Jackson attorney Jeff Reynolds submitted this guest column.
On May 24, 2022, nineteen young children and two teachers were killed in Uvalde, Texas, by a deranged teenager who legally purchased an AR-15 assault rifle only days after his eighteenth birthday. While the AR-15 was purchased legally, this same teenager could not legally purchase or consume alcohol or cigarettes. Why? Because, according to the government, an 18-year-old is not yet mature enough to consume alcohol or cigarettes responsibly. But that same government believes 18-year-olds are mature enough to purchase assault rifles – a weapon of war designed to do one thing: kill many people quickly. So, in America, 18-year-olds are mature enough to own a killing machine but not mature enough to drink a beer.
According to an analysis of data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, between 2000 and 2019, ten shooting incidents were committed at educational facilities by offenders between 18 and 21 years old. And the data shows at least 59% of the 2,275 school shootings researchers recorded since 1970 were committed by someone under 21 years old.
For example, in 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza brought a legally owned AR-15 assault rifle to Sandy Hook Elementary School and massacred 26 people, mostly small children. He suffered from documented mental health issues.
On May 14, 2022, just days before the Uvalde massacre, 18-year-old Payton Gendron brought an AR-15 assault rifle and high-capacity magazine to a grocery store and massacred 10 people, mostly African-Americans, in Buffalo, New York. Only months prior, the New York state police took Grendron into custody for making threats about a shooting. The police ordered a psychiatric evaluation, and Grendron spent a day and a half at a hospital. Shortly thereafter, he legally purchased the AR-15 assault rifle and high-capacity magazine used to kill 10 innocent victims. His stated goal was to kill as many black people as possible.
These are but a few examples. The ease with which any person age 18 or older can buy an assault rifle and commit a mass shooting should shock every American and be accepted by none. Additional restrictions on gun ownership are long overdue.
First, the age to purchase any gun should be raised to 21 years old. Teenage years are when emotions are highest and responsibility lowest. The brain is still developing, particularly the prefrontal cortex where our brains engage in decision making, impulse-control, and moderating social behavior. The three years from 18 to 21-years-old allow the brain to further develop the self-control that very well could have prevented some of these mass shootings by teens.
Second, we should implement so-called “red flag laws” prohibiting individuals from purchasing or accessing guns if flagged for having significant mental health issues or having made threats to kill.
Third, we should implement universal background checks. Information that would preclude a troubled individual from buying a gun is useless if that individual can purchase a firearm without having a background check.
Finally, we should ban all assault rifles and high-capacity clips. President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill that banned the sale of assault rifles from 1994 through 2004. That bill was approved by the Senate by a vote of 95-4. It banned the purchase and manufacture of new assault rifles, not the possession of such firearms. What resulted was a decline in mass shootings (defined as 4 or more people shot or killed in one incident). The highest number of mass shootings in a single year before the assault rifle ban was four mass shootings (in 1993). After the ban lapsed in 2004, five or more mass shootings in a single year occurred at least eight times: 7 mass shootings in 2012; 5 in 2013; 7 in 2014; 6 in 2016; 11 in 2017; 12 in 2018; 10 in 2019, and; 6 in 2021. And America has the most school shootings in the world. Reforming our gun laws must happen, and it must happen now. Lives—children’s lives—are at stake. If a new gun law can prevent a single death, it will be worth it. The assault rifle ban from 1994-2004 likely saved many lives.
Laws like those I’ve suggested were once uncontroversial. But since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, where five Supreme Court Justices cemented Americans’ rights to carry arms, pro-gun groups have become emboldened and fervently resisted every attempt to enact any sensible gun restrictions. In fact, the NRA for decades favored certain laws like universal background checks but withdrew that position after Heller.
Why? Some argue that restricting the lawful purchase of firearms serves only to punish lawful citizens. But had the age to purchase an assault rifle been raised to 21 and red flag laws implemented, such restrictions would have prevented shootings and, specifically, the Uvalde and Buffalo shootings.
Others argue (without evidence) that those who seek to restrict gun ownership ultimately hope to confiscate all private firearms. Such people claim that enacting even the most basic gun restrictions will lead down the slippery slope to gun confiscation. But those concerns are more the product of politics than reality. Ambitious politicians have seized this “wedge issue” and convinced their constituencies that, should politicians who support reasonable measures like these take control, all firearms will be taken. Politics has further divided us and hardened gun defenders’ stance. We must see past the current political climate and make common sense reforms.
In today’s vitriolic political climate, some will call me a “left winger” or anti-gun for suggesting an assault-rifle ban. But I am neither of those. I own multiple guns I use for hunting and personal protection. I strongly support the Second Amendment and responsible gun ownership. But I see no reason an 18-year-old teenager should be able to walk into a store, buy an AR-15, carry it openly to the closest elementary school, and open fire on children. Those who say nothing can be done to prevent such atrocities are wrong.
Others say we need to arm teachers because the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But police in Uvalde were at the school for almost an hour before breaching the door and killing the suspect. Why? Reporting indicates they awaited tactical equipment to compete with the shooter’s AR-15. Meanwhile, their delay resulted in additional deaths. If the police—trained to protect and serve—could not prevent the deaths, why would anyone think a teacher—trained to teach—would be able to protect the students? Especially from an AR-15?
Others say the problem is a failure of our mental health care system. But this red herring excuse does nothing to solve the problem. First, obviously these mass murderers had some kind of sordid mental pathology. Second, our state is woefully inadequate in providing mental health services to indigent patients. I see this every day as a Jackson Municipal Judge when I’m faced with defendants committing crimes who are obviously mentally ill. I have no mental health facility to which to order them. I gave up years ago trying to send such defendants to Whitfield because Whitfield would either say they had no room or would simply ignore my Order. So if I determine a defendant poses a danger to others—which is often the case with people who are mentally ill—I have no choice but to keep them in jail if I legally can, where they may harm people who work in the jail and/or other inmates, and then they eventually get out and repeat the cycle.
It is long past time for Mississippi to face the reality that the gun problem is in fact a gun problem. Unless we are willing to address this issue with common sense solutions, it is only a matter of time before a slaughter of young, elementary school children happens here
104 comments:
TL;DR
"Weapon of war" = scary looking gun.
First, AR15s are not select fire rifles and are not "weapons of war."
Second, imagine posting this in Jackson, where more than one of your readers was in the cafeteria when Luke Woodham walked in to Pearl High School armed with a 30-30 and started shooting. Banning specific guns won't stop this, criminals will just find something else.
After 9/11 we didn't ban air travel to save lives because that would have been stupid. Instead, we installed metal detectors in our airports, locked cabin doors on airplanes, and put armed Air Marshals on flights. There hasn't been another hijacking since. Maybe we could do something like that for our schools?
