AVB-AMG

@Sniper: That example was not a mass-shooting... therefore not relevant to my earlier point about mass-shootings. AVB-AMG

@Mrs. Peel: I know that I am beating a dead horse here, but let me try to simplify and clarify this point one last time.... We agree that if you want to use just proportionality to support your argument, then you are correct in your assertion. If one just looks at the numbers alone of which race the "angry young men" mass-shooters are members of, then it is clear that whites/Caucasians have committed more mass shootings in the U.S. in the past 20 years than angry young men of other races. That was part of my point. I never said or even implied that the the mass-shootings in the U.S. over this time period are "unique to whitey". I will reiterate the final point that I was making: Therefore, it could be argued that "white" men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so or at a higher number than "angry young men" of other races. I admit that this is conjecture based on historical precedence and may or may not continue to be the case.... Finally, I would be the last person to ever suffer from the silly so-called affliction of either consciously or subconsciously subscribing to the concept of "white privilege", or as some have defined as an invisible package of unearned assets. FYI - I have always recognized, appreciate and have been grateful for, (and plan to continue to be), as well as enjoying my station in life, from my God-given attributes and benefited from good parenting, combined with those self-attained attributes attained through extensive education, much hard work and mostly good choices along the way.... BTW, now that it is getting chillier outside in the evenings, your suggestion of opening and savoring a nice glass of Port sounds like an excellent idea..... Cheers AVB-AMG

@Mrs. Peel: Did you not read this part of my post?: "Now, as to your assertion that “white males are no more liable or prone to commit a mass shooting than a Hispanic male, a Black male or an Asian male”. You may be correct in the overall picture, asserting that white men may not be statistically more “prone” to commit a mass-shootings, but the facts show that white men have in the past committed a greater number of the mass-shootings. Therefore, it could be argued that white men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so than other races. That is conjecture based on historical precedence and may or may not continue...." AVB-AMG

@Mrs. Peel Ha... well here you go: AVB-AMG

@Sniper: So now you are asking me why the main stream news media chooses what facts to present and highlight in their stories? Since when am I responsible for making those decisions...? Should I ask you the same silly question about why does Fox News choose to omit or be silent on important news stories or continuously spin their political bias? Come on now, we both know that almost all of the news media has their biases and each of us needs to do our best to recognize and call it what it is and ultimately be able to understand and digest what is truly the honest truth based on factual information. AVB-AMG @Sniper: You left out this very important point that I made in my post: My point is that therefore, we can all see that most of the mass shooters have been historically perpetrated by white men over that period. Is it "disproportionately" so? Maybe not, but IMHO, it really makes no difference in the big picture that whites make up the majority of the U.S. population, to recognize and accept the factual reality that they have been the ones committing the most mass-shootings over the past 20 years.... AVB-AMG

@Mrs. Peel I disagree with your assertion regarding race. Race is statistically relevant in mass shootings over the past twenty years in the U.S. for us to understand specifically who has committed these horrific violent crimes. I think we both agree on the results of the factual studies we each have read. My earlier assertion that most of the mass shooters happen to be white is also correct and is based on factual information. As proof, you and others may refer to a very detailed database chart compiled by Mother Jones, titled “U.S. Mass Shootings, 1982-2019: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/edit#gid=0 In that chart, you will see that of the 116 events documented, that 64 of the shooters were white and 40 of the shooters were Latino. For my argument, from 1999 to the present day, (the last twenty (20) years), 47 white men committed mass-shootings out of the 90 mass-shootings recorded over that period. So, the historical facts show, almost 48% of the mass-shooters in the U.S. over the past 20 years were white. The chart of the study that you included in your post from Statista.com shows an even higher percentage (65%), perpetrated mass shootings over the studied time period. My point is that therefore, we can all see that most of the mass shooters have been historically perpetrated by white men over that period. Is it "disproportionately" so? Maybe not, but IMHO, it really makes no difference in the big picture that whites make up the majority of the U.S. population, to recognize and accept the factual reality that they have been the ones committing the most mass-shootings over the past 20 years, more so than those of other races. Now, as to your assertion that “white males are no more liable or prone to commit a mass shooting than a Hispanic male, a Black male or an Asian male”. You may be correct in the overall picture, asserting that white men may not be statistically more “prone” to commit a mass-shootings. But the facts clearly show that white men have in the past committed a greater number of the mass-shootings. Therefore, it could be argued that white men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so than other races. I understand and admit that is conjecture, based on historical precedence and may or may not continue.... Also, I am not saying that there is a link between these “young, angry white male” mass-shooters and “structural racism or “white supremacy”. While some of the mass shooters may have been influenced by some of those beliefs, I do not think we can accurately characterize most, let alone claim that all of them having been so. AVB-AMG

