California's new ammunition law takes effect July 1st (San Bernardino, Santa Barbara: wage, living in)

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by veritased

I've seen some pretty gnarly older guys at the gym.
One thing I've learned: never judge anyones ability by their appearance.

Increasingly in this crazy world, especially in the 'gun-free' states, one has to simply stay away from large venues these days.

Exactly.
When I was in high school many years ago we had this crusty science teacher who was over 50 and smoked and just looked worn out. One day one of the jocks who was the league leading running back as well as state wrestling champ at 180 was mouthing off to him during a fire frill. I remember the old teacher grabbing him by the collar and picking him up and slamming him into the lockers and pinning him there. I never forgot that and the expression on the jocks face.
Best to avoid any conflict if you can.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Exactly.
When I was in high school many years ago we had this crusty science teacher who was over 50 and smoked and just looked worn out. One day one of the jocks who was the league leading running back as well as state wrestling champ at 180 was mouthing off to him during a fire frill. I remember the old teacher grabbing him by the collar and picking him up and slamming him into the lockers and pinning him there. I never forgot that and the expression on the jocks face.
Best to avoid any conflict if you can.

Yep, in my senior year two pretty big students stood on each side of the door into the back of the stage (Drama Class) and jumped the teacher as he entered. In a few seconds he had both under his arms by their necks, We all laughed at them.

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

that's the gunshow loophole.

it's not a loophole, it's the law.

[ysr_racer]

Who said senior citizens don't own multiple guns?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

it's not a loophole, it's the law.

So you feel that we should not verify people's backgrounds and make sure they are not a criminal before legally giving them a weapon? Upwards of 90% support universal background checks.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ecks-all-gun-/


What is to stop a gangbanger from buying a firearm in one of these under the table sales without the background check? It's ridiculous, it should never have been allowed and it needs to be stopped.

[neutrino78x]

Gilroy Garlic Festival was NOT a gun free zone. Armed men were present and stopped him.

Veteran police officers -- good guys with guns -- responded in less than one minute to the incident, and fired multiple rounds into the perpetrator.

Yes, a firearm is a weapon. It was used as a weapon in this instance. Sometimes you can use a weapon for a good purpose. That doesn't make it a "harmless tool". It is still a weapon. Be honest with yourself if you're going to talk about firearms. They are weapons. Calling it a weapon doesn't mean I think hunters are evil. I think they are people who kill lower animals with weapons. It's not a judgement. It is a statement of fact.

And the presence of armed men did not stop the incident from happening.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coroner-c...222907431.html

The answer isn't more firearms.

In my opinion, really the answer with these mass shootings is that anyone who is taking medication for any kind of mental disorder, going to a psychiatrist, etc., should be flagged in NICS and not allowed to legally purchase a firearm. The law already says that if someone is "adjudicated mentally unfit" they cannot have a firearm legally. The problem is that in many cases, the guy didn't end up before a judge to be declared mentally insane before buying the firearm. So, yes, we need better laws that prevent people like this from obtaining firearms.

I think all of us who have some experience with firearms would agree that the guy at the Gilroy Garlic Festival was not a "responsible firearm owner". Clearly, he was "mentally unfit". And yet, many of you would say that there shouldn't be anything to stop a guy like that from buying a firearm.

Well, I think there should be stronger safeguards. If these incidents keep happening, it means the safeguards are not strong enough.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

So you feel that we should not verify people's backgrounds and make sure they are not a criminal before legally giving them a weapon? Upwards of 90% support universal background checks.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ecks-all-gun-/


What is to stop a gangbanger from buying a firearm in one of these under the table sales without the background check? It's ridiculous, it should never have been allowed and it needs to be stopped.

Jeeze you're dense and ignorant. At the gunshow I stated they ran a criminal check on me and once I passed I could buy the guns. The check as required by law, the same as in a gun store was run, just like they do in California. The difference is there is no 10 day wait.
You don't even know what the gunshow loophole is even about, but you like to use the term as if you are actually informed which based on your posts you have proven you are not.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by veritased

Maybe you have not trained in a formal program,

I already answered this for myself...qualified on M14, M16A1, M16A3, M9, 12 ga shotgun. Have you ever fired a fully automatic rifle? I have. And I was required to learn how to fire it (reasonably) accurately in that mode. Most of the time we trained at US Navy firing ranges, but other times we trained an Army firing range and sometimes the Marine Corps was doing the training. But yes, I am someone with formal training on firearms who supports (reasonable) gun control. I also support the freedom of Americans to keep and bear arms. It's not contradictory. It's called being a moderate. Many of us on the left served in the military and support both the 2A and reasonable gun control. An example of non-reasonable gun control would be a ban on all individual firearm ownership. In no way would I support that.

And yes, I do think a requirement for training both in firearm usage and ethics related to firearms would help. Ethics in terms of, for example, stop thinking of it as a "tool" and think of it how it is: a weapon intended to employ deadly force against an enemy. Take that seriously. Use the weapon as a last resort, not a first resort (as the law already dictates). Keep the weapon in the holster unless you intend to aim it toward the enemy and fire it. etc.

There are a lot of things we need to do. With regard to the mass shootings, the best thing we can do is improve how we detect people who would potentially do that, and make sure they don't have access to firearms.

That being said, yes, there is a risk of somebody with zero training who misses a shooter entirely. So which risk do you want?
A: no guns on anyone except the shooter and the nearest law enforcement
B: guns on shooter, nearest LEO, and some unknown number of civilians with unknown skill willing to engage with their carry weapon

How about option 3. Heavy private security/law enforcement presence at such events, armed. Enough armed security such that they are able to respond in less than one minute. Non-security, non-law enforcement are screened for weapons before entry.

At the Gilroy Garlic Festival, armed men were present in the crowd and fired multiple rounds into the assailant, seconds after the incident started.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coroner-c...222907431.html

But as you know, it only takes seconds to kill three people with a firearm. So yes, it helped, but by itself, it's not the answer.

An armed police officer was present at Columbine as well, btw. Again, by itself, not the answer.

Regarding weaponless defense, Aikido is a nice elegant sport, but outside the dojo and Steven Seagall movies, it's very dangerous to let that give you confidence to take on an attacker.

I can't speak to Aikido. I can speak to ITF Taekwondo. It is a martial art, not a sport. It works quite well. Note that ITF is the version used by the South Korean military, as opposed to WTF; WTF rules are designed for the Olympics, and you can't punch to the face, so people spar with their hands hanging at their sides. In ITF we use a kickboxer stance and we do strike the face, groin, etc.

I hope you both never have to find out if it's effective or not.

Too late. I already did. I've used it to defend myself and I have used it to save the lives of several women (all separate incidents).

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It's ridiculous, it should never have been allowed and it needs to be stopped.

Who died and made you king?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

Who died and made you king?

My fellow patriots who died protecting our right to vote. I served as well.

Regardless, if you don't think EVERY firearm purchase should be subject to a Background Check, you are in a very, very small minority. Again:

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ecks-all-gun-/

And those background checks need to get better. We have laws in California to expedite the process if someone is suspected of being a psycho, but we need to figure out how to get better at identifying the guys who do these mass shootings and preventing them from having firearms.