4 killed, 10 injured in shooting during family celebration in California. They should start pulling ammo background check logs. That’ll solve the case

[Scubabugdiver]

You’re asking the million dollar question here. If I had the answer to that, I’d be the leader of the free world. The same question can be asked about DUI fatalities. What do you think we can do to prevent such tragedies? Lower the legal limit of the blood alcohol level? Or perhaps put more restrictions on alcohol sales. Maybe reducing the speed limit? I don’t think any one of these suggestions would have much of an effect. Why? Because people will still drink, drive and speed. I’m pretty sure you can see the dilemma here. We’re dealing with human nature. It’s wild and unpredictable. Bottom line is, I don’t have the answer. My solution is to treat people as how I wish to be treated. But in the meantime, I remain in California where I will be forced to follow the most strict gun laws in the country. And mark my words, they will become even stricter after occurrences like this. So give it time, your theory will come to fruition and we’ll see if it makes a difference.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Gun laws are created here for the law abiding. Criminals don't follow laws.

With lax enforcement and minimal punishment we tempt the law abiding to cross over to the dark side.

Without consequences we will generate more crime. Severe punishment acts as a deterrent. It used to work when that was done.

We don't have the prison space here to incarcerated every convict. Thousands were released early because of that. Probation is not punishment, it's a reward. That "solution" put thousands of convicts back on the street.

We still have a death penalty here with dozens on death row. With endless appeals here those are assured to die of old age.

They can no longer be executed because Newsom removed all the equipment and put it into storage. That was done without legislative approval, a dictatorial decision.

 

[GoldensRule]

You’re asking the million dollar question here. If I had the answer to that, I’d be the leader of the free world. The same question can be asked about DUI fatalities. What do you think we can do to prevent such tragedies? Lower the legal limit of the blood alcohol level? Or perhaps put more restrictions on alcohol sales. Maybe reducing the speed limit? I don’t think any one of these suggestions would have much of an effect. Why? Because people will still drink, drive and speed. I’m pretty sure you can see the dilemma here. We’re dealing with human nature. It’s wild and unpredictable. Bottom line is, I don’t have the answer. My solution is to treat people as how I wish to be treated. But in the meantime, I remain in California where I will be forced to follow the most strict gun laws in the country. And mark my words, they will become even stricter after occurrences like this. So give it time, your theory will come to fruition and we’ll see if it makes a difference.

I am focusing on gun violence in my part of this discussion.

California does have the strictest gun laws of all the states and with ~40 million people we rank #44 in gun deaths (the higher the number the better) so, it's pretty apparent that stricter gun laws are effective in minimizing deaths by guns. The state with the least strict laws is Wyoming and they rank #8 in gun deaths. In California, we have ~8 gun deaths per 100k people, in Wyoming, they have 21.5 deaths per 100k people.

The solution is evasive, I will grant you that but, it's less evasive if we remove the emotional reaction of gun enthusiasts from the search. One thing that I feel is at least worth looking at is some kind of a psych eval requirement, let's say biannually, for gun owners and gun and ammo purchasers. I know that scares a lot of people here. However, if gun enthusiasts don't start cooperating in finding real solutions to the gun violence, the rest of the nation is ultimately going to repeal the 2nd amendment and gun laws throughout the nation will come into line with gun laws in most other western democracies.

Yes, constitutional amendments are virtually impossible to put into effect these days but, tragedies such as wars, revolutions and mass murders have a way of making constitutional impossibilities a reality. In fact, when the current reign of terror comes to an end in our country, I foresee dramatic amendments to the constitution limiting the power and immunities of the chief executive. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a national constitutional convention, which hasn't happened since 1787. As part of these kinds of events, I am certain the 2nd amendment will come under serious scrutiny. In fact, I can foresee a repeal of the 2nd and having it replaced with a new amendment that says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” (or some such terminology). This change was actually proposed by retired SCOTUS justice John Paul Stevens in 2014 and similar sentiments were expressed by retired Chief Justice (appointed by Nixon) Warren Burger.

 

[Scubabugdiver]

I appreciate you sharing. It’s nice to have a discussion with someone with an intelligent perspective. To look at the issue without feelings interfering and clouding judgement is a rarity these days. Although I do shutter at the idea of Justice John Paul Stevens opinion of the second amendment. Bottom line is, it all narrows down as to which box you check in the voting booth.

