacketed ammunition.
I'd counter ...
The "IF it doesn't improve safety" (emphasis added) seems to be the question.
A lot of people believe the answer is that, yes, a couple of seconds may have saved at least one or two lives in Sandy Hook, the Pulse Night Club, or Las Vegas (apparently, high capacity magazines were not used in Parkland?)
Would restricting the size of a magazine be an unreasonable infringement on the Second Amendment? Is the *possibility* of saving a life worth the inconvenience of reloading more often? Or to turn the question around "If it [might] improve safety, why should we [not] do it?"
Put another way (more long-winded), do we have an obligation to do something that might help another person, even though it does not benefit us and is inconvenient? Libertarians might say no. Christians might say yes (my brother's keeper and all that). It's a question.
High-capacity magazines
With respect to Parkland, Marco Rubio seemed to indicate that "three or four people might be alive today" because the shooter had to reload more often (and was bad at it / had bad equipment) due to not using high-capacity magazines.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304...
http://time.com/5171653/marco-rubio-large-capacity-magazine-parkland-sho...
Roman seems to confirm the
Roman seems to confirm the argument (e.g. "they limit you to a 2 round magazine") that low capacity magazines are *not* too onerous for hunters. That brings us to self-defense.
As noted, the Parkland shooter managed to kill 17 people in about 6 minutes, reportedly firing about 150 rounds in that time, with low-capacity magazines. I would argue that makes it likely that low-capacity magazines are sufficient for self-defense unless you are being attacked by several (over 10) assailants at once. In which case, it seems likely calling local law enforcement and "waiting for backup" is your better bet.
Which leaves the "argument" that it won't make a difference. My first response is that's not an argument - that is defeatism. But, the counter argument is Parkland and Marco Rubio's observations.
If Roman wants go back to arguing the Second Amendment guarantees access to 30-rounds in a magazines ... well, the Second speaks of Arms, not bullet capacities ... and sigh ... that was a waste of a good thread.
Must be why the Seattle Pacific shooter killed 30 people
Oh, wait - he shot two before he was tackled during reloading.
Theories are nice, reality says otherwise.
Automated weapons of mass destruction are present in the vast majority of mass casualty shooter events for a reason: they automate the body count.
Circumstances vary
The VT shooter had one pistol with a 15 round mag
Columbine happened during the federal ban on large capacity magazines.
There is no evidence to suggest magazine capacity limits have any effect on overall safety. Zero would be the only number that has any effect. 10 is something that someone pulled out of thin air.
They very greatly in Canada and Australia
But only because the weapons of mass destruction are banned.
The gun murder rate for children in the US is 18 times that of most other countries.
That's a differing circumstance right there - and one variable explains it. Can you guess?
Canada and Australia never had slavery
and the long tail of social problems it left the US with.
Oh they had slavery
Again, your ignorance of history is astounding.
You probably don't realize that you live in one of the first slave states - 100 years earlier than Georgia.
Did you really
Just blame America's gun death epidemic on slavery?
Fascinating. Could you expand your thoughts on the matter?
I'd be glad to
Something like half of all murders in the US are black-on-black and happen in places like the South Side of Chicago or North Philadelphia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
I'm pretty sure it's nothing in the water and nothing in people's genes that make them susceptible to that. So it must be culture, and culture comes from history.
If I were a leftie, that wouldn't be controversial for me to say. But since I'm not, you're going to call me a racist in 3...2...1...
As stated before, at least
As stated before, at least Marco Rubio believes the use of low-capacity magazines may have saved 3 to 4 lives in Parkland. The shooter had to reload more often. He did not maintain his weapon well. The gun jammed. He left.
If you are saying there is "no evidence" of a shooter's reloading's saving a potential victims life - that is factually wrong. For that to be true, you would have to prove that no one has EVER seen someone reloading and taken that moment to run for their life and survived. You would have to prove the "body count" could NOT have been higher in Columbine or VT with different weapons.
If you are arguing the point of "overall safety" well, then we need to define terms, and I'd still probably think it's sophistry. Are three or four lives "statistically insignificant"? Maybe, if taken within the context of every gun death since the dawn of time. Do the kids who lived, and the parents of those kids give a rat's ass about those statistics? No.
I concede 10 is an arbitrary number. Trying to reframe the argument as "0" being the only other option is not worth anyone's time. No one honestly believes a 6 shot revolver can inflict as much overall damage in 6 minutes as a semi-automatic rifle with removable magazine with 30 bullets.
