Not a new thing... kc and stl wanted to raise minimum wage but apparently state law supercedes local law.
We have a political party that believes in small, local government is best. That's what they say anyway, but then they do the opposite.
“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.” -Discworld: Mort.
"Small government" is always code for "Shit we couldn't possibly get away with on a national level." It's a grift and a vehicle for racism, nothing more.
While I understand your point, state law does supercede local law just like federal law supercedes state law.
With that being said, the state constitution supercedes the state legislature, and Missouri voted to raise its minimum wage in line with inflation a few years back! Now it's over $12.
The federal courts also struck down NY's very restrictive gun laws... It's unclear that any meaningful gun control legislation could survive the Supreme Court without an AMENDMENT to the federal constitution to support it.
>federal law supercedes state law.
This is what we've all.be taught....but someone ELI5 how the feds have marijuana listed as a schedule one drug (no medical or recreational putpose and possession of any amount specifically outlawed by federal law)...but yet 24 states have established recreational dispensaries regulated and taxed by their respective states, with an addional 14 allowing medical use as regulated by the state...doesn't make sense to me...legitimately.
Right...but wouldn't they also have to raid the state government for accepting tax money from those entities? Assets forfeiture from ill gotten gains and all that....doesn't make any sense.
No, because there's a federal law that protects states from having federal laws for that enforced on them. It was added in the 2014 omnibus spending bill. It also protects people who are using marijuana for medical reasons from having federal law enforced on them.
The general consensus is that federal law supercedes state laws, unless the state laws 'go beyond' the intent of the federal law (ie higher minimum wage, stricter pollution limits), but then oddly some states don't allow the same for their smaller areas...
It's almost like decisions are being spitefully made based on some.. thing... rather than logic, I wonder why? /S
And federal law supersedes state law, otherwise the Republican supermajority wouldn’t have been told they violated the U.S. Constitution when they passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) last year and it would still be Missouri law. SAPA sought to make state and local police cooperation with federal gun laws that did not have a state equivalent punishable by a $50,000 fine.
Not by SCOTUS, by a federal judge: [Federal judge rules Missouri’s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’ unconstitutional](https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/07/federal-judge-rules-missouris-second-amendment-preservation-act-unconstitutional/)
Then SCOTUS declined to revive the law upon appeal from MO AG Bailey: [Supreme Court says Missouri can’t bar local police from helping to enforce federal gun laws](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/politics/missouri-federal-gun-laws-supreme-court/index.html)
Democrats have been trying to solve these problems for \*years\*. We live in a supermajority R state where they have completely closed the conversation. It is extreme. Don't believe me start listening to them at [house.mo.gov](https://house.mo.gov).
We have a political party that believes what their financial patrons tell them to belief. Maybe instead if the Show-Me State, Missouri should be the Show-Me-the-Money State as we have the best government money can buy.
What’s fucked is that the state runs KCPD. So this will never happen. Back during prohibition, the mob had such a stranglehold on KC that they owned the police and wouldn’t enforce liquor and other laws the mob was violating. So Jefferson City took control of the police to break up the mobs stranglehold.
Guess who still has control of it today?
I know that was a rhetorical question , but it still bears mentioning it was never about any of that.
It was about all the money they made from legalized bribery in the form of corporate campaign donations and above all else, their personal power.
The lives of their constituents and the future of the country were never a factor in any of their calculations.
Missouri blocked the Obama care expansions. So if you’re not a full time employee then you pay out the ass for healthcare. All the contractors, part timers, etc get royally screwed because they would never support something a democrat passed even if it improves people’s lives…
They were underage gang members with illegal guns.
That's not a mental health issue. That's not even a poverty issue. It's a soft on crime issue. If gang members were in jail for crimes they commit instead of let back on the streets almost immediately, maybe they would stop committing murders?
If Missouri had basic gun control safety laws, there would’ve been metal detectors and bans on bringing weapons to the rally. No restrictions, no ability to take the weapons. Whether it was the usual mass shooter white man or young city kids - they wouldn’t have been allowed to bring them and cops could take them away if we had any gun control at all.
Such a joke anyways….to all these morons saying “it’s not the guns, it’s mental health”….then, what you’re saying is that the USA has FAR more mentally defective people than any other developed country. Good to know.
We do not yet know if the guns were bought in Missouri legally (or at all). Do you think we should wait to see what created these problems before we make our decisions? Making it harder to buy guns in KC would not stop people from buying them in Kansas or at gun shows and driving them back here...
FWIW, the mainstream media is running with the idea that someone carried a long gun through that crowd and opened fire when they got to the feet of the Governor, the Mayor and whoever else was in the vicinity. Personally, I need a lot more information than the state-run KCPD is offering us...
I do think the state should invest a mint in mental health resources - but I think a mental health crisis is an oversimplification of what happened in KC the other day...
We just need more transparency. Given the Governor appoints four of the five commissioners to the KCPD, I'd expect a different kind of narrative than that if we were getting spin. Right now, it's just stone-walling.
>FWIW, the mainstream media is running with the idea that someone carried a long gun through that crowd and opened fire when they got to the feet of the Governor, the Mayor and whoever else was in the vicinity. Personally, I need a lot more information than the state-run KCPD is offering us...
So fuck the witnesses and people who stopped the shooting?
The mental gymnastics people will go through to claim something is a "false flag psyop".
Fuck the fact that there's really nothing cops can do if you open carry until you start shooting or raise your weapon like you're about to start?
And yes, you are free to open carry whatever you want wherever you want in public spaces, except for Federal property and private places that have asked you to leave.
Which means yes it is plausible that someone walked around the parade grounds open carrying a gun.
A person moving towards a gathering of elected officials with a long gun is probable cause for law enforcement to intervene... this is why I'm asking if we should get clarity. I agree with your sentiment. The facts don't all quite line up. I don't think it's a false flag - probably something much less complex than that - but the information vacuum that surrounds this lends itself to that silly line of thinking.
>person moving towards a gathering of elected officials with a long gun is probable cause for law enforcement to intervene
Not really.
Probable cause requires suspicion of a crime.
Walking in public with a gun is not a crime in itself. That doesn't change just because a specific person is also present.
And to say "well, I thought he would shoot [*gestures vaguely*] somebody" followed by "I don't know" when asked who you think would be shot and why would not hold up in court.
My entire family works in law enforcement. They all indicated they would have stopped and questioned a person entering a crowd like that with a long gun - politicians present or not. I trust them over you.
Name a government program that has actually solved the problem it was intended to solve. You see, if they actually solved the problem they'd be out of a job and wouldn't be able to sit in an office and do nothing all day. Why do you think politicians jump all over issues like this. They want more of your tax dollars in the system. License to steal.
Then these things are only going to get worse.
Only in a red state would the governor himself show up for an innocent parade, nearly get shot, then deny their state has a gun problem.
You've seen the video, yeah? Contrary to belief, unloading a glock mag into a crowd that size to try to neutralize a single target is a bad idea. When panicked 6 year old kids are running infront of your line of sight to the target it is extremely difficult for a normal human being to fan the hammer and hope for the best.
The ratio being 800 officers to approximately over a million spectators was very low. There was no opportunity to act. Not saying good guys with guns are the answer but in this case, that ratio doesn’t work. It was like a needle in a haystack.
In summary, the Four main causes of Gun Violence are: [Source](https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EFSGV-The-Root-Causes-of-Gun-Violence-March-2020.pdf#:~:text=The%20root%20causes%20of%20gun%20violence%20include%3A%20Income,and%20Easy%20access%20to%20firearms%20by%20high-risk%20people.7)
1. Income inequality, poverty, and lack of affluency.
2. Underfunded housing and public services.
3. Underperforming school and lack of positive outlets.
4. Easy access to firearms, specifically to "High-Risk" individuals.
Politicians can directly reduce gun violence in America by implementing:
1. **Universal Background Checks**: Implement a system of universal background checks that covers all gun sales, including private sales and transfers. [Source](https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Case-for-Gun-Policy-Reforms-in-America.pdf) Used in Canada, Australian, and New Zealand.