 

[compulsivegungrabber]

Losing weight is easy all you have to do is eat less food. You can eat chocolate cake all day and lose weight. Obesity is a great way to let other people know you have no self control.

While this is true, sugar makes you crave more sugar though spikes and crashes, and activating the reward centers in the brain. Big junk food literally has test kitchens to see which combination of ingredients people will eat the most of..

 

[Deleted member 16735]

While this is true, sugar makes you crave more sugar though spikes and crashes, and activating the reward centers in the brain. Big junk food literally has test kitchens to see which combination of ingredients people will eat the most of..

the holy trinity of hyperpalatable food: salt fat and suger. when Im on a diet its so much easier to eat less if you eat boring food with a lot of fiber. the exact opposite of most prepared and available foods. I dont see a way to effectively regulate it though.

 

[GoldensRule]

I appreciate you sharing. It’s nice to have a discussion with someone with an intelligent perspective. To look at the issue without feelings interfering and clouding judgement is a rarity these days. Although I do shutter at the idea of Justice John Paul Stevens opinion of the second amendment. Bottom line is, it all narrows down as to which box you check in the voting booth.

I agree and I too appreciate your approach to the discussion. It's a very complex topic that must be approached dispassionately but yet with future generations in the forefront of our thinking, a hard thing to accomplish with the prevalence of narcissism in today's society.

If you are interested in the history of the second amendment and why it was included by Madison in the "Bill of Rights", there is an outstanding book I recommend, having read it twice and listened to it once, I found it to be quite insightful and impactful.

Amazon.com

If it interests you, feel free to DM me.

 

[adrkwan]

the holy trinity of hyperpalatable food: salt fat and suger. when Im on a diet its so much easier to eat less if you eat boring food with a lot of fiber. the exact opposite of most prepared and available foods. I dont see a way to effectively regulate it though.

Yeah, same experience. I take a protein shake mixed with coffee/heavy cream and fiber supplements in the morning nowadays. Last me until an early dinner around 5PM. The added salt, fat, and sugar is to make a largely unpalatable meal more bearable because the base ingredients are lower quality. Preparing our own meals has been a great way to save money and slim down - I'm down about 25lbs this year and my wife is down about 10lbs.

 

[foothillman]

COVID Spike.

Wyoming has very high suicide rate.

During spike.

What about alcohol?
No wait...the amount of tax $$ from alcohol

In 2021, state and local governments collected approximately $8.2 billion in alcohol taxes

Not going to kill that cash cow.

In 2024, the estimated revenue from the firearms and ammunition excise tax is about $65 million, significantly lower than initial projections

Consumer based economy will always favor laws that have minimal impact on tax revenue.
Public safety should be up to each individual.
Buying a firearm should be as easy as buying a big safe car to protect your family.


M2C

 

[DJD100]

I didn't mention anything about background checks. Nor did I limit the restrictions to California.

I'll repeat the question I asked of you: "What do you think would help prevent these kinds of events, either entirely or in part?" Obviously the answer isn't "change human nature (impossible to do)" OR "Change society (also impossible to do)".

Well, that's complicated, but on the law enforcement side...

a) Death Row for violent felonies involving the use of deadly force, whether or not anyone is actually killed. By pointing a gun or knife at someone and demanding something you are in effect implying you're willing to kill them, and that's enough for a called strike three IMO. In other words, if you use deadly force in commission of a violent felony you die.

b) Street gangs should be labeled domestic terrorist organizations along with the cartels, and then sic the feds on them rather than law abiding hard working DACA kids and other law abiding immigrants (currently a better use of resources along with securing the borders, and providing timely immigration services).

...though the economic side is another issue entirely.

 

[couragewolf]

Well, that's complicated, but on the law enforcement side...

a) Death Row for violent felonies involving the use of deadly force, whether or not anyone is actually killed. By pointing a gun or knife at someone and demanding something you are in effect implying you're willing to kill them, and that's enough for a called strike three IMO. In other words, if you use deadly force in commission of a violent felony you die.

b) Street gangs should be labeled domestic terrorist organizations along with the cartels, and then sic the feds on them rather than law abiding hard working DACA kids and other law abiding immigrants (currently a better use of resources along with securing the borders, and providing timely immigration services).

...though the economic side is another issue entirely.

regarding b) if you haven't got proof someone is a member of a "street gang" what's the consequence for law enforcement violating those people's rights?

