Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

Originally posted by 44 AMP
What's their focus on? how easy the guns are to get...ignoring a truckload of facts, one of them being that we essentially didn't have mass shootings when there were NO gun control laws.

The St Valentines Day Massacre, is about the only one you'll find in the history books, and it was a gangland slaying 7 killed and there were no laws restricting machine guns at the time. Actual machine guns, NOT "semiautomatic assault rifles"....

That is a very valid point and brings to mind another, if not directly related, at least adjacent point: what the definition of a mass shooting is and how it's defined. If you said "mass shooting" to the average person what would spring immediately to mind is something along the lines of Uvalde, Parkland, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, or Columbine: a crazed gunman indiscriminately shooting large numbers of innocent people. However, by definition, a mass shooting is any incident in which four or more people are shot. The vast majority of mass shootings, which are included in the often bandied about statistics of "x number of mass shootings in y period of time" are shootings of relatively small groups of people by someone they were related to, closely acquainted with, or had dealings with. A gang-related shooting in which half a dozen drug traffickers are shot is technically a mass shooting, but that's not the perception that most people have. By definition, mass shootings are not all that uncommon in inner cities and other high-crime areas, but they don't have the media "shock value" for Suzie Q Soccer-Mom because, unless you're related, acquainted, or have dealings with violent criminals, you're at relatively low risk of being a victim of this sort of mass shooting. While the loss of life from these more common shootings is certainly a serious problem, it doesn't resonate like the "crazed gunman" type because it doesn't directly affect the life of the average middle-class suburban voter (or at least they don't perceive it to).

so, another part of the focus is on the background of the shooters, and there is another problem there. Not just juvenile records being sealed, but one of ..lets say, "scale".

They make points on how some of the killers had long histories of "disturbing" behavior, or making threats, and so on. About how many times the police got called, etc...

and while true, think about how the authorities responded. Did they lock up the people who later became mass killers? Did they do anything that legally prohibited them from later buying guns? Pretty much, no. They didn't. Why not???

There are a couple of reasons, the most usual is that the authorities did not deem such behavior to meet the standards for criminal action. The threats were not considered credible. Or sometimes, they got a pass simply because they were juveniles, and authorities were reluctant to "screw up their futures" over something they were not convinced was going to be a problem.
(and that, IS a problem both ways)

Right now, some are ranting about how the Uvalde killer made threats and no one heeded the "warning". Barely mentioning or leaving out the fact that when the kid made the threats he was 14.

Do we permanently change a 14 year old's future, legally closing off a host of options in life because he talks smack?? makes threats that aren't deemed credible? And if he does commit crimes YEARS LATER, is it reasonable to find fault with the people and decisions they made years earlier when there was no credible threat (in their opinion)?

Again, we have the issue of inconsistency on the part of how "disturbing behavior" by juveniles is handled. On the one hand, you have a reluctance to do anything because "he's only 14" and "I don't want to screw up his life" but on the other hand we've all heard stories of gross over-reactions to relatively minor things due to "zero-tolerance" policies. It is at the very least eyebrow raising that a 14-year-old making threats of violence is swept under the rug when we live in a day and age where kindergarteners have the police called on them for pointing a finder and saying "bang, bang" or chewing a pop-tart into the vague shape of a pistol. Perhaps, rather than clutching pearls over a five-year-old's breakfast, we should focus on actual threats of violence by teenagers. There are, after all, options somewhere between ignoring disturbing behavior and ruining a juvenile's life. Perhaps, if the threats of the 14 year old had been taken seriously and he'd received some mental health treatment at 14, he might have been able to work through whatever mental/emotional issues he had and wouldn't have wanted to shoot up an Elementary school when he was 18. Mental health, however, is a far more complex and nuanced issue than gun control and it doesn't fit on bumper stickers, increase television ratings, or drive a political agenda nearly as well.

Some folks want it both ways. They don't want potentially dangerous children to be prosecuted, or even put on "a list" because that could harm their futures, but at the same time, they want "potentially dangerous" children red flagged, and on lists to prevent them from buying a gun after they reach legal adulthood.