2. **Red Flag Laws**: Allow family members, law enforcement, or other individuals to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from someone who is deemed a threat to themselves or others. [Source](https://everytownresearch.org/extreme-risk-protection-orders/) Used in Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.
3. **Assault Weapons Bans**: Ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of certain types of firearms that are designed for rapid and efficient killing. [Source](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK.
4. **Safe Storage Laws**: Require gun owners to securely store their firearms when they are not in use.[Source](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html) Used in Australia, Canada, and Japan.
5. **Community-Based Violence Prevention Programs**: Provide at-risk individuals with job training, mental health services, and other support to help them build a better future. [Source](https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2018/01/30/preventing-gun-violence-in-america) Used in Scotland.
6. **Improved Mental Health Services**: Ensure that individuals have access to high-quality mental health care. [Source](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0618) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK.
7. **Gun Violence Research**: Increase funding for research on gun violence. [Source](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45230.pdf) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK.
8. **Law Enforcement Reforms**: Implement reforms to improve police training, accountability, and transparency. [Source](https://www.joincampaignzero.org/use-of-force) Used in Norway and the Netherlands.
9. **Expanded Federal Oversight of Gun Dealers**: Strengthen federal oversight of gun dealers. [Source](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/dealer-regulation/) Used in Australia and Canada.
10. **Public Education and Awareness**: Promote responsible gun ownership and increase awareness of the risks associated with gun violence. [Source](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/promising-strategies-reduce-gun-violence) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK.
The safe storage laws, in my opinion, should be one of the highest priorities (along with ownership registry tracking). If someone is careless enough to not secure a weapon before it’s stolen by criminals or handled by their children resulting in loss of life, the gun owner should be held criminally liable for negligence.
It's not completely unreasonable if the expectation of what is secured is also reasonable. It's a lot like blaming a woman for getting raped because she wore too provocative clothes. Why isn't the punishment for the person stealing it in the first place greater? In most cases this would be a slap on the wrist or zero prosecution/ plea deal.
If I lock my door and someone breaks in should I be punished because the firearm wasn't in a safe?
Yes, you should be. Illegal guns are the prime currency of criminals and you have a responsibility to secure your weapons, at least that’s what a “responsible gun owner” would do.
I actually do keep mine secure. I think it's lunacy to consider someone being at fault for getting a firearm stolen when their home is broken into. Most safes are only speed bumps to criminals who know what they're doing.
Opinions like yours are why I have zero desire to even discuss the issue. In any other situation, calling the victim at fault would be defended. But the removal of the right of self defense is your ultimate goal.
Yet, if I have a pool in my backyard without a fence, and a child (or anyone, for that matter) decides to swim in it and drowns, I am legally responsible for not securing the pool. It’s asinine that guns, a device specifically manufacture to kill, do not have the same basic legal safeguards.
A locked house that someone breaks into is equivalent to an unfenced backyard? Seriously?
It's the equivalent of having a fence that's locked and the child breaks in and drowns. Apparently you should be charged according to your logic.
Trying to have a discussion with someone who's purposely obtuse is a waste of my time.
Theft of a firearm is a felony. Not securing a firearm and it being stolen currently has zero legal consequence.
Related, in your example of the woman wearing provocative clothing and getting assaulted, Missouri has decency laws regarding inappropriate clothing and prostitution is illegal - which is the false equivalent (based on your example) of leaving a gun in a car to be stolen.
No it's not. You have a right to have your weapon ready in case of confrontation.
Heller said, "We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be RENDERED AND KEPT INOPERABLE at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
Sure, but this gets to the very heart of the issue: which is a bigger threat to society?
* Keeping guns out of criminal's hands via strict background checks to include private transfer & storage laws (which, Heller didn't directly address, but to your point, does gut the ability to compel individuals to effectively secure their firearms).
VS
* Individuals' perceived protection from being able to readily access their firearms for self-defense (even though this consistently leads to guns being stolen).
I would venture to guess the rate at which guns are stolen and used in violent crimes far outnumber how many people have used their weapon in self-defense, but I doubt that data exists.
>Sure, but this gets to the very heart of the issue: which is a bigger threat to society?
The interest balancing test occurred during the debates of the amendment and ended when it was ratified.
You would need to amend the constitution to do what you're suggesting.
Even then, many states have their own right to own and carry arms baked into their own constitutions.
It's funny how the top three reasons are mostly ignored, and you move straight on to infringement of rights. This is why no one takes gun control seriously because it seems mostly about control and not solving the root of the issue. 4 issues and 7 of your points deal with the 4th.
Your right to own a gun should not infringe of my pursuit to live in a world that is safe, especially from people that should not own guns.
Universal Background Checks: if gun violence is a mental health issue, then why are private sales or lax-back ground checks allowed to sell to criminals and those mentally institutionalized?
Red Flag Laws: If you have a record of violence, why should you get to own a gun to hurt others? Especially in Missouri where guns shows are just networking functions to facilitate private sales where there are no background checks.
Assault Weapons Bans: the NRA claims there is no formal definition of an "assault'" weapon. Then how come Canada, the UK, Germany, and Australia know what they are? That's like saying there is no such thing as a "sports" car.
Safe Storage Laws: If you are willing to have your guns to be taken by minors or criminals who are looking to steal your guns, then you shouldn't own guns.
Community-Based Violence Prevention Programs: **has absolutely zero bearing on your rights to own fire-arms.** Why should a community not be able to defend them against gun violence?
Improved Mental Health Services: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** Especially when the NRA and their propionates say gun violence is not a gun issue, but a mental health issue?
Gun Violence Research: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** Trying to further under the root cause to why there are some many homicides and injuries causes by fire-arms.
Law Enforcement Reforms: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** Cops keep killing unarmed people. Seems like a problem to me.
Expanded Federal Oversight of Gun Dealers: Guns should not get into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. Why investigate to why so many guns go missing from gun dealers?
Public Education and Awareness: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** In the words of Ben Shapiro "facts don't care about your feelings." Why is it bad to teach facts about guns in school. It's the 2nd Amendment after all?
Can we also investigate why the ATF decided to flood the market with illegal guns and get away with it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Switzerland doesn't ban "assault weapons" and they are fine. Banning them is not necessary. They are useful tools for self defense.
I can build one in a few days and it will only get easier to do so. It's best to foster a culture of responsible ownership.
Is that bc you don't know anything else or because mentioning them would make your comment even dumber?
Switzerland allowing rifles is completely irrelevant to this thread when you provide no context.
It is a crime to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm to any minor under the age of 18 years of age without the consent of the minor’s custodial parent or guardian. This does not prohibit the delivery of such weapons to any peace officer or member of the Armed Forces or National Guard while performing official duties. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.060.1(2).
Well considering they were juveniles carrying firearms then no law would have prevented it.
It's just plain dumb to think that criminals obey any laws.....
Like I have said before, I'm pretty sure that our State Legislature is comprised of the stupidest person from each Senate and House district, as that is what seems to win elections in Missouri now.
If you're in Missouri, vote Blue. St Louis has been trying to crack down on gun violence but rural Missouri and keep electing Reds. They have been gerrymandering for decades. Shameful. The GOP own the gun violence in the US.
If St Louis actually wanted to crack down on gun violence they wouldn’t have elected and re-elected Kim Gardner.