Remove the strawmen please
The image of a lynch mob heading down your street is ready to remove your civil rights was apt when pink skinned Americans wanted to lynch black and brown skinned Americans. Perhaps that establishes reasons for black and brown skinned Americans to arm themselves. But not for pink skinned Americans.
Assuming the improbably lynch mob in any instance does the extremely low probability argue for a weapon of mass killing? I believe it does not.
But more important is I believe the that lynch mob image refers to a very different situation separate from this discussion and therefore is itself a straw man argument.
The reference to pogroms are again a straw man. Why? We do not live in Czarist Russia; we do not have progroms (anymore). Again the premise is extremely improbably and not worth considering in whether weapons of mass killing should be tightly regulated.
This is not a discussion about freedom of the press. That pillar of the argument is not relevant.
As an aside: Is the cake baking oven a reference to the bakers who refused to provide a wedding cake for a Gay couple? That'a very different discussion.
Your argument claims that a weapon of mass killings, an AR-15, is so similar to other firearms that to ban one is to ban all. To me this sets up a dilemma. Either ban all or none. Since I am not an expert on weapons I can determine for myself whether that is true.
But having as much expertise as anyone else my age with all or nothing dilemmas I have to conclude that an all or nothing proposition is false because the probability of a given situation being all or nothing is very slim. Even with death these days, after what would be death 100 years ago, there remains a few seconds where resuscitation is possible. So if even death can be forestalled in, granted rare instances, why should mechanical devices be absolute in their distinction and definition?
Where does milk come from?
For many people, from a milk carton. Dial back a few centuries, and it comes straight from a cow. But even for people for whom it comes from a carton, it still really comes from a cow.
One reason we don't have pogroms and lynch mobs is that we've evolved into a better society. Another reason is that blacks and Jews are allowed to own guns just the same as everyone else, and everyone knows it.
We're free because we're armed and we're armed because we're free. Take away the arms today, and probably nothing happens tomorrow. But in a generation or two...who knows?
As for similarities...you can take my word for it, or you can look at photographs, or you can do more research yourself if you're inclined.
Here's what you can and can't buy right now in Mass under rules that are stricter than the federal ban was:
http://fsguns.com/fsg_new_lg.html
Same guns, except with a wooden stock instead of a pistol grip.
Pure sophistry, from someone
Pure sophistry, from someone who has likely never hunted or milked cows.
Sophistry != Analogy
Do we need a class on rhetoric in the comments section? I guess so.
It would be sophistry if I somehow had implied that cows or milk are .... guns and freedom? I think?
No, dear anon, it's not sophistry it's an analogy. Not a literal analogy about guns being cows, but an analogy of the state of mind of the person I was debating with. I made the analogy between thinking about guns and freedom as separable and thinking about cows and milk as separable.
You can debate the validity of that, but you can't do it by telling me I've never milked a cow.
Everything is up for debate.
That is why
we’re done trying to convince you. You, and a small contingent of your compatriots who have take to hoarding weapons, have pretty clearly shown that you can’t be trusted with your surrogate dicks, so we’re going to do the same thing we do when my four year old can’t play nice with her toys: we’re going to take them away until you show you can be trusted not to pose a danger to yourself or others. You just keep right on misreading that sentence in a document written when bolt-action rifles were the deadliest weapon available. The grownups will be marching in the streets until the legislature does something about you hicks and your death sticks.
False premises
99.995% of gun owners cause no trouble at all, ever. That's a conservative number for a place like Massachusetts. In high gun ownership states, the number is even higher.
Flint-lock smooth-bore muzzle-loaders were the height of weapons technology in the late 18th century.
You've just accused me of hoarding weapons. a) I don't hoard anything and b) what would be wrong with that if I did?
Grownups don't threaten to keep throwing a temper tantrum and steal other people's lawfully owned property.
You're on a roll.
False "facts"
Numerous studies have shown that for every 1% of increase in gun ownership, the gun homicide rate increases 0.9%. Here's one. Your statistic is nonsense, just like most of your arguments.
False math
The gun homicide rate is about 0.003%
The gun ownership rate is about 35%.
Nationwide, a 1 percentage point increase in gun ownership represents 1.2 million more households with a gun. A 0.9% increase in the gun murder rate represents about 900 more gun murders.
900/1.2m = 0.075%
So the rate of law-abiding people who don't make any trouble with their guns computed by this study is....99.925%
You caught me...I was using a different set of stats than this paper was and got a slightly different number. There's such a huge difference between three nines and four nines. There's also Simpson's paradox which is a big fat word of caution against conflating aggregate statistics and marginal correlations.
