Why do these losers NOT do something that's a GOOD thing?
1) Cigarettes
2) Beer
3) Porn
4) Lottery Cards
5) Guns
He was 13 and looked 13... he was laughed at for trying to purchase 4 of these, and he DID purchase the 5th... which one do you think it was? Yes, the gun... from a gun show and a private seller. The 13 year old boy was able to buy a riffle, with ease.
They think they will be "famous"; instead, they're "notorious," and that assumes anybody remembers their names long after the fact.
Quote: RomesSimple... because it's a lot easier to buy a gun and pull the trigger than it is to cure cancer. I saw a video I'll search for from a news station. Plus, people with mental health issues often have them as a result of violence/'bad' experiences, which I'd think doesn't make them more ample to do something good. They took a 13 year old boy to try to go purchase:
1) Cigarettes
2) Beer
3) Porn
4) Lottery Cards
5) Guns
He was 13 and looked 13... he was laughed at for trying to purchase 4 of these, and he DID purchase the 5th... which one do you think it was? Yes, the gun... from a gun show and a private seller. The 13 year old boy was able to buy a riffle, with ease.
Without going overly specific, that was a .22cal bolt action rifle with no apparent removable magazine, ie, none of the characteristics that trigger what we'll call "increased scrutiny", such as large cap mags and such.
Federal law states that a licensed dealer must not sell to anyone under 18. Federal law also states that unlicensed dealers MAY sell to anyone, regardless of age. I don't know the ol' fellas status, but if he's just a dude with guns, no laws were broken.
Further, VA itself has no laws concerning age where these low cal, low cap guns are concerned. Handguns, sure. Weapons with certain accessories or abilities, very much so. Open carry, you bet. But for a 5-10rd bolt action .22, nothing.
In other words, this appears to be completely valid, legal under the eyes of both state and federal government. Show me the same kid getting a handgun, or a semi with a cap over 10rds, and I'd least share your shock if not outrage. Otherwise, I got relatively the same gun (mine is semi) when I was 8yrs old.
Quote: FaceQuote: RomesSimple... because it's a lot easier to buy a gun and pull the trigger than it is to cure cancer. I saw a video I'll search for from a news station. Plus, people with mental health issues often have them as a result of violence/'bad' experiences, which I'd think doesn't make them more ample to do something good. They took a 13 year old boy to try to go purchase:
1) Cigarettes
2) Beer
3) Porn
4) Lottery Cards
5) Guns
He was 13 and looked 13... he was laughed at for trying to purchase 4 of these, and he DID purchase the 5th... which one do you think it was? Yes, the gun... from a gun show and a private seller. The 13 year old boy was able to buy a riffle, with ease.
Without going overly specific, that was a .22cal bolt action rifle with no apparent removable magazine, ie, none of the characteristics that trigger what we'll call "increased scrutiny", such as large cap mags and such.
Federal law states that a licensed dealer must not sell to anyone under 18. Federal law also states that unlicensed dealers MAY sell to anyone, regardless of age. I don't know the ol' fellas status, but if he's just a dude with guns, no laws were broken.
Further, VA itself has no laws concerning age where these low cal, low cap guns are concerned. Handguns, sure. Weapons with certain accessories or abilities, very much so. Open carry, you bet. But for a 5-10rd bolt action .22, nothing.
In other words, this appears to be completely valid, legal under the eyes of both state and federal government. Show me the same kid getting a handgun, or a semi with a cap over 10rds, and I'd least share your shock if not outrage. Otherwise, I got relatively the same gun (mine is semi) when I was 8yrs old.
The outrage is that that sale was legal. A private citizen can't sell or give my son a beer, but can sell him a gun.
We can do better.
Quote: billryan
The outrage is that that sale was legal. A private citizen can't sell or give my son a beer, but can sell him a gun.
We can do better.
It's been legal since before your great-great-great-great grandaddy was even a twinkle in his daddy's eye. 230 years+ it's been legal.
