Just mind boggling...no words

[britechguy]

I'm not sure...just not sure.

Nor, actually, am I.

The things you articulate (and, believe me, I see and share some of the same sentiments) really do strike me, even when coming from me, as our generation's iteration of, "Kids, these days!" It's a chant that's been being uttered since time immemorial and probably has about as much validity as it always has: very little.

I have said, on many occasions, in regard to laws in general:

1. If there's not a law against it, it's legal.
2. There is not, and never has been, a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around gleefully creating rules and regs for their own amusement.
3. What strikes me, personally, as a ridiculous rule/reg/law is seen as essential by certain others.
4. Virtually all rules/regs/laws arise directly from a need expressed by some constituency, and one that undertakes the necessary lobbying (and I don't use that as a pejorative in this case) to have that need (or those needs) addressed by their representatives.

The nature of complex societies is the need to deal with conflicting needs and desires in a way that is as equitable and reasonable as possible. But for those who on a given occasion are being completely selfish and unreasonable, and that often happens, nothing but having their own ways is considered equitable and reasonable.

But I am, as a general rule, an advocate of "trying something, after careful though and consideration," and accepting that what you try may, or may not, work, and you proceed in "lather, rinse, repeat" mode until you arrive at something that does. You don't adamantly insist that the status quo remain. And as part of that iterative process, you accept that what may be best for "everyone," will often not be so for you, personally. It's not all about you, nor should it be. It's about us, as a society. Compromise is essential.

 

[britechguy]

Despair is a powerful thing.

Not disagreeing with this, but we have had periods where things were equally bleak in the past. We did not see (and I don't think it can be explained by lack of reporting) the kinds of increases in violence from individuals against random others that we are seeing now. And we're not seeing it only from the young.

The whole idea of going on a shooting spree as "a common thing" is very, very recent. Mass shootings were a very, very rare thing indeed until relatively recently.

I can't explain this development from despair.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Not disagreeing with this, but we have had periods where things were equally bleak in the past. We did not see (and I don't think it can be explained by lack of reporting) the kinds of increases in violence from individuals against random others that we are seeing now. And we're not seeing it only from the young.

The whole idea of going on a shooting spree as "a common thing" is very, very recent. Mass shootings were a very, very rare thing indeed until relatively recently.

I can't explain this development from despair.

Copycat Syndrome? Worse in an age of social media, the media buzz you get by shooting up the place is a high to be sought out...

 

[Mike McCall]

I agree with what @YeOldeStonecat has said so far. My dad died when I was 7, so I didn't grow up with guns the way many others did. However, I was taken to ranges with dads who took their own kids there. In my late teens and early 20's, I owned and enjoyed a couple of guns I had. I eventually sold them and was not a gun owner for the next 40 or so years.

In recent years, I've been asked to go with former LEO's to the range and have enjoyed that time immensely. After several trips, I decided to purchase my own gun and ammunition so I wasn't using up all theirs. It didn't take long for me to encounter the deep divide over guns. I knew it existed, but I wasn't a part of it.

As I started paying more attention to what was going on around me, I was surprised to learn that the vast majority of LEO's I spoke with support gun ownership and concealed carry. I would have thought they would prefer a disarmed public. Instead, they understand that no matter how hard they try they cannot get there in time. My perspective began to change.

The head of security at our church is a State Trooper and a friend. As I began to see more shootings at churches I began to question if we had a plan for such an event. I learned that we, like many other churches, have armed security personnel at every service. I was fine with that, but I had a hard time putting church and guns together for myself. That is, until the shooting at the synagog in Pittsburgh in 2018. I was struck by the helplessness of those people as they hid under whatever they could find but had nothing else they could do. Eleven people died and six were wounded. I obtained my CHL and am now part of the security team at church.

Something has happened to us as a people. We all like simple answers to complex issues. But, the changes in us are complex. They may involve everything from free-range parenting to everyone getting a trophy. It may be the lack of civility in every area of life we see here. Politics is a war against the other side where there can only be one winner. Indoctrination rather than teaching people how to think for themselves. Broken homes where fathers are absent. The morass of social media. The advancement of rights without responsibilities. It's complex and I don't get it all. We've stopped talking to each other. We don't trust each other to operate in good faith. Unfortunately, that distrust often proves to be well-founded. Yeah, we've changed, but it's our hearts that have changed the most.

 

[britechguy]

Copycat Syndrome? Worse in an age of social media, the media buzz you get by shooting up the place is a high to be sought out...

Sorry, but "the media buzz you get by shooting up a place" is not something that anyone whose in their right mind seeks out.

Which brings us back to the need, previously expressed, to keep firearms out of the hands of the unstable and, dare I say it, confiscating them from the hands of those who have become unstable.

And where there is room to argue "how unstable," the rights of others not to be shot far outweigh the right to own a firearm. Period. End of sentence. Some arbitrary constraints defining "unstable, and likely prone to violence" will have to be set.