Also, two years ago, I posted the following here on NJGF, that is relevant and backs up the point I made in my last post: I checked out the U.S. mass shootings data compiled by the reader-supported, non-profit news organization called Mother Jones from their web site (Here is the link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ The facts are sobering and eye-opening, with some obvious and others not so obvious: Since 1982, 54% of mass shootings, (in which 3 or more fatalities were reported), were committed by white men. More than half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 20, respectively) The other 30 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings 44 of the killers were white males and only two were women. The average age of the killers was 35 A majority were mentally troubled, with many having displayed signs of mental health problems before their killing spree. White people make up 63% of the U.S. population. Men are more likely to commit violent crimes. 98% of mass shootings and 90% of all murders are committed by men. I am curious to hear the thoughts of others here on all of this.... AVB-AMG FYI - Here is a list of 15, (which are some, but certainly not all), of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States listed chronologically, from today, going back to 1966, where the gunman/gunmen are known: Killed / Date Location Injured Shooter’s Name / Age 11/05/2017 1st Baptist Church – Sutherland Springs, TX 28/30 Devin P. Kelley / 26 10/13/2017 Private Residence – Pedro, OH 4 Aaron Lawson / 23 10/01/2017 Route 91 Music Festival – Las Vegas, NV 59/489 Stephen Paddock / 64 6/12/2016 Nightclub Shooting - Orlando, FL. 49/53 Omar Mateen / 29 12/02/2015 Inland Reg. Ctr. – San Bernardino, CA 14 Syed Farook / 28 Tashfeen Malik / 27 9/16/2013 Washington Navy Yard – Washington D.C. 12 Aaron Alexis / 34 12/14/2012 Sandy Hook – Newtown, CT 26 Adam Lanza / 20 7/20/2012 Aurora Theater – Aurora, CO 12/70 James Holmes / 24 11/05/2009 Fort Hood – Killeen, TX 13/30 Nidal M. Hasan / 39 4/03/2009 American Civic Assoc. – Binghamton, NY 13 Jiverly Wong / 42 4/16/2007 Virginia Tech – Blacksburg VA 32/17 Seung-Hui Cho / 23 4/20/1999 Columbine H.S. – Littleton, CO 13/24 Eric Harris / 18 Dylan Klebold / 18 8/20/1986 USPS – Edmond, OK 14/6 Patrick Sherrill / 45 7/18/1984 McDonald’s – San Ysidro CA 21/19 James Huberty / 41 8/01/1966 U. of Texas – Austin, TX 14/31 Charles Whitman / 25

@Mrs. Peel: I realize that I probably should have also included the word "young" in my description of the profile of the typical mass-shooter in the U.S. over the past 20 years, so it reads" "young angry white male" You may recall that two years ago I wrote a post here on NJGF that started with this sentence: Jack Weinberg, a former New Left activist in the Free Speech Movement at UofC-Berkeley in 1964, is credited in an interview with coining the saying “Don’t trust anyone over 30”. I wonder if today we should reconsider that claim and reverse it to say “Don’t trust anyone under 30”.. What is it with the youth in our country, as well as in other countries today, when it comes to gun violence and mass shootings? Specifically, white men under the age of 30. When looking at 15 of the deadliest mass shootings committed in the U.S. over the past 50 years, I find it very interesting that eleven (11) of the shooters were under the age of 30 and two (2) were under that age of 40. Statistically, approximately one half of mass shooters are age 30 or younger. Yet, I also find it interesting that the shooter who killed the most people is over the age of 60....(an anomaly?). What is the motivating cause of these young men to commit such horrendous acts of violence? It is probably almost impossible to predict who will become a mass shooter. From what I have read, mass shooters tend to have common psychological and behavioral characteristics, including depression, resentment, anger, social isolation, as well as the tendency to externalize blame, rather than internalize it. They may suffer from various mental illnesses such as neuro-developmental disorders, including Asperger’s syndrome and/or autism spectrum disorder. Is it possible to also blame the motivation of some of these mass killers on the increasingly polarized source of news and facts on the internet? Aside from our mass media, there are a plethora of web sites that purport to provide the honest truth about all topics and issues. Someone can easily find multiple web sources to affirm their beliefs and then consciously choose not to even read or listen to, let alone consider, alternative or contrary assertions, claims, statements, etc. Some studies have also detected a link between graphically violent entertainment of movies and video games and the shooters. Could it be that some of these individuals have such a warped idea about certain things from this self-consciously chosen narrow mindedness, that they are divorced from reality? I hope that in coming years, sooner rather than later, our society is able to reach a much better understanding of the potential triggers, psychological traits and antecedents which contribute to motivating young men to commit such extreme violence. Ideally, to be able to identify individuals who are more at risk of engaging in mass killings or are on the pathway to intended violence in order that appropriate preventative strategies can be considered and implemented in order to reduce their occurrence. AVB-AMG