I just did a wickedly quick look at weapons used in mass shootings during my lifetime ('80-present). TWO used a .22cal, both handguns. NONE used a bolt action. I'm afraid I'd need more info to understand why you or anyone finds anything nearing "outrage".
Mainly because they are utterly without hope. Many kids in extreme at risk categories do very well indeed when given a serious task rather than merely having to wash out police cars or pick up roadside trash.Quote: NathanThis is one of my rare completely serious threats but why don't these losers shooting up schools filled with innocent kids, teens, and staff do something POSITIVE?
One town needed to Geo-Code everything but couldn't afford an engineering firm's bid so they used the at risk youth to go out and geocode every sign, address, intersection, guard rail, light pole, pipeline, etc. and told them it was for use in disasters and missing person searches. The at risk kids loved it and did a really good job when they had something more meaningful to do than algebra.
One guy got a certificate at 14 that the school system was thru with him. After that he could legally get hired so he worked on fishing boats, learned enough about marine diesels to pass the written and practical by age 16 and after that he made a fortune as a licensed marine diesel mechanic. If they had kept him in school he would have wound up in jails and prisons instead of tugboats and fishing boats.
Some troubled youth actually make references to Prisoner of War camps when referring to their schools.
Quote: FaceIt's been legal since before your great-great-great-great grandaddy was even a twinkle in his daddy's eye. 230 years+ it's been legal.
I just did a wickedly quick look at weapons used in mass shootings during my lifetime ('80-present). TWO used a .22cal, both handguns. NONE used a bolt action. I'm afraid I'd need more info to understand why you or anyone finds anything nearing "outrage".
For one thing they didnt have the same powerful guns 230 years ago. Werent they using muskets in 1776?
Second they didnt have hundreds of school shootings 230 years ago either
If a law is antiquated as evidenced by recent actions it should be changed
So.
That doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.
This begs the question: are private schools more statistically safe, and if so, why?
Food for thought.
Is the right more important?
Quote: darkozFor one thing they didnt have the same powerful guns 230 years ago. Werent they using muskets in 1776?
They were, assuming by "musket" you mean what is now referred to as "black powder", ie a minute long song and dance just to load one shot, whereby each individual piece is loaded separately. However, the breechload came shortly thereafter, allowing just seconds between shots, and accelerated actions like levers along with self contained rounds like we see today came about in the early 1800's. Granted, the current boy's rifle is superior in every way, if for no other reason than gains in metallurgy and manufacturing. But one that has the same basic function and abilities has been around for ~ 170yrs (not 230, your point is made).
And you're right, Mr Oz, they didn't have a bunch of school shootings in 1776. But my point is that while we do, none of them, not even the not-school-but-pretty-freaking-terrible-anyway shootings like Aurora, never produce a bolt action and almost never produce a .22 as the weapon. So why then the outrage over this young man, and those like him?
I guess I'm just trying to keep people focused. When I see folks being "outraged" over what is by any possible metric is a complete non-issue, I cannot help but to see them through the same ridiculous, all or nothing stance of the NRA. In other words, I see them becoming that which they hate. Instead of letting it slide, I'd rather reel them in and be able to use their energy for something that, you know, might actually work. Cuz I'm ready. I, the nuttiest of gunners, would stand by your side in this. Until, of course, you start being ridiculous, and then we're all stuck with our heels dug in, going nowhere again. Still.
...that's a PROBLEM. I wasn't saying it was "illegal" as I also noted it was a .22 caliber bolt action riffle... the point is we have more kids today with mental health issues than ever before with even more increasingly ease of getting their hands on guns. If this 13 year old can buy a gun and shoot it, why shouldn't he be in the army? Answer: because he's just a kid... a child. Putting a loaded gun (of any kind) in his hands is a seriously moronic move and it's insane to think we can't pass laws to prevent this and other loop holes the NRA has purchased from our congress to keep open/etc. The NRA is a seriously evil organization that has purchased most of our government to the point where the CDC isn't even ALLOWED to just STUDY guns and their effects in the US. Let that sink in... not changing a thing, not banning anything, just f*(%ing STUDY the effects.Quote: Face...Federal law states that a licensed dealer must not sell to anyone under 18. Federal law also states that unlicensed dealers MAY sell to anyone, regardless of age. I don't know the ol' fellas status, but if he's just a dude with guns, no laws were broken.