 

[GoldensRule]

Well, that's complicated, but on the law enforcement side...

a) Death Row for violent felonies involving the use of deadly force, whether or not anyone is actually killed. By pointing a gun or knife at someone and demanding something you are in effect implying you're willing to kill them, and that's enough for a called strike three IMO. In other words, if you use deadly force in commission of a violent felony you die.

Most homicides are impulsive, committed under the influence of drugs/alcohol, in the heat of passion, or by individuals with mental illness, groups that do not engage in rational cost-benefit analysis. Even premeditated murders are usually committed by people who believe they won’t get caught (the clearance rate for murder is only ~60% in the U.S. A clearance rate is the percentage of specific crimes solved in a given year meaning, the odds are pretty good you'll get away with murder).

The vast majority of studies on the effectiveness of capitol punishment as a deterrent to crime show that it has virtually zero effect.

Capitol punishment for threats and attempts would violate the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

b) Street gangs should be labeled domestic terrorist organizations along with the cartels, and then sic the feds on them rather than law abiding hard working DACA kids and other law abiding immigrants (currently a better use of resources along with securing the borders, and providing timely immigration services).

...though the economic side is another issue entirely.

The only criminal gangs I can think of that somewhat fit the definition of "Domestic Terrorists" would be: The Base, Atomwaffen Division, Proud Boys, certain white-supremacist (Aryan Brotherhood, Ku Klux Klan, etc.) and eco-terrorist groups

Here is the federal government's definition of Domestic Terrorism:

Primary motive: Ideological, political, religious, social, or racial goal intended to influence government policy or intimidate/coerce a civilian population

Intended audience/effect: Designed to influence or coerce the government or a broader civilian population through fear.

Statutory definitions: 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) and FBI/DHS definitions require acts dangerous to human life that appear intended to:
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence government policy by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

Lastly, criminal gangs are primarily investigated and prosecuted at the federal level already. Gang criminal activity is covered under RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968, VICAR 18 U.S.C. § 1959, Drug Conspiracy 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846, Hobbs Act Robbery / Extortion 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) – “Kingpin” statute (21 U.S.C. § 848), Firearms offenses (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), Transnational Organized Crime designations.

Federal law enforcement agencies involved are: FBI, DEA, HSI, ATF, Treasury, DOJ + U.S. Attorneys.

 

[couragewolf]

Everyone likes getting fuzzy with the terminology that lets you skirt constitutional rights, until suddenly that language unexpectedly applies to them

 

[DJD100]

Most homicides are impulsive, committed under the influence of drugs/alcohol, in the heat of passion, or by individuals with mental illness, groups that do not engage in rational cost-benefit analysis. Even premeditated murders are usually committed by people who believe they won’t get caught (the clearance rate for murder is only ~60% in the U.S. A clearance rate is the percentage of specific crimes solved in a given year meaning, the odds are pretty good you'll get away with murder).

The vast majority of studies on the effectiveness of capitol punishment as a deterrent to crime show that it has virtually zero effect.

Capitol punishment for threats and attempts would violate the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

If you want to stop mass shootings where bullets are sprayed indiscriminately by thugs and gangsters at parties and clubs, car jackings, armed robberies, home invasions etc, then one strike you're out is the only way to really make the perps think twice. As to the crazy guy spraying a country music concert from a high-rise, or a religious/political fanatic murdering innocent folks that's another thing all together.

I certainly don't agree that the majority of homicides are committed by those clinically diagnosed as "mentally ill", though in practical terms they surely are seeing they're murdering perps. Most mass shootings are gang, turf, politically, or religiously motivated.

Note that I wasn't just talking about homicides, rather all violent crime in which the use or threat of deadly force was a factor in the commission of a violent felony, i.e. if you even use the threat of deadly force you die. I don't consider that cruel punishment seeing the perp(s) was/were prepared to take innocent life in pursuit of their criminal goal(s).

Non-violent crimes can remain they way they are in the eyes of the law.

Extreme, sure, but sadly nothing else has worked...

 

[couragewolf]

If you want to stop mass shootings where bullets are sprayed indiscriminately by thugs and gangsters at parties and clubs, car jackings, armed robberies, home invasions etc, then one strike you're out is the only way to really make the perps think twice. As to the crazy guy spraying a country music concert from a high-rise, or a religious/political fanatic murdering innocent folks that's another thing all together.