@Mrs. Peell: FYI – it is NOT a common myth that over the past approximately 20 years in the United States, that the typical profile of a mass shooter is that of an “angry white male”….. My assertion is correct. It is factual information confirmed by in-depth studies conducted by respected institutions and not my opinion. For proof of that please refer to the FBI study published in June 2018, titled: “A Study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States.” https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view The study examined 63 active shooting incidents in the US between 2000 and 2013, in an attempt to identify “those who may be on a pathway to deadly violence.” In it, a single demographic data point clearly distinguishes American mass shooters from other citizens: 94% were men. In a separate FBI study published in April 2018, analyzing 50 active shooter incidents between 2016 and 2017, all shooters were male. Most active shooters were also either single (57%) at the time of shooting, or divorced or separated (22%). According to the June 2018 study, mass shooters are mostly white (63%), but that is in line with the 60% of the US population that identifies as white and non-Hispanic. Beside being male and single or divorced, most shooters had “concerning behavior” in common: abuse, harassment, bullying, and sometimes violence. The FBI found that a third of mass shooters had been convicted of a crime as an adult (35%). Nearly two-thirds of active shooters (62%) had a history of acting in an “abusive, harassing, and oppressive way,” says the June report, including incidents of “excessive bullying and workplace harassment.” About one in five shooters (16%) had engaged in “intimate partner violence,” and 11% exhibited behavior that could be considered “stalking.” The shooters in the study exhibited an average of 4.7 examples of “concerning behavior” before their attacks. The FBI’s June 2018 report also showed that active shooters had, on average, 3.6 “stressors,” or things in their life causing them stress, at the time of the shooting. These ranged from financial problems and mental health issues to the death of a relative. I combined the “concerning behavior” traits with the “stressors” in my simple term “angry”, but you get the point… AVB-AMG

@Sniper: Yes, I accept and believe that the data from the FBI on the is credible. Thank you for posting that interesting chart, for I found it to be quite informative. For some reason you seem to be confused about my stand on the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). If you have read my posts on the subject over the past couple of years you will see that I have evolved my position and no longer believe that re-instituting some variation on the AWB would be effective in achieving the stated intend of its sponsors. I came to that realization over a year and a half ago, (see the links to those applicable posts above, as well as my posts in this thread. So to be clear with you: I am against an AWB.... AVB-AMG