EDIT: and I should add that the above is conservative. The 35% rate is people, not households. If we read the paper's abstract as per-person and not per-household, the denominator increases to 3 million and the number is closer to my original assertion of 99.99%.
Nope
Nope
Doing math five different ways isn't the same as presenting meaningful statistical arguments. You do this in much the same way that you perform logical operations on nonsense or bollocks premises and declare the results to be truth.
Another one of your parlor tricks that you use to make some people think you are being objective, but some of us who have taught graduate students these things can see through it pretty easily
REMEMBER KIDS: Process does not magically create validity, legitimacy, or factual truth.
GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT
Allright little miss mathematics
Tell me how you take 300 million guns, 35% of the adult population that owns one, and 10k gun murders per year and get a different number.
Remember, "But muh MIT degree!" isn't an argument. It's not even that good of a preamble.
we’re done trying to convince
You guys are now even too lazy to include the ad hominem arguments before the insults associated with them?? As a tip, speaking to someone as you would your four year old might not engender an environment of mutual respect or understanding.
Also, based on your grammar and punctuation, I'm glad you are not the one tasked with reading that sentence.
Ash heap of history.
Digging in harder, when you are in the wrong on an issue, is from where that ash heap arises.
Probably lots of ways forward on reducing gun violence. Probably be better to at least pick something to back, instead of backing away from the conversation in the cloak Bill of Rights absolutism - since ain't none of those Amendments promoting absolutes.
I back enforcement of the laws
and accountability for failures of the enforcement mechanisms that were conspicuously on display in Parkland, in Texas, in the Washington Navy Yard, in Arizona in 2010, and in so many other places.
It takes, on average, 4
It takes, on average, 4 minutes for law enforcement to respond to an active shooter situation, even in a big city. Most of the victims of an AR-15-wielding monster are dead or dying within 2-3 minutes. "Enforcement" isn't an adequate answer.
Indeed it isn't
Deterrence and defense are part of the answer.
And bringing out the ban-hammer for "scary" guns is not an answer either. Most murder victims are killed with hand-guns. The police response time does not depend on what weapon a criminal is using.
Another point with response
Another point with response time is just think of how long it can take for the police to arrive in a small town if someone were to armed intrude in my home. I don’t really carry guns anywhere as I am not all that comfortable with it but do have a few at the house.
There is a good medium to be found in the gun debate. Obviously every state should have background checks and take up some form of Mass gun laws. However let’s not start trying to go to far and regulate guns out of existence altogether as some want.
Mass gun laws are OK but have no real teeth
The background-checks are good. Everyone should have them. And if NICS were actually being reported into properly, everyone can.
The "chief's discretion" thing I'm mixed on. It's certainly good to have some vetting but it's not used uniformly and sometimes just leads to silly stuff. I live in Brookline, and in Brookline at the police chief's discretion they don't hand out unrestricted LTC's. I was issued a target-only LTC. I am not allowed to carry my gun around in public. And when I go to the range, it must be unloaded and locked up and I have to go directly there and back.
That restriction does not keep you safe from me. What keeps you safe from me is the fact that I wouldn't hurt a fly in the first place.
Meanwhile, if I lived two towns over, I could have gone and gotten an unrestricted LTC and been walking around Coolidge Corner packing heat all nice and legal. So what does Brookline (and Boston) gain from issuing restricted licenses? Nothing much as far as I can tell.
I know what I lose. I lose time because I have to go straight to the range and back and can't stop for gas or groceries or pick up or drop off a friend without technically running afoul of the restriction on my license.
So what is it in the end? On paper it's not bad. In practice it inconveniences people who play by the rules and doesn't prevent anyone who's up to no good from doing bad things.
Not a fan of MA gun laws
For starters, putting licensing decisions in the hands of local cops may not be the best idea when it comes to evaluating mental health and would be a problem for scaling up to national policy. I also find the broad brush to be a bit dim and reactionary - heirloom weapons don't work if you don't have a card to buy ammo.
However, this is undeniable:
MA HAD THE LOWEST GUN DEATH RATE OF ALL STATES IN 2015!
That is called evidence of effectiveness in a state with 6 million people. This is in part since most gun deaths are not violent, but accidental. Restricting ownership, ammo purchase, and requiring responsible handling and storage do reduce gun deaths. For a small state, the lack of mass casualty incidents also speaks volumes about controlling access and not normalizing high firepower.