He acknowledges that there is in fact a mental health problem, then basically says the system is broken and it's too big a problem to tackle so we should just go the easy route and ban the gun.
I also question his actual ownership of guns for personal protection if he has such a basic misunderstanding of an AR-15.
Where are all the people who want to protect our school children. How many innocent Americans must die before our elected officials put Americans before the gun money contributions and their own re-election. Look in the morror folks we are the problem. Power concedes nothing without a demand.
Well I will make sure to never use this attorney’s services.
There are MILLIONS of responsible 18 year old gun owners in the USA.
There is no logic in punishing these MILLIONS of law abiding teens due for something an extreme minority does.
Imagine if we passed discriminatory laws against MILLIONS of law abiding African-American based on the actions of African-Americans who commit crimes.
Mental illness is a red herring?
I cant take anything you said seriously after that idiotic statement.
Power may not concede without a demand, but this is a serious issue about violating the actual rights granted in the constitution. Any attempt to remove the rights of American citizens should only be taken as a last option when other options have failed. Not enough has been done to address stopping mentally disturbed people from committing crimes with any weapons, much less a gun. With power hungry politicians, I am more concerned about the slippery slope of banning a type of gun because it will only lead to more guns being banned. Then we are faced with a situation like Australia where the government does not fear the people, and has run roughshod over their individual rights.
Mr. Reynolds' says: "If a new gun law can prevent a single death, it will be worth it".
So mandate that 25% or more classroom teachers in any given school qualify to carry a pistol at school and that school districts pay for their training, weapon and ammunition. Further mandate that leaving a side or back door unlocked is unlawful and subject to a large fine.
An armed teacher could have saved many lives at Uvalde. So could a locked door have done.
Reynolds ultimately seeks complete control of guns and an unarmed populace to enslave for his Leftist agenda and considers himself among a ruling elite. Reynolds is the one that is mentally ill enough to violate the Constitution, make kids vulnerable and make all of us unarmed and defenseless.
What parents would trust their family's lives to a man like Reynolds?
Just seeing the faux term "assault rifle" made me instantly decide to not read that propaganda. It's a term used by the progressive media and other anti-gun vermin to brainwash the useful idiots. They will also lie and say that the AR-15 is never ever used for hunting. Bull shit! Thousands and thousands are used for hunting.
"First, AR15s are not select fire rifles and are not "weapons of war."
Second, imagine posting this in Jackson, where more than one of your readers was in the cafeteria when Luke Woodham walked in to Pearl High School armed with a 30-30 and started shooting. Banning specific guns won't stop this, criminals will just find something else.
After 9/11 we didn't ban air travel to save lives because that would have been stupid. Instead, we installed metal detectors in our airports, locked cabin doors on airplanes, and put armed Air Marshals on flights. There hasn't been another hijacking since. Maybe we could do something like that for our schools?
June 2, 2022 at 10:04 AM"
^^ This, also, if we do not manage the threat from mentally-ill people they will find all manner of ways to harm the public. So many mental health facilities have been closed due to woke politics.
The disrespect in this column, expressed in words, for the opinions of others says all you need to know about Reynolds. He doesn't want a discussion or compromise, he wants his predetermined 'solution' jammed down your throat.
Jeff, association is not causation. What am I thinking? You're an attorney.
The more I read this caterwauling, the more I want to buy an AR-15.
The AR15 is hands down the BEST defense weapon for women. The low recoil and the ease of use is why it is the weapon of choice of the IDF conscripts and also these skinny incel nutjobs. They are rejected by everyone and don’t take it well. Once they realize they will never find a mate, they feel they have nothing to lose. We need to stop targeting the inanimate objects and start targeting the incels.
Teachers, faculty, and student leaders know that exactly who these mentally ill outcasts are. The Dept. of Justice, the Dept. of Education, and the BATF need to develop a system to identify low value male incels and monitor them. It won’t take them long to determine if they are just harmless loners or if they are dangerous loners.
Once they are flagged they will be banned from buying guns and then they go into a special category where AI monitors all of their online activity. If they start going on 4chan and making antisocial posts, then the DoJ needs to get a warrant to search their home for weapons and possibly confine them.
This is the solution. We don’t have a gun problem. We have a violent incel problem.
A comment that I just read from Joe Rogan:
“I wrote this thing once where I said this country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. That’s what it is. There’s so many guns. There’s more guns than there are people. I don’t think it’s a gun situation. …
I dont think it’s wise to take the guns away from the people and leave all the power to the government. We see how they are even with an armed populace. They still have a tendency towards totalitarianism, and the more increased power and control you have over people, the easier it is for them to do what they do, and there’s a natural inclination when you are a person in power to try to hold more power and acquire more power, and it’s never–there’s never an inclination to give more power back to the people, to give more freedoms back to the people.”
Not exactly a conservative with a "Far Right" agenda, but an American that wants to find a real solution. This is the kind of person that is being honest, and I could sit down at a table to find a real solution with.
I ask this question seriously. Why do I have to take a test, register, and be licensed to drive a car in this and every state in the U.S.? If I can buy a car why should I not be able to drive the damn thing if I want to without the gov'ment getting involved? At one time I could, but the country "outgrew" that notion. At one time a man could not survive without his rifle at his side. Are we going backwards or forward?
@10:41, big bonus points for using, caterwauling.
Reynolds is exactly right. Period.
The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to buy a car.
What mental illness did the Uvalde shooter have? As far as I know, he was not under any medical care for any known condition. Don't lump him into people who are legitimately mentally ill. Sometimes people are just mean and filled with hate.
@11:00 AM
Yes we need our rifle by our side. Have you seen the violent crime rate in this country? Have you see the 15 year old thugs brandishing their weapons and also using them? I would rather have a fighting chance. That’s why I am always armed. Give up this notion that we are all going to live in equality and peaceful egalitarian brotherhood. There are millions of lazy, stupid, people who want what you have. The easiest way for them to get it is by putting the barrel of a gun in your face!
Like blaming forks for fat people
Well..something has to be done. We can blame the 'other side' for all the problems, but that gets us where we are today. Nowhere.
What did our founding fathers do? compromise. give a little, get a little.
we shouldn't ban the AR15. we should have universal background checks. if an 18 year old can be drafted for war, they have the right to purchase firearms Mentally ill people or people who have made violent threats on social media should not be able to own a firearm
but that only exists in fiction. everyone wants to be 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong...
The number of "mass shootings" (four or more people shot or killed in one incident) in this country is grossly under-reported. There were four people shot outside a night club in Shelby, Mississippi this weekend. It didn't make the news and won't be counted as a "mass shooting" by the FBI. These "mass shootings" happen in the Delta all the time.