@Golf battery, @W2MC, @njpilot, @Underdog & @Mrs. Peel: As I said in my post itemizing Joe Biden’s proposals regarding gun control, I am AGAINST his proposal to Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as being against his proposal to End the online sale of firearms and ammunition. Also, while I am not totally against Biden’s proposal to Regulate Assault Weapons under the National Firearms Act, I do think that as others here have pointed out, that the term “assault weapons” needs to be clearly and accurately defined. If that definition is too general and all-encompassing then this proposal would go too far for my support. IMHO, it would be naïve, simplistic and pointless to attempt to ban or confiscate any one type of gun, nor should we, since there are over 350 million guns already in private hands in the U.S. Having said that, imposing some form of regulations of guns is acceptable. For example, I have previously indicated that I am against allowing the legal sale of any device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to be modified to mimic the speed and action of a fully-automatic weapon, (i.e. bump-stocks). While I am essentially supportive of Biden’s other proposals, as stated on his web site, they are very brief and generalized. The actual proposed bills in Congress would need to consider and address the many important details and consequences that may be anticipated by their enactment. Also, serious consideration should be given to including some form of sunset provision for each bill so that the ensuing law has a limited life span. Then, appropriate studies could be performed to determine the effectiveness of each of those laws. Just to be very clear, contrary to the assertions by some here, I do support the ability of capable American citizens from obtaining most types of firearms for their recreational use and for self-defense. I am not supportive of the extreme far-left advocates who fundamentally want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate all firearms, neither of which will ever happen in our country, IMHO. I believe that most gun owners, be they hunters, sport shooters, lawful collectors or those concerned about home safety/personal protection, are not 2nd Amendment fundamentalists, but their strength as a political force has been high jacked by extremists. With one gun atrocity following another at an increasing frequency, it is time for sensible voices to be heard. We come back to the same question: What are we, as "responsible" gun owners, going to do about it? My answer: I am for reasonable gun control, since the 2nd Amendment does include the term “regulate”. I am open to and could tolerate more practical and enforceable gun control than currently exists at either the state or federal levels. I do not believe that this is an "all or nothing" situation. I do believe that we as a nation can collectively come up with an acceptable compromise that would address this problem, potentially reducing future gun fatalities and mass shootings, while still allowing gun owners to keep and enjoy their guns. So what am I suggesting? The following: Enforce Existing Gun Laws - As said earlier, we have many state and federal laws already on the books that regulate firearms that are not enforced. The first step we need to take as a society is to actually properly enforce those existing laws, including closing any loopholes, which is not really the case today. This also means that the current NICS system needs to be upgraded and expanded since the existing database is not up to date and do does not effectively communicate on a timely basis with other appropriate federal and state agencies. Institute Universal Background Checks - As a gun owner I support regulation designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated through their behavior that they are a danger to themselves or others - as long as that restriction is administered with appropriate due process necessary to infringe upon a Constitutional Right. I believe that many (perhaps most) of the mass shootings at schools occur partially from a systems failure in this country. The Parkland shooter is an example of every “red flag” being raised and ignored because of a lack of safety-net (mental health) and systems communication, (reports of threat to FBI, for example). I support instituting uniform and universal background checks for ALL gun sales. This would involve ensuring that we create a better way for the existing NICS system communicates with state and local law enforcement agencies, courts and healthcare institutions to create a deeper search capability to flag those individuals who should not be allowed to legally obtain a firearm. Address Mental Health Issues - I agree with the basic argument that we need to treat the underlying problem and not just the resulting symptoms. I also recognize that part of the mass shooting phenomenon lays in mental health issues in some people, primarily the group category of young white men. We are the only modern industrial country in the world without a universal health care system. I support mitigating the root cause of much of the mass shootings by making mental and physical health a priority for all U.S. citizens, instead of just the privileged members of our society. Therefore, I am for exploring further how to realistically and fairly institute some sort of check on one’s mental health and then dealing appropriately once a diagnosis has been made, as one of the main strategies on combating deaths associated with guns. @Mrs. Peel made a good point on this in a post awhile back. She said that “tightening up our response to these signs of a potentially violent kid is absolutely critical IMO.... and holding people responsible when they fail!”. She also cited an example in Switzerland, that after one of their own school shootings, they began to fund an in-school psychologist in every school to help identify potentially violent kids and pull them into treatment. I agree with her that is another idea worth exploring and considering instituting here in the U.S. Also, I agree with @High Exposure, where he astutely noted in one of his posts that he believes “that the big issue we are facing is the fact that those with mental instability of any kind are placed in a “protected class”. By doing such we are doing everyone a disservice. I think we need a complete overhaul of the mental health system before we will see a drastic change in the kind of behavior that creates someone that thinks shooting up a school is a good thing.” Require Firearm Safety Training – I believe that responsible gun owners become educated via formal mandatory training in the safe and proper use, maintenance, storage and transportation of their firearms. Most of us do that on our own account, but many others do not. This type of training greatly reduces the chance of serious accidents involving firearms. I think this is an area where we can take what the NRA has already established and make it a national program, (which would certainly help their current troubled financial situation). This firearm safety training would be required of all gun owners and proof of course participation and completion would be required as part of gun ownership. To me, that just makes sense… For example, my ability to drive a car is not infringed by requirements that I demonstrate my capability to drive safely, abiding by traffic laws, obtain a license, register my vehicle and purchase insurance against accidents. The same requirements for gun owners would not infringe their Second Amendment rights. Require Gun Owner’s to have Insurance - Let's add the requirement for all gun owners to purchase and maintain liability insurance for all of their firearms, similar to that required for cars. We allow cars to be driven on public roads but the driver must be insured in case he/she harms someone or damages property. The same should be true for owning and using guns, especially if CCW is eventually allowed nationally. Finally, I understand and accept that no law is going to eliminate a criminal or a deranged individual who is really intent on obtaining some type of gun from doing so and committing crimes, murders or mass-murders. But I do not believe that we as a civilized society, should do nothing and just accept that the steadily increasing gun-related violence and crime, is the "price" for our freedom. We should not let the mounting number of deaths that are gun-related continue without attempting to address it, that truly is in ALL of the public's best interest. I do not have all the answers but am willing to try out some new ideas in an effort to stem the tide of this growing violence and death toll. AVB-AMG

