Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

[s3779m]

I guess we should make RPGs and grenade launchers legal then. It's for self defense right? Let the people do what they will with them. Hell let's drop the age to 12 to purchase too.

That reply does nothing and brings nothing to trying to find a solution. Instead of looking at the means used to do the killing, what are you doing to try to find out the why? Would you feel better about the shootings had the killer used pistols? Of course not, but had he not been able to buy the ar, if they were out of stock, do you really think the killings would not have taken place? Have you not realized, the intent for him to murder was there BEFORE he had the weapon?

Here's an interesting item or two, almost all, as in 90% of mass shootings take place in a gun free zone, almost 100% of the shooters have NO father presence in the home, they were raised by single mothers or by the neighborhood. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...-significant-father-influence-in-their-lives/

Have you ever wondered what medications these kids might be on, in todays environment, drugs are usually the method of choice for behavior problems.



One other question, in your blasting the advertising of the gun manufacturers, are you also going to blast the video games that glorify the use of said weapons and the reckless images of murdering people?

 

[Tom Servo]

In other words, if they commit crimes with a gun even if no one is injured should mandatory felony charges by required?

That's an interesting thing to bring up. Some states have (or did have) laws that enhanced penalties if a gun was involved. The problem was, they never seemed to be invoked.

Atlanta had a program called FACE5. The clumsy acronym meant that any crime involving a gun carried an additional five years in prison. Seems like a good idea, right?

Well, about five years after its enactment, I met a detective for the DA's office in Fulton county. I asked him how often FACE5 was used, and he said "what?" He wasn't even aware of the law. He went back and checked, and he couldn't find a single instance. When he asked his colleagues about it, they groaned, said they were aware of it, and told him they didn't want to deal with it because it made things more complex.

And I'd welcome data on something like that. It could be useful, or it could be pointless. Still, it would be good to know.

For every event, there are thousands upon thousands of paper tiger threats

You're not wrong, and I'll be the first person to oppose something like Dick's Pre-Crime Division. But, the threats in some of these shootings were clear and actionable. The Parkland shooter made terroristic threats against his family, and the police knew it. He said he was going to be the next mass shooter, and the FBI knew it.

The Buffalo shooter literally said he wanted to shoot up his high-school graduation. Again, actionable terroristic threats. Never charged.

The Tucson shooter? Documented threats against local radio personalities. Never charged.

Columbine? Clear and graphic threats left on a friend's answering machine, which were provided to the police. Clear and graphic threats on a public website owned by one of the shooters. In fact, the DA had filed for a search warrant based on probable cause the kids were building and stockpiling explosives.

In all of those cases, law enforcement had latitude to act. In all of these cases, they chose not to.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

“Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,” retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, June 2, 2022. This guy is not just some random civilian. He knows what he is talking about. And he is still alive.

Respectfully, while General Eaton may know what he's talking about -- he's lying. An AR-15 is no more a "weapon of war" than a Ruger ranch carbine is a weapon of war. If AR-15s are weapons of war, why doesn't the United States Military issue AR-15s to the troops rather than M16s and M4s?

I carried an M16 in Vietnam. I own an AR-15. They look similar, but that's where the similarity ends.

 

[rickyrick]

AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,

So let the army use A15s instead of select fire weapons and nothing else.

Select fire weapons are strictly regulated already, the AR15 is simply a semiauto weapon. The bumpstock has already been dealt with. I don’t get a warm and fuzzy feeling from a general who doesn’t want Americans to own semiauto rifles.
I spent a decade and a half in the military, never once did I encounter and AR15. The only semiauto weapon that I encountered was the M9 pistol.

If you want to regulate guns any further, let’s change the constitution. There’s a way to do it. As it stands it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Get that changed and you are in business.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Here's a YouTube video of another retired general purporting to be an "expert" on firearms and "explaining" to the media why semi-automatic rifles are the same as military rifles. Aside from his atrocious hold and stance from 0:20 to 0:30, be sure you're sitting down at the 0:40 mark. That's where he makes a distinction between firing single shots and firing on "full semi-automatic."

Then there's the narrative overlay -- the problem with AR-15s is "the speed and power of the bullets." Yes, those same bullets that many states won't allow for hunting deer because they aren't powerful enough to assure clean kills -- but for anything else they turn people to dust.

 

[44 AMP]

There was a good guy with a gun at Buffalo, he's dead.