And in both cases, we're talking about kids saying things that disturbed some people, NOT things that violated existing laws.

This double standard is yet another one of the problems.

I agree and I think a lot of this has to do with a very black-and-white mentality about mental health. On the one hand, you have the old way of thinking in which anyone with a mental illness should be locked away and institutionalized. This school of thought stigmatizes mental health care and discourages people from seeking the help that they need. On the other hand, you have a school of thought that is so concerned about stigmatizing mental health issues that they are reluctant to even acknowledge a problem when it exists. This is equally as dangerous because it quickly devolves into denial that there is even a problem, dangerous or not, in the first place. Yes, the majority of people with mental/emotional health issues are pretty much harmless, but even harmless mental illnesses can fester into dangerous ones if left untreated. If we want to get to the root of mass shootings, perhaps acknowledging and addressing the fact that mental/emotional disorders of all types, including suicide and self-harm are increasing. The issue, as I see it, isn't "mass shootings" or "gun violence" but rather mass murder and violence of any sort. I think it would be much more productive to examine why an 18-year-old wants to kill a bunch of small children than wringing our hands about the manner in which he chose to do it.
 
There are a lot of factors, many overlapping, at work here, and only one of them is "easy access" to the gun.

Bear in mind, per-capita gun ownership in Canada is almost as high as the US. Yet Canada has had only two school shootings in the last five decades. Mass shootings are rare. The idea that the availability of guns is the problem is just broken.

This is a "whole of society" problem, and it's going to take a "whole of society" approach to fix it. Problem is, we don't like that. We're conditioned to respond to pithy slogans and emotional appeals.

It's just easier to yell "ban the guns" than it is to suggest nuanced, considered solutions. And as long as we let them get away with that, we'll never make headway on the problem.
 
Bear in mind, per-capita gun ownership in Canada is almost as high as the US.

I don't know validity of Wiki numbers, but they show us at nearly 4x the number of guns per capita than Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

It seems to be an oft repeated set of numbers.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

This listing has it closer to 3x...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-with-the-most-guns-1.3392204
 
Some points for consideration and comments...

Right now, everyone's "blood is up" and because they feel sure of enough support while people are upset, the gun banners are pushing hard, but, they are also taking a huge risk.

REMEMBER the last time assault weapons were banned? The 1994 AWB law was passed the summer before mid term elections. They got their law, and that November the Democrats lost control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. They may have the "political momentum" (as they see it) TODAY, and so will very likely pass SOMETHING. They did before. I wonder what the cost to their political power will be, this time....

Next point, media and mass shootings, the media definition of a mass shooting has been revised multiple times, and today the standard is 4 or more people shot. Not killed, 4 injured when shots are fired now qualifies as enough for them to call it a mass shooting.
And, thanks to modern technology, every mass shooting is now national/international news repeated 24/7 only fading from the news when a new fresher murder spree happens, or if the killer is someone who does not further the anti-gun people's pet profiles.

last point (for now :D) is "mental illness".

What is mental illness?? Its a hugely vague blanket that covers a huge range of things, and gets defined and redefined by the people writing medical texts. I'm old enough to remember when homosexuality was listed in the standard medical texts as a mental illness. That's unthinkable today...

Most people automatically equate mental illness with irrational thoughts and actions and reduced capacity to function in society. And many mentall ill people do fit that definition. But, people also apply the tag "mentally ill" to people who are nothing more than not meeting someone's preconceived notions of "normal" behavior.

OF course, mass killers MUST be mentally ill, what they do proves it! Doesn't it? But are they? or are they people who do not have any empathy or respect for the rights and lives of other people? is that a mental illness? (it is if you define it as such) or is something else that isn't the usual thing we think of when you say "mentally ill"?

The killers are capable of planning and carrying out complex tasks to commit mass murder. and literally, all we can ever know about why they do it comes from what, if anything they tell us.

The problem with that is, people lie.

Reportedly, one of the Columbine killers had a web site full of "peace, love, bortherhood, and why can't we all just get along". And then he went out and committed mass murder.