@JohnnyB: Actually, I do not believe that strict Socialism is a viable form of government and have never said so or advocated that. I do believe that from what history has shown us that IMHO, the ideal form of government is essentially what we currently have in the U.S. - a constitutional republic that strives, while not always succeeding, in being a democracy. Ideally, I believe that this should be a combination of democratic social concepts, (i.e. Social Security, Medicare & ultimately Universal Healthcare), that deal with our broad social issues, along with an fairly regulated, (i.e. Glass-Steagall Act), capitalist economic approach for business and commerce. We saw and experienced the meltdown in the financial services industry back in 2008, when a few greedy banks and financial services institutions almost collapsed our entire financial system. Yet, unfortunately, I also recognize that in reality our country is currently and has been for awhile, struggling to deal with conflicting forces of control that include oligarchy, kleptocracy, fascism and populism. AVB-AMG

@WP22: Ok, I know you are referring to me and my posts in another thread that I started over 19 months ago. I admit that at times, I have vacillated in some of my view points regarding guns and gun control. I am constantly learning and will admit when I believe that I was mistaken or wrong. Unlike your assertion, I do believe that this is not a black and white issue but has many shades of gray to be considered, many which are conflicting and contradictory. I try to consider all sides of an argument as I eventually evolve my thinking and opinion. For those here who are curious about this and are interested, here are links to two of my posts from that thread that explain in detail how I was convinced that my initial thinking was flawed and eventually came around to understand and agree with the sensible and logical arguments that were presented regarding banning assault weapons. (FYI - Click on the arrow each of the upper right corners to go to the appropriate post). AVB-AMG

@JohnnyB: I don't think that @Greenday is a paid troll. But I no longer have the stamina or time to devote to reading all recent posts in all threads here as he and some others seem to have. I find that to be quite exhausting and for many silly topics, a real waste of one's time. As you know, for quite some time, some folks here accused me of being a paid troll. I tried to shrug it off with humor, responding: "yes, and that I am paid by the word...." Eventually, those accusations died down, especially after a number of us have met one another on various occasions for gun shooting outings, both indoors and outside. I think it is possible to agree to disagree on politics and still appreciate each other's company while discussing other things, sharing our experiences and knowledge of various firearms and mutually enjoying our interest in shooting our guns. If anyone could possibly be a paid troll here in the 1st Amendment forum, it may very well be someone who has never attended any NJGF inspired get-together and hides behind an online secret curtain of anonymity, by omitting all of their personal information from their profile here. BTW, has anyone here ever met face-to-face with @Handyman......??? Or is he living somewhere inside Russia? Hmmmmm. AVB-AMG

@Cemeterys Gun Blob: Yes I agree with you. FYI - Biden's gun proposals are the least onerous of all of the declared Democrat candidates for POTUS. AVB-AMG