AR-15 weapon of war? What war? So we have 34 consecutive months of over a million NICS checks for firearms purchases, what does that tell you? Sorry but these clowns are pushing an agenda, more people were stabbed to death than killed with rifles/fully semi auto AR-14 Ghost guns also pistols are used more than rifles, but when your media and political overlords tell you what to think that’s what you do. I wonder how much of the Tulsa Hospital shooter we’ll hear about? What happened to the DC shooter? Subway guy? Parade guy from Wisconsin? What about the people that have stopped mass shootings? I like when the masters sweep things under the rug or push the narrative.
I’ll agree with 21 when they raise voting and enlistment age. Also, why 21? Why not 25? I’ve seen 50 year olds not know how to handle a firearm correctly they even been to classes, so just because they sat through some training and have a license doesn’t mean anything much like a drivers license which you can see driving around anywhere in the US. If someone wants you gone they’ll do it with or with out a gun, you just have these scary ass people who do no research and just regurgitate what they see from the media and think death only comes in the form of a gun or a couple of months ago Covid.
"It is long past time for Mississippi to face the reality that the gun problem is in fact a gun problem"
False-the gun problems stems from the breakdown of the nuclear family in society.
The only way to solve the gun problen is by raising children in a nurturing, caring, attentive and disciplined environment. This is precisely why there is no solution to the "gun problem" in our country.
In a couple hundred years or so, if we haven't destroyed everything, guns will be obsolete and "arms" will mean laser or phaser weapons or maybe ray guns or sonic weapons. Everybody will have at least one and they will be far more efficient than these primitive loud projectile devices we have now. Our great grandchildren have something to look forward to. We must preserve their constitutional right to bear those things. Protect posterity.
as to Uvalde shooter and mental illness.
The video of him in the passenger seat of a vehicle with 2 bloodied, dead cats in a clear plastic bag that he is holding as a trophy points to some mental illness.
Classmates' comments point to mental illness.
"mass shootings" - the FBI does not track mass shootings. The FBI tracks mass murders, 4 or more victims KILLED in a single incident.
"mass shooting" is a made up media-use term
This column should have ended at “He suffered with documented mental health issues.” Instead he kept rambling on with democratic talking points he heard from liberal media trying to control everything.
It's a constitutional right. Plain and simple. Says nothing about age or "mental health". Citizenship is citizenship. That battle has been fought and it's over. No restrictions. None. Get your gun or take your chances without one. That's the constitution. If you don't like it migrate.
11:44 As an orphan, the supposed breakdown of my nuclear family never caused me to shoot up a place so save the bullshit for someone else. Pull your head out of your ass. It needs the oxygen.
Sad comments by you dumb-ass conservatives as usual.. forcing, damn-near tearing through a reputable opinion post and thinking too hard to attempt to make your "18 yr olds should have AR-15s" argument look competent... yeah @10:04 with your failed logic.... next we will need to do hospitals right? Libraries, Movie Theaters, and the list goes on? Just militarize the whole damn country?
This guy is no attorney, or at least he knows nothing about law or much of anything else.
@10:52 is my absolute favorite. i'll have whatever drugs he's on.
First of all....in what scenario, is literally anyone using an AR-15 for defense? A sound wakes you in the middle of the night and you run to your gun safe in the garage to retrieve your AR-15 to protect your family? get real.
and now you want to put the decision of whether a citizen should have a gun in the hands of administrators and teachers?!?! you don't even trust them to not indoctrinate your kids with leftist theology, you want them making that decision?
people need to stop making bullshit arguments on why they have to have assault weapons. There is only one argument: I like guns and they are currently legal.
we are the only country that experiences this kind of gun violence. there are mental health issues everywhere in the world, but only in the US is easy as apple pie to get two AR-15s, a bulletproof vest, 3,500 sounds of ammo without even paying for it and not anyone ask a single question about it.
The common denominator is mental health.
The red herring is assault rifles.
I believe in the second amendment and am a hunter and owner of multiple guns, and those who know me would consider me a social and fiscal conservative. I believe in the right to defend my family, myself, and my home from bad guys and from tyrants.
I also very much support Mr. Reynolds' proposals 1, 2, and 3 above, but not 4.
Mr. Reynolds makes some very good points, but he is dead wrong to simply bail out on the mental health care system as a part of the solution. We need stronger and more comprehensive and readily available mental healthcare for MANY reasons, including the reason of public shootings by crazy folks. The mentally ill folks in our society have been tossed to the curb, literally, with the sole exception being those from well-to-do families who can afford to care/support their mentally ill loved ones. All others have been abandoned. Our society could and should address this mental health crisis, albeit at significant expense, but apparently our state and federal legislators don't care to, and the taxpayers don't care enough either.
"False-the gun problems stems from the breakdown of the nuclear family in society.
The only way to solve the gun problem is by raising children in a nurturing, caring, attentive and disciplined environment. This is precisely why there is no solution to the "gun problem" in our country."
So you suggest that there is a problem with kids falling through the cracks....and you're totally ok with any one of them having unfettered access to weapons?
I'm a slight Republican (can't stand the Democratic party of today). With that said, what is y'all's deal? Go exercise, live out in the country, and buy some dogs and security cameras if you're so scared. I have no idea why some people are so infatuated with needing a bunch of guns, and going on about AR-15 not actually being military guns. Do y'all lack masculinity and have to cover it up with a bunch of guns? I don't like lumping people together, but if you're against any sort of gun control, you may have a screw lose.
I get the second amendment. I get that Democrats want too much power e.g. they want to pack the supreme court (see Venezuela, insane). I get women wanting a gun. Y'all are going to risk losing moderates (not me) if you aren't going to compromise at all whatsoever on guns. I really have no idea why a person in the US that doesn't live near bears or wild boars really needs something like an AR-15. If you want to prepare for the end times, a well, farm animals, seeds, solar power, and fruit trees are more important in my opinion.
As someone that lives in Jackson, guess what? The bad guys have the element of surprise on their side.
to the dude who keeps screaming about the constitution and there being "no restrictions"....literally the first three words are "A WELL REGULATED". The government has the right to regulate the sale of firearms. This was supported under the Heller decision.
I think we can all agree that nuclear weapons or machine guns shouldn't be available to the common citizen, yes? So there is a line somewhere in the middle that would be reasonable to debate as to what should be available to the public. This country is leaning to say weapons capable of mass murder should not be and that is entirely fair.
Owning an AR 15 ASSAULT RIFLE makes your dick bigger. Throw in a PIT BULL for an additional 2 inches! You one bad ass now!
@12:23
"Just militarize the whole damn country?"
