Gun Control -

Ivan Shatov

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
kiwifarms.net
Honestly, we need more guns and people willing to use them.

This is proven by the fact lawmakers feel free to pass laws restricting our rights. The government is supposed to be there to guarantee rights, not take them away.

Gun control is a joke, there's like 3 guns for every American. Ban them in one state and someone awful comes along with some from another state. Ban them everywhere, people find other weapons.

I'd really like to see what the world looks like when everyone keeps a firearm in their home. I bet a lot of bullshit ends immediately.
 
Here a is link from reddit's liberal gun owners about Bloomberg as well as a UN group that actually advocates for gun control world wide: Who funds anti-gun politics?


The UN group is called IANSA. They advocate for gun control worldwide basically looking at their website and surprising their partners here in the United States of America are not the ones that Bloomberg funds.

Link: International Action Network on Small Arms
Archive: IANSA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has also was a gun buyback in my area this weekend, heard about it from the radio. All them hosts be happy doppy about you should have no need for the gun, keep bay area safe.

Article: Several gun buybacks in the Bay Area happening on Saturday
Archive: Several gun buybacks in the Bay Area happening on Saturday

Several gun buybacks are being held across the Bay Area on Saturday.

The buyback at United Playaz in San Francisco is from 8pm until noon at 1038 Howard St.

You can get $100 for a hand gun or $200 for a semi-automatic weapon, no questions asked.

Santa Clara County is holding a buyback at the Gilroy Corporation Yard at 613 Old Gilroy St. from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

In Vallejo, there is a buyback on the Solano County Fairgrounds at 900 Fairgrounds Dr. from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

In San Mateo County, there's a buyback at 1000 Skyway Road in San Carlos from 9:30 am until 2:30 pm.

Some pictures:







White guy is is a CA State Senator who stated that people have turned in a lot of assault weapons on his twitter post. His name is Scott Weiner and of course he looks like a you would expect a beta liberal gun grabber to look like.



Link to twitter post: Scott Weiner Assault Weapons
Archive Link: Scott Weiner Assault Weapons

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article: Gun Buy Back: Upcoming Date Set In San Mateo County
Archive: Gun Buy Back: Upcoming Date Set In San Mateo County

SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA — An anonymous San Mateo County "Gun Buy Back" event is set for Saturday, Dec. 14 that will allow residents to receive cash for unwanted or unsecured guns, with no questions asked.

The buyback will run from 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at 1000 Skyway Road in San Carlos, according to the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.

Those interested can receive $100 for handguns and rifles and $200 for assault rifles.

Also planned are distribution of free gun locks, a raffle and the appearance of the 102.9 KBLX crew.

For more information, call 650-363-4800.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the radio station that made me aware of it.

Article: Join 102.9 KBLX at the San Mateo County Anonymous Gun Buyback
Archive: Join 102.9 KBLX at the San Mateo County Anonymous Gun Buyback

Do your part to make San Mateo County an even safer place to live, work, and play by participating in our gun buyback event on Saturday, December 14th, 2019.

The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office along with Redwood City Police Department, Belmont Police Department and the Citizens for a San Mateo County Gun Buyback are hosting this event on Saturday December 14th, at 1000 Skyway Road in San Carlos from 9:30am to 2:30pm and we encourage anyone with any unwanted or unused firearms to exchange them anonymously for cash.

For info visit smcsheriff.com

You can make a difference to prevent future gun violence.

It would be a real shame for a person to game this sort of system, like you know purchase a bunch of old broke stuff at a gun show for next to nothing and then make some bank from these sort of gun buy back programs. (I have heard of people taking advantage of these systems in such a way.)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MrJokerRager

Particle Bored

I am made out of toothpicks and glue
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It would be a real shame for a person to game this sort of system, like you know purchase a bunch of old broke stuff at a gun show for next to nothing and then make some bank from these sort of gun buy back programs. (I have heard of people taking advantage of these systems in such a way.)
I read once of some dude that bought some 2x4s, strapped a bit of pipe to them, and collected $200 each when he turned in his "shotguns."