@Underdog: I was asked by @Sniper for my opinion and I responded with my opinion. By expressing and sharing my opinion is just that straight forward. I am not "trying to push" my "views and agenda" on you or anyone. FYI, my views are shared by a good portion of U.S. citizens and it is all fair and fine if you and others disagree with them. I understand from your posts that you subscribe to a more Libertarian political perspective where you want minimal government at all levels and want to be left alone. That is fine. I resent though, your accusation that I am not being honest in my posts and do not cite facts. Also, I would appreciate your refraining from the childish name calling. It detracts from the valid points, (rare as they are...), that you are attempting to make. I am and have cited facts to support my arguments, over the past several years, along with sharing my strong opinion on topics, especially regarding Donald Trump. We fundamentally disagree about Donald Trump as both a person, his character, his behavior, his fitness for office and probably even his mental stability. I am not going to change your mind about him, nor are you or others here going to change my mind about him. I have stated countless reasons to support my arguments. If you choose to disagree with them then that is your choice. Unlike you and so many others here, I recognize that I am not always right and appreciate a spirited, while civil and respectful discourse of the topic at hand. It is normal to get agitated by what each of us interprets as unbelievable ignorance, naivety, gullibility or worse..... I certainly have with you and others here and you and they with me. As I have said in the past and will say once again.... the more I learn the more I realize how much more I still need to learn. It seems that honest and astute self-reflective attitude is not shared with around a dozen or so posters here in the 1st Amendment forum, who seem absolutely certain that they are always right, that their dogmatic beliefs are correct and refuse to learn, let alone seriously consider a different point of view or more drastically, trying a different approach to solve a persistent problem. Now, getting back to Biden's campaign stance on guns.... My reasoning for supporting much of Biden's proposals are my realization that the constant gun-related fatalities needs to be addressed by us as a civilized society. Yes, I know that in our country that about 2/3's of the total of those deaths are a result of suicide. But the remaining 1/3 is still a staggering number in our country, easily eclipsing those of all other western countries. Furthermore, I refuse to accept and to become numb about what now appears to be almost regular weekly or bi-monthly mass shootings around the country. That has propelled me to join the camp of those who believe that we need to try doing something differently in an attempt to stem that growing tide of death. I am willing to support legislation that most of you find way too drastic and abhor since you are afraid that it will lead to effectively eliminating our rights under the 1st Amendment. As you had pointed out in your rebuttal to my positions, not all of the consequences of some of the proposed legislation have been considered and I agree that they would need to be addressed in any final form of the proposed legislation. I also would support a reasonable limited time frame for the lifespan of those bills, including some form of sunset clause, that would allow Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of each law. If it is proved effective or non-effective from the resulting studies by multiple groups, then Congress can vote again to either reinstate each law separately or let it just die. A number of posters here, including you and @Mrs. Peel, have made some compelling arguments in favor of retaining the PLCAA, for which I appreciate and will consider further as I do some additional research into that specific Act and whether or not it's repeal would truly put firearms manufacturers out of business. I do not think they would go out of business, but I could be mistaken.... AVB-AMG

@Golf battery: FYI - I already did that in my original post. I guess you did not read the introduction where I said that I expressed my opinion as to whether or not I agree or disagree with Joe Biden's proposals regarding firearms. My opinion was/is listed in italics typeface at the end of each bullet point narrative, taken directly from Biden's web site. AVB-AMG

@Sniper: Rather than just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart, why not look at exactly what he is now proposing. Biden’s campaign recently issued his proposed program pertaining to guns and it is quite wide-ranging and worth a closer look to see what is in it. I did just that and have done a “cut & paste” of the highlights from his web site and my comments and opinion noted in italics. While I do not agree and support all of his proposals, I do support most of them: AVB-AMG Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the PLCAA. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (I agree with this approach) Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (I disagree with this) Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (I cautiously supportive of exploring this approach further but have concerns that it could go too far). Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (I have spent a lot of money to purchase multiple 10-round magazines for my various firearms, in order to comply with the recently enacted NJ law. I have almost $1,000 worth of 15-round magazines stored out-of-state for my various firearms that I can no longer legally possess. If these magazines remain illegal then I would hope that I could sell them to the government to recoup some of my financial investment). Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (I do not have a problem with this. A firearms enthusiast could purchase 12 more firearms each year, if they so desire….) Keep guns out of dangerous hands. The federal background check system (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is one of the best tools we have to prevent gun violence, but it’s only effective when it’s used. Biden will enact universal background check legislation and close other loopholes that allow people who should be prohibited from purchasing firearms from making those purchases. Specifically, Biden is proposing to do the following: Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I agree that this makes sense). Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy. (I do not have a problem with this). Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (I do not have a problem with this). Close the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston loophole allows people to complete a firearms purchase if their background check is not completed within three business days. Biden supports the proposal in the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which extends the timeline from three to 10 business days. Biden will also direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to put on his desk within his first 100 days as president a report detailing the cases in which background checks are not completed within 10 business days and steps the federal government can take to reduce or eliminate this occurrence. (I agree with this). Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration. Because of actions by the Trump Administration, records of almost 500,000 fugitives from justice who are prohibited from purchasing firearms were deleted from the background check system. The Biden Administration will restore these records, and enact legislation to make clear that people facing arrest warrants are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. (I agree with this). End the online sale of firearms and ammunition. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (I am against this). Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. Federal law defines categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and the federal background check system is an effective tool for ensuring prohibited persons cannot purchase firearms. But we lack any serious tool to ensure that when someone becomes newly prohibited – for example, because they commit a violent crime – they relinquish possession of their firearms. There are some promising models for how this could be enforced. For example, California has a mandatory process for ensuring relinquishment by any individual newly subject to a domestic violence restraining order. As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes on their own. (I support this approach). Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. Biden will incentivize the adoption of these laws by giving states funds to implement them. And, he’ll direct the U.S. Department of Justice to issue best practices and offer technical assistance to states interested in enacting an extreme risk law. (I support the concept of red flag laws that enable immediate family members from filing a report of an issue noted above. But there should be a limit to the time period of the law, (sunset provision), to ascertain and evaluate the effectiveness of it, before it can be brought up again for a vote into law). Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun. (Well, as we all know as NJ residents, we already essentially have this burden. Yes it is a PITA, but we all have gone through it and have been able to obtain our desired firearms, so it is not the end of the world….). Adequately fund the background check system. President Obama and Vice President Biden expanded incentives for states to submit records of prohibited persons into the background checks system. As president, Biden will continue to prioritize that funding and ensure that the FBI is adequately funded to accurately and efficiently handle the NICS system. (I support this effort of providing funding to enable states to truly enforce the gun laws already on the books).