Individuals and groups, known to be armed, don't attract killers. That's why some of these sick punks choose schools, or run a car through a parade, or set off a bomb at a marathon race or commit a drive-by in West Jackson. This "dumb-ass Conservative" respects the Founders and the Constitution, but your beloved "reputable opinion post" penned by Mr. Reynolds, not at all.
If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” ban, they MUST address these questions:
– Why ban cosmetic features?
– Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
– Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
– Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
– How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?
– How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban’s expiration?
And most importantly:
After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?
Wow this is a perfect example of what is wrong with America today.
Ignorant leftists want to insult gun owners and resort to idiotic hyperbole while 2A supporters attempt to inarticulately defend the second amendment.
The Right to Bear Arms SHALL NOT be infringed. Full STOP.
It’s already been infringed enough. Nobody stopped the last 4 bans, so the tyrants think they can keep going. I don’t care what problems other countries do or don’t have. You leftists can go live there. No private gun ownership in China or North Korea, ya commies!
If trannies and drag demons have the freedom to groom, then I shall retain the freedom to own my WASR/AKM/AK-47 variants. Because I’m not really an AR guy.
To the dude who keeps screaming about "well regulated militia."
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Go educate yourself with some grade school Civics before opining about a phrase from the Constitution that you have no idea the meaning behind.
I'm willing to alienate millions of 18 year olds, by preventing their buying semi-auto rifles with high capacity mags. An older adult can buy for them, or if they join the military, one will be provided -- along with training. But, in the latter cases, someone would be able to assess whether that individual should be in the possession of one.
If it's a constitutional right, then why is there an age limit at all. Why can't I purchase a gun at 16? or 14? or hell, at 10 when I had my kids at the shooting range to start teaching them about gun safety.
Thank you 1:02.
I am fiscally conservative and socially libertarian so I am trying to be open to suggestions. But these knee jerk emotional solutions seem anemic at best.
As people with little gun knowledge, I can see why "assault rifles" make Libs uncomfortable. But I don't understand, factually, how banning them will prevent these episodes.
More government is just never the answer. They are HORRIBLE at everything. Lost rights are never reinstated. And they are never satisfied and will always push immediately for more.
And given Washington's abject hatred for all things conservative these days, I don't see anyone reaching across the aisle on anything.
When someone refers to a magazine as a “clip”, I shut down there and then regarding anything they have to say about firearms.
"So, in America, 18-year-olds are mature enough to own a killing machine but not mature enough to drink a beer."
They are also old enough to vote and defend our country, but shouldn't be able to defend themselves from Corn Pop(remember he was a bad dude). This guy is an idiot. Imagine his self-perceived self-worth to think this opinion of his matters. The same people wanting to ban AR 15's are the same mad about the possible overturning of Roe .v Wade. That's rich.
No matter what the news tells you, there are more devistating things than the big bad AR 15. A certain fire arm and load used to kill 20lb game birds & coyotes would wreak more havoc down a hallway than an AR-15, but it's not near as cool to talk about.
@ 12:39
I don't suggest there is a problem; I KNOW there is a problem.
Logical question. How do people think they are going to get their hands on the Draco's and Choppa's from the inter-city streets? Most of those are already illegally obtained and you aren't going to get them to turn them in for a popsicle or $50. It's a feel good idea, but not going to happen.
"First, the age to purchase any gun should be raised to 21 years old. Teenage years are when emotions are highest and responsibility lowest. The brain is still developing, particularly the prefrontal cortex where our brains engage in decision making, impulse-control, and moderating social behavior. The three years from 18 to 21-years-old allow the brain to further develop the self-control that very well could have prevented some of these mass shootings by teens."
Yet, you liberals argue constantly that a young child can change his or her gender? Which is it? Is the young brain able to make rational decisions or not?
@1:59
I prefer the term “clipazine” myself
It rolls off the tongue.
Since we have the attention of so many constitutional scholars saying the "well regulated militia" means the government can ban something and it doesn't say citizens can own weapons of war, where in the constitution does it say we should naturalize "illegal aliens" and make them citizens. I am betting I am looking over the asterisk where is says *to buy Democrat votes.
Trying to use purely superficial characteristics to regulate firearms is nonsensical, but since it is also subjective and arbitrary it would likely be (and like any arbitrary law, should be) found unconstitutional. Should guns be regulated? IMO, yes, and my opinion aside, they are regulated. Should there be additional regulations? That would depend on the regulation.
A funny thing about ARs that many, even most, do not know: for the first 20 or so years they were sold, Colt was the only maker and very few people wanted them. They were inexpensive new and nearly worthless used. The "ban" on "assault rifles" did more to stoke demand than the availability of them, just as prohibition via the 18th Amendment increased the demand for alcoholic beverages and created criminality revolving around them until it was finally repealed. In practical terms the 18th didn't stop anything it only turned the previously-legal conduct of possession and consumption into crimes and created a whole illegal and violent industry to supply those "criminals."
I think most sensible people would agree, or at least concede, that anyone determined to shoot his doctor and himself, as in Tulsa, would not have been or be deterred by "appearance regulations." If he could not have purchased an AR-15, any other firearm would have substituted. In simple terms, the reason a person used a Crescent wrench to drive a nail was because they didn't have a hammer available but were determined to drive that nail.
The real problem is that such laws do not really seek to regulate guns, they seek to regulate people, or perhaps more accurately, their conduct. Just as attempting to regulate drunken foolishness by banning liquor didn't and couldn't work, trying to regulate crazy or lawless behavior by banning subjectively-selected objects will not and cannot work. Just as getting rid of all cars would eliminate drunk driving, getting rid of all guns would eliminate shootings. But that is where the theoretical runs into the concrete wall of practical - it just ain't gonna happen. So the answer is to figure out what is practical and work toward that rather than continuing to crash into that concrete wall.
Typical liberal trash article of raise the age and have red flag laws. These actions only affect the 99.999999% of legal fun owners while doing nothing to prevent mass shootings? You want to stop mass shootings then have nationwide open and conceal carry at the federal level and end gun free zones.
The gun guys always have the same answer - more guns. Arming teachers isn’t going to help just like flooding our streets with hundreds of millions of guns didn’t help. The trained officers that were too scared to intervene were more likely than an English teacher with a pea shooter to be able to stop this guy. High powered rifles paired with high capacity magazines make these slaughters far too likely to end in mass casualties. We have to do something besides selling more guns with less restrictions.
Anyone who think more guns will solve this is not smart enough to join the discussion. We cater to the most extreme nut bags too often. Screw the gun nuts, save the kids.
Dear Jeff,
Stop defending Jackson criminals and prosecute them. Then we can talk about gun deaths.