A less ghetto version is buying stripped lower receivers for ~$80 each and turning them in for the prize.
 
I read once of some dude that bought some 2x4s, strapped a bit of pipe to them, and collected $200 each when he turned in his "shotguns."

A less ghetto version is buying stripped lower receivers for ~$80 each and turning them in for the prize.
I've heard similar tales. People buying junk old sporting rifles and spent handguns. Similarly some people just building their own shitty AR's with pipe and bondo, a cheap mag and milled reciever and getting a bounty for turning in "assault weapons."

I say good on them. Use their own stupidity against them.
 

Terrorist

Osama bin Ladkin
kiwifarms.net
Based on how they've responded to literally every other liberal social agenda (gay marriage, feminism, multiculturalism, etc.) here's how the GOP will likely go on guns in the next 20 years:

1. Cuck out.
2. Spend all their institutional energy ruthlessly purging everyone who doesn't cuck out, instead of on preserving the 1A.
3. Create a bullshit narrative on Fox News that no, Dems R Real gun nuts, and conservatives were for gun control all along.

Hope I'm wrong, but the Gay Old Perverts have a really bad track record in the culture war.
 

MrJokerRager

I like me some nice big boobs
kiwifarms.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- In a state well-known for its competitive political races and heated debates, one issue that continues to be fiercely discussed in Florida is that of gun control and 2nd Amendment rights.

To some, like Carey Baker, the 2nd Amendment is something worth passionately defending.

"It applies just as much today as it did over 200 years ago," Baker said. "The right to bear and keep those firearms -- that should never change. It truly is based on an individual's right to self-defense. If you have the right to defend yourself, your family, your country, you should have the means to do it."

By Baker's own admission, he's a bit biased. He co-owns A.W. Peterson Gun Shop in Mount Dora, Fla., which has been in business since the 19th century.

But in the wake of tragedies such as the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where 17 people were killed, there are some in Florida seeking to regulate aspects of the 2nd amendment with the same vigor that Baker uses to defend it.

A growing number of cities in Florida are suing the state to challenge a 2011 amendment that inflicts steep penalties on local governments that choose to pass gun-regulating ordinances.

The amendment enforces Florida Statute 790.33, which was implemented in 1987 and states that the power to regulate firearms belongs solely to the state. Prior to 2011, the law was difficult to enforce.

Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.

— Fla. Stat. 790.33

But the 2011 amendment imposed steep consequences to anyone who, in a "knowing and willful" manner, broke the law, with penalties including a $5,000 fine or removal from office. While embraced by some cities, particularly conservative-leaning ones, other municipalities are fiercely fighting the law in the courts.

"What they did in 2011 was took this one step too far," said Nikki Fried, Commissioner of the Florida Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for approving concealed carry permits in the state.

Fried by no means considers herself to be "anti-gun" and admits herself to owning firearms. Yet, the commissioner has been outspokenly against the tough penalties the law imposes. About 30 municipalities, three counties and more than 70 elected officials have filed suit against the state challening the amendment. After assuming office in 2019, Fried has since joined them.

A circuit court judge declared the penalties were unconstitutional, but the state has appealed the ruling to Florida's First District Court of Appeal. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and Law Enforcement Commissioner Rick Swearingen are all listed as appellants in a 54-page brief submitted in December of 2019.

While the lawsuits challenge only the penalties imposed by the law, Fried believes local officials should have the ability to propose what she calls "common sense" gun-regulating ordinances. Since local officials, in her eyes, govern closer to the people they represent, she believes they are well-suited to make laws that benefit their constituents.

"Our local governments should have the power to see a problem that’s in their community…and act," said Fried. "And if that's the case, then they're doing their jobs."