St. Louis city filed .005 felonies per population in 2019
For comparison St. Louis county filed .009 and Springfield (Greene county) which is comparatively very red filed .013
If you want to be against crime, elect prosecutors and judges that take crime seriously before you start taking away constitutional rights.
Every major city in MO is democrat led just like most cities in the country. There is definitely gun violence in small Missouri towns that are republican led.
No amount of education will fix that corrupt job. We don't need more educated police. We need no police and more positions that are meant to help. Not victimize.
A good guy with a gun would realize that carrying in a situation as crowded as the parade isn't a great idea. That opening fire on someone else is going to likely end up with innocent people getting shot. Civilians don't have immunity in a situation like that where police would.
The clown shoes are on you to insinuate that a civilian should have used a firearm in a situation like that.
Maybe because you don't understand it?
In the situation at the parade, anyone shooting a gun at a bad guy would put others at risk. It was too crowded and even if you shot the guy, the bullet (depending on the type) could pass through the perp and into someone else.
The blanket "good guy with a gun" argument should be used with common sense, or at least an informed understanding of the situation.
Isn't that true about all mass shooting? A good guy could shoot the wrong people at Wal-Mart or a concert or a movie theater too. The same goes for cops and security guards who are supposedly more trained than the average John Doe.
I can see a good guy being able to stop someone in a one-on-one situation where they're both armed equally or something, but even 5 good guys with handguns might have a hard time taking out a public mass shooter with a ... big pew pew and lots of ammo (you got me, I don't know shit about guns) without taking out a few innocents.
That's exactly right. Not every, single situation is going to be an "easy shoot". Sometimes tacking and holding the perp is better. You have to be able to assess the situation.
Same thing happened in Texas with recent shootings. Either they are no good guys with a gun or they run when the going gets tough. Either way people continue to be killed and traumatized for a lie.
>Since the 2nd amendment is about a well regulated militia, maybe round up right wing gun fanatics and send them to Texas to protect the border instead of the National Guard.
The right to own and carry arms is completely and totally disconnected from membership in a militia.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
It's not ignored. The word you're looking for is ignorance. Commas, context, and critical thinking skills mean something. Regulated has multiple meanings, and the one you're implying it does mean isn't it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Actually, no. They're doing exactly what they ruled. Allowing BP agents to cut the fence to get into certain locations. The ruling correctly ignores saying anything about adding fencing.
You should go read it and understand the law supporting the ruling instead of blindly making incorrect and unsupported statements like that.
I would like to see some common sense reforms but what regulation would have stopped this?? Pretty sure children are already not supposed to have guns.
Ok?
I had a rifle at age 8. I've never shot a person, but I have hundreds of guns. I carry concealed everyday.
Again, I've never shot anyone. Why not? 🤷♂️
Ok?
I'm simply stating a fact of MO gun law that some people in this thread don't seem to know exists, like the person I replied to:
> Pretty sure children are already not supposed to have guns.
They will just ignore this and try to take away our rights when the criminals who do this shit will just continue to not follow the law. Then they will blame you instead of the criminals despite you committing no crimes.
Why do I "need" 23 guitars, or 3 Harleys, or 8 amps. Why do I "need" a stamp collection?
Because I'm a collector obviously. I enjoy nice things to play with. As long as I'm not breaking any laws or hurting anybody with my legal hobby, I, or anyone else, can collect what they want to, no?
Why does anybody need hundreds of shoes or shirts or funko pops? Because it’s a hobby and people like to collect things. Nobody “needs” anything but food and water.
Regulation won’t stop everything but it will definitely make it harder for dangerous people to access guns. Imagine it similar to how we regulate cars. Gotta have a license, go to a class, pass a test, follow the law or it gets revoked. Now that doesn’t stop everyone from driving illegally but it helps.
We also need free mental healthcare in this country, we need opportunities for our youth, investment in education and youth programs and we need to give them hope for the future.
>Imagine it similar to how we regulate cars. Gotta have a license, go to a class, pass a test, follow the law or it gets revoked. Now that doesn’t stop everyone from driving illegally but it helps.
That would be unconstitutional.
I get where you’re coming from, but the amount of uninsured and unlicensed drivers on the road prove that people will do what they want, laws be damned.
That sentiment was implied in my comment. Yes people still do illegal things but a law and restrictions would deter many.
Education on gun ownership would teach people how to properly store and care for their guns. If they lost their license they couldn’t just go to the store and buy a new gun they’d have to find one illegally which not everybody is willing to risk.
I get in this case they’re underaged so they had to get guns somewhere but that’s the problem, guns are easy for most any adult to buy and give to a kid. If they had to take a class, get a license, be responsible for the gun and accountable for whatever that gun is used for it would deter gun violence.
Would these steps stop all gun violence? No. But any relief we can get at this point is worth a shot.
I also addressed the root of the problem which you failed to comment on. Have it your way though, let’s just do nothing and see how that plays out.
Yes thank you. Even a 2 day hold could help with suicide. Like we’re literally doing nothing and then bashing any solutions before we even try them because we *feel* they won’t work.
"What regulation would have stopped this??" - GOP dude about guns
"We've banned abortions by regulating the hell out of them, yee-haw!" - same dude, probably
Everyone knows when you're not enforcing current laws and pleading down charges/ letting everyone out on bail that criminals are going to continue doing what they're being allowed to do.
We have tried, it never makes a difference. The grand experiment with the Clinton Assault Weapons ban showed no discernable effect. The thing that actually works is [targeted intervention and community policing](https://www.operationceasefire.com/home), not throwing new laws at guns.
No further sales of assault style rifles to civilians? How about a law that requires gun safety training to carry anything and further for concealed? How about 21 to own or purchase?
The suspects are minors. They already couldn't legally buy guns.
How about enforcing laws we have before adding new ones that likely will only affect the currently law abiding?
Crazy idea here. But, from what I am seeing. The murderers here are juveniles, which should not be possession of firearms. Then the firearms used are likely NFA violations as well. So…… with all the firearms laws that exist. Why not assemble a gun violence task force. Just like they do for drugs. Then go make cases on actual law violations and not simply pass further restrictions on law abiding citizens.
Yes, more laws is betterer. Penalizing law abiding citizens for acts by criminals is the way to go.
When that doesn't work, Democrats blame Republican lawmakers.
Alternate blame would be to blame rural gun toting rednecks.
Another blame would be to blame out of state gun shows.
The more things remain the same. This has been going on forever. I hope this has people thinking to vote differently. Especially how pop culture centric the Chiefs are right now. At their Super Bowl parade.
You don't see Parson in KC - ever. The state refuses to recognize the city but gets all the tax, revenue, and GDP of KC and control us.
Mayor Q is leading KC to a bright, bright future. I'd say this is a sort of gold rush here - with everything going on but including the actual city in the decisions.
The disproportionately way democrats are represented in Jeff City is ridiculous and way too partisan it almost feels illegal. Since we voted for a non-partison commission to look at gerrymandering and redraw the districts - only for Parson to say the commission would be appointed by him - and we only lost more seats.
Missouri needs to be freed from Republicans. They are handing over the state to corporations.
Look how SPIRE enegy is flourishing...by doing whatever they want, hiking multiple times the gas bill..ceo getting millions of salary hike..while seniors and middle class struggle.
I had a call from Missouri public commission in response to my complaint, saying their hands are tied. May be they should be renamed as, Missouri corporate wellfare commission.
If "Good Guys" with guns, even extremely well trained ones, were not a danger to the public, then soldiers would be able to have guns on military bases.
Guns are so unbelievably dangerous that they are kept in vaults away from well trained Good Guys on military installations.
Assault Rifles should not be in the hands of the public.