I certainly don't agree that the majority of homicides are committed by those clinically diagnosed as "mentally ill", though in practical terms they surely are seeing they're murdering perps. Most mass shootings are gang, turf, politically, or religiously motivated.

Note that I wasn't just talking about homicides, rather all violent crime in which the use or threat of deadly force was a factor in the commission of a violent felony, i.e. if you even use the threat of deadly force you die. I don't consider that cruel punishment seeing the perp(s) was/were prepared to take innocent life in pursuit of their criminal goal(s).

Non-violent crimes can remain they way they are in the eyes of the law.

Extreme, sure, but sadly nothing else has worked...

Does any data backup the idea that you can scare people with laws into not conducting mass shootings?

I'm assuming there's no legal penalty that has any affect whatsoever on the frequency of mass shootings or reduces the likelihood.

I'd also assume economic conditions, opportunity, upward economic mobility, emotional health, and other societal factors have a far greater impact.

Fix the society, fix the mass shootings is my campaign promise. There is no law enforcement angle that's going to change this.

 

[GoldensRule]

Fix the society, fix the mass shootings is my campaign promise.

How does one "fix the society"?

 

[adrkwan]

How does one "fix the society"?

Any significant preventative change is going to have to be a cultural shift. Mass casualty events occur in ever society regardless of the gun control measures enacted. Yes, access to firearms makes the events worst in the extreme cases. No, the death penalty isn't a sufficient deterrent as many of the shooters don't live to stand trial or are mentally ill such that they do not appreciate the consequences of their actions.

 

[DuckDawg22]

If anyone wants to kill a few brain cells Tommy G did a video with the filipino crip sec these guys are part of. The main dude he interviews was the one who threw the party. Dude on the right in the thumbnail if you don't care to click

I'm in Lodi and this is all anyone is talking about since it happened pretty close to the city line. Combine that with the ex-cop who OD'd on confiscated fentanyl getting shot out in Flag City today and folks are getting a little antsy.

 

[GoldensRule]

I certainly don't agree that the majority of homicides are committed by those clinically diagnosed as "mentally ill", though in practical terms they surely are seeing they're murdering perps. Most mass shootings are gang, turf, politically, or religiously motivated.

I mentioned four factors, not just mental illness:

Alcohol - Alcohol is implicated in 40-50% of U.S. homicides, often as the primary substance (far more than other drugs). A meta-analysis of self-reports, case files, and toxicology found 48% of offenders drank immediately before the homicide, with 37% intoxicated at the time. See: https://wwwapp.bumc.bu.edu/BEDAC_Camy/Resources/FactSheets/AlcoholViolence and https://ncaddnational.org/addiction_articles/alcohol-drugs-and-crime/

Drugs - Drugs are less dominant but additive: ~32% of state prisoners convicted of homicide reported being under drug influence at the time, per Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveys. See: https://www.niagararecovery.com/blog/drug-related-crime-statistics and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004723529090002S

Heat of passion - refers to killings during sudden quarrels or provocations, often reducing charges to manslaughter. ~20-40% of U.S. homicides are classified this way, per aggregated crime statistics and legal analyses. This includes domestic/intimate partner cases, where 63% involve alcohol-fueled arguments. See: https://gitnux.org/crime-of-passion-statistics/ and https://worldmetrics.org/crime-of-passion-statistics/ and https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime

Mental illness - Severe mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) is linked to ~10% of U.S. homicides, per Treatment Advocacy Center reviews of national data. This rises to ~14-34% for lifetime mental disorder histories among offenders.

Untreated severe mental illness correlates with ~1,000+ U.S. homicides annually. However, most (~96%) involve active psychiatric symptoms or substance co-use, not illness alone. Personality disorders (e.g., antisocial) appear in ~15-30% of cases. See: https://www.tac.org/reports_publications/serious-mental-illness-and-homicide/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16449701/ and https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

 

[GoldensRule]

Any significant preventative change is going to have to be a cultural shift. Mass casualty events occur in ever society regardless of the gun control measures enacted. Yes, access to firearms makes the events worst in the extreme cases. No, the death penalty isn't a sufficient deterrent as many of the shooters don't live to stand trial or are mentally ill such that they do not appreciate the consequences of their actions.

What part of the culture needs to be shifted and how do we do that?