That argument, however, does not sit well with Marion Hammer, the former president of the NRA and a current gun-rights lobbyist in Florida.

"Being close to people has no bearing on whether or not you can impose your personal political preferences on people," Hammer said.

Hammer, who said she's been defending the 2nd Amendment in Florida since 1974, claims decades ago the state had a medley of gun laws, many of which she considered to be unconstitutional. Following the introduction of Florida Statute 790.33, Hammer claims some cities submitted to the state's authority but others did not. She said the steep penalties implemented in 2011 put an end to "bad behavior."

"When you willfully and knowingly violate the law," she said, "we call those people criminals."

Plus, she said, uniform gun laws benefit everyone.

"In a mobile society, people have no way of knowing what ordinance they may violate when they're traveling or cross a city or county line," said Hammer. "It is critically important that in a state, you have uniformity of gun laws."

Hammer fears that if local governments put their own gun regulations on the books, a gun owner could, in theory, be a law-abiding citizen in one region, hop in his or her car and become a law-breaking citizen just down the road.

But local officials challenging the law said they should have the ability to enforce their own rules when it comes to public safety.

Daniel Stermer, the mayor of Weston, Fla., which is named principally in the lawsuit, said he's prepared to face the consequences if the amendment holds up in court.

"If the provisions stand, I'm prepared to have the governor remove me," he said. "I'm OK with that. I'm prepared to walk this through the judicial process."

Weston is less than 25 miles away from Parkland and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. He said the need to tighten the laws in South Florida is critical.

"Immediately after [the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School], it became an immediate groundswell from residents," claimed Stermer. "Asking us, 'am I safe in my schools, in my parks, in my government buildings?' And I had to give them an honest answer, that 'I can't give you a complete answer because we can't do anything about it.'"

Stermer views the issue as less about the 2nd Amendment and more about property rights, and his hope is that the courts will rule in their favor and allow him to regulate what goes on inside the public facilities he and the city of Weston oversee.

Raúl Valdés-Fauli, the mayor of Coral Gables, which borders Miami, said he should have the authority to ban the sale of "assault weapons" in his city.

"People should have guns, pistols, revolvers in their home for their protection if they feel it's necessary. But, assault weapons do not belong in a municipality," said Valdés-Fauli. "Assault weapons are for purposes of war powers."

Valdés-Fauli said the penalties added in 2011 are excessive.

"I think that's wrong, and for the legislature to usurp our powers of governing our local residents is wrong. Very wrong," said Valdés-Fauli. "I think it should be in the power of the municipal government, which governs closest to the people."
 

MrJokerRager

I like me some nice big boobs
kiwifarms.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



As strange as it may seem now, California’s state Senate was once a bastion of bipartisan — almost nonpartisan — comity.

Although Democrats were in the majority, they willingly shared power with Republicans. A bipartisan rules committee gently controlled the flow of legislation and committees were just as likely to have GOP chairmen (there were no women in the Senate until 1976) as Democrats.

The genteel nature of the house was bolstered by an unwritten rule that neither party would try to unseat an incumbent of the other party, confining partisan contests to vacant seats.

A feisty Republican senator from Southern California named Hubert L. Richardson ended that era. Richardson preferred to be called “Bill” and was widely known as “Wild Bill.” He championed rights for gun owners and tough anti-crime laws. And he decided to blow up the no-compete rule.

Richardson, an avid hunter, had been a senator for a decade when a legislative effort to curb handgun sales in the mid-1970s led him to found Gun Owners of California, the first of several political groups, and mount challenges to sitting Democratic senators.

A pioneer in direct mail fundraising and using technology in political campaigns, Richardson employed those skills to unseat three Democratic senators in three successive elections, beginning in 1976.

It so unnerved the Democrats that they ousted their long-time leader, Senate President Pro Tem James Mills, after their third loss in 1980, the defeat of Sacramento Sen. Al Rodda by a little-known Richardson aide, John Doolittle.