Quote: Steverinos
Is the right more important?
Yes.
Quote: Romes...that's a PROBLEM. I wasn't saying it was "illegal" as I also noted it was a .22 caliber bolt action riffle... the point is we have more kids today with mental health issues than ever before with even more increasingly ease of getting their hands on guns. If this 13 year old can buy a gun and shoot it, why shouldn't he be in the army? Answer: because he's just a kid... a child. Putting a loaded gun (of any kind) in his hands is a seriously moronic move and it's insane to think we can't pass laws to prevent this and other loop holes the NRA has purchased from our congress to keep open/etc. The NRA is a seriously evil organization that has purchased most of our government to the point where the CDC isn't even ALLOWED to just STUDY guns and their effects in the US. Let that sink in... not changing a thing, not banning anything, just f*(%ing STUDY the effects.
I was just adding to the convo. I did not know exactly what your beef was, so attempted to provide enough to try to assuage it, or at least an opportunity to go deeper.
But I'm out to lunch on this part. I couldn't even begin with telling you how to go about getting around the NRA and their complete horses#$%. Seems to me it's the same here as is most places in .gov - money talks. Honor, integrity, righteousness, none of this s#$% has f#$% all to do with anything anymore, no matter the topic. It's all about who can consolidate the biggest pile of capitol, and unto them go the spoils.
You figure out how to break that and I'm all ears.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
Quote: FaceThey were, assuming by "musket" you mean what is now referred to as "black powder", ie a minute long song and dance just to load one shot, whereby each individual piece is loaded separately. However, the breechload came shortly thereafter, allowing just seconds between shots, and accelerated actions like levers along with self contained rounds like we see today came about in the early 1800's. Granted, the current boy's rifle is superior in every way, if for no other reason than gains in metallurgy and manufacturing. But one that has the same basic function and abilities has been around for ~ 170yrs (not 230, your point is made).
And you're right, Mr Oz, they didn't have a bunch of school shootings in 1776. But my point is that while we do, none of them, not even the not-school-but-pretty-freaking-terrible-anyway shootings like Aurora, never produce a bolt action and almost never produce a .22 as the weapon. So why then the outrage over this young man, and those like him?
I guess I'm just trying to keep people focused. When I see folks being "outraged" over what is by any possible metric is a complete non-issue, I cannot help but to see them through the same ridiculous, all or nothing stance of the NRA. In other words, I see them becoming that which they hate. Instead of letting it slide, I'd rather reel them in and be able to use their energy for something that, you know, might actually work. Cuz I'm ready. I, the nuttiest of gunners, would stand by your side in this. Until, of course, you start being ridiculous, and then we're all stuck with our heels dug in, going nowhere again. Still.
Well i see that a .22 is considered "safer" than giving a child a higher powered rifle
Nonetheless would you consider a .22 a lethal weapon? A weapon with the power to kill. A creation specifically designed to expell bullets that do damage to its intended target (regardless of alive or dead)?
Now a motor vehicle is not intended to destroy targets. Yet legally you cant give a car to an 8 year old to operate
So where is the logic in giving a deadly gun to an 8 yr old
Quote: FaceIt's been legal since before your great-great-great-great grandaddy was even a twinkle in his daddy's eye. 230 years+ it's been legal.
I just did a wickedly quick look at weapons used in mass shootings during my lifetime ('80-present). TWO used a .22cal, both handguns. NONE used a bolt action. I'm afraid I'd need more info to understand why you or anyone finds anything nearing "outrage".