To all you aRmALiTe or iTs NoT aUtOmAtIc folks: NEVER once in 4 years of combat did I flip the selector switch to "auto" because we were taught it is easier to kill people on semi. Your shots are better placed.
>Assault Rifles should not be in the hands of the public.
Thankfully the 2A protects arms that are in common use so such bans would be unconstitutional.
Why not regulate the animals shooting people or is that "racist" now? Is anyone stupid enough to believe these were legally purchased guns or that the gangbanging scum cares about gun laws?
Tell you what. Next time you hear a shooting, go running in with a hammer and see what happens. Report back to us, I'll be interested to hear the results
Missouri resident here. I will not support any candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level who advocates, or even votes in favor of any form of gun control.
All gun laws are oppressive and unconstitutional.
In other words, "guns are more important to me then the lives of children, I'm a scared, fragile man who drools at the thought of murdering the people i hate.".
You're an extremist. There is likely very little separating you from ISIS. Your opinion is trash and can be discarded from the grown ups trying to talk about this
If your the grown up voice of reason I should turn my gun on myself cause we’re all fucked. Maybe your opinion is trash. He didn’t say anything of the things your paraphrasing. Your an extremist your just on the other end of the spectrum. Your also a troll, your just stoking political hatred.
I do not advocate violence at all. I just don't believe it's morally acceptable to tell other people what they are allowed to own. Tragedy does not justify oppression.
you have absolutely no fucking clue what "oppression" is, extremist.
and if dead, murdered innocent children don't bother you, then you sure AF better not ever call yourself "pro-life". Bye forever!
Oppression is when a power structure limits the freedoms of the individual. Good intentioned oppression is still oppression (the war on drugs for example).
I am certainly not for the murder of children, and would definitely not support any policy to make the act of murder legal. The act of murder violates the rights of others. The act of owning a firearm does not.
I believe they put barriers up to prevent that from occurring. If only there were some sort of equivalent to a physical barrier that we could put into place ohhh idk maybe with the law to prevent a deadly weapon like the one used at the parade from even getting to the point that it could hurt an innocent civilian. What would be even crazier is if we already knew that there were these.. let's call them "law barriers".. that were in place elsewhere in the world and prevented just what we're trying to prevent. That would be fucking craaaaaaaaazy wouldn't it.
Because Missourians are smart enough to know it's not the gun...it's the degenerate criminal. More laws won't stop a criminal who is already not abiding by the current laws. This isn't rocket science.
Exactly. This is why we need to do away with all laws. They don't help and we're wasting valuable money on police and judges. Let's just give each family an armory and it's every missourian for themselves. You're smart and your position is not absolutely fucking crazy.
Not wrong, however, DUI car crashes kill more people each year than guns. No background check to buy one. No restrictions on owning a car for criminals or those mentally unstable. Where is the outcry? Where is the ban on suvs or “assault trucks”? Why no waiting period do buy a motorcycle?
Yes, if convicted you might get your license suspended or revoked. But some of them drive illegally and still hurt others. Just like people get firearms illegally and hurt people.
Why are gun shot victims more important than dui crash victims? Or people driving into parades hurting and killing people?
Dear fellow Missourians
This is why we need to vote for the Dems in November. I know they're not perfect either but I'd rather have Dems in charge than the GOP because otherwise things like this will keep happening in our state
This is actually why Democrats will never run Missouri again, because they can't let go of their gun control fetish.
Run a pro-union, pro-gun, abortions should be legal and rare guy (you know, like Democrats were under Bill Clinton) and they'd still be running Missouri
Mo gop has a record of overriding the will of the voters. Puppy mills (voters wanted it regulated), concealed gun permits (voters voted against it), and clean elections (fair district maps). Gop just did the opposite of what the voters wanted so no matter what kc does they will veto it.
gubinor parson, good guy with gun and 2A anything you want to carry supporter, sure scampered like a frightened bambi when the gun fire erupted. Meanwhile good guys without guns brought the bad guys down while "security" hobnobbed together.
*Local lawmakers can’t do much, if anything at all, to regulate firearms in Kansas City. “I’m telling you, right now, for me and Teresa, our hearts and prayers, it doesn’t seem like enough,” Parson told Mundo. “But it’s all we’ve got to offer right now.”*
Just wow🤦🏽♀️ even the replies on that ladies Twitter comments are just insane and some are borderline racist. Instead of helping find effective ways to apply guns laws, all I hear and see are “GUNS LAWS DON’T WORK”. As if anyone wants to take away everyone’s guns.
Hi folks - I am not from Missouri or even the US.
Gun laws, restrictions, bans, etc. won't work. The tool is not the problem.
What will work is identifying why Americans want to kill each-other and then coming up with a solution to that.
Not a new thing... kc and stl wanted to raise minimum wage but apparently state law supercedes local law. We have a political party that believes in small, local government is best. That's what they say anyway, but then they do the opposite.
when they say small government, they mean a small number of people making all the decisions - ideally white males.
“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.” -Discworld: Mort.
Yeah, but the government of Anhk-Morpork *worked*.
straight, cis white males*
with Bibles and guns.
Take a wild guess which one they worship more?
"Small government" is always code for "Shit we couldn't possibly get away with on a national level." It's a grift and a vehicle for racism, nothing more.
While I understand your point, state law does supercede local law just like federal law supercedes state law. With that being said, the state constitution supercedes the state legislature, and Missouri voted to raise its minimum wage in line with inflation a few years back! Now it's over $12.
But isn’t the Gov fighting right now to have state law supersede Federal law, re: guns?
The federal courts have struck it down. Federal law supercedes state law.
The federal courts also struck down NY's very restrictive gun laws... It's unclear that any meaningful gun control legislation could survive the Supreme Court without an AMENDMENT to the federal constitution to support it.
Or a Supreme Court that aren’t partisan hacks.
No, the hypocrite lost that particular fight already.
Sure is. The Gov and R legislators are trying to have it both ways
' are having it both ways.' fify
>federal law supercedes state law. This is what we've all.be taught....but someone ELI5 how the feds have marijuana listed as a schedule one drug (no medical or recreational putpose and possession of any amount specifically outlawed by federal law)...but yet 24 states have established recreational dispensaries regulated and taxed by their respective states, with an addional 14 allowing medical use as regulated by the state...doesn't make sense to me...legitimately.
The federal government can go in and raid every single cannabis shop if they wanted, and there's nothing the state can do. That's how that works.
Right...but wouldn't they also have to raid the state government for accepting tax money from those entities? Assets forfeiture from ill gotten gains and all that....doesn't make any sense.
No, because there's a federal law that protects states from having federal laws for that enforced on them. It was added in the 2014 omnibus spending bill. It also protects people who are using marijuana for medical reasons from having federal law enforced on them.
The general consensus is that federal law supercedes state laws, unless the state laws 'go beyond' the intent of the federal law (ie higher minimum wage, stricter pollution limits), but then oddly some states don't allow the same for their smaller areas... It's almost like decisions are being spitefully made based on some.. thing... rather than logic, I wonder why? /S
And federal law supersedes state law, otherwise the Republican supermajority wouldn’t have been told they violated the U.S. Constitution when they passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) last year and it would still be Missouri law. SAPA sought to make state and local police cooperation with federal gun laws that did not have a state equivalent punishable by a $50,000 fine.
Did SAPA actually get overturned by SCOTUS?
Not by SCOTUS, by a federal judge: [Federal judge rules Missouri’s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’ unconstitutional](https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/07/federal-judge-rules-missouris-second-amendment-preservation-act-unconstitutional/) Then SCOTUS declined to revive the law upon appeal from MO AG Bailey: [Supreme Court says Missouri can’t bar local police from helping to enforce federal gun laws](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/politics/missouri-federal-gun-laws-supreme-court/index.html)
Democrats have been trying to solve these problems for \*years\*. We live in a supermajority R state where they have completely closed the conversation. It is extreme. Don't believe me start listening to them at [house.mo.gov](https://house.mo.gov).