The Second Amendment is outdated. At the time it was written in the 1790s we relied on militias to defend the country. We were less than 10 years removed from the Revolutionary War. Americans at that time didn't like the idea of a standing army. If you read the actual text of the Second Amendment and keep in mind what was happening in the country at the time it is pretty clear that it was meant to allow for well-regulated and trained militias to fill in the gaps that the government couldn't fill for national defense purposes because Americans distrusted standing armies.
The Second Amendment says:
"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."
Our country has moved on. We have an overwhelmingly strong military now and no longer have to rely on militias for defense. The Second Amendment should be practically meaningless in the context of our modern world but people insist that it means something that it doesn't.
2:25 PM
So you fundamentally disagree that you have the right to self defense. Got it.
Arming teachers sounds great until you start thinking it through. Obviously the teacher should keep quiet he or she is armed. Teacher will have to keep it on his or her person ALL THE TIME. Not in the purse, not in the desk. Too much risk for bad kids who will know where the gun is and want to get their hands on it. Also, there is a reason officers go through additional training besides time at the range.
However, there is a compromise on arming teachers. Hinds SO has a reserve deputy program. Other law enforcement agencies have them as well. If a teacher is willing to go through one of those programs and qualify quarterly, then the teacher should be allowed to carry. The law enforcement agency can allow school time to count for service hours. You trust those reservists who are armed to guard your kids at the state fair every year.
It's not a panacea. It's like the Sky Marshals. Sky Marshals don't replace screeners. It's another tool in the toolbox to raise the odds against another Uvalde happening.
Um, when I was in school in the 90's, the AR15 was pretty expensive compared to what it is now. Until the pandemic, you could buy a Smith and Wesson Sporter for $500. When the specs/licenses were released, the rifle got much cheaper. Doesn't apply here because Daniel Defense rifles generally go in the $2,000's.
Social Media is fueling this mass killing crisis!
There are thousands & thousands of people online dreaming about out doing the latest mass shooting.
There is computer software that can search every twitter account for key words like I'm going to shoot up a school in around 5 minutes. Why isn't there laws that require this?
HOLD ON! Homeland Security just drove up in my driveway & are knocking at my door. See I proved my point the hard way. lfiggk....
As for the "militia" part. Well, the Founding Father studies the fall of the Roman Republic to no end. They feared a standing army taking over the Republic as it did Rome. Thus they created the Second Amendment.
Of course, they didn't imagine a system where 16 year old kids could carjack, plead guilty, go free, and murder 12 year olds a few months later.
Many are getting caught up in the age issue raised in his first point. His final point was banning all assault rifles and high-capacity “clips”, regardless of age. This would be a return to Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, or worse. High-capacity was defined as anything more than 10 rounds back then. So, even your Glock 9mm with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds would be banned based on this rationale. The first time I ever purchased an “assault” rifle was once I learned Clinton was going to ban them back in the early 1990’s. Amazingly, I’ve had it for almost 30 years and haven’t shot anyone with it yet. Guns are not the problem. Today’s society is the problem.
@1:02 I don't have to be a gun expert to read the effective gun regulations and restrictions. And, it's quite clear they have worked .
Interesting how none of you mention universal background checks or demonstrated knowledge of gun safety and general use. But,you want everyone ID'd for voting by showing a driver's license or other ID that's on record. Automobile license plates identify you.
And,please...would some of you learn what an analogy is ? Comparing assault weapons to a commercial passenger plane airplane is ridiculous. But, even then access to that a plane that can be used as a weapon requires your driver's license or passport and you can't bring your gun on board. You can be banned for life for assault on a plane and enforcing that is based on required identification.
I agree current mental health laws must be addressed. The current law (bar of "being a danger to themselves or others") makes prevention impossible and the mentally ill don't believe they are or cooperate in treatment. And, there's that we have closed or reduced occupancy for State run mental health hospitals and won't admit some mental illnesses are treatable with drugs only when the person can take them without supervision to be sure they do.We need residental treatment.
The solutions to deal with the mentally ill effectively would take more decades than it did to break a system that was working fairly well if imperfectly.
Try to use you brain before commenting. These attempts at political red herrings are beyond obvious. You are attempting to get the ignorant on your side...not solve a real problem.
2:25 The U.S. was simply born of a gun culture. But nobody's perfect. Other countries have their ancient customs which they struggle to overcome. We have a national phobia built over generations which says that we are not safe unless we have our guns individually. It's beyond just need, it's a love or an addiction. The second amendment, otherwise useless in a modern world, bolsters that insecurity. Fortunately most other modern nations did not get saddled with this problem but they certainly have plenty of other problems. If we survive, the addiction will wear off in time. But it will take time and a lot of hard lessons ...
What has happened to this board??? You have some clown wanting to screw gun nuts and another one running around measuring penises. Am on the right board???
If the NRA's gun money is so powerful and effective, why don't those desirous of change form the NGA, National Gungrabbers Association, and give even MORE money to bring politicians over to their way of thi king?
"Our country has moved on. We have an overwhelmingly strong military now and no longer have to rely on militias for defense."
Speak for yourself. A country full of armed citizens willing to defend it can never be conquered. Could the adversary bomb most of the country to oblivion? Sure. But, how would that adversary ever control the the land that is the United States when tens of millions of the current population is armed. There isn't a military in the world that could sustain fighting against that many normal citizens constantly battling back.
"Um, when I was in school in the 90's, the AR15 was pretty expensive compared to what it is now. Until the pandemic, you could buy a Smith and Wesson Sporter for $500."
Colt starting selling the civilian AR in 1963-64 and they were under $200. In the early 1980s, they were still under $200 new, and a used one might bring $100 or so if you could luck out and find one of the rare few who wanted one. I know this because I wound up with one, basically new in the box, along with a surplus mil .22 kit with several magazines, a shoebox of .223 magazines, a factory 4x scope, and around 200 rounds of ammo for $100. A friend had it for sale at that price for several months with no interest, including from dealers and at gun shows. As I recall, he didn't even get an offer. He and his wife were expecting their first child so I finally bought it but didn't really want it. I offered it as a partial trade, for the $100 I had in it, on a couple of trap/skeet guns and a hunting rifle with no interest whatsoever. Same was true of the FALs, HKs, SKSs and AKs - you could buy the SKS and a crate of ammo for under $200 from a dealer - around $60-70 each. Ranchers bought the SKSs and ammo, but not the others, to use as truck-and-tractor guns without caring about them getting beat up and rusty.
Funny how our government will put a rifle, and even more exotic weaponry, in the hands of 18 year old individuals.
WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!
No matter the talking points, anyone who is a business does an AFT background check at the point of sale, gun shows included. I don't know how you propose private party sales to include a background check. I'm not giving some dude that I am buying a deer rifle/shotgun/AR15 my social and dl#. That would be ripe for fraud. Many of you spouting off ideas have never bought or owned a firearm in your life and it shows. My name has been ran by the ATF so many times to where the background check is just procedure.
