CelticsStrong

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: liam on February 15, 2018, 03:28:39 PM

Title: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 03:28:39 PM
Is no gun control possible?

"President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database."
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 15, 2018, 03:32:34 PM
Is no gun control possible?

"President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database."
Trump signed that more than a year ago. Fast forward to today, and it seems it worked out great.... NOT!
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 03:34:50 PM
How about health care for all so we can deal with metal illness in this country and some reasonable gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of metal ill people and people with primal backgrounds?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on February 15, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Is no gun control possible?

"President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database."

Did this regulation from Obama outright ban these 75,000 individuals from owning guns? Or did it just mean that these people would have to pass certain benchmarks if they wanted to own a gun?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2018, 03:40:25 PM
Taking away the Constitutional rights of everyone with a rep payee is overbroad, and would have done nothing to prevent this.

I support gun control, though. I’d limit the size of clips, anything that allows guns to fire faster than designed, shut down the gun show loophole and most other non-family family transfers. I’d also support a registry of all gun owners, which can be cross-checked by law enforcement and mental health officials.

I’m done with the “no registry” argument. If we have to register our cars, our hunting licenses, our professional employment, etc., then gun ownership should be tracked.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: TheisTheisBaby on February 15, 2018, 03:40:52 PM
Both side have to be willing to meet in the middle.  I'm completely for people owning guns but what's the need for owning a machine gun or any kind of automatic/semi-automatic weapon? And I believe having stricter punishments for criminals would help in the long run.  In a situation like a mass shooting, there's zero reason for that nut job to waste time in jail costing tax payers $$.  It should be instant death penalty. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 03:44:51 PM
Is no gun control possible?

"President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database."

Did this regulation from Obama outright ban these 75,000 individuals from owning guns? Or did it just mean that these people would have to pass certain benchmarks if they wanted to own a gun?

I believe so:

"The rule applied to “a narrow group of people who have been determined by the Social Security Administration to lack the capacity, on the basis of a mental disorder, to manage their affairs, specifically their benefit payments,” wrote Lindsay Nichols, federal policy director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in testimony to Congress in February 2017."
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on February 15, 2018, 03:45:46 PM
Is no gun control possible?

"President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database."

Did this regulation from Obama outright ban these 75,000 individuals from owning guns? Or did it just mean that these people would have to pass certain benchmarks if they wanted to own a gun?

I believe so:

"The rule applied to “a narrow group of people who have been determined by the Social Security Administration to lack the capacity, on the basis of a mental disorder, to manage their affairs, specifically their benefit payments,” wrote Lindsay Nichols, federal policy director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in testimony to Congress in February 2017."

Okay, thanks.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 15, 2018, 03:56:32 PM
Taking away the Constitutional rights of everyone with a rep payee is overbroad, and would have done nothing to prevent this.

I support gun control, though. I’d limit the size of clips, anything that allows guns to fire faster than designed, shut down the gun show loophole and most other non-family family transfers. I’d also support a registry of all gun owners, which can be cross-checked by law enforcement and mental health officials.

I’m done with the “no registry” argument. If we have to register our cars, our hunting licenses, our professional employment, etc., then gun ownership should be tracked.

You have made it sound so simple (as it should be).  The main argument against any kind of registry is that it is really a secret plan to first register all the guns and then follow up by taking away everyone's guns at a later date.  The republicans have whispered this conspiracy theory for so many years people out there really believe it.

I have actually heard people discussing one such plan that they believed that Obama had including their counter plan for how they would shoot whoever came to take their guns away.

My point is that the whole "gun rights" position is founded on a base of people who have been whipped up by lies.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: TomHeinsohn on February 15, 2018, 04:04:40 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Donoghus on February 15, 2018, 04:09:21 PM
Just remember; if our leaders keep offering thoughts & prayers and nothing else, things will turn out alright in the long run.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: CelticD on February 15, 2018, 04:10:10 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.

Source?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: jambr380 on February 15, 2018, 04:15:34 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.

It is not helpful to spread lies. I can only imagine where you got this hot take from.

As for gun control - nope, it is not going to happen and that is very sad. These mass shootings are terrible, but they are not the only shootings. Why people need guns at all is beyond me. If you live out in the middle of nowhere and need to protect yourself from animals, then feel free to own a hunting rifle. Everybody else should focus on taser technology for personal protection. It's not just the mentally ill who are not equipped to handle the responsibility of owning a gun.

Edit: thank you fwf for the much more reasonable response below. America's obsession with their guns just really drives me crazy.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 15, 2018, 04:16:55 PM
The 2nd Amendment's not going away, but neither are these mass murders. For me finding a middle ground absolutely needs to start with lifting the absurd, pathetic federal ban on the CDC collecting any data or conducting any studies about the effects of gun violence. Can't fix the problem if we can't study it. There also needs to be a dialogue between lawmakers, responsible gun owner groups (aka not the NRA), and researchers about the solutions best able to reduce not just the big public attacks but everyday killings as well.