Abortions were illegal for hundreds of years. So was gay marriage. Slavery was legal. Imagine if people just sat back and said -that's just the way things are
As JFK said- The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.
I can't open a bar in it and sell to anyone I want.
In fact, I can go to jail for supplying an underage kid with a beer.
Sell a gun to a kid? Why not?
Quote: darkozWell i see that a .22 is considered "safer" than giving a child a higher powered rifle
Nonetheless would you consider a .22 a lethal weapon? A weapon with the power to kill. A creation specifically designed to expell bullets that do damage to its intended target (regardless of alive or dead)?
Now a motor vehicle is not intended to destroy targets. Yet legally you cant give a car to an 8 year old to operate
So where is the logic in giving a deadly gun to an 8 yr old
It's their god given right, according to a bunch of guys who didn't think women, the poor or blacks should have a say in their great new experiment.
Quote: MrVMost if not of all the school school shootings have occurred at public schools as opposed to private schools.
This begs the question: are private schools more statistically safe, and if so, why?
Food for thought.
Private has standards of conduct and success. Drop and you get booted. Think also of the medical advantages one who can afford private has over your typical public attendee.
Public is often penalized by booting. Every head is funding, even if that head is broken.
That's a start, methinks.
Without opening a can of worms, I wonder whether most are mentally ill?
One might speculate that these folks are suicidal depressives, but where does one draw the line between being unhappy with how life is treating you and depression?
Clearly someone who shoots up a school is violationg all established cultrural norms, but are they "crazy?"
Quote: MrVTClearly someone who shoots up a school is violationg all established cultrural norms, but are they "crazy?"
Often younger people don't have broad enough experience to know that certain issues don't last forever or are not the end of the world as they know it.
Quote: darkozWell i see that a .22 is considered "safer" than giving a child a higher powered rifle
Nonetheless would you consider a .22 a lethal weapon? A weapon with the power to kill. A creation specifically designed to expell bullets that do damage to its intended target (regardless of alive or dead)?
Technically, the .22lr is considered one of the least "powerful", colloquially, one step above air rifles. Personally, I find it to be one of the most deadly. Between its small size lending to less fear and therefore possible carelessness, and its small size lending it prone to deflection (leading to a bunch of ricocheting off your bones and tearing you up from the inside, as opposed to punching through), it's definitely deadly, as evidenced by its place atop the leader board in human fatalities (purposeful or accidental).
It's just... I get it. I see what you're saying. I guess we're just speaking past each other. In YOUR home place, yeah, that would seem weird af to me. Some kid skates into Paragon Sports on Broadway and comes out toting a rifle, that'd be the craziest thing I ever saw. But here, in just about all of the rest of NY, that's a Tuesday. I as a minor carried shotguns with other minors without adult presence some 50+ times before I ever sat behind the wheel of a car. It's how we pulled our weight, made extra cash. Walk down to the local sports store, turn baling money into fishing lures and shotgun shells, then go to work plunking every varmint we could find. 14yrs old, not a grown up to be seen.
It's just weird to hear that be so deeply condemned. That type of work ethic, instilling of responsibility, in touch with your roots type of thing used to be lauded. I know it was beautiful beyond price to live. Now, in just 20yrs, it's branded as insanity.
Yep. And even a well-drilled militia unit might have difficulty getting off three shots a minute whereas seasoned Regulars could probably do four shots a minute.Quote: darkozFor one thing they didnt have the same powerful guns 230 years ago. Werent they using muskets in 1776?
Weapons change but the principle is a well armed populace.
Its the same with an arrested citizen can't have a letter in his pocket read as he is put into a cell because it obviously is not a weapon. The Founding Fathers could not fathom a cell phone that can store thousands of names and addresses but the courts apply the same fundamental principle despite changes in technology, the cops can't search the cell phone without a warrant. The Constitution protects the individual against government intrusion even if cell phones were unfathomable when it was written.