Our way is the only way. Proof positive they only care about taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens:
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) sought to preempt Republican arguments against new firearm legislation on Thursday, countering claims that video games or a lack of mental health care are driving the gun violence epidemic in the U.S.
Nadler’s comments came as his panel marked up a package of gun bills in the wake of two mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas, that killed a combined 31 people — including 10 Black Americans and 19 elementary school students.
Following the massacres, a number of GOP lawmakers have sought to deflect from gun control legislation by claiming that violent entertainment, mental health and other factors led to the recent spate of shootings.
At the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting last week, which occurred just days after the Uvalde elementary school shooting, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “tragedies like the events of this week are a mirror forcing us to ask hard questions” and look at “desensitizing the act of murder in video games, chronic isolation, prescription drug and opioid abuse,” among other elements.
Nadler on Thursday sought to refute those ideas.
“Allow me to rebut some of my Republican colleagues’ arguments in advance,” he said.
“Nobody seriously believes that Hollywood or video games are to blame for the epidemic of gun violence in America. Our children watch the same movies and play the same games as children in Canada and England and Japan. But only in the United States do we ask the parents of elementary school children to stand in line so we can match their DNA to the remains of their children, because only the United States is awash in 400 million guns,” he added.
and what would $200 in the 60's be today? Over $2,000. There wasn't an internet back when I was in school to check gun prices but there was the Shotgun News. I remember in the early 90's the prices for the Colt's being over a grand.
You could get the Chinese SKS's for around $100. Of course they were cheap stamped barrels that got hot as hell rather quickly but they were accurate and easy on the recoil. I think the better made Russian ones were like $200 or $250 at the time, being forged. The Norinco AK's were around $200 or a little more. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"Correct me if I'm wrong."
Well, you didn't read carefully. The AR anecdote was in the early 1980s. It was simply noted that Colt began selling them in the 60s (and until 1968, you could mail-order them or any other gun, including large-caliber - 20mm - anti-tank rifles and ammo). I suspect the reason the new/MSRP didn't rise for about 20 years is because there was little demand so a price increase would have not been smart, plus the cost to Colt, who still had the mil contract, didn't rise much over that time. As to the SKS prices in the early 80s, all could be had for under $100. And yes, the prices, along with the demand, did skyrocket in the mid 80s, but that was the point of the original reply: the "banning" drove demand when there was little prior demand - people don't want it until they are told they cannot have it.
A substance abuse problem is a disqualifier for purchasing guns.
Some of you are asking questions that are clearly answered in the column. Try reading it.
I love reading these selfish, arrogant, anonymous comments from these "4 year old" gun nuts. You guys all in the militia and saving our snowflake asses? Selfish, belligerent children.
I'm glad to see the SKS mentioned.
For a mass produced rifle in the Communist world, it was not a bad product.
Not as glamorous as the AK-47, but very effective when hunting deer.
After the Soviet Union collapsed during the early 90's, one could buy
a SKS for "next to nothing".
I could have bought two for less than $300.00.
Moreover, I still kick myself for not buying those two SKS's back then ...
(These were not Russian or Chinese made) but manufactured in Romania or the former Yugoslavia. While not up to Western standards, many of the old SKS models remain a good hunting rifle for the price.
Naturally Attorney Reynolds must be in favor of taking away the gun rights of medical maryjane patients. Since it is already against the law.
Why not begin institutionalizing these sick kids/people. The truth is that many 17-18 year olds possess M16’s and defend his rights. They too cannot buy alcohol but somehow they never impulsively shoot other people. Why is that? Could it be that the military has a qualification process where you can’t be a deranged moron?
They can't Kingfish. Once they get triggered by tough words like "red flags", "assault weapons", and "gun restrictions", their ability to reason (if they ever had it) is blown and a base, feral instinct kicks in. Reading comprehension be damned!
In other news. WLBT has homicides at "60*". I don't know what the asterisk means.
Projection for 2022:
Day # of Year: 156
# homicides: 60
60 / 156 = 0.39215
0.39215 * 365 = 143
Despite the estimate, we're ahead of 2021 as in 2021 the 60th was committed on June 6th. Looks like this is shaping up to be a bloody summer.
Leftist Democrats create the vast majority of violence and murder in our country, then want to helicopter in and save us with new laws, designed to weaponize their government against those that they disagree with (us). They prove this over and over by refusing to enforce existing laws, as referenced in KF’s 2:39PM post.
Leftist Democrat hypocrisy has no boundaries. As lawyer Reynolds states “18 to 21-years-old allow the brain to further develop,” but his leftist Democrat party wants the voting age lowered to 16. Why? Because leftist Democrats need the voters with undeveloped brains to win.
Regarding PROTECTING (ALL) INNOCENT CHILDREN, there were basically 2 groups of people that supported the anti-police Black Lives Matter scam that resulted in Murders with a Gun SOARING by 35% in the US in 2020, the highest level in 25 years, as calls to defund the police swept the nation, a new CDC report revealed (per DailyMail.com 5/10/22). The 2 groups were:
1.) those with only the tiny bit of common sense required to know that violent crime, including homicide rates would sky rocket, but didn’t care about the people, mostly poor, including innocent African American children that would be killed with stray bullets. These leftist Democrat BLM supporters just wanted to win an election via their divide and conquer strategy so they could keep control, increase their wealth, further their careers, etc.
2.) The 2nd type of supporter was stupid enough to believe that being anti-police would make things better, and included the indoctrinated and voters with undeveloped brains.
We’ve got $40 Billion of aid in one pop to send to Ukraine alone. We can print from thin air trillions of dollars to help create a new billionaire every 30 hours since Covid-19 hit us in March of 2020, while piling inflation on to the working class and poor.
We have secured the airports since 911 so much so that it is much safer to be in any airport in the USA than in the inner cities controlled by leftist Democrats, like Jackson, MS.
So, if anybody ever tells you that we do not have the ability, or cannot afford to secure every single one of America’s schools from deranged teenager’s or anybody else, they are likely either a liar, or in the undeveloped brain category.
If they are the former, you will know that they really don’t want the schools secured, just like they don’t want the inner cities controlled by leftist Democrats, to be safe for innocent children.
In the cities they gain control of, leftist Democrats purposely create a high crime catch and release environment in order to get the voter flight required in order to retain control of said city for decade after decade after decade. The absolute truth is that exponentially more carnage occurs in leftist Democrat controlled cities, than their Republican controlled suburb neighbors.