The Democrats elevated David Roberti to the top position on his pledge to protect Democratic incumbents from further challenges. Simultaneously, a year-long battle over the state Assembly’s speakership ended with the elevation of Willie Brown.

Those two events completely and radically changed the tenor of the Capitol, deemphasizing legislative accomplishment in favor of raising lots of money from special interest groups to fight partisan wars.

The Capitol’s pay-to-play, dog-eat-dog atmosphere continued for two decades, until Democrats achieved unquestioned dominance. It also sparked a federal corruption investigation that sent a number of legislators and other figures to prison.

After unseating those three senators, Richardson continued to push his causes, with notable success.

He helped elect Republican George Deukmejian as governor in 1982 by a very narrow margin, mobilizing gun owners to oppose an anti-gun ballot measure that was also on the 1982 ballot. He founded a national gun owners organization and, perhaps most importantly, spearheaded the successful 1986 campaign to stop the re-election of Rose Bird, the state Supreme Court chief justice, and two other liberal justices deemed to oppose the state’s death penalty.

Richardson’s take-no-prisoners approach to politics was framed in one of the several books he authored, “Confrontational Politics.” Another book, “What Makes You Think We Read the Bills?” was an insider look — from a very personal standpoint — at the foibles of the Legislature.

Richardson, who continued to live in the Sacramento area after leaving the Legislature in 1988, died last week at age 92. His death was announced by Gun Owners of California, now headed by his son-in-law, Sam Paredes.

Obviously, Wild Bill Richardson was a very controversial figure in his day. Obviously, too, he single-handedly changed the nature of the Capitol, pioneered political techniques that continue to be used and altered the course of California history by playing key roles in the election of Deukmejian as governor and the defeat of Chief Justice Bird.

Very few political figures past or present could claim to have had such impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Joshua Kaleb Watson was shot five times in Pensacola, Florida. He managed to escape the building where the shooter had gone on a rampage and, with his last breath, gave law enforcement the information they needed to bring the horror to an end.

Watson had come out of the Naval Academy and spent years learning how to defend himself with a firearm. But he was a sitting duck in Pensacola because of the military’s policy of disarming servicemen stationed in the U.S.

His family is asking why.

In the words of his brother Adam: “If we’re going to ask these young men and women to stand watch for our country, they need the opportunity to defend themselves. This isn’t the first time this happened and, if we don’t change something, it won’t be the last.”

“He lost his life because he wasn’t … able to defend himself,” echoed Joshua’s mother, Sheila.

This isn’t the first time the military’s policy of banning guns in the hands of servicemen in U.S. military installations has gone horribly awry.

In Fort Hood, Texas, 13 people died in 2009 at the hands of the erroneous notion that you can keep “bad guys” from possessing guns in situations like this.

And then there were 15 casualties at the same Army base in 2014.

A couple of days before Pensacola, violence erupted at a military installation at Pearl Harbor.

So what does USA TODAY’s Editorial Board propose? That you prohibit foreign nationals training with the U.S. military from acquiring guns? Exactly how’s that supposed to work?

Is the notion that military trainees will have no access to firearms?

Time after time, the news media respond to tragedies such as this with a single ineffective mantra: gun bans.

But here’s an idea: We train our servicemen to defend themselves against gunfire in Baghdad and Kabul. How about allowing them to do what we’ve trained them to do in Honolulu and Pensacola?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



As an incorporated provision of the United States Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land, applying to all U.S. jurisdictions and to the actions of federal, state, and local officials. The U.S. Supreme Court provides the final and authoritative interpretation of that provision, as well as other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. All of this is elementary civics.

But the State of California believes it knows better, requiring publisher McGraw-Hill to annotate a discussion of the Bill of Rights in a popular social studies textbook with the state’s own peculiar view of the Second Amendment’s meaning.