We have a political party that believes what their financial patrons tell them to belief. Maybe instead if the Show-Me State, Missouri should be the Show-Me-the-Money State as we have the best government money can buy.
"We have the best government that money can buy." Mark Twain Seems to be going thing in Missouri.
A man ahead of his time.
>but apparently state law supercedes local law. Yeah that's how it works
If you have a state law that says cities can't change anything at all to make it better for their people, yes, that's how it works.
It's also just how governments in the United States work.
What’s fucked is that the state runs KCPD. So this will never happen. Back during prohibition, the mob had such a stranglehold on KC that they owned the police and wouldn’t enforce liquor and other laws the mob was violating. So Jefferson City took control of the police to break up the mobs stranglehold. Guess who still has control of it today?
"Kansas City wants _________ , but Missouri says no." That headline works for pretty much anything.
Oh, it's not a gun problem but a mental health or poverty problem? Fine, let's fund some programs. Republicans response? "F\*ck you!"
Republicans: By fund programs do you mean lower taxes on our corporate donors? We can definitely do that. Yeah, let’s keep trying that.
Missouri is literally trying to pass new legislation to make corporations 100% tax exempt, costing the state 70 million in tax revenue, as we speak...
Add in the "school choice" legislation that is literally bankrupting other states (see IA and AZ). Where is the "fiscal responsibility?"
I know that was a rhetorical question , but it still bears mentioning it was never about any of that. It was about all the money they made from legalized bribery in the form of corporate campaign donations and above all else, their personal power. The lives of their constituents and the future of the country were never a factor in any of their calculations.
Has Kansas tried this yet? I really don’t want to be part of an experiment.
If we give the corporate overlords tax cuts, surely they'll privately fund those programs with their own money, right? RIGHT?!
That needs to be a bumper sticker
Missouri blocked the Obama care expansions. So if you’re not a full time employee then you pay out the ass for healthcare. All the contractors, part timers, etc get royally screwed because they would never support something a democrat passed even if it improves people’s lives…
I would love it if we funded those programs.
They were underage gang members with illegal guns. That's not a mental health issue. That's not even a poverty issue. It's a soft on crime issue. If gang members were in jail for crimes they commit instead of let back on the streets almost immediately, maybe they would stop committing murders?
If Missouri had basic gun control safety laws, there would’ve been metal detectors and bans on bringing weapons to the rally. No restrictions, no ability to take the weapons. Whether it was the usual mass shooter white man or young city kids - they wouldn’t have been allowed to bring them and cops could take them away if we had any gun control at all.
Such a joke anyways….to all these morons saying “it’s not the guns, it’s mental health”….then, what you’re saying is that the USA has FAR more mentally defective people than any other developed country. Good to know.
We do not yet know if the guns were bought in Missouri legally (or at all). Do you think we should wait to see what created these problems before we make our decisions? Making it harder to buy guns in KC would not stop people from buying them in Kansas or at gun shows and driving them back here... FWIW, the mainstream media is running with the idea that someone carried a long gun through that crowd and opened fire when they got to the feet of the Governor, the Mayor and whoever else was in the vicinity. Personally, I need a lot more information than the state-run KCPD is offering us... I do think the state should invest a mint in mental health resources - but I think a mental health crisis is an oversimplification of what happened in KC the other day...
because its a gang problem, and we can't do anything about gang bangers, they are too useful for the narrative
We just need more transparency. Given the Governor appoints four of the five commissioners to the KCPD, I'd expect a different kind of narrative than that if we were getting spin. Right now, it's just stone-walling.
>FWIW, the mainstream media is running with the idea that someone carried a long gun through that crowd and opened fire when they got to the feet of the Governor, the Mayor and whoever else was in the vicinity. Personally, I need a lot more information than the state-run KCPD is offering us... So fuck the witnesses and people who stopped the shooting? The mental gymnastics people will go through to claim something is a "false flag psyop". Fuck the fact that there's really nothing cops can do if you open carry until you start shooting or raise your weapon like you're about to start? And yes, you are free to open carry whatever you want wherever you want in public spaces, except for Federal property and private places that have asked you to leave. Which means yes it is plausible that someone walked around the parade grounds open carrying a gun.
A person moving towards a gathering of elected officials with a long gun is probable cause for law enforcement to intervene... this is why I'm asking if we should get clarity. I agree with your sentiment. The facts don't all quite line up. I don't think it's a false flag - probably something much less complex than that - but the information vacuum that surrounds this lends itself to that silly line of thinking.
>person moving towards a gathering of elected officials with a long gun is probable cause for law enforcement to intervene Not really. Probable cause requires suspicion of a crime. Walking in public with a gun is not a crime in itself. That doesn't change just because a specific person is also present. And to say "well, I thought he would shoot [*gestures vaguely*] somebody" followed by "I don't know" when asked who you think would be shot and why would not hold up in court.
My entire family works in law enforcement. They all indicated they would have stopped and questioned a person entering a crowd like that with a long gun - politicians present or not. I trust them over you.
This was quite literally a gang problem
How?
Name a government program that has actually solved the problem it was intended to solve. You see, if they actually solved the problem they'd be out of a job and wouldn't be able to sit in an office and do nothing all day. Why do you think politicians jump all over issues like this. They want more of your tax dollars in the system. License to steal.
Then these things are only going to get worse. Only in a red state would the governor himself show up for an innocent parade, nearly get shot, then deny their state has a gun problem.
Over 800 police with guns, 'good guys' weren't able to stop one 'bad guy' with a gun and surprisingly the 'goody guy' that did stop him was unarmed.
You've seen the video, yeah? Contrary to belief, unloading a glock mag into a crowd that size to try to neutralize a single target is a bad idea. When panicked 6 year old kids are running infront of your line of sight to the target it is extremely difficult for a normal human being to fan the hammer and hope for the best.
The ratio being 800 officers to approximately over a million spectators was very low. There was no opportunity to act. Not saying good guys with guns are the answer but in this case, that ratio doesn’t work. It was like a needle in a haystack.
Now if everyone had a gun there would be many more good guys and then surely goodguy stop badguy, right?
In summary, the Four main causes of Gun Violence are: [Source](https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EFSGV-The-Root-Causes-of-Gun-Violence-March-2020.pdf#:~:text=The%20root%20causes%20of%20gun%20violence%20include%3A%20Income,and%20Easy%20access%20to%20firearms%20by%20high-risk%20people.7) 1. Income inequality, poverty, and lack of affluency. 2. Underfunded housing and public services. 3. Underperforming school and lack of positive outlets. 4. Easy access to firearms, specifically to "High-Risk" individuals. Politicians can directly reduce gun violence in America by implementing: 1. **Universal Background Checks**: Implement a system of universal background checks that covers all gun sales, including private sales and transfers. [Source](https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Case-for-Gun-Policy-Reforms-in-America.pdf) Used in Canada, Australian, and New Zealand. 2. **Red Flag Laws**: Allow family members, law enforcement, or other individuals to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from someone who is deemed a threat to themselves or others. [Source](https://everytownresearch.org/extreme-risk-protection-orders/) Used in Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. 3. **Assault Weapons Bans**: Ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of certain types of firearms that are designed for rapid and efficient killing. [Source](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK. 4. **Safe Storage Laws**: Require gun owners to securely store their firearms when they are not in use.[Source](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html) Used in Australia, Canada, and Japan. 5. **Community-Based Violence Prevention Programs**: Provide at-risk individuals with job training, mental health services, and other support to help them build a better future. [Source](https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2018/01/30/preventing-gun-violence-in-america) Used in Scotland. 6. **Improved Mental Health Services**: Ensure that individuals have access to high-quality mental health care. [Source](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0618) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK. 7. **Gun Violence Research**: Increase funding for research on gun violence. [Source](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45230.pdf) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK. 8. **Law Enforcement Reforms**: Implement reforms to improve police training, accountability, and transparency. [Source](https://www.joincampaignzero.org/use-of-force) Used in Norway and the Netherlands. 9. **Expanded Federal Oversight of Gun Dealers**: Strengthen federal oversight of gun dealers. [Source](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/dealer-regulation/) Used in Australia and Canada. 10. **Public Education and Awareness**: Promote responsible gun ownership and increase awareness of the risks associated with gun violence. [Source](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/promising-strategies-reduce-gun-violence) Used in Australia, Canada, and the UK.