To me that includes a focus on eliminating background check and transfer loopholes (not many left though), registering guns, closing bizarre discrepancies like the one that let a Florida 19-year-old buy an AR-15 but not a handgun.  Then reducing the number of rounds one person can fire over a given amount of time. Smaller clips/magazines, banning accessories designed to increase firing rate, etc.

I'm not keen on the mental health angle - the vast majority of mentally ill people are not a threat, and they're statistically more often the victims of gun crime than the perpetrators. It'd also add a legal stigma to being diagnosed that could discourage people from seeking treatment.  I might be ok with the extreme cases Obama's regulation targeted, but I'd really need a hard look at it and it's unlikely to make too much of a dent.  I'd like to see more resources devoted to law enforcement identifying people like this shooter in advance, but there's only so much they can do before there's evidence of a serious crime.

However it ends it all starts with driving out the craven, absurd line of rhetoric that argues these killings are completely inevitable and America simply has to lay down and take it, and starting to center our political debates around how to minimize these horrors rather than whether we can do anything about it at all.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: seancally on February 15, 2018, 04:21:24 PM
I've always felt that the second amendment was written with the idea that the people could fight against tyranny and not be overwhelmed by force. That's at least one interpretation, obviously there are others. And I'm fine with people owning guns, generally and within reason.

But the argument against a registry because "then the gov't will know who to go and disarm" is flawed. If the US Gov't truly wants to disarm citizens and/or mobilize armed forces against citizens.... then that's exactly what's gonna happen. No amount of weaponry available to the civilian population, no matter how many rounds per second, will stop that drone from putting a bomb in your bedroom window or that armored vehicle from busting through your living room.

If you're so paranoid about government that you're clinging to guns for protection, you might as well just leave the country. Guns won't save you from that.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: GratefulCs on February 15, 2018, 04:22:03 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.
trump's a liberal nut job who wants to take away my guns!
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 05:06:52 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.

Source?

Is the source Trump? Then did he say the opposite the next day?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 15, 2018, 05:16:42 PM
What I can't understand if someone from another country were to target 17-50 Americans overseas and kill them once a month, this country would be at war with that country or group.

But Americans can mass murder Americans and, sorry, we just have to take it....2nd Amendment. I agree with everything fwf wrote above.

If I had my druthers I would repeal the 2nd Amendment, its an outdated Amendment and right, IMHO.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 15, 2018, 05:19:12 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.

Source?

Is the source Trump? Then did he say the opposite the next day?
Trump had this to say:

Quote
Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

7:12 AM - Feb 15, 2018

Given the regulation he rolled back last January, it would have been hilarious if it weren't for the gruesome occasion.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2018, 05:28:29 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.

Source?

Is the source Trump? Then did he say the opposite the next day?
Trump had this to say:

Quote
Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

7:12 AM - Feb 15, 2018

Given the regulation he rolled back last January, it would have been hilarious if it weren't for the gruesome occasion.

Was this kid receiving disability? Did he have somebody else legally appointed to manage his financial affairs?

If not, the rep payee executive order had nothing to do with this.

Background:

http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 05:28:56 PM
What I can't understand if someone from another country were to target 17-50 Americans overseas and kill them once a month, this country would be at war with that country or group.

But Americans can mass murder Americans and, sorry, we just have to take it....2nd Amendment. I agree with everything fwf wrote above.

If I had my druthers I would repeal the 2nd Amendment, its an outdated Amendment and right, IMHO.

Good points. This will not lead to a better healthcare system to aid mentally ill folks nor to any reasonable gun laws just more thoughts and prayers... How about some thoughts on some actions that could prevent these shootings and get people the healthcare they need? Healthcare is the answer to a lot of what is going wrong. We are moving in the wrong direction on Healthcare and on some kind of gun control!
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 15, 2018, 05:48:37 PM
Trump in his short time in office has taken away twice as many guns as Obama did in 8 years.

I have serious doubts about the veracity of this statement but it is true (based on all the reports that I can find) that Obama enforced deportations at a higher rate than Bush and at a higher rate so far than Trump:

Quote
Also on Tuesday, new statistics from the Department of Homeland Security (reported by Politico’s Ted Hesson) showed that deportations are actually down from last year — from an average 20,000 deportations per month in 2016 to an average of 16,900 over the first five months of Trump’s presidency.

Of course the Foxnews talking point on this fact is to cournter with "yeah but Mexicans are afraid to cross the boarder now so there are fewer illegals to deport".  I believe there is some truth to the fact that fewer are crossing but this is a trend that started during the Obama administration.