We give lifetime unsupervised jobs to teachers and we get these problems. And the only thing people can come up with is more restrictions on the students and more restrictions on all citizens.
Doesn't seem sensible.
Insanity is a legal concept as is diminished capacity.Quote: MrVClearly someone who shoots up a school is violationg all established cultrural norms, but are they "crazy?"
Some prison inmates will "take a header" off the third tier. Are they crazy? Usually no.
Some POWs would knowingly walk across the warning wire and climb the fence in broad daylight. They were not crazy; they were at the end of their rope though.
Predicting violence is an area where the shrinks don't do well at all.
The Chinese have an expression about rising up and imitating the action of a tiger referring to a man of ordinary means and ordinary experience who is suddenly called upon to perform extraordinary feats of courage and determination. Its difficult to predict behavior under extreme stress.
A company of militia was raised by a private individual, it voted its own officers and the men scheduled and conducted those elections. it could also vote officers out of office. Drills were conducted at times voted upon by the militia members. Service was in the home state only but a militiaman could volunteer for up to one year in a different state but no longer than one year. Militia units were not under the command of regulars even during time of war unless the unit voted to place themselves under the command of an officer of the Regular army.Quote: SteverinosWhy is the principle a well armed populace? To protect against government tyranny?
Today a state militia is really a federal unit cloaked in the guise of state control.
My point is that when the Constitution was ratified, we didn't have a standing army to protect our freedoms. Thus, the need for state militias. But we DO have a military to protect our freedoms in 2018. The militia the Founders envisioned was not an adversary of government but an instrument of government, organized by Congress and subject to governmental authority. It was not a tool for insurrection but rather a tool to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
Think Shay's Rebelllion and Whisky Rebellion, where Washington himself called forth state militia to put down the rebellion over the whiskey tax. If the 2A was designed to protect us from our own government, isn't it odd that THE founding father of our country would use it in the exact opposite way?
Long story short, there is a ton of debate about the original intent of the 2A.
In the last year or so, a study was published showing men's brains do not fully mature until about age 22-23.
Part of maturity is understanding mortality. Responsiblity. Decentralizing your understanding of the world as containing you...and everybody else as bit players, to you...and everybody else with lives worth living.
So, with nearly all males, and nearly all under 30, doing these mass shootings, perhaps there should be a raise in the age to buy or own some guns. 18 is probably too young.
But I don't think many of these guys were identified as "troubled" or "mentally ill" before they did this stuff. Didn't leave a lot of bread crumbs for family or friends to follow. "He was such a nice, quiet boy". How many times have we heard that?
I do think guns of a basic nature can be used responsibly by the vast number of kids under 18, with education on their use. I've seen it all my life. And I think it should continue, if we are to have guns at all (and we will).
But it seems like, for most of these shooters, they're not habitual criminals. They're not special needs kids. They're just "different", for the most part. So maybe the money and research needs to go towards identifying when "different" becomes deadly, before it does.
Quote: beachbumbabsDecentralizing your understanding of the world as containing you...and everybody else as bit players, to you...and everybody else with lives worth living.
What about those of us that understand that my life is just as insignificant as everybody else's? I know I am a nihilist and I can't understand why individual lives are important as we all know we will eventually die anyways. Why is living longer better? Why do we care if our species dies off?
Quote: DRichWhat about those of us that understand that my life is just as insignificant as everybody else's? I know I am a nihilist and I can't understand why individual lives are important as we all know we will eventually die anyways. Why is living longer better? Why do we care if our species dies off?
Then why continue living?
Quote: DRichWhat about those of us that understand that my life is just as insignificant as everybody else's? I know I am a nihilist and I can't understand why individual lives are important as we all know we will eventually die anyways. Why is living longer better? Why do we care if our species dies off?
Excellent question.
However, a nihilist with a death wish and a gun is probably a subset of those we're trying to identify before the bullets fly.