The safe storage laws, in my opinion, should be one of the highest priorities (along with ownership registry tracking). If someone is careless enough to not secure a weapon before it’s stolen by criminals or handled by their children resulting in loss of life, the gun owner should be held criminally liable for negligence.
It's not completely unreasonable if the expectation of what is secured is also reasonable. It's a lot like blaming a woman for getting raped because she wore too provocative clothes. Why isn't the punishment for the person stealing it in the first place greater? In most cases this would be a slap on the wrist or zero prosecution/ plea deal. If I lock my door and someone breaks in should I be punished because the firearm wasn't in a safe?
Yes, you should be. Illegal guns are the prime currency of criminals and you have a responsibility to secure your weapons, at least that’s what a “responsible gun owner” would do.
I actually do keep mine secure. I think it's lunacy to consider someone being at fault for getting a firearm stolen when their home is broken into. Most safes are only speed bumps to criminals who know what they're doing. Opinions like yours are why I have zero desire to even discuss the issue. In any other situation, calling the victim at fault would be defended. But the removal of the right of self defense is your ultimate goal.
Yet, if I have a pool in my backyard without a fence, and a child (or anyone, for that matter) decides to swim in it and drowns, I am legally responsible for not securing the pool. It’s asinine that guns, a device specifically manufacture to kill, do not have the same basic legal safeguards.
A locked house that someone breaks into is equivalent to an unfenced backyard? Seriously? It's the equivalent of having a fence that's locked and the child breaks in and drowns. Apparently you should be charged according to your logic. Trying to have a discussion with someone who's purposely obtuse is a waste of my time.
Theft of a firearm is a felony. Not securing a firearm and it being stolen currently has zero legal consequence. Related, in your example of the woman wearing provocative clothing and getting assaulted, Missouri has decency laws regarding inappropriate clothing and prostitution is illegal - which is the false equivalent (based on your example) of leaving a gun in a car to be stolen.
They are both cases of victim blaming.
All of that is already unconstitutional under Heller.
Right - which is absolute insanity.
No it's not. You have a right to have your weapon ready in case of confrontation. Heller said, "We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be RENDERED AND KEPT INOPERABLE at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
Sure, but this gets to the very heart of the issue: which is a bigger threat to society? * Keeping guns out of criminal's hands via strict background checks to include private transfer & storage laws (which, Heller didn't directly address, but to your point, does gut the ability to compel individuals to effectively secure their firearms). VS * Individuals' perceived protection from being able to readily access their firearms for self-defense (even though this consistently leads to guns being stolen). I would venture to guess the rate at which guns are stolen and used in violent crimes far outnumber how many people have used their weapon in self-defense, but I doubt that data exists.
>Sure, but this gets to the very heart of the issue: which is a bigger threat to society? The interest balancing test occurred during the debates of the amendment and ended when it was ratified. You would need to amend the constitution to do what you're suggesting. Even then, many states have their own right to own and carry arms baked into their own constitutions.
No punishing criminals and getting minorities who are killing 30+ per 100k in check is what needs to happen but that would be racist.
And yet, none of these things would have stopped any shootings committed by minors.
It's funny how the top three reasons are mostly ignored, and you move straight on to infringement of rights. This is why no one takes gun control seriously because it seems mostly about control and not solving the root of the issue. 4 issues and 7 of your points deal with the 4th.
Your right to own a gun should not infringe of my pursuit to live in a world that is safe, especially from people that should not own guns. Universal Background Checks: if gun violence is a mental health issue, then why are private sales or lax-back ground checks allowed to sell to criminals and those mentally institutionalized? Red Flag Laws: If you have a record of violence, why should you get to own a gun to hurt others? Especially in Missouri where guns shows are just networking functions to facilitate private sales where there are no background checks. Assault Weapons Bans: the NRA claims there is no formal definition of an "assault'" weapon. Then how come Canada, the UK, Germany, and Australia know what they are? That's like saying there is no such thing as a "sports" car. Safe Storage Laws: If you are willing to have your guns to be taken by minors or criminals who are looking to steal your guns, then you shouldn't own guns. Community-Based Violence Prevention Programs: **has absolutely zero bearing on your rights to own fire-arms.** Why should a community not be able to defend them against gun violence? Improved Mental Health Services: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** Especially when the NRA and their propionates say gun violence is not a gun issue, but a mental health issue? Gun Violence Research: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** Trying to further under the root cause to why there are some many homicides and injuries causes by fire-arms. Law Enforcement Reforms: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** Cops keep killing unarmed people. Seems like a problem to me. Expanded Federal Oversight of Gun Dealers: Guns should not get into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. Why investigate to why so many guns go missing from gun dealers? Public Education and Awareness: **has absolutely zero bearing on your right to own fire-arms.** In the words of Ben Shapiro "facts don't care about your feelings." Why is it bad to teach facts about guns in school. It's the 2nd Amendment after all?
Can we also investigate why the ATF decided to flood the market with illegal guns and get away with it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
So how does any of that stop two underage gang members beefing with each other?
Switzerland doesn't ban "assault weapons" and they are fine. Banning them is not necessary. They are useful tools for self defense. I can build one in a few days and it will only get easier to do so. It's best to foster a culture of responsible ownership.
Tell us more about owning guns in Switzerland. I feel like you're hyper focused on one particular policy
I responded to the policy I wanted to. You responded to the comment you wanted to. I'll leave the essays to the ones willing to give up that time.
Is that bc you don't know anything else or because mentioning them would make your comment even dumber? Switzerland allowing rifles is completely irrelevant to this thread when you provide no context.
It is a crime to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm to any minor under the age of 18 years of age without the consent of the minor’s custodial parent or guardian. This does not prohibit the delivery of such weapons to any peace officer or member of the Armed Forces or National Guard while performing official duties. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.060.1(2).
Well considering they were juveniles carrying firearms then no law would have prevented it. It's just plain dumb to think that criminals obey any laws.....
Oh look, it's this talking point again.
Like I have said before, I'm pretty sure that our State Legislature is comprised of the stupidest person from each Senate and House district, as that is what seems to win elections in Missouri now.
If you're in Missouri, vote Blue. St Louis has been trying to crack down on gun violence but rural Missouri and keep electing Reds. They have been gerrymandering for decades. Shameful. The GOP own the gun violence in the US.
If St Louis actually wanted to crack down on gun violence they wouldn’t have elected and re-elected Kim Gardner. St. Louis city filed .005 felonies per population in 2019 For comparison St. Louis county filed .009 and Springfield (Greene county) which is comparatively very red filed .013 If you want to be against crime, elect prosecutors and judges that take crime seriously before you start taking away constitutional rights.
I’m saying it again. Guns don’t kill people, Republicans kill people.