It's not evidence of effectiveness
it's a form of cherry picking.
All it says is that Mass laws discourage people from owning guns more than other states' laws do. The rate of misuse is the same as the national average. We're no better at screening out people who shouldn't have guns than anyone else.
If we actually put people away for repeat gun offenses, then the rate of misuse might be lower.
You must have some odd ideas about how cherries get picked
Hint: you don't shake the tree to get the cherries off of it.
An experiment run in a six million person state that isn't isolated from states with more lax gun laws is very much evidence of effective policy.
It is evidence that the rules serve the purposes of the rules.
Theft?
Maybe these restrictions are effective at reducing opportunistic gun theft, and possibly also reduce abuse by family members of an otherwise responsible gun owner.
Theft how?
If I have an LTC, I still keep a gun in the house, regardless of the restrictions on where I may take it.
If I carry it on me, that means it's not in the house or in the trunk of my car waiting to be stolen.
I don't see how it buys anyone anything honestly. It's just feel-good silliness.
It might benefit....
If police found that they were arresting a lot of armed robbers who were committing their armed robberies outside of the classification of their LTC.
But since that doesn't happen, Roman is correct. But I do think Brookline probably denies a lot of target only LTC's as well?
Hell, even with an FID card (which I'm guessing is even harder to deny?) you can have a deadly cache of weapons.
So
Canada and Australia banned these WMDs - weapons of mass destruction.
No incidents ever since.
And you say it can't be done?
You have no clue.
No, police response time
No, police response time doesn't vary depending on the weapon. The number of potential victims absolutely does.
One way to deter people from using high-capacity high-caliber assault-style weapons against large crowds of people is to restrict access to such weapons. This has been quite effective elsewhere in the world.
See any outliers here?
Checkout the comparison in firearm-related deaths between nations:
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Chan-Facebook-General
Trump ran on anti-Obama no golf, told Congress don't fear NRA
Can you count to 28?
As in the 28th amendment?
That's what these kids are talking about and more power to them .
I welcome the day.
Hopefully all the traitorous Russian cash into the NRA issue will be resolved soon and these kids can plead their case to true American politicians and not Russian shills.
Everyone's a Russian plant
So says an anon at 3AM (is that you Barack? Did a phone call wake you?)
Everyone everywhere who isn't an ardent communist is a Russian plant. No sirree. Nothing suspicious about that.
I work nights
Ahh, the old anon canard. Nice.
I don't think everyone is a Russian plant. I do think a lot of Russian cash was illegally given to the NRA to influence the 2016 elections.
And that the GOP, RNC and Trump are doing fuck-all to fix it or investigate it.
Now why is that?
Agreed Constitution must be clear to the average citizen
Roman,
I agree that the Constitution should be clear to the average citizen.
So let's take a look at the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
What does the entire statement mean? Not just the part that Scalia believed mattered, but the entire statement. Because it is the entire statement that matters, not just the parts that you like.
Declaring that the Bill of Rights (or its constituents) is not up for debate is just simple wrong. The fact that Scalia and his followers and masters chose to pervert the meaning proves that the 2nd Amendment remained up for debate.
The fact that bigots want to use pervert the freedom of religion clause proves they want to debate what the 1st Amendment means.
The reason that a Constitution Convention is dangerous is that it could put the entirety of the Constitution, including all the amendments up for debate.
A healthy nation never stops trying to better it's basic rules of governing. For as good and healthy as tthe 1783 Constition and it's original amendments were for the nation, there remained elements in the Constitution which were evil. That fact that the Southern states prevented the abolition of the evil of slavery proves that point.
We are a nation striving to be better and making mistakes along the way. The distorted and perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - by ignoring the first set of words - was a step backwards. A backwards step which today results in the blood of children.
That backwards step must be corrected. Until we don't more and more children and adults will die because the disease and plague that presently exists will only become worse.
I don't understand why anyone disagrees with reasonable regulations.
Because they aren't always reasonable
And because nearly everyone who owns guns doesn't cause any trouble with them, so they don't see why they should jump through extra hoops or give up their property and ability to defend themselves.
Times five when we see that nearly all the trouble is caused by people that by rights ought to have been locked up or not been able to legally purchase a weapon to begin with under current law as written.