@Sniper: @Sniper: First of all, let’s get our historical facts straight so we all can understand where Joe Biden is coming from in his argument. Back in 2005, Congress enacted the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”, (PLCAA), the law that Biden has now said that he would want to repeal as part of his gun control proposals. Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits filed against the gun industry in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance." The PLCAA law protects gun manufacturers, dealers and sellers from any civil action resulting in a criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition. This is the reason why gun manufactures today are not able to be sued. That is why many are concerned that Firearms industry has special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy. Rarely has Congress acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts. We all know that America is a litigious society, but there is a valid concern that the PLCAA law is a hindrance to the type of deterrence necessary to prevent more gun-related deaths, let alone mass shootings. The PLCAA protecting gun makers has opened the door to "scapegoating" of people who should not be blamed for mass shootings, where the shooting victim's families sue whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss. I agree with Rep. Adam Schiff who has stated that "responsible actors in the gun industry don't need this limitation on liability and the irresponsible ones don't deserve it". Your analogy, (and that posed by others), in attempting to cite hypothetical examples for other industries is not valid. Your argument is essentially saying that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities. The history of corporate law suits is against your argument. Almost every other manufacturer of a machine that has the potential to kill or maim a human being is required by morality and ethics, and in most cases in the U.S., established laws to think about and take into account consumer safety. For example, major automobile companies have had to pay in settlements millions of dollars over defective airbags, various vehicle design flaws and other faulty parts. In cases of accidental death or injury on international flights, airlines must pay families a minimum liability, regardless of fault, of about $170,000 per victim, according to the international Montreal Convention agreement. Yet, no other U.S. industry is as guarded from liability as the gun industry, as a result of the PLCAA. So far in 2019, there have been more that 250 mass shootings, that counts incidents in which at least four people other than the shooter were injured or killed. If the gun industry did not have the protection of the PLCAA, then I wounder what the ramifications might result...? I am willing to roll the dice and take that chance. I think it is time for us as a nation to rescind the PLCAA and see what the results are after several years. I believe that the gun manufacturers will not go out of business and speculate that the result may be a more stringent industry self-advocating for the enforcement of all the existing gun laws. My guess is that the gun industry will follow the lead of the almost 80% of the top 100 companies in America who have put legal clauses in the fine print of their customer agreements. These clauses bar consumers from suing them in federal court, and instead force victims to pursue arbitration or, in some cases, file suit in small claims court. AVB-AMG

According to this evening's national news, the pilot of the Nine-O-Nine B-17 that died yesterday in the crash was Ernest "Mac" McCauley, 75 years old, from Long Beach, CA. He was the same pilot of Nine-O-Nine when I was a passenger. The photo I took from the cockpit in my first post shows McCauley at the helm as well as walking around the plane on the tarmac doing his pre-flight inspection. He was most forthcoming answering all of our questions and one could tell that he really enjoyed his role and job. May he rest in peace...! AVB-AMG

@Mrs. Peel: In case you have not seen and heard the trailer for COUNTRY MUSIC, check it out, since it will give you a taste of what to expect..... AVB-AMG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVOZl671ssY