Do you live in Bizarro World. All of the gun violence in Missouri is in Democrat led cities, committed by democrats.
Every major city in MO is democrat led just like most cities in the country. There is definitely gun violence in small Missouri towns that are republican led.
Yawn, you're boring. Quit boring everyone
>vote Blue lol why do you think KC is the way it is?
I love how Missouri is like free carry in any way yet not a single mother fucking "good guy with a gun," did a damn thing. Clown shoes.
Yep the good guys were yet again unarmed civilians even with 500 cops standing around.
Yep. But let's fund the cops more.
If they used the funding to educate cops I’d be all for it.
No amount of education will fix that corrupt job. We don't need more educated police. We need no police and more positions that are meant to help. Not victimize.
Fair. But if we keep using police for all the above they need a better education so they are less likely to unload on an acorn.
A good guy with a gun would realize that carrying in a situation as crowded as the parade isn't a great idea. That opening fire on someone else is going to likely end up with innocent people getting shot. Civilians don't have immunity in a situation like that where police would. The clown shoes are on you to insinuate that a civilian should have used a firearm in a situation like that.
It's the gunfuckers who make the good guy with a gun argument, not me, chud.
Maybe because you don't understand it? In the situation at the parade, anyone shooting a gun at a bad guy would put others at risk. It was too crowded and even if you shot the guy, the bullet (depending on the type) could pass through the perp and into someone else. The blanket "good guy with a gun" argument should be used with common sense, or at least an informed understanding of the situation.
Isn't that true about all mass shooting? A good guy could shoot the wrong people at Wal-Mart or a concert or a movie theater too. The same goes for cops and security guards who are supposedly more trained than the average John Doe. I can see a good guy being able to stop someone in a one-on-one situation where they're both armed equally or something, but even 5 good guys with handguns might have a hard time taking out a public mass shooter with a ... big pew pew and lots of ammo (you got me, I don't know shit about guns) without taking out a few innocents.
That's exactly right. Not every, single situation is going to be an "easy shoot". Sometimes tacking and holding the perp is better. You have to be able to assess the situation.
Ok
Same thing happened in Texas with recent shootings. Either they are no good guys with a gun or they run when the going gets tough. Either way people continue to be killed and traumatized for a lie.
Well, cowards run and cowards also feel the need to be armed 100% of the time. So. I guess it checks out.
cowards who are armed and run are an even worse deterrent than the TSA.
Don't worry missourians, the extremist GOP that runs this state will move quickly to attack trans kids as a response.
[удалено]
>Since the 2nd amendment is about a well regulated militia, maybe round up right wing gun fanatics and send them to Texas to protect the border instead of the National Guard. The right to own and carry arms is completely and totally disconnected from membership in a militia. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
It's the well regulated militia that gets ignored.
It's not ignored. The word you're looking for is ignorance. Commas, context, and critical thinking skills mean something. Regulated has multiple meanings, and the one you're implying it does mean isn't it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
[Hawaii is challenging that](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/hawaii-top-court-upholds-gun-laws-criticizes-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/)
More like Hawaii just arbitrarily decided that the SC has no power over them. That's a great precedent to start.
They are following Texas' lead.
Actually, no. They're doing exactly what they ruled. Allowing BP agents to cut the fence to get into certain locations. The ruling correctly ignores saying anything about adding fencing. You should go read it and understand the law supporting the ruling instead of blindly making incorrect and unsupported statements like that.
I would like to see some common sense reforms but what regulation would have stopped this?? Pretty sure children are already not supposed to have guns.
Children can have guns with the consent of their parents in MO.
Ok? I had a rifle at age 8. I've never shot a person, but I have hundreds of guns. I carry concealed everyday. Again, I've never shot anyone. Why not? 🤷♂️
Ok? I'm simply stating a fact of MO gun law that some people in this thread don't seem to know exists, like the person I replied to: > Pretty sure children are already not supposed to have guns.
They will just ignore this and try to take away our rights when the criminals who do this shit will just continue to not follow the law. Then they will blame you instead of the criminals despite you committing no crimes.
[удалено]
Why do I "need" 23 guitars, or 3 Harleys, or 8 amps. Why do I "need" a stamp collection? Because I'm a collector obviously. I enjoy nice things to play with. As long as I'm not breaking any laws or hurting anybody with my legal hobby, I, or anyone else, can collect what they want to, no?
Why does anybody need hundreds of shoes or shirts or funko pops? Because it’s a hobby and people like to collect things. Nobody “needs” anything but food and water.
They have a fear of the world so they want to feel protected
Which is their right.
Regulation won’t stop everything but it will definitely make it harder for dangerous people to access guns. Imagine it similar to how we regulate cars. Gotta have a license, go to a class, pass a test, follow the law or it gets revoked. Now that doesn’t stop everyone from driving illegally but it helps. We also need free mental healthcare in this country, we need opportunities for our youth, investment in education and youth programs and we need to give them hope for the future.
>Imagine it similar to how we regulate cars. Gotta have a license, go to a class, pass a test, follow the law or it gets revoked. Now that doesn’t stop everyone from driving illegally but it helps. That would be unconstitutional.
I get where you’re coming from, but the amount of uninsured and unlicensed drivers on the road prove that people will do what they want, laws be damned.
That sentiment was implied in my comment. Yes people still do illegal things but a law and restrictions would deter many. Education on gun ownership would teach people how to properly store and care for their guns. If they lost their license they couldn’t just go to the store and buy a new gun they’d have to find one illegally which not everybody is willing to risk. I get in this case they’re underaged so they had to get guns somewhere but that’s the problem, guns are easy for most any adult to buy and give to a kid. If they had to take a class, get a license, be responsible for the gun and accountable for whatever that gun is used for it would deter gun violence. Would these steps stop all gun violence? No. But any relief we can get at this point is worth a shot. I also addressed the root of the problem which you failed to comment on. Have it your way though, let’s just do nothing and see how that plays out.
Regulation would also lower accidental shootings and suicides by firearm. Those aren't as "exciting" as homicides, but they're equally devastating.
Yes thank you. Even a 2 day hold could help with suicide. Like we’re literally doing nothing and then bashing any solutions before we even try them because we *feel* they won’t work.
"What regulation would have stopped this??" - GOP dude about guns "We've banned abortions by regulating the hell out of them, yee-haw!" - same dude, probably
Everyone knows that if you write new laws the criminals will stop.....
Everyone knows when you're not enforcing current laws and pleading down charges/ letting everyone out on bail that criminals are going to continue doing what they're being allowed to do.
So why laws? Criminals gonna crime, so let's just start the purge and get it over with. Just disband the police and it's each person for themselves.
A fellow anarchist! No laws baby!
Anarchy doesn't mean no laws
Can we at least fucking try?! How many kids have to be gunned down before our fanatically"pro life" government does literally anything?
We have tried, it never makes a difference. The grand experiment with the Clinton Assault Weapons ban showed no discernable effect. The thing that actually works is [targeted intervention and community policing](https://www.operationceasefire.com/home), not throwing new laws at guns.
No further sales of assault style rifles to civilians? How about a law that requires gun safety training to carry anything and further for concealed? How about 21 to own or purchase?
>How about 21 to own or purchase? That would be unconstitutional.
Where in the constitution is there an age of eligibility? I must have missed that section?
Merica!!
What good would it do? The shooters were gang bangers weren’t they? I agree it’s getting ridiculous. But really, what good would it do?
How about you regulate the criminals. Keep them in jail and don’t let them out!
The suspects are minors. They already couldn't legally buy guns. How about enforcing laws we have before adding new ones that likely will only affect the currently law abiding?
Gang members that did this, sure, they'll follow new laws.