They view the focus on them (us, now that I too am a gun owner), as a diversionary tactic to take the heat off of government's failure to enforce laws we already all agree on. That's why we're talking about background checks. That's why we're talking about mental health. That's why we're talking about penalties for failing to report into NICS.
iT'S ALMOST LIKE
The liberals are taking the conservative approach of just being louder and not listening to the other side, just keep shouting til you get your way...
huh, lookit that, IT'S WORKING.
Seems like the libtards should have starting whining like children a long time ago....
Proud of the kids
Proud of their parents and supporters with the exception of publicity seeking pols like Liz and Tito who tried to steal the show from the kids.
I don't know about Warren ...
But the organizers specifically called for Jackson early in in the rally.
As long as we're talking about politicians, it was great to see Walsh out there with the kids at Madison Park, but that was kind of a sharp contrast with a few years ago, when he basically ran away from the kids protesting school budget cuts.
Come now, Adam!
You know better than that! Ole Mahty never turns down an opportunity to jump on the cause of the day tepidly and he does the selfie thing his social media monkey can't wait to post. ##?
Saw Jackson on the local news this morning
He gave the lids all the credit and said it was all them.
He and others were standing behind them. Looked like he was really showing support and not trying to steal the show in any way.
(Not a fan of his, actually, but need to give credit where it's due.)
The goat sign looks like a
The goat sign looks like a protest against head-injury problems in the NFL.
Congratulations on your paroxysm
Adam does a great job covering anything related to gun violence. Except. We see many arrests related to illegal guns. Adam likes to report them. However, the Commonwealth is very secretive about sentences. We rarely learn that the offenders basically get off and are back in the community. Google it. It is hard to find out the resolution of cases. They live right next door to you. At least they are to me.
Most of the offenders facing gun possession or illegal use do not serve jail time. Our system is permissive. Our "laws" are among the strictest in the country but the criminals who violate them are most often not subjected to the scrutiny they deserve.
I'm no gun nut. Never owned one and probably never will. But I think this protest would have been much more honest if they admitted that our laws are not being implemented fully. I absolutely support mandatory minimums before I would support any additional ban on legal ownership in Massachusetts.
CORI reform did even more to reduce the effectiveness of our gun laws. In most cases, a potential employer will have no idea that an applicant had an illegal gun conviction 2 or more years ago. So your bank teller, barista, food service employee or kids caretakers have a real chance of being a somewhat recently armed criminal. I do agree with much of the concept regarding criminal justice reform, but we can't have it both ways.
There are over 300 Million legal guns in the country. Assume you could pass a true ban on ownership. Just exactly who do you think will be left with possession of those guns? Let's at least begin by being serious about sentencing related to current illegal gun possession and usage. Then let's see where we are.
And as far as school violence goes, why are we allowing people to just wander into schools off the street? It doesn't have to be airport or Federal court type security, but can't we at least restrict access to just those who belong?
Try visiting a school
They're already locked up 'way tighter than a drum. There's one hardened entrance during the day, and if the front office doesn't know you, they'll wait for the school resource office (a cop) to let you in.
Got 3 kids in 'em
Am there at least weekly. And what you say just isn't fully accurate in my experience.
I thought I was alone in this
I thought I was alone in this.
I actually do own a handgun (I’m a police officer) and strongly believe that no one for any reason should ever have or own an assault rifle unless we are deep in a zombie apocalypse. And it may surprise you, but a lot of my co-workers believe this as well.
But this protest failed to address that our judges our woefully lenient in the firearm laws we already have. There are defendants walking around with two, three, (I’ve even seen four!!) prior firearm convictions. In what fucked up world is that okay?!
Ban the assault rifles. But also take a long hard look at illegal firearms, because that’s what’s most likely to kill our kids.
Some states elect their judges
That's got its own problems sometimes but it's better than the de-facto no-accountability thing Mass has got going. The fact that no one pays attention to the Governor's Council (and the fact that there is a Governor's Council at all) doesn't help either.
Question: if we ban AR-15s, what do we do about the Ruger Mini 14s and the like, or even the bolt-action stuff that's all just essentially the same gun with a few differences around the edges?
I think the people who want to ban "assault" rifles....
would be fine banning the Ruger Mini 14. That thing can do some major damage as well.
Anything bolt action should be legal.
Anything?
Even a 50-cal?
You know where I'm going with this Pete. Anywhere you draw a line, I can show you something on one side that can be just as dangerous as something on the other.
We, as a society, often draw
We, as a society, often draw fairly arbitrary lines in the interest of public safety. Why 20 mph in a school zone? Why not 15 mph?