On the exact same day as the Texas school shooting, 4 African American teens were gunned down within a 15 hour span at 2 locations in South Carolina (per DailyMail.com 5/24/22). But this, like God only knows how much additional carnage occurred in leftist Democrat controlled cities (many with strict gun control laws) since 5/24, was barely reported.
Having said all of this, if lawyer Reynolds wants to get serious about saving the lives of innocent children, I’m personally all in, and very open to raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21, as long as he’s willing to raise the voting age to 21, make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to be on any type of social media, or to be perverted by teacher’s hell bent on talking to little children about sex (any kind) that could lead to mental illness.
Otherwise, lawyer Reynolds likely has an advert disguised as an article and is not really serious about saving the lives of (ALL) innocent children, including those forced to live in leftist Democrat controlled high crime inner cities.
"A substance abuse problem is a disqualifier for purchasing guns."
Handguns, yes, but only if you answer 'yes' to the question. Nowhere, available to the background check procedure, is there proof that your answer, NO, is truthful.
The same is true for the woman purchasing a gun for the man standing beside her telling her which one to buy...when she checks NO to the question, "Are you purchasing this gun for someone else?" Of course she will check NO since he has a disqualifying criminal background or other fatal, red flag.
Calls for raising the purchasing age is to be expected after we began infantalizing men and women who were over 18 and under 21 decades ago. It started with the drinking age. Who could be against that? Raise that drinking age. Well, the states eventually complied with that requirement by the feds. Then the states who had age of majority at age 18 started raising them to 21. Why not? Drinking age was 21 now. They adults were now presumed to be kids. Of course, no one managed to figure out the rise of binge drinking among young people coincided with the rise of the drinking age. Of course, had to raise the driving age too. Can't have kids working at age 15. That would be a labor violation. Each step stunted the development of our youth. We've kept on doing it to where we are now creating generations of 18-19 year children, not adults.
Of course, 80 years ago when our grandparents were f'ing 18 and 19, they were getting married, they were fighting wars, learning to fly planes and drive tanks, supporting whole families, working 2-3 jobs if need be, and doing the adult thing when their brains were supposedly developing. Their brains developed all right, through experience as well as trial and error, something Reynolds ignores.
"The Second Amendment is outdated."
OK, let's ponder such a notion. I think most would have no problem with declaring the 3rd Amendment as not only outdated, but unnecessary:
"Shirley, we are sure sorry but we screwed up and lost the lease on Fort Benning. We have 100,000 troops who need a place to live so we are going to use your condo. Would happen to have an extra 40,000 bath towels we could borrow until ours get here? Oh, and would you mind if we move the sofa - we need a place to store a few tanks..."
OK, so there's an Amendment I think we can all agree probably no longer needs to be there to stop the government from attempting to take such liberties with Shirley's brand new couch. I'll assume she didn't have the 40,000 towels so they didn't need protecting from over-reach. But as useless and unnecessary as it may seem (and actually be), the way to repeal it is the same as any other amendment - it explains how to do it right there in Article V. So, what you and anyone else who thinks this or that needs amending or repealing needs to do is to read Article V and get after it.
It's a lot like the speed limit out on the highway. Think it ought to 79 or 28 or whatever it currently isn't? Get busy trying to drum up support for your way of thinking to bring about change. Don't expect whichever law-making body established it to send you a text or FB message you asking your opinion so they can hop-to and change it to what you want. There is a process, deliberately difficult yet deliberately achievable. See where this is headed? No? Let me explain: the US Constitution - it will work for you if you will work with it. But until you do get after it and get the change you want made, Shirley's couch and the people's right to keep and bear arms - with reasonable restrictions as determined by the SCOTUS (also in the Constitution) - remain safely free from "infringement" (and 100,000 homeless troops).
He lost me @ "Finally, we should ban all assault rifles" and I did not read another word
Uncle Sam to 18 year-old: You’re immature to buy a gun so you can’t buy one.
Uncle Sam to same 18 year-old: Here’s a gun, will you protect me?
There’s your slippery slope. Gun control isn’t happening. Uncle Sam from both sides needs to prey on kids too young to understand the decisions they make.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/02/school-shootings-show-our-leaders-not-americans-are-the-moral-failures/
Some excerpts:
We’ve learned that a door was propped open or left unlocked at Robb Elementary School (the story keeps changing on what exactly happened), allowing the shooter to enter the building.
We’ve also discovered the Uvalde police — despite well-established doctrine that a mass shooter must be confronted immediately by whoever is at hand — hung back for nearly an hour while children were murdered inside. We’ve seen chilling timelines showing repeated cellphone calls from students trapped inside, wondering why no one was coming to help.
And we’ve seen video of the police not simply failing to protect the children but blocking (and even arresting) parents who tried to get past them to help their kids. When a tactical response team from a nearby US Border Patrol unit showed up, the police even stopped it from going to the rescue right away.
These children didn’t die because there’s some sort of dark moral stain on the American soul. They died because the people in charge of protecting them were cowards and frauds, and now those cowards and frauds are trying to avoid responsibility.
We saw the same thing with the Parkland school shooting in Broward County, Fla., where once again a dangerous student was repeatedly let off the hook by fashionably lax disciplinary policies until he committed mass murder. Then, when he did, the police were cowards who hid outside.
Forget the thin blue line — in Uvalde, as in Broward, it was a thin yellow line.
Yet there too, we were told that the real problem was a moral failing on the part of the hundreds of millions of Americans who were not involved, rather than on the part of the shooter and those who enabled him.
Columnist Kurt Schlichter writes, “The new normal is failure.” “The clusterfark in Uvalde is just a symptom of a much bigger pathology. It is a symbol of the failure of every institution in our society,” he says. “And the solution is never to revamp the institutions and eject the parasites heading them. It’s always — always — to take power from us and give it to the people who screwed up in the first place.”
Why does Mississippi have to learn or accept anything? The only school mass shooting we have is Pearl High School and that was over 20 years ago!
Apparently the nation needs to be asking Mississippi exactly what we did right!
Obviously, it was the armed faculty member! And the fact that it is Mississippi, makes anyone considering such an act rethink that some coach or other faculty or administration will conceal carry and stop their rampage!
Latest is that another Money Grubbing Attorney is suing the gun maker for fun and profit on behalf of the teacher who propped a door open.
Oh, yeah, it's all about the kids alright. Yeah.
Brandon made sure to plug the money grab to sue gun makers in his slurred speech last night.
Reynolds sues companies, too. For wealth.
I'm sure that 18 year old Bradley/Chelsea Manning, US Army, was the right kind of person to be issued an AR15 and given a Top Secret clearance, but not an 18 year old Texas hunter.
And I'm sure that Reynolds only has the interest of the 50,000,000 school kids and 100,000,000 gun owners who are law abiding and safe at heart.