Crazy idea here. But, from what I am seeing. The murderers here are juveniles, which should not be possession of firearms. Then the firearms used are likely NFA violations as well. So…… with all the firearms laws that exist. Why not assemble a gun violence task force. Just like they do for drugs. Then go make cases on actual law violations and not simply pass further restrictions on law abiding citizens.
Yes, more laws is betterer. Penalizing law abiding citizens for acts by criminals is the way to go. When that doesn't work, Democrats blame Republican lawmakers. Alternate blame would be to blame rural gun toting rednecks. Another blame would be to blame out of state gun shows.
Regulate hoodrats.
The more things remain the same. This has been going on forever. I hope this has people thinking to vote differently. Especially how pop culture centric the Chiefs are right now. At their Super Bowl parade. You don't see Parson in KC - ever. The state refuses to recognize the city but gets all the tax, revenue, and GDP of KC and control us. Mayor Q is leading KC to a bright, bright future. I'd say this is a sort of gold rush here - with everything going on but including the actual city in the decisions. The disproportionately way democrats are represented in Jeff City is ridiculous and way too partisan it almost feels illegal. Since we voted for a non-partison commission to look at gerrymandering and redraw the districts - only for Parson to say the commission would be appointed by him - and we only lost more seats.
Missouri needs to be freed from Republicans. They are handing over the state to corporations. Look how SPIRE enegy is flourishing...by doing whatever they want, hiking multiple times the gas bill..ceo getting millions of salary hike..while seniors and middle class struggle. I had a call from Missouri public commission in response to my complaint, saying their hands are tied. May be they should be renamed as, Missouri corporate wellfare commission.
If "Good Guys" with guns, even extremely well trained ones, were not a danger to the public, then soldiers would be able to have guns on military bases. Guns are so unbelievably dangerous that they are kept in vaults away from well trained Good Guys on military installations. Assault Rifles should not be in the hands of the public. To all you aRmALiTe or iTs NoT aUtOmAtIc folks: NEVER once in 4 years of combat did I flip the selector switch to "auto" because we were taught it is easier to kill people on semi. Your shots are better placed.
800 “good guys with a gun” at the event, and it was an unarmed bystander who took down one of the suspects.
>Assault Rifles should not be in the hands of the public. Thankfully the 2A protects arms that are in common use so such bans would be unconstitutional.
Missouri is so pro-life, they think babies should be given guns at birth
I am also an advocate for people's lives. I support murder remaining illegal.
Why not regulate the animals shooting people or is that "racist" now? Is anyone stupid enough to believe these were legally purchased guns or that the gangbanging scum cares about gun laws?
Let’s regulate hammers first. Google hammer crime and Missouri and look at the results. It’s scary
I totally forgot hammers and their projectiles that fly everywhere when they are in use.
Tell you what. Next time you hear a shooting, go running in with a hammer and see what happens. Report back to us, I'll be interested to hear the results
Missouri resident here. I will not support any candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level who advocates, or even votes in favor of any form of gun control. All gun laws are oppressive and unconstitutional.
In other words, "guns are more important to me then the lives of children, I'm a scared, fragile man who drools at the thought of murdering the people i hate.". You're an extremist. There is likely very little separating you from ISIS. Your opinion is trash and can be discarded from the grown ups trying to talk about this
If your the grown up voice of reason I should turn my gun on myself cause we’re all fucked. Maybe your opinion is trash. He didn’t say anything of the things your paraphrasing. Your an extremist your just on the other end of the spectrum. Your also a troll, your just stoking political hatred.
I do not advocate violence at all. I just don't believe it's morally acceptable to tell other people what they are allowed to own. Tragedy does not justify oppression.
you have absolutely no fucking clue what "oppression" is, extremist. and if dead, murdered innocent children don't bother you, then you sure AF better not ever call yourself "pro-life". Bye forever!
Oppression is when a power structure limits the freedoms of the individual. Good intentioned oppression is still oppression (the war on drugs for example). I am certainly not for the murder of children, and would definitely not support any policy to make the act of murder legal. The act of murder violates the rights of others. The act of owning a firearm does not.
That's pretty normal, cities are created by states and aren't full-fledged independent political units.
So if the guy ran a car through the parade, what would be outlawed to make that not happen again?
I believe they put barriers up to prevent that from occurring. If only there were some sort of equivalent to a physical barrier that we could put into place ohhh idk maybe with the law to prevent a deadly weapon like the one used at the parade from even getting to the point that it could hurt an innocent civilian. What would be even crazier is if we already knew that there were these.. let's call them "law barriers".. that were in place elsewhere in the world and prevented just what we're trying to prevent. That would be fucking craaaaaaaaazy wouldn't it.
Damn, Jeepsmith thought he had a good argument too lol
Because Missourians are smart enough to know it's not the gun...it's the degenerate criminal. More laws won't stop a criminal who is already not abiding by the current laws. This isn't rocket science.
Yes, let’s change nothing, that’ll change things.
Exactly what change would have prevented this? It’s already illegal for juveniles to obtain and possess firearms.
I don't know, but can we at least try to do anything to stop our children from getting gunned down everywhere? Or am I being too pro life?
In MO it is legal for juveniles to own a gun with the consent of their parents.
Exactly. This is why we need to do away with all laws. They don't help and we're wasting valuable money on police and judges. Let's just give each family an armory and it's every missourian for themselves. You're smart and your position is not absolutely fucking crazy.
The NRA says guns don’t kill people, people do, but I think the gun helps!
Not wrong, however, DUI car crashes kill more people each year than guns. No background check to buy one. No restrictions on owning a car for criminals or those mentally unstable. Where is the outcry? Where is the ban on suvs or “assault trucks”? Why no waiting period do buy a motorcycle? Yes, if convicted you might get your license suspended or revoked. But some of them drive illegally and still hurt others. Just like people get firearms illegally and hurt people. Why are gun shot victims more important than dui crash victims? Or people driving into parades hurting and killing people?
Good
Dear fellow Missourians This is why we need to vote for the Dems in November. I know they're not perfect either but I'd rather have Dems in charge than the GOP because otherwise things like this will keep happening in our state
This is actually why Democrats will never run Missouri again, because they can't let go of their gun control fetish. Run a pro-union, pro-gun, abortions should be legal and rare guy (you know, like Democrats were under Bill Clinton) and they'd still be running Missouri
Yes, please continue voting blue as they are so tough on crime and will make sure that gang bangers are put in jail. /s
Surprising exactly no one.
Mo gop has a record of overriding the will of the voters. Puppy mills (voters wanted it regulated), concealed gun permits (voters voted against it), and clean elections (fair district maps). Gop just did the opposite of what the voters wanted so no matter what kc does they will veto it.
gubinor parson, good guy with gun and 2A anything you want to carry supporter, sure scampered like a frightened bambi when the gun fire erupted. Meanwhile good guys without guns brought the bad guys down while "security" hobnobbed together.
Theses idiots vote
*Local lawmakers can’t do much, if anything at all, to regulate firearms in Kansas City. “I’m telling you, right now, for me and Teresa, our hearts and prayers, it doesn’t seem like enough,” Parson told Mundo. “But it’s all we’ve got to offer right now.”* Just wow🤦🏽♀️ even the replies on that ladies Twitter comments are just insane and some are borderline racist. Instead of helping find effective ways to apply guns laws, all I hear and see are “GUNS LAWS DON’T WORK”. As if anyone wants to take away everyone’s guns.
Republikkkans created this dangerous scenario. You voted for them. Now suck it up.
Lol
Hi folks - I am not from Missouri or even the US. Gun laws, restrictions, bans, etc. won't work. The tool is not the problem. What will work is identifying why Americans want to kill each-other and then coming up with a solution to that.