Has anyone here been watching the documentary by Ken Burns on PBS, titled: COUNTRY MUSIC? I recently just finished watching the last of the eight (8) – 2 hour episodes and have to say that I was truly amazed with what I learned and the wonderful stories told by those intimately involved in the country music industry. This documentary took over 8 years to write and compile. It included never before release film footage, fascinating interviews and of course, an amazing soundtrack of some of the most important, influential and popular songs in the country music genre. I have never really listened to country music, other than the tunes that crossed over to the popular music charts, but have to say that I found this series to be absolutely mesmerizing. Previously, I had glibly and ignorantly characterized country music as “cry in your beer” music. While some songs certainly have that slow melancholy lyrics and story line, it was not a fair generalization on my part. I can now agree with the statement made by the legendary Nashville song writer Harlan Howard, who said: “country music is three chords and the truth….” Also, Merle Haggard said that “country music is more that just a fiddle, banjo, guitar, melody and lyrics…...it is a feeling". Ultimately, country music has two recurring themes: love and loss and the simplicity of country music is its true powerful appeal. I think most of us can agree that there is something about music that ignites the soul. I was captivated to learn all about this uniquely American music genre. The film starts at the creation of country music in the late 1920’s describing where the influences came from and how the genesis was embodied in the songs and stories first written and performed by a few artists. The music was influenced by black spiritual and Gospel music, as well as traditional folk songs brought to the U.S. by immigrants from the Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The boom really started with Jimmie Rogers, (referred to as the Saturday night partying entertainment) and the Carter Family, (referred to as the Sunday morning seeking forgiveness inspiration musicians). It goes on to explain the tedious process to find other country music songs and musicians and record them, followed by growing broadcast radio stations that featured them. I learned how country music has evolved over the past century, including many aspects of various genres within its domain, including, hillbilly, honky-tonk, bluegrass, outlaw, smooth country, countrypolitan, pop country and country rock. It always seemed to be wrestling with maintaining their traditions, while also evolving and growing to appeal to a larger audience and sell more records, increasing profitability. I was amazed to learn that the Willie Nelson-written song “Crazy”, performed so magically by Patsy Cline, is to this day, the number one chosen juke box song. Country music could arguably be considered, along with rhythm & blues, to be the parent of American rock and roll music. I really had no idea how important country music was to and influenced folks like Bob Dylan, Ray Charles, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. It was a real pleasure to learn about the growth and private and professional lives of so many talented country music artists, including the Carter Family, Jimmie Rogers, Bill Monroe, Gene Autry, Roy Acuff, Bill Willis, Hank Williams, Earl Scruggs, The Everly Brothers, Patsy Cline, Charlie Pride, Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Loretta Lynn, Tammy Wynette, Kris Kristofferson, The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, Waylon Jennings, Dolly Parton, George Jones, Emmylou Harris, Willie Nelson, George Strait, Reba McEntire, Randy Travis and Garth Brooks…. the list goes on…. I was not expecting to gain such a new respect and admiration for this music genre that I now have. One final message that I took away from this excellent documentary is that through the appeal of country music is the realization that it is about stories about all of us and therefore, there is no “them”. FYI, this documentary is still available to see on PBS stations, as well as via Amazon Prime. The DVD’s can also be purchased either from PBS, Amazon or from Ken Burns web page. AVB-AMG

@njpilot: FWIW, when I flew as a passenger in the Nine-O-Nine B-17 back in 2016, I asked the pilot how often does he and his co-pilot fly this old bomber. You may be surprised by his response to me. He said that taking into account flying to each city/airport location where they are scheduled to appear, along with the flight tours for paying passengers, it works out to be around 4 out of 7 days a week, during their Wings of Freedom tour. This national tour is held during the milder weather months from spring, into the summer and into fall, so essentially around seven months of the year. Therefore, I would not be surprised if the pilot who flew the B-17 that I was in, has (had?), more flight time/hours in a B-17 than many of the pilots who flew these bombers back in WW II. AVB-AMG

@Sniper FYI, Donald Trump is 73 and many of feel the same way about him...... AVB-AMG

My heart goes out to the family and friends of those 7 people who perished and the others who were injured in the crash today of the B-17 bomber at Bradley International Airport in CT. It is a horrific and sobering reminder that even with assumed proper maintenance, that these aircraft that are over 70+ years old, even with restorations performed over the years, can be a real risk to fly. Back in the summer of 2016, while attending the "Wings of Freedom" tour, I flew in the “Nine-O-Nine”, B-17 Flying Fortress that was restored and is maintained by the Collins Foundation, the very same B-17 that crashed today. It was August of 2016 when I visited the Morristown Airport to see several restored aircraft belonging to the Collins Foundation, including a B-17 Flying Fortress; a B-24J Liberator and a TF-51 Mustang. For a $300 fee, I was able to join some other enthusiasts and flew in the B-17 for about 30 mins. as we did a mock bombing run over Basking Ridge and Bedminster, NJ, (ironically, flying over Trump National Golf Club..., something that is not allowed now if he is there). It was an incredible and memorable experience in an amazing aircraft that was the workhorse bomber in WW II. I remember kneeling just behind and between the pilot and co-pilot during the take off and landing. Here are some of the photos I took: AVB-AMG