The United States restricted the use of automatic weapons, explosives, and sawed-off shotguns. Are there weapons that are "just as dangerous" that are still available? Sure, but society often has to put a line somewhere in the interest of public safety.
Banning machine guns and sawed off shotguns
was a way to give prosecutors something to put prohibition-era mobsters away for after prohibition stopped but the mobsters remained.
The benefit to public safety is hard to evaluate outside of that context. Am I itching to to the corner store and buy a tommy gun? Not really. But I'm not under any delusion that that law makes me safer in any real way.
I agree that "security
I agree that "security theater" often does not provide real security. For instance, do I really think taking my shoes off at the airport (and watching the TSA Pre Check folks not have to) because some guy had a "shoe bomb" is really making me safer? Do I think TSA confiscating Swiss Army Knives are making me completely safe? Not really.
Am I willing to suffer some degree of inconvenience to (1) make sure a 9/11 attack using something as seemingly innocuous as box cutters never happen again and to (2) put my fellow passengers' minds at ease? Well, yes.
Should we more rigorously enforce existing laws? I'd say yes. Should we invest more in metal healthcare? Sure. Should we have better background checks and should the Federal Government (i.e. the military) actually obey reporting rules? Absolutely.
Will these stop gun violence? Of course not. Would an assault weapons ban stop mass shootings? Probably not. Would banning high-capacity magazines? I doubt it. Could all of these actions taken together possibly save some lives? Maybe.
I suppose some of this comes back to the Dickey Amendment. We'll see what happens at the CDC after the new budget. That said, the belief in a left-wing bias to science and the rise of the idea of "alternative facts" might dilute the reach of any studies.
no subject
https://www.instagram.com/p/BguENK6l5zPpwzDCkf5xArjlUjMfHKdsTIzuaY0/?igr...
I hear ya...
Really no need for 50 cal anything either though, you could ban them as well.
What if you wrote a law that simply outlawed any rifle with any magazine or feeding device. We wouldn't collapse as a nation.
I'm not talking about things being "dangerous" either. I do think these cowards who killed with semi-automatic rifles with magazines would probably not have done the damage they did if they didn't have access to them.
On the other hand, if this florida kid did what he did with Charles Whitman's rifle, we probably would be having the same public "protests".
a 50 Cal
bolt action rifle still only shoots, one, big bullet at a time right? Right.
So how is that as scary as an auto or semi-automatic rifle? Just because it can go through plate steel? You still wouldn't be able to kill dozens of people in under 5 mins with a 50 cal bolt action rifle.
Every point you make in this entire thread/post is absolute trash dude.
And I am pro-gun/2A too, so what's that tell you?
It is really easy for conservatives living under the benefits of a liberal state to shoot off their mouths about these things, talking about how "current laws aren't enforced" and "where do you draw the line?" while you live in the relative security of a state that does everything it can under federal law to protect its citizens. The entire point of raising this to a federal level is that the varying laws from state to state make enforcement near impossible due to the fact that i can just drive X hours and get whatever I can't get here over there. Just like a place like Texas virtually banning abortions is stupid because you can just go somewhere else and get one, you are just making life harder for certain people.
I highly suggest, Roman, that you take your leave and move to Florida, a backwater conservative hell-hole that sounds like your version of paradise. Nothing but drugs and guns and old terrified people who vote Republican living in gated communities. You can head down to the local Machine Gun America and take Uzi practice with nothing but your driver's licence (I only sort of wish this was a joke, it was fun admittedly), and when the meth heads that learned Jesus rode dinosaurs in their stellar schools come to break into your house you can "stand your ground" and blow them away NO PROBLEMS. Hell you can even stalk people around the neighborhood and stand your ground when they reach for their Skittles.
You own a gun. In Brookline. For protection. WOW. You are either an idiot or just a terrified loser. Most of your posts on Uhub seem to show at least moderate intelligence so I'm gonna go with terrified loser.
I live in Mattapan with my doors unlocked and an ax handle hanging over my doorway. Whistling past the graveyard.
I grew up around guns, have shot many a gun at a range, and have even taken apart, cleaned, and rebuilt guns and tested them for function. However I have never once owned a gun or even thought about becoming licenced to own one. Seems like a giant waste of money and time given if some real shit went down I wouldn't have much of a chance against someone better armed, and in fact would make a myself a target as someone who possesses guns and ammo. Not to mention I have no interest in hunting with a gun. Reality is a bitch.