According to pictures from the California edition in the New York Times, the annotation states:

Right to Bear Arms This amendment is often debated. Originally it was intended to prevent the national government from repeating the actions of the British, who tried to take weapons away from the colonial militia, or armed forces of the citizens. This amendment seems to support the right of citizens to own firearms, but the Supreme Court has ruled it does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons.

The Times article goes on to state that the publisher “said it had created the additional wording on the Second Amendment and gun control for the California textbook.” The same language, however, does not appear in a national version of the same section, according to the Times report.

The point of the New York Times article is to suggest that different states emphasize different aspects of U.S. history in otherwise similar textbooks, depending on the prevailing political outlook among the state’s education officials.

Whatever might be said of that approach, the problem with California’s account of the Second Amendment isn’t just one of emphasis but of accuracy. California, which prides itself on being one of the most anti-gun states in the nation, simply gets it wrong, using language that falsely portrays the Second Amendment as a “debated” provision that has changed meaning over time and that only “seems” to protect an individual right.

Any “debate” about the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right have been authoritatively settled by the U.S. Supreme Court: The Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” independent of service in an organized militia. That fact was unambiguously articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

That decision, moreover, was based on the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified. In other words, not only was the Second Amendment an individual right as of 2008, it has always been an individual right. As the Supreme Court noted, “virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the Amendment as we do.” It is false to suggest, as the California textbook does, that it originally meant something different and then somehow changed meaning in 2008.

Regarding the prefatory militia clause, the Supreme Court took pains to explain the difference between the justification for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the scope and substance of that right.

“The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution,” the court wrote. What justified its codification was “the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms … .” But, the court noted, the prefatory militia clause announcing the reason for the right’s codification “does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.”

That scope, meanwhile, included using arms for “self-defense and hunting,” with self-defense being “the central component of the right itself,” according to the Supreme Court.

The California textbook also misconstrues what the term “militia” meant to the founding generation at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. It wasn’t just a discrete, organized military force, the court explained, but members of the population “physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” whether they were mustered in that capacity or not. Thus, the terms “militia” and “the people” are not at odds with each other in the Second Amendment. The people, with their own arms, are the basis of the militia. To protect the peoples’ private right to arms is therefore to protect the militia’s ability to muster with arms and to preserve its viability.

As for Congress’ ability to regulate the interstate sale of weapons, the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are part of the “longstanding” history and tradition of the Second Amendment, and are thus “presumptively lawful.” That does not mean, however, that every such law trumps the amendment’s protections, especially if there is no longstanding precedent for it.

In any event, the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case that pits the Second Amendment against the Commerce Clause, and it explicitly reserved that and other questions for later consideration. “Since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,” the court wrote. “There will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.”

California likes to emphasize how it sees things differently than the rest of the United States. That’s why common consumer products come with warnings that they include substances “known to the State of California” to pose various hazards, including cancer or birth defects. So numerous are these warnings that people at this point are most likely to ignore them as sensational and unreliable.

The state’s students would be wise to take the same approach to official state pronouncements about firearms and the Second Amendment.

California, as the saying goes, is entitled to its opinions. But it’s not entitled to its own facts.

And when it comes to the Second Amendment, the facts are different than the opinions expressed in the California-specific version of McGraw-Hill’s social studies textbook.

Activist Wilma Mankiller is quoted as saying, “Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future.”

Year after year California chips away at the Second Amendment with its ever-expanding gun control regime.

If this continues unabated, the right to keep and bear arms will effectively be nullified for future generations of Californians.

What’s worse – if California’s educational bureaucrats have their way – is that those generations will be too ignorant of their liberties to even understand what has been taken from them.

Our advice to these students is to exercise their First Amendment rights to learn and speak the truth, and as soon as they are able, exercise the right to vote in favor of those who respect their fundamental liberties, rather than those who try to write them out of history.
 

ur176

kiwifarms.net
As many wise kiwis have said before, all gun control laws violate the U.S. constitution. Gun control wasn't even a thing until the early 1900s and even before that guns weren't considered a "problem" for over a hundred years.