So maybe you've hit on something there.
I have a somewhat similar worldview. I understand that Man has risen to the top of the animal heap, but I don't think human life should proliferate to the point that other forms of life go extinct. There's that responsibility thing again....
Quote: SteverinosWhy is the principle a well armed populace? To protect against government tyranny?
Absolutely! The US Government has an awful history of how it treats unarmed folks.
Quote: SteverinosThings are changing this time around because of the kids. The demonstrations today are impressive. Adults aren't cutting it anymore. You'd think that when twenty 6 year old kids were murdered in elementary school, the republicans would've come around and engaged in some common sense. But now that we have 17 and 18 year olds who are getting ready to vote, this might make the difference.
Why do you blame Republicans?
Hate to break it to you, but the gun grabbing you desire will not happen. In a few months all will be forgotten. People will go back to worrying about the ball game and what celebrity did what. The Democrats do not have the guts to run on an anti-gun agenda. Why? Because they know they would lose in a wipeout.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy do you blame Republicans?
Hate to break it to you, but the gun grabbing you desire will not happen. In a few months all will be forgotten. People will go back to worrying about the ball game and what celebrity did what. The Democrats do not have the guts to run on an anti-gun agenda. Why? Because they know they would lose in a wipeout.
I blame them because they are too blame. They have sat on their hands and squashed any dialogue or progress we've attempted to make over the past two decades. The cynic in me thinks the way you do, that nothing will happen. But I do believe this time is different. So the optimist in me has hope that we will finally make progress on this issue. What progress will look like, I'm not sure. Banning bump stocks, as Trump has announced support for, is a start. But there is so much more to do so we'll see where the conversation takes us.
"Hate to break it to you", but democrats have been cleaning up in special elections since Trump was elected. And with polling on gun control hovering around 65%, more than double the opposition, I don't see any kind of wipe-out in the future.
We also had a thing called The Merillion Avenue Massacre , where Colin Ferguson shoot up a train full of commuters. He was only stopped after he emptied two pistols with extended clips. As he struggled to reload, he was tackled and held until the police came.
A year later, on the anniversary of the tragedy, this jickwad of a politician stood on the stage and announced his endorsement by the NRA and brandished a weapon aloft. My neighbor, Carolyn McCarthy was sitting in the front row having lost her husband, along with the families of the other victims. Her son was also wounded, shot in the head but has since recovered .
The absolute tone deafness of this jerk caused a huge outcry against him. Mrs. McCarthy made it her mission to remove him from office and when she couldn't get anyone to run against him, she switched parties and ran herself. She won fairly easily and the jerk faded from public view.
Guess they plan on raising the draft age, huh.
When I was still 17, I was on a range for Uncle Sam. When I was 18 and 19 I was toting a variety of full auto rifles for the same. I wasn't even old enough to drink when I was on foreign soil performing for what turned out to be a very ungrateful Uncle.
Back in the day there was a good chance someone would have a weapon in their locker to take care of the sicko. If not there would be multiple firearms in the parking lot for sure. How about declaring schools Definitely Firearms on site Zones. An armed populace makes for a polite populace.
Quote: MaxPenBack in the day there was a good chance someone would have a weapon in their locker to take care of the sicko. If not there would be multiple firearms in the parking lot for sure. How about declaring schools Definitely Firearms on site Zones. An armed populace makes for a polite populace.
Funny how all the arguments can be reversed. Gunners say if guns were banned, people would use cars, bombs,
If guns are used to protect schools, killers will drive vehicles into schools at 60mph filled with flammable liquids.
Quote: MaxPenYeah, let's keep young people sheltered and scared of guns instead of teaching them safe use and responsibility. I was reading about possibly disallowing the purchase of SemiAuto rifles to 18 year olds.
Guess they plan on raising the draft age, huh.