RE: "I thought I was alone in this"
Well, you say that "(I’m a police officer)" and then you go on to state, "strongly believe that no one for any reason should ever have or own an assault rifle unless..."
Surely someone with the level of training that a police officer has would know that an assault rifle is totally illegal without the proper ATF paperwork and stamps and has been for many years.
You would be hard put to show me a single shooting, school or otherwise, involving an assault rifle.
I totally agree on the leniency of the judicial system, it's a damn revolving door. But, an AR15 as not an assault rifle.
Holy Hamptons
That is a *lot* of white people.
I found one non-white person in all those pictures.
He looks up to something.
You were there
And counting black people?
Good job.
Now realize that people take pictures of their friends. BLM was there in full force and taking pictures of their friends, too.
Looks can be deceiving
Looking at those pictures, I can "hear what you are saying". However, I noticed considerable diversity in the field.
Are you seeking to use this "enthusiasm gap" as a way to detract from the march's message?
Moi?
The dick sign lady did that. Now I am wondering.... if it as diverse as you say it is then how did the photographer manage to only catch one non-white? That is some talent.
Uh ...
how many black people are in the NRA?
How much "gun safety training" does the NRA do in black communities?
How much support has the NRA given for open carry by black people?
How many times has the NRA protested black people being shot by white police?
(While I'm waiting, I'll just sit here and listen to the crickets.)
Cricketspeak
NRA does not ask race on their application, but we can guesstimate it...
Pew Research says 30 percent of American adults own guns and 25 percent of black adults own guns.
A pretty good estimate is that 5 percent of all gun owners are NRA members, ignoring the latest spike in membership.
I think blacks are 12 percent of the population, so barring any social nuances, the answer should lie around 5 percent of 9 million, or 45,000 members,
A little history lesson for you
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulf...
Fools
Fast forward 50 years later and now we got black males playing the fool, dancing down Melnea Cass Blvd begging for subjugation.
I saw the pictures.
Just when we thought you couldn't get more racist ...
...
I was wondering when I would
I was wondering when I would find a vulgar sign and got what I was looking for via that last photo of a very elderly looking white woman in a wheelchair. Nice language grandma!
Oh, there's plenty more where that came from
I just didn't post all the photos. At some point, you have to ask yourself why the vulgarity of a sign bothers you more than the vulgarity of people lying on the floor, shoot to death. Some of us are way past that point.
Yeah sorry not sorry, gramma
If you can only express yourself in four-letter words, you're not worth talking to or listening to.
You can look at my past posts on guns. I'm a reasonable guy. I'm willing to have an honest discussion. I'm willing to accept changes to the law and in the way it is implemented. Look no further than this thread for examples.
Grannies haranguing me about my dick do not indicate to me that anything resembling a reasonable discussion is to be found with these marchers.
"Sea-Lioning is an Internet
"Sea-Lioning is an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims."
You can stop flapping your flippers anytime, dude.
I must be behind the times
Not just a few hours ago, voicing an opinion and backing it up with evidence and reasoned argument was referred to as "trolling" by people who were dead set on sticking their fingers in their ears and going "blah blah blah."
And in real life, horrific sentiments such as "I disagree" would be referred to "hate speech." I'll have to update my dictionary. Would you care to send over the necessary pages so that I may insert them in place of the ones I've cut out and burned?
I'm just saying that no
I'm just saying that no matter how hard you insist that your "facts" are realer than reality and that you're the only rational person here, none of that changes the indisputable fact that you are a complete lint wad. A room temperature meatloaf sandwich. A Chihuahua who thinks he's Bigfoot. You're a little man who gets off using big words to further anger and frighten people who are already angry and frightened. You don't give a shit about guns, or laws, or anything besides your own smug satisfaction.
My your phone spontaneously erase all of your contacts and may you always have an itch you can't quite scratch.
Truly, you have an astounding intellect.
"...you are a complete lint wad. A room temperature meatloaf sandwich. A Chihuahua who thinks he's Bigfoot. You're a little man who gets off using big words to further anger and frighten people who are already angry and frightened. You don't give a shit about guns, or laws, or anything besides your own"
In other words, logic and reason are not your strong points.
go easy on him
the sign obviously touched a .. nerve.
someone doth protest too much, you know?
Oh I don't protest at all
Maybe I like being touched by the...nerve? Maybe older women in wheelchairs...I'm sorry where was I?
Who knows? Who cares? All's I know is that when we're talking serious stuff, why not throw some in some silly taunts? It's a hell of a lot easier than being an adult, I'll tell you that.....