And there was a good woman with a gun at Charlotte, she's alive, and so is everyone else except the guy who shot at them with an AR-15! In fact, no one but the attacker was hit The woman was not armed security, not a cop, or an off duty anything, just a private citizen at a graduation party, who was legally armed and carrying.

Didn't hear about that? Not too surprising. It was on my MSN news, for ONE day. A "complete civilian", meaning someone not connected to any police or private security group was ARMED, happened to be where she could do something, FOUGHT BACK, and, WON! And, did so, so successfuly that no one else was injured, and a MASS SHOOTING WAS STOPPED!!!!

This was reported May 26. (and, apparently not again...)
The woman's name was not given in the brief news report, and no charges will be filed, rightly so, I think.

Tench Coxe has been dead for 200 years. Times have changed since his era of muskets and sabres.

Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and all the other Founding Fathers have also been dead over 200 years. Times have changed since the era of quill pens, manually operated printing presses and town criers......

DO you think your rights, and the principles held by the Founders to uphold them no longer apply??

I don't care if some living General (active duty or retired) thinks an AR 15 is a weapon of war. (first off, he's incorrect, no one, including the US uses the AR-15 as a combat weapon. We do, however use something that looks just like it on the outside, so perhaps the General is simply confused? )

Our fundamental right to arms includes "weapons of war". Doesn't matter if the Founders are dead, the principles remain valid.

But be clear about this, our right to own weapons, including weapons of war DOES NOT mean we have the right to use them against innocent people at a time and place of our choosing. Having the right to own something is NOT the right to harm others with it. Murder, is a crime. Period.

For some reason, (I think deliberate choice) the gun ban people will not recognize the difference between those two things and have been working hard for a long time to convince the public that there is no difference.

From the volume of opinion pieces I see in the media, they've been pretty successful misleading the public so far...

Should we pass legislation eliminating the ability for criminals to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for dropping gun charges.

I think you would find the attempt very strongly opposed by both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Probably judges, as well...such things interfere with their authority and ability to use their own judgement and tailor charges and punishments to suit individual cases.

We have laws that require mandatory sentences for using a gun illegally. They seldom are applied. I think this is called "prosecutorial discretion". (real lawyers, please correct me if I'm in error)

The Prosecutor decides which charges are filed or not. Plea bargaining is a negotiating tool, and as I understand it, something done before charges are filed. Getting a guilty plea to a lesser offense means SOME level of punishment happens, and its much, much faster, cheaper and easier than a costly, possibly lengthy court trial, which the prosecution might lose.

For some things (mostly minor offenses), its actually sensible but for other things, serious things (such as violent crimes) I think its not so much of a good thing.

But then, neither is a rigid, inflexible set of rules which prohibit the court system from using their own judgement and requiring them to strictly adhere to the written law in every case.

In an ironic parallel to gun ownership (and "weapon of war" ownership) it is not ownership, or the ability of the prosecutors to plea bargain that is the problem. The problem is what some people DO with that ability.

The public has had the idea that having guns means ONLY doing evil with guns, hammered into our heads 24/7 for a long time. And this "training" is supplemented by our entertainment industry (again 24/7 these days) constantly showing us people shooting other people. (and doing a generally inaccurate job of portraying reality in the process).

Their defense against accusations of this promoting violence is, generally, something like, "hey, its JUST a movie" or "its JUST a game!".

Personally I feel that if you are going to bring charges against a gun company for their advertising, then to be fair, you should also bring charges against the people who "glorify" guns and violence in movies, TV and games.

I'd love to see that happen, because if it did, I think it would shut down that nonsense pretty fast. (the nonsense of suing the maker I mean)

The entire idea of punishing someone for what they have when they have done nothing criminal is just wrong.

There is an old joke that illustrates this.
ranch hand goes into the saloon for a drink. He has wire cutters in his back pocket. Sherrif goes in, sees he has wire cutters, and tells the guy he's going to arrest him for cattle rustling. Cattle have been rustled, fences cut, and you've got wire cutters in your back pocket....
The guy replies, "I didn't do it, but ok..arrest me, but better arrest me for rape as well. I didn't do that either, but I dang sure have the equipment for it...."

 

[rickyrick]

Freedom is such a an outdated idea

 

[mehavey]

Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, June 2, 2022. This guy is not just
some random civilian. He knows what he is talking about.

And I would argue that Eaton hasn't a clue.
Stars do not a constitutional historian make.