 

[britechguy]

I was surprised to learn that the vast majority of LEO's I spoke with support gun ownership and concealed carry.

That is not consistent with formal research findings. And those findings can be found on scholar.google.com, among other venues.

I have some acquaintance, via my brother, with LEOs, and there's no "vast majority" among my anecdotal sample that support this.

That's why I do rely on formal research studies.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I actually do wonder about that "media buzz that kids seek out. Todays youth live by their "influence" on social media.
I wouldn't be shocked to find that some fantasize about going out in some martyrdom glory on social media.

 

[britechguy]

The advancement of rights without responsibilities.

That, I personally believe, is at the very heart of our problems. And particularly so because the quarters doing just this consistently claim to be about "personal responsibility" when they are demonstrably not when their actions and statements are taken as a whole.

The old saw, "Your right to swing your fist ends just before it hits my face," applies. Rights and obligations/responsibilities go hand in hand, and are not absolute, but relative to the coexisting rights and responsibilities of those who surround you. It's not all about you, you, you!

 

[Sky-Knight]

I actually do wonder about that "media buzz that kids seek out. Todays youth live by their "influence" on social media.
I wouldn't be shocked to find that some fantasize about going out in some martyrdom glory on social media.

This... all of this. I fight it with my own children!

@britechguy You're attempting to apply reason to the thinking of an irrational mind. Kids today very much think it's worthy to seek attention in death in various ways. It's horrific, and quite real!

I think the mass shooting epidemic is an unholy combination of despair and social media feedback.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

So, above..Mike mentioned a church. I just got off the phone with a new church client of mine that I setup 6 months ago..they have a pretty large "campus". And as I was touring the place on the initial walk though, I was shocked by a couple of things.

*Safe rooms. Yup, they have "safe rooms" in various areas of buildings...where everyone can flock to, get behind a solid door..and there's a phone in there. Due to..shootings.

*I forget the name...but they had a name for modifications to classrooms and such where kids might be. So that no church staff would be "out of sight from other adults when they're with kids. Obviously a defense against the stereotypical child molestations.

...more examples of.."Sad how todays world has become".

And now I must bow out of this thread for the day, bring a delivery to a client and go set some stuff up.
Hope the thread stays civil as it has, Cheers All!

 

[britechguy]

You're attempting to apply reason to the thinking of an irrational mind.

Actually no, I'm not. There is no part of, "Sorry, but "the media buzz you get by shooting up a place" is not something that anyone whose in their right mind seeks out," that implies a rational mind. In fact, it clearly acknowledges that those who would seek this out are anything but rational. But how they got there is an open question.

I have been despairing myself on several occasions in my life. Despairing to the point of suicidal ideation (never acted upon, but very, very close). It would never, ever, have occurred to me that killing others was something I had any right or reason to do. And that's a visceral feeling, not one arrived at by logic and reason.

I just really don't get how anyone ever arrives at the place where "shooting up the place," most often where "the place" is full of people you don't know and who have never, ever harmed you in any way, becomes OK in their minds. I just don't. And that's a completely different thing than refusing to recognize that's happened, just complete lack of understanding how one could ever get there. And I hope to retain that complete lack of understanding for the remainder of my own life, because having that understanding means having taken leave of one's own senses.

 

[Mike McCall]

That is not consistent with formal research findings. And those findings can be found on scholar.google.com, among other venues.

I have some acquaintance, via my brother, with LEOs, and there's no "vast majority" among my anecdotal sample that support this.

That's why I do rely on formal research studies.

While I recognize different surveys may arrive at different conclusions, this particular survey tracks closely with my own experience with LEO's.

https://www.police1.com/gun-legisla...e-straightforward-solutions-aN1dtPM4U4dGFBl1/

https://www.police1.com/police-prod...out-us-gun-control-policies-7ChE5oH8N9pbN12A/

The survey itself with responses:

https://media.cdn.lexipol.com/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

 

[britechguy]

Mike,

While I commend you for directly citing your sources, this is one of those instances where I must respond, after having looked at www.police1.com, that the primary rule of critical thinking applies: "Consider the source."

The very bottom of their main page shows one of their partners is the NRA. That is enough, right there, for me to at least have legitimate suspicion regarding the source.

I have, and always will, favor peer-reviewed academic journals. And, contrary to the opinions of some, academics are not all wildly liberal, and even those who actually are care about accuracy in their research. There's been way more than one occasion where the expected (possibly even hoped for) result was not what was actually found.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@britechguy Sorry I understood your previous post completely backwards.

I have no argument against regular mental health checks be required for weapon ownership. See my previous commends about applying the same standards we used for law enforcement. And a licensing system is the easiest way to do this. We disagree that a license is even possible in the present legal reality surrounding the 2nd and its interpretations. But my understanding is that the 50 states can do this. I'm not so sure the Feds can... But I'm all but certain the 50 states can.