With that in mind, I believe that push-back against gun control is still on-topic.

The Virginia Crisis seems to have kicked the gun sanctuary movement into high gear. For instance, West Virginia has introduced a rather interesting pro 2A bill. Here's the big legal text to pay attention to.

§15-15-2. Definition.


For the purposes of this article, the term “law-abiding citizen” shall mean a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm and shall not be construed to include anyone who is not legally present in the United States or the State of West Virginia.
§15-15-3. Laws in derogation of constitutional protections are void.


(a) The following federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article III, Section 22 of the Constitution of West Virginia, within the borders of this state including, but not limited to:
(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
(b) All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, regardless if enacted before or after the provisions of this article, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article III, Section 22 of the Constitution of West Virginia, shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
By the looks of it, this bill would turn the entire state of West Virgnia into a gun sanctuary by nullifying most federal gun laws.

Reddit cucks are also upset about this.

Reddit cucks.PNG


The thing about HB 4168, is that it's a borderline copy-and-paste of another bill that I've been watching for a while now, but I have no clue if it will actually make it into law. I'm speaking of the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) that's going through Missouri.

https://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB588/2020

Similar to the WV Pro 2A bill, it would nullify most federal gun laws within the state. Assuming this and HB 4168 make it into state law, then Missouri and West Virginia would become the 5th and 6th gun sanctuary states in the country.

The bills appear to nullify Trump's bump stock ban, and the National Firearms Act.

The thing is however, it was introduced last year, and died in the chamber.

So, Missouri kiwis, what exactly is going on with this bill? People have been trying to to get this passed into law for almost a decade (there's a news story about the then democratic governor vetoing the bill back in 2013) now. Will it finally make it into law, or is it just gonna die and come back again in 2021?
 
Last edited:

Particle Bored

I am made out of toothpicks and glue
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Make the training free and I'll be way more open to making it a requirement for purchase (I make no guarantee though). I'd love to take courses, but youre talking $200-500 (plus cost of 300-500 rounds) for a one day course. In the meantime, lots of reading, youtube, more experienced friends and relatives, and some range time (ammo aint cheap) will have to suffice. (wish Vegas wasn't so far away, since FrontSight seems to give out free/discount course vouchers like candy)
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Vecr

Dr W

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.
kiwifarms.net
I've come up with a solution to this problem: make bulletproof vests part of every kind of uniform, and sell them on the civilian market. This should theoretically cause the lethality rate of shootings to drop while creating manufacturing and sales jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urist Steelthrone

Particle Bored

I am made out of toothpicks and glue
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
And in news absolutely no one expected:
Post Millenial article update said:
UPDATE: Joseph Sakran, speaking to the Baltimore Sun, has claimed that police advised him to delete the viral tweets which outlined the death threats he allegedly received at his home. The Post Millennial reached out to Fairfax County Police, the local law enforcement jurisdiction surrounding Fairfax Station—where Sakran’s home is located—and media relations officer Lieutenant Webb was able to confirm that Sakran did not file a police report, nor did the Fairfax Police advise him to delete the viral tweet.

“That’s just not something we do,” Webb said.

The Fairfax County PD is the jurisdiction which surrounds Fairfax station, where Sakran’s home is located, and where the death threat was allegedly discovered. This story continues to develop and information may change.

UPDATE: On January 27, Sakran appears to have deleted the tweet detailing the alleged death threat he received.
 

MrJokerRager

I like me some nice big boobs
kiwifarms.net


The police were called on a 6-year-old with Down Syndrome after she pointed finger guns at a teacher.

Margot Gaines’ mother says that in November her daughter was frustrated and gestured with finger guns at a teacher, saying “I shoot you.” The Tredyffrin-Easttown School District in Pennsylvania opened a disciplinary investigation and concluded no one was in harm’s way, but the district still contacted the police.