I would counterargue that the basic combat Infantryman's light weapon is the minimum standard for 2A's Keep & Bear Arms phrase.
And that the clip/magazine-fed semiautomatic rifle has been around as a standard light infantryman's rifle-- and the People -- for 90 years.

All of a sudden a different looking semi-auto rifle is verboten to the unwashed ...on some random 2-Star's say-so?
Please tell me the deplorable unwashed aren't that gullible.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There was a good guy with a gun at Buffalo, he's dead.

There was a good gal with a gun at the New Life Church in Colorado. She's alive and the shooter is not.

There was also a good guy with a gun at the West Freeway Church of Christ, in White Settlement, Texas. He's alive, and the shooter is not. (Although another good guy with a gun in the same incident didn't make it -- he fumbled his draw.)

Nothing is absolute. Maybe a good guy with a gun can't stop every attack, but the odds are certainly tilted toward "It can't hurt, and it might help."

 

[Mainah]

Freedom is such a an outdated idea.

I don't think it's outdated, but I do think the sense of responsibility that comes with it has been lost by many.

Nothing is absolute.

I couldn't agree more. But "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is an absolute statement.

 

[Pathfinder45]

I sure hope something positive comes from this discussion.... Getting back to the original topic of Daniel Defense's advertising, there may be something to learn. If that picture is an accurate representation of their advertising, it doesn't look very responsible. However, I did not see it on their website today.

And then there's the President's Uvalde response speech about doing something... While I found much of his ideas for gun legislation to be well-meaning but objectionable, there were some points worthy of consideration that might be constructive without weakening the rights of responsible citizens.

I noticed that one of the posts from yesterday was deleted, as it certainly deserved, having gone off the rails..... Like the abortion issue, the gun issue is a hot topic that many people feel so strongly about that they are single-issue voters and find it difficult or impossible to engage contructively with others who think differently.

There have been some good points made here and some not so good.
Certainly, the right to keep and bear arms has already been greatly infringed upon, especially more so in some states compared to others. What many people don't understand, is that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting; it's about the people's right to own weapons that are adquate toI resist tyranny. I think the United States is sending some of that stuff to Ukraine right now...

While the 2nd may have actually been intended for us today keep RPG's and tanks and such....that's going to be a non-starter, even if I can academicaly agree. It's a good argument that just won't win
On the other hand, the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is a winable argument for the courts. In my view, the actual difference is much closer to zero than most folks here will allow, but lawyers can make enough of it to matter. A flimsy argument that can actually win!

Food for thought: If the gun community doesn't get in front of this moment by authoring better gun laws, then we will likely end up getting more restrictive laws that will be completely unpalatable. Think about what gun laws, existing now or could be brought into existence, that you could approve of that would not only prevent some of these tragedies, but would also not infringe on the rights of responsible citizens. If we reject any possibility of working something out, then we will lose by default. If we must have gun laws, then we must write them.

 

[44 AMP]

Once again, the double standard of our opponents, if a good guy with a gun isn't 100% effective stopping an attack, 100% of the time, its not worth doing.

At the same time, even the most rabid gun control advocate will admit (in private, if not in public) that their pet proposals won't stop bad things 100% of the time, but they demand we do what they say because it might help....

 

[s3779m]

For a starter, get the politicians to explain why the laws on the books are not being followed and enforced. Why are criminals released early for gun crimes. Why is there no effort to rid the inner cities of the gun violence. Why are red flags ignored. And for me the biggest, why are there gun free zones. Can we admit there is no gun law that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting. If gun laws do not work, why are we looking at creating more. When politicians can honestly start answering these and more, then maybe we can look at why this is happening. Until then, all their effort is leading to the goal of ALL guns banned.

 

[Pathfinder45]

I'm not in favor of adding any new laws without repealing an equal number of old laws. We have so many, too many laws now in all walks of life that there is precious little freedom left. But there are needs for improvement.

Mehavey said this:

I would counterargue that the basic combat Infantryman's light weapon is the minimum standard for 2A's Keep & Bear Arms phrase.

I agree and have long felt that way. However, I do think there are certain kinds of firearms that should require a course completion for qualification to own, especially so if under 21 years of age. That would have prevented the shooter at Uvalde from legally purchasing the weapons he used. It might not have stopped him from doing something bad, though.