And if they can't, we need to get that fixed. Because if the gun owners of this nation don't come to grips with this reality... What's going to happen is an extension of the machine gun ban against all firearms. And the liabilities involved with selling weapons of any kind are going to skyrocket to a place where they are simply too expensive to be sold. I wish to avoid these blanket bans, because I think weapons in the hands of the people is something that's good and right.

Disarming the people to me just leaves the most vulnerable more so. My own mother has defended herself with her AR-15 from within her own home. These things happen! Police cannot be everywhere. But gun owners need to be taking utmost responsibility for that ownership. And the people very much need a process for depriving and restoring the right to bear arms in specific cases. Mental illness being chief among them.

I'll link Steve Hofstetter:

I don't actually agree with much of what he says, but I'm all over WHY he's saying it. And I'm related to PLENTY of "Brads".

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I have a hunch that....opinions of law enforcement on "right to carry/right to defend home/castle doctrine"...is that is depends in the region. And it depends on the...hmmm....socio-economic status of the average citizen that the PD covers.

Even though I'm in a historically blue state, by far the region I live in...leans more conservative, and from my personal experience in my law enforcement days, police academy, and working for a company where we trained law enforcement and certain security companies, "most" lean towards...supporting self defense/right to carry/castle doctrine.

I can understand why officers in different....perhaps more urban areas, might not be as fond of that...fearing for their own lives a bit more.

 

[Mike McCall]

Mike,

While I commend you for directly citing your sources, this is one of those instances where I must respond, after having looked at www.police1.com, that the primary rule of critical thinking applies: "Consider the source."

The very bottom of their main page shows one of their partners is the NRA. That is enough, right there, for me to at least have legitimate suspicion regarding the source.

I have, and always will, favor peer-reviewed academic journals. And, contrary to the opinions of some, academics are not all wildly liberal, and even those who actually are care about accuracy in their research. There's been way more than one occasion where the expected (possibly even hoped for) result was not what was actually found.

So, out of ALL the partners listed here:

https://www.police1.com/partners/

you find one you take issue with and therefore dismiss not only the validity of the survey itself but all the other partners as well.? That's a significant bias.

Personally, I think the NRA has at least lost its way, if not worse. Nevertheless, I'm not willing to dismiss a publication for police, by police, and supported by police organizations merely because I don't like another organization that also supports them.

 

[britechguy]

So, out of ALL the partners listed here:

https://www.police1.com/partners/

you find one you take issue with and therefore dismiss not only the validity of the survey itself but all the other partners as well.? That's a significant bias.

No, and nor did I say that. But who you choose to ally yourself with says a lot about who you are as a person, or in the case of organizations, as an organization.

I'm allowed, and make no apology for, having the NRA featured prominently, on your main page, as a partner as a red flag that should engender skepticism regarding anything presented from that source about guns, gun control, etc. And note that they feature the NRA on their main page (or at least were when I visited, I don't know if they rotate). Given the number of partners they have, many of which I would not find concerning, placement carries a message, too.

The NRA has become an extremist organization in terms of its position about guns. I have very strong reservations about anyone or any entity that allies itself with such extremism.

 

[Mike McCall]

You made my point.

 

[britechguy]

You made my point.

If you think so, fine.

You said I was trying to characterize every partner of police1.com, which is completely untrue. None of the partners is responsible for what that organization does.

But police1.com is responsible for its own choice of partners. And the choice of a very questionable, and highly biased, partner on a site presenting a survey regarding attitudes toward guns should raise a jaundiced eye. If it doesn't, you're willfully ignoring clear signals.

 

[Mike McCall]

If you think so, fine.

You said I was trying to characterize every partner of police1.com, which is completely untrue. None of the partners is responsible for what that organization does.

But police1.com is responsible for its own choice of partners. And the choice of a very questionable, and highly biased, partner on a site presenting a survey regarding attitudes toward guns should raise a jaundiced eye. If it doesn't, you're willfully ignoring clear signals.

I do think so. Your bias is so strong you see nothing else. In dismissing police1.com because of your bias against one partner organization, you dismiss the over 15,000 current and former LEO's (at the time) and their responses to the survey. You, therefore, dismiss the many other partner organizations these officers belong to as a result, who are also partnered with police1.com.

Taken from the top of the survey results:


"PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4
and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals
across all ranks and department sizes."

Taken from the bottom of the survey results:


"PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and
March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted
by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law
enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel
were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distributed
by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at
large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the
majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the
survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were
former/retired law enforcement."

Your blind bias against the NRA (who I am not defending) has so colored your vision you willingly dismiss the survey responses of over 15,000 LEO's who answered it. The law enforcement agencies who also partner with police1.com would certainly have responded vehemently if there were any meddling in the survey or its results. In fact, I would think those organizations would be wary of any shenanigans and likely to pull their support if there were any. Nevertheless, your blindness due to your bias prevents you from seeing beyond the NRA being a supporting partner of police1.com That is a bias you are willfully ignoring.