“My daughter got frustrated and pointed her finger at her teacher and said, ‘I shoot you,’” the Maggie Gaines, the mother, told CBS Philadelphia. “At that point, they went to the principal’s office and it was quickly assessed that she didn’t even really know what she was saying.”

“She really didn’t understand what she was saying, and having Down syndrome is one aspect, but I’m sure all 6-year-olds don’t really know what that means,” Gaines said.

When Margot was asked questions at school about the incident, it seemed clear to her mother that Margot didn’t know what her actions meant.

Gaines went public in January, also contacting Pennsylvania state Senator Andrew Dinniman, who said in a statement that he was “alarmed that a school seems to be acting as an extension of the police department in promulgating data and records on children as young as kindergarteners.”

The Tredyffrin-Easttown School District, which is just outside of Philadelphia, said in a statement, in part:

"When an individual parent concern related to our school safety practices was brought to the attention of the District two weeks ago, we agreed to review those practices in the School Board Policy Committee meeting . When developing the current practice, the District worked collaboratively with parents, law enforcement and private safety/mental health agencies and legal consultants to ensure our safety measures reflected considerable input from both our local community and experts in the field of school safety."

The Gaines family is appealing the decision to the school board to amend the school’s policy, which the mother says resulted in her daughter’s name being on record with the police. The board meeting is tonight.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------



By Elizabeth McGuigan

It seems every public health journal is obligated to publish one junk-science article on kids and guns per year. The latest is a “study” published in Pediatrics called “State Gun Laws and Pediatric Firearm-Related Mortality.” It is in the headlines, and it is a mess.

Through a series of deliberately terrible study design choices, the authors conclude that there are fewer children dying from firearm-related causes in states with more gun control laws.

The study falls into the same trap that we have seen so many times before. The authors choose to count as “children,” anyone from 0-21 years old. No one would be surprised to hear that the study finds most of the firearm deaths are due to assaults among 18-21-year-old male African Americans. As the authors state, “The majority of firearm-related deaths were assault related (61.6%) and occurred among males (87.3%) and 18- to 21-year-old individuals (68.7%).” So why lump toddlers in with adult assault victims? It’s simple. There’s fortunately not much of a story for the rest of children.

Missing Data

So the study design is misleading. Unfortunately, the data are terrible as well. Because the authors use data from the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), certain states are automatically excluded. In eight states, there were fewer than 10 firearms related deaths among children. The data for these states are not available, to ensure no one can identify specific individuals in such a small number of fatalities. However, this means that the study of gun laws vs. fatalities misses the exact states with the lowest number of fatalities. These states are: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

What do most of these states have in common? They do not have the kind of ineffective gun control laws that this study suggests help protect “children.” The authors essentially cherry-picked the states that support their pre-determined conclusion, and even then, only with methodological gymnastics and a careful glossing over of certain findings. These include the fact that there was no causation found between a law and a rate of mortality. There wasn’t even a statistically significant association between laws such as background checks for ammunition purchases or laws that require firearm identification.

In short, despite the best efforts of the authors, the poorly designed study didn’t even clearly conclude what the resulting headlines proclaim.

The Real Deal

The real story – unintentional firearms deaths are at record lows. Firearms are involved in just 1.2 percent of unintentional fatalities among children 14 years of age and under, and are among the least likely types of unintentional fatalities among children. In the last two decades (1995 – 2015), the number of unintentional firearm-related deaths involving children 14 years of age and under has decreased by 73.5 percent.

There’s no doubt that criminal activities involving young adults are a cause for concern in our communities. But in order to be effective, a solution must address the actual problems. And as we wrote earlier this week, criminals do not obey the law. They will not run a background check when they are illegally obtaining a firearm on the street. They will not register their illegal firearm with law enforcement. These policies will not stop crime. We need real solutions for safer communities.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syikeblade
Tags
None