Yeah.
I did not read all 93 comments (so far) on this post, but this is what I think. I am a gun nerd, I love going to the range, getting new pieces, learning about them, the whole 9 yards. I do not carry, but I am not opposed to it. My love for guns started when I was about 4 years old, in the early 80s when I got a shotgun for Christmas, I inexplicably just fell in love with these things.
Back then, the "gun culture" was different. People openly had rifles in the rear window of their pickups and they were MUCH easier to get, While access was easier, there wasn't this mystique and almost "hysteria" behind them that you see today. They were just there, no one really cared, and I personally believe all of these nuts you see shooting places up are given a social media platform that didn't use to be there. That platform has given rise to these behaviors by giving these people a voice!
After all of these years and owning all of these guns, I now have a 7 year old son whose safety I have to consider. There are so many dimensions to this, there is easy access to a widely available social media platform for these idiots to utilize. On top of that, you throw being able to go get a half dozen 30 round magazines for 10 dollars each, and an AR with a mag release adjacent to your index finger, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I dont know what the answer is but we damn sure gotta do something.
Never forget that the armed teacher who stopped Luke Woodham was terminated for having a firearm in his truck.
This discussion is interesting, but ultimately a waste of time. There are too many Republican Senators in the back pocket of the gun lobby to get meaningful reform.
@12:26 PM
There are too many Republican Senators in the back pocket of the gun lobby to get meaningful reform.
Absolute nonsense. The so called gun lobby is tiny. NRA only donates like $5 million bucks a year. You know what isn’t tiny? The amount of NICS background checks completed per day since the Antifa/BLM riots. Millions of Americans want guns to protect their property and families. Senators can see those numbers and rightfully deduce that Americans want their guns. Democrats know it too. Thats why they talk a big game to appeal to their radical base. Despite the media pleas for more gun control, the numbers don’t lie. AR15 and high capacity magazine sales are skyrocketing again! Just go to any gunshop and see for yourself. There is a line right now!
I agree with 12:26.
Its a waste of time to try to make any woke Lib understand that the Dems in charge are not interested in actually discussing valid ways of making schools safer.
They are just emotionally demanding more power, knowing it will do little to stop these events.
Bet $40B could have bought some locks and security for many American schools.
Why did you monsters allocate that to war, when our children need protection?
National Instant Check System (NICS) totals for 2021
(This is the current FBI/ATF background check system made into law with the Brady Bill)
Illinois 8,474,505
Kentucky 3,848,061
Texas 1,980,753
Indiana 1,815,531
Florida 1,711,685
California 1,476,073
Pennsylvania 1,408,165
Utah 1,181,564
Michigan 970,990
Tennessee 964,512
Alabama 946,271
Minnesota 945,299
Ohio 851,887
Georgia 806,912
Wisconsin 785,856
North Carolina 781,733
Washington 736,846
Virginia 655,339
Missouri 634,191
Colorado 628,811
Arizona 563,763
South Carolina 485,487
New York 464,575
Oregon 454,133
Oklahoma 416,514
Louisiana 401,345
Mississippi 323,319
Arkansas 288,706
Connecticut 277,250
Idaho 273,762
Maryland 267,753
Iowa 266,678
Massachusetts 259,248
Kansas 230,168
West Virginia 224,240
New Jersey 223,437
New Mexico 194,989
Nevada 186,578
Montana 160,640
New Hampshire 151,853
Maine 129,193
South Dakota 106,881
Alaska 91,207
Nebraska 90,676
Wyoming 84,624
North Dakota 80,546
Delaware 69,068
Vermont 51,549
Rhode Island 37,936
Hawaii 17,707
District of Columbia 12,910
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/249687/number-of-background-checks-done-by-the-nics-in-the-us-by-state/
Something is "off" with those numbers, at least for Illinois and Kentucky, if they are purported to show the number of gun buyers or owners. Illinois has a total population of around 12.5 million, so even back-of-the-envelope math says it is very unlikely, to the point of reasonable certainty, that 8.5 million people bought guns in a single year. Assume a rough-numbers 20% were minors (actually a bit less than the general US pop rate), that leaves 10 million people. Even if the math ignores felons, the physically or mentally infirm, incarcerated, etc., 85% of the adult population simply did not go to a FFL, fill out a 4473, and have a NICS check. Kentucky is even more "off," with only about 4.5 million people, so roughly 3.6 million adults. My guess is that a substantially smaller percentage of the population is buying multiple guns from dealers and so the number of checks includes the same person being checked multiple times. The main point being is that one cannot determine the number of gun buyers or owners simply by the numbers of NICS checks.
I agree with @3:58 - and Texas has a population north of 29 million and only had less than 2 million NICS when Illinois had 8 mil - don't think so, tonto.
Kingfish, you hit the nail on the head about 18 to 20 year olds not being adults now. Once upon a time teenagers even you get were sometimes marrying and expected to be responsible.
Someone mentioned Woodham shooting up Pearl with a 30-30. The Uvalde situation did not require even a semi auto or even a firearm. A mass murderer could easily kill a locked room full of children with a break action shotgun, or an old tube loading 22 rifle, a machete, a knife, or any kind of club like a crowbar. People get hung up on the scary “assault weapons”. Remember all the knife attacks in Japan not long ago.
The teachers and other folks who think teachers shouldn’t carry guns have a somewhat legitimate point - I suspect many teachers aren’t morally fit to do so. However the ones who are should certainly be authorized to do so.
I looked at a list of politicians who had received the most campaign donations from the gun lobby and was sad to see that I had voted for a few of them. I had a good reason at the time to vote for a Mississippi legislator who has extremely poor judgement and seems like she is as dumb as a post. That reason was because her opponent was a Democrat and Democrats had not done a da*n thing but try to overthrow the 2016 election via impeachment of the duly-elected President. Their crazy obsession with Donald Trump was and is disastrous for the country. However, from now on I am voting straight Democrat for all offices whether that Democrat is Bernie Sanders or one of The Squad, who I despise...because a handful of HOBBYISTS who see themselves as sportsmen and potential Rambos in a glorious future war - the AR 15 crowd - and the gun manufacturers are holding us all hostage. The ammosexuals have been lying to us for years. A REAL "responsible, law-abiding citizen" not to mention a mature ADULT man would, at a minimum, support raising the age to buy weapons to 21, and keeping such weapons out of the hands of disturbed people. I believe The Squad are anti-American but I will take my chances with legislators like them rather than to continue to live under the tyranny of a minority - i.e.gun lovers.
When biden has his crack head son arrested for breaking the law by lying on his background check, we can discuss ARs. It won't happen. Democrats won't enforce the laws on the books unless they think they voted for trump.
Post a Comment