There was a case in CA a while back, some guy said/did some things that got him reported to the police, who sent some people to check on him. They found him calm, rational, and sane, determined he was not a threat and left.
The next day that guy stabbed some people, shot some people and ran over some with his car. His given reason, he was upset because he couldn't get a girlfriend....:rolleyes:

My point here is, that the mind of man is "as trackless as a bog at midnight", and NO ONE but the individual knows what they are thinking or going to do, no matter what they say.

Its all dependent on what the evaluator's opinion is, based not on fact, but on what he sees and hears. The Virgina Tech killer was seeing mental health professionals, and while they classed him as distrubed and in need of help, they didn't rate him as a threat. 32 dead, 17 wounded because he was "not a credible threat" in someone's opinion...

Just one example among many ..too many...
 
Another thing to consider, the buzzwords and terms being thrown around...

Just what IS an "extended" or "enhanced" background check???

NO one seems to know.

I have spoken to several people including security investigators, and their answer is, there is no such thing. It does not exist.

There is no "deeper" background check possible than checking existing records, until you get to the level of doing a background check for security clearances, and those involve investigators, going into the field, interviewing people, face to face about their knowledge of, and interactions with the person being investigated. Friends, neighbors, relatives, even the ex-wife all get interviewed. (one investigator did tell me that information from ex-spouses is not taken at face value without independent, unbiased confirmation)

This process takes WEEKS, or longer, even months sometimes, and costs many thousands of dollars. And, it is not infallible, either.....

SO, when they tell us that we will all be safer if they pass a law requiring enhanced background checks, what they are really saying is we will be safer if they pass a law requiring something that does not exist....
Catch-22, anyone??

I feel safer now, don't you? :rolleyes:
 
Tom, there is also the issue in Canada about being able to get a gun: From Wikipedia:

"Firearms in Canada are federally regulated as outlined in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977. Regulation is largely about licensing and registration of firearms, including air guns with a muzzle velocity of more than 500 ft/s or 150 m/s and muzzle energy greater than 4.2 ft⋅lb or 5.7 J.[1]

Handgun registration became law in 1934, and automatic firearms registration was added in 1951. In 1969, laws classified firearms as "non-restricted," "restricted," and "prohibited." Starting in 1979, people who wished to acquire firearms were required to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) from their local police agency. From 1995 to 2012, all firearms owners were required to possess a firearms licence—either a possession and acquisition licence (PAL), a possession-only licence (POL), an FAC, or a minor's licence—and all firearms were required to be registered. In April 2012, the Parliament of Canada enacted the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to eliminate the requirement to register non-restricted firearms. The requirement for all firearms owners to possess a valid firearms licence remained law.[2]"

The significance of this, in my mind, is that even though licensing and registration are required in Canada, it obviously has not had an effect on gun violence and/or crime, otherwise, there would be no reason for Trudeau to impose yet more restrictions on gun ownership. Unless, of course, the real target is the total abolition of any gun ownership, which as we know, would only leave the criminals with guns. At that point, they will change the target to abolition of the criminals. All of which suggests to me that we should start at that point here in the USA: permanent removal of all people involved in gun-related criminal activity. Change the focus from the tool to the user.
 
Re: Biden’s call for removal of the 9mm caliber, perhaps he should be reminded it is also a “weapon of war” which may provide him with increased emphasis for his agenda.

But he should also heed the history of the caliber: the 9mm Luger or “Parabellum.”

The name Parabellum is derived from the Latin motto of Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken (DWM), Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you want peace, prepare for war").

Does he want peace?
 
I'm sorry for the duplicate posts, it is clearly explained by the arrival of a senior moment and I unsuccessfully tried to remove the duplicates using the "edit" feature.

[Duplicate posts removed. -- Moderator]
 
There is no "deeper" background check possible than checking existing records, until you get to the level of doing a background check for security clearances,.......... This process takes WEEKS, or longer, even months sometimes, and costs many thousands of dollars. And, it is not infallible, either.....

We are counting by years these days which means most commanders who have a requirement for people with security clearances are "assuming the risk" of granting interim clearances until the background check is adjudicated (mine took just shy of two years). So if this is the standard that the government is okay with, it means someone somewhere is going to have to assume the risk of people purchasing a firearm on an interim check OR they get to wait over a year for the investigation to be completed.
 