I just think there is progress that could be made without sacrificing the RKBA. I would probably feel differently if I was an enthusiast for the type of weapons in question, But I am not. I would always prefer an antique Winchester. I figure if I ever really need an AR-15, I will pick one up off the ground from a fallen comrade. Still, I believe in the right of the people to own one if they so choose. It's today's version of the Brown Bess; exactly what the 2nd Amendment had in mind.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

While the 2nd may have actually been intended for us today keep RPG's and tanks and such....that's going to be a non-starter, even if I can academicaly agree. It's a good argument that just won't win

As a 2A absolutist, I think I should be able to own RPGs, tanks, howitzers, and F-15s.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

That said, if the other side is (as they always do) screeching about "compromise," then my offer of a compromise would start with, "Okay, I'll give up the F-15s as long as I can still have howitzers and everything smaller." The word "compromise" implies that both sides give up something. In the gun rights arena, the other side's notion of compromise is that we always give up something, and they never do.

Then they come back a year or two later, and expect us to "compromise" (give up) some more -- but they never give back any of what we have given up had taken away from us before.

That ain't "compromise."

 

[rickyrick]

We are living the result of compromise on the pro-gun side.

We gave up short barreled rifles and shotguns. We said ok to extreme restrictions on machine guns and destructive devices.
We submitted to background checks.

We let them say who could carry and how pistols could be carried in public. Some areas have deep restrictions on handguns.

We’ve pretty much collectively allowed the above and more.

Now they want ordinary rifles. No matter how it is spun, the AR15 is an ordinary rifle... probably the most ordinary rifle in the USA. They want ordinary rifles and apparently certain caliber handguns.
There is no room for any more compromises.
AR15 is an ordinary rifle in common use, FACT.
The AR15 was never a weapon of war, FACT Anyone who says differently has no credibility, even military generals. Generals have no say over my constitutional rights, they are obligated by oath to protect my rights.
A general that doesn’t want civilians to own a common rifle should be concerning to all.

 

[OPC]

Looks like the legal actions are starting: NBC news reports first legal action in Uvalde shooting

A staff member is filing pre-suit petition (discovery) to determine if she can sue DD for “irresponsible advertising practices” quite clearly using the Remington settlement as a roadmap.

 

[44 AMP]

A couple of points to remember about the Remington settlement.

First, Remington didn't settle.

Remington went out of business (for other reasons) well before the settlement, and left behind an account with a legal firm to handle all the unfinished business. Part of that business was the lawsuit.

The lawyers handling the account decided to settle, feeling it in the best interests of their "client" which was their legal firm handling the account, NOT Remington.

I'm sure they examined the potential costs of going to count and losing and weighted that against the cost of a settlement, and choose the settlement to preserve as much of the account as possible to handle the other obligations Remington left behind.

Since there was no court ruling, there is no legal precedent established.

Next point will most likely be the determining factor if there is a suit brought in Texas, and that is what the differences are between Texas and Connecticut law relevent to the issue.

from what I understand, the CT case was initially turned down, as not meeting the requirements of the CT law. They appealed and a review judge ruled that it was unclear if the suit met the law's requirements or not and that they should have a chance to argue that in court, and allowed the suit to proceed.

I don't know if Texas law has the kind of provision to allow the suit the way CT did.

My guess would be that the discovery petition is to determine if such a suit is possible under Texas law, or not.

The fact that such a motion must be made to determine if suit can be brought tells me the matter is, at best, very murky....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

From OPC's link:

“Everybody knows that school shootings are happening. It’s an epidemic. So we want to know, what are they doing to change their marketing practices?” Flanary said.

Flanary is the plaintiff's lawyer. [For the record, the plaintiff is the person who left the door unlocked. She was not injured in the icident.] I'd like to know what his definition of "epidemic" is.

 

[Tom Servo]

A staff member is filing pre-suit petition

The staff member in question is Emilia Marin, the person who propped a door open and was incorrectly blamed for allowing the shooter access to the school. He actually entered through a different door, but the media initially blamed her for it. I can imagine she's distraught.

The lawsuit is being handled by Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, who specialize in product-liability lawsuits. They were the guys the Brady Campaign hired to sue Lucky Gunner for selling the ammunition used in the Aurora movie theater shooting.

The Brady Campaign hired Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, parents of one of the victims, to their organization. KK&B made the Phillips the plaintiffs, so when the lawsuit failed, the Phillips were the ones left holding the bag when Lucky Gunner counter-sued and won.