When I was still 17, I was on a range for Uncle Sam. When I was 18 and 19 I was toting a variety of full auto rifles for the same. I wasn't even old enough to drink when I was on foreign soil performing for what turned out to be a very ungrateful Uncle.
Back in the day there was a good chance someone would have a weapon in their locker to take care of the sicko. If not there would be multiple firearms in the parking lot for sure. How about declaring schools Definitely Firearms on site Zones. An armed populace makes for a polite populace.
Maybe it is more persuasive in the original Russian.
Quote: SteverinosSo...militias (State National Guard) are really obsolete? Kind of like...the 2A?
The National Guard is far from obsolete. Units are routinely activated to try to handle civil disturbances and larger-scale riots.
The Congress of the Confederation created the United States Army on June 3, 1784.Quote: SteverinosMy point is that when the Constitution was ratified, we didn't have a standing army to protect our freedoms.
LOL. We do indeed have a standing army, much to our disgrace but it sure is not there to protect our freedoms.Quote: SteverinosBut we DO have a military to protect our freedoms in 2018..
Quote: russionit's a lot easier to buy a gun and pull the trigger than it is to cure cancer
So messed up. :(
Perfect quote, though you're thinking incorrectly. You're thinking about guns. Trump disarms us by dividing us (along with his russian trolls). Then he intentionally blinds the truth with lie so that we can't tell them apart. Sadly, many believe the lies so then those of us that are left that know the truth are fighting the biggest uphill battle ever; convincing someone they've been blatantly lied to over and over for years. The irony is your greatest fear is already your reality... You've been disarmed and are following a false idle without question.Quote: MaxPen...
Australia got rid of the mass majority of their guns... Are their citizens in shackles? So many countries have NO WHERE NEAR the guns that we do and yet they're not slaves. People are so paranoid it's sad.
Quote: RomesAustralia got rid of the mass majority of their guns... Are their citizens in shackles? So many countries have NO WHERE NEAR the guns that we do and yet they're not slaves. People are so paranoid it's sad.
Don't do it, Romes. Check emotion, and come back solid.
AU did not "get rid of the mass majority of guns". What AU did was invest an estimated $500mm into a gun buyback program which cut the number of privately held guns in the country from ~3.5mm to 2.5mm. A hugely impressive chunk, but not within the realms of "mass majority". Since the first large buyback in '96 after the Port Arthur massacre, gun ownership slowly yet staunchly crept back up, reaching ~3.2mm at the time of their second big buyback in '06. This dropped the numbers by several hundred thousand, but still left some 2.7mm guns (down from the all time high of 3.5mm) in public hands. At the time of this writing, the number stands close to where it began, right around 3.1mm - 3.2mm.
But did it work?
I suppose that depends on your goal. It surely did not "get rid of guns", so a lot of our far Left would still be clutching at their tinkles about it. It perhaps did get some of the shadier pieces off the streets; Lord knows I have a few pistols especially that could be stolen from me or that I could flat out drop and lose and not realize it for years. I'd cash that in on a proper buyback for sure, and that'd be one less "garbage gun" on the streets. But one things is for sure, the rates of gun crimes, violence, and deaths, despite the little to sometimes no change on the number of guns the buyback effected, has gone steadily down in AU ever since they began this.
Why?
That's the $64,000 question.
If he was having such problems why did they not invade the corpus of the trust to get him counseling and private tutoring?
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe National Guard is far from obsolete. Units are routinely activated to try to handle civil disturbances and larger-scale riots.
The Congress of the Confederation created the United States Army on June 3, 1784.
The militia, in its form in 1791, is obsolete. It is not comprised of regular citizens. That's what I mean when I say obsolete. The National Guard, the closest thing we have to a militia today, is not the same thing as the militias of the 18th century.
And yes, we had an army, but it was a mess and comprised of...militias.
See a common theme here?
And then we have the fundamental question, was this shooter part of a well-regulated militia?
An 18 year old with an assault weapon? Doesn't sound like it meets the simplest of standards.