....
....
...
b00bz!
it got your attention
enough to keep jabbering about it, and threatened you enough that you discarded the basis of the argument (as well as the worth of the person behind it) entirely.
I'd say you felt uncomfortably identified with the sentiment, and and reacted by shutting down.
use of firepower and weapon brandishing as a substitute for a perceived loss of or affront to masculine power is a problem that kills people.
I look forward to your well-researched list of female mass shooters.
Wow you got my number alright
there's no way I could just be responding to IRL trolling with internet trolling.
ah of course
The old "i was always joking!" line, used by our nation's bravest and orangest.
My apologies. Of course, I was the moron who just didn't realize your tirades were always well formed satire.
Tirades?
You mean "tides" right? Sea lions live on the seashore, so they are subject to "tides" not "tirades."
You can't find a single thing I've posted in this thread that qualifies even remotely as a "tirade" no matter how hard you look. What you will find is plenty of trolls telling me my dick is too small, and then asserting that they've hit a nerve when I troll right on back.
I suppose it's like late-night TV. Make a crude joke. Then pounce on anyone who doesn't laugh along as a prude/hater/whatever. It's not funny and it's not persuasive. I guess it can make true believers feel better about themselves.
Trouble is, it tends to warp their perception and make them confuse the noises bouncing around their echo chambers with intelligent speech and prudent policy agendas.
Having the slickest insults is not the same thing as having the best ideas.
BS
Just about all your posts on this thread are about how the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted past it's basic language, and that (despite it being an amendment itself) it must never be changed, reinterpreted, or removed.
BSBS
My posts about the entire Constitution anywhere and everywhere are about how "interpretation" cannot deviate from the face value of "shall not be infringed" to "we can ban whatever we want." Think about that for a while and you'll see it's not at all BS.
You can't reinterpret "elections every two years" to "no elections until we feel like it" for the same reason.
Give it up
You are either lying or totally lost.
In any case, you should ask your civics teacher for your money back.
Thomas Jefferson
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson
Ben Franklin
"A republic, if you can keep it."
If we can keep it from being sold to the Russians
Right, comrade?
You think the Russians throwing our elections with active help from Americans is ok, right?
A joke?
I will always get a kick out of the passion
that men show towards the defense of their little toys. If only they could channel that passion into something constructive.
Your argument leaves out...
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."
When picking and choosing the words to make an argument, but neglect the associated words which are inconvenient to the preset conclusion, then the argument fails.
The capitals are probably quite important in the meaning, especially considering that the wordsmith Jefferson (according to Wikipedia) authenticate these particular words.
But even then if any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment results in a plague of guns, which in political theory might be called a cancer of the body politic, then the Amendment must be changed.
Remember that the Constitution validate slavery and declared that people of African descent who were slaves counted as only 3/5s of a person/human being, in figuring out House representation.
The Constitution was not perfect as written.
You can change it through a
You can change it through a constitutional amendment. No one is suggesting that as far as I can tell. Everyone wants to subvert it through other means.
More bias shit from the left!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=122&v=8K2v0q2BW9A
These arent the only voices from Parkland
NRA Crisis actors
Go Away! We are tired of you. This is a local blog about a local event.
More photos
Greg Cook walked in the march.
More photos
Got some of my photos on-line.
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmgrM1DQ
But If I Can't Have All of The Guns I Want
How can I keep foreign troops from being billeted in my home without my consent?
If we didnt have guns..
The King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around.
You want that?!
Huh? DO YOU?
Fashion.
Winter was Pussy Hats Again. This is the Spring '18 Line.
https://youtu.be/GA27aQZCQMk
Solutions????
So,in your desire to virtue signal your eternal rightousness,your would remove my access to an inanimate object,yet the human beings who kill others you ignore!!!
Lets see some common sense discipline and mental health rules and regulation and followup before you further shred the constitution...
Yeah,I am a deplorable,clinging to my Bible and guns...
Russian dressing
I need some Russian dressing for that word salad.
The aggression from gun
The aggression from gun owners shown toward innocent school children trying to protect themselves from gun violence is disturbing. Shame on you.
We have firearm control
and we have many places called 'gun free zones. ' What we don't have is effectve mental healthcare and laws. And the healthcare we do have emphasizes pharmaceuticals, many of which have awful side effects, one of which is making psychotic and violent impulses worse, especially for young adult males. We also live in a society that pushes very coarse popular culture.
Pages