I guess more will die in mass shootings before there is change. Even people that have guns aka the cops in Uvalde don't have the balls to defend their own.

Here's some Daniel Defense advertising. Keep putting your guns before people's lives... An ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN is needed! I say this as a gun owner and a conservative and not one of the ones that lies and twists crap aka a lot of the right these days. Some people do care about others lives and public safety over their guns.



f0164b12a4efa2eff89e7726549f500e.jpg
 
Big Eight said:
Here's some Daniel Defense advertising. Keep putting your guns before people's lives... An ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN is needed! I say this as a gun owner and a conservative and not one of the ones that lies and twists crap aka a lot of the right these days. Some people do care about others lives and public safety over their guns.

Okay. For starters, what's you definition of "assault weapon"? If you want to ban them, you have to be able to describe them accurately. Several states surrently have "assault weapon" bans in effect, and most of their definitions don't agree.

What's your definition?
 
A coherent definition of an "assault rifle" requires Congressional intra-cooperation. This will not happen.

But, if an assault weapons ban were to happen, I would expect all centerfire, self-loading rifles to be including under this broad umbrella definition.

And, yes, even if the Uvalde shooting never happened, DD's advertising post is rather stupid and irresponsible.
 
... Even people that have guns aka the cops in Uvalde don't have the balls to defend their own...

You get in there and get the job done without hesitation.

This is inexcusable.
 
Last edited:
Okay. For starters, what's your definition of "assault weapon"? If you want to ban them, you have to be able to describe them accurately. Several states currently have "assault weapon" bans in effect, and most of their definitions don't agree.



What's your definition?
I would say ban the armalite 15 design and it's offshoots.

At a minimum the marketing needs regulating much like the tobacco industry.

To much death not try and come to an agreement on something.
 
Big_Eight said:
I guess more will die in mass shootings before there is change.

The question is, what change? I'm very wary when politicians jump in right after a tragedy with a readymade solution at hand. I'm even more wary when that solution has been tried before and proven to be a failure.

All the gun-control proposals they're advancing are old legislation. They're not responding the Uvalde and Buffalo: they're exploiting those shootings to push an agenda they've had for years.

Here's an actual assessment of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Skip to page 106, which reads:

Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement. A 5% reduction in gunshot victimizations is perhaps a reasonable upper bound estimate of the ban’s potential impact (based on the only available estimate of gunshot victimizations resulting from attacks in which more than 10 shots were fired), but the actual impact is likely to be smaller and may not be fully realized for many years into the future

And that's part of the problem. If they want to bring something new and novel forth, I'm all ears. But this is just lazy political theater and virtue signaling. What's more, it distracts us from the possibility of coming up with solutions that might actually address the problem.

Big_Eight said:
Some people do care about others lives and public safety over their guns.

There's a huge fallacy at work here. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I can care about both. I can also continue to own and acquire guns without being any kind of danger to public safety.

However, I do agree that an AR-15 is a poor choice for a child's first rifle. Much better something simpler to operate, like a 10/22. Then move him up to a Garand later.
 
The question is, what change? I'm very wary when politicians jump in right after a tragedy with a readymade solution at hand. I'm even more wary when that solution has been tried before and proven to be a failure.



All the gun-control proposals they're advancing are old legislation. They're not responding the Uvalde and Buffalo: they're exploiting those shootings to push an agenda they've had for years.



Here's an actual assessment of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Skip to page 106, which reads:







And that's part of the problem. If they want to bring something new and novel forth, I'm all ears. But this is just lazy political theater and virtue signaling. What's more, it distracts us from the possibility of coming up with solutions that might actually address the problem.







There's a huge fallacy at work here. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I can care about both. I can also continue to own and acquire guns without being any kind of danger to public safety.



However, I do agree that an AR-15 is a poor choice for a child's first rifle. Much better something simpler to operate, like a 10/22. Then move him up to a Garand later.
If your kids were in there and they were now deceased hypothetically what would you do?

For the record I like my guns too but there needs to be a compromise here.
 
Back
Top