Now if fewer illegals are crossing the boarder thanks to Obama's iron-fisted enforcement of deportations, doesn't that also show we don't really need a wall?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 15, 2018, 06:37:11 PM
Such a complex issue.  The ONLY thing I disagree with is when people refuse to be open to discussion about what to do.   I am in schools all the time.  Today I was consulting with a high  school principal and assistant principal about a cadre of students who are troubled and disengaged.  Every HS in America has students with mental health challenges and many of these youth have unstable home situations and some have access to guns (btw, the consultation today was in New Hampshire in an area where gun ownership is common and highly valued).   The interesting thing is actually that the vast majority of teens who might meet many of the risk indicators (MH issues, gun access, unstable homes, school disengagement, relationship problems...) will actually NOT become school shooters.   My point is that fine tuning the assessment of risk factors and "protective" factors (i.e. factors that mitigate risk) will not produce an iron clad profile, but may serve to get us closer to identifying those most likely to commit these crimes.  That said, identifying how to effectively intervene when school/community/family culture is invested in reactive "discipline" as opposed to proactive support will be an additional monumental challenge.

All I can say is that I hope there are only a dwindling few still out there who are closed to a conversation that COULD include measures that reframe gun ownership rights and gun owner obligations.  But... the solution, if there is one, needs to be multi-pronged. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: freshinthehouse on February 15, 2018, 06:46:30 PM
For me finding a middle ground absolutely needs to start with lifting the absurd, pathetic federal ban on the CDC collecting any data or conducting any studies about the effects of gun violence. Can't fix the problem if we can't study it. There also needs to be a dialogue between lawmakers, responsible gun owner groups (aka not the NRA), and researchers about the solutions best able to reduce not just the big public attacks but everyday killings as well.

To me that includes a focus on eliminating background check and transfer loopholes (not many left though), registering guns, closing bizarre discrepancies like the one that let a Florida 19-year-old buy an AR-15 but not a handgun.  Then reducing the number of rounds one person can fire over a given amount of time. Smaller clips/magazines, banning accessories designed to increase firing rate, etc.

I'm not keen on the mental health angle - the vast majority of mentally ill people are not a threat, and they're statistically more often the victims of gun crime than the perpetrators. It'd also add a legal stigma to being diagnosed that could discourage people from seeking treatment.  I might be ok with the extreme cases Obama's regulation targeted, but I'd really need a hard look at it and it's unlikely to make too much of a dent.  I'd like to see more resources devoted to law enforcement identifying people like this shooter in advance, but there's only so much they can do before there's evidence of a serious crime.

However it ends it all starts with driving out the craven, absurd line of rhetoric that argues these killings are completely inevitable and America simply has to lay down and take it, and starting to center our political debates around how to minimize these horrors rather than whether we can do anything about it at all.

TP+.  I would take it a step further and outlaw all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.  If you can't defend your family with a pump shotgun, well I don't know what to tell you.  And outlaw all pistols outside of revolvers.  Basically get rid of anything that can be easily modified to unleash a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: OhioGreen on February 15, 2018, 06:58:04 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

On living out in the country and less populated areas: I live in rural Ohio, about 20 minutes from 3 "big towns".  The county we live in stretches about 40-45 miles and is patroled by TWO sheriffs.  We don't need guns to hunt with, we need them to protect our lives as it is not uncommon to take a sheriff 45-60 minutes to get to your home in an emergency/crime!  If a criminal is breaking into your home with intent to rob, rape, or kill you, your wife or children, you better be armed and ready to do whatever is necessary. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2018, 07:01:34 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 15, 2018, 07:05:24 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?
Yeah, if you get pulled over for driving an unregistered car you can get punishment from very expensive tickets to being arrested while the car is impounded.

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 15, 2018, 08:05:37 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

On living out in the country and less populated areas: I live in rural Ohio, about 20 minutes from 3 "big towns".  The county we live in stretches about 40-45 miles and is patroled by TWO sheriffs.  We don't need guns to hunt with, we need them to protect our lives as it is not uncommon to take a sheriff 45-60 minutes to get to your home in an emergency/crime!  If a criminal is breaking into your home with intent to rob, rape, or kill you, your wife or children, you better be armed and ready to do whatever is necessary.

Regardless of where you live, if someone enters your house with the intent to rape or kill you, most people will wish they had a gun at that moment.  What some might not know is that having a gun would not assure protection.  Gun ownership comes with it's own safety issues, and it's pretty well accepted in the gun world that using a gun effectively in a time of panic is easier fantasized about than done.  I think I understand that protection of self/home is a right and even though I don't feel the need for a gun to protect myself and my family, I realize that my point of view is only one among many perspectives.  Consideration of how to solve the problem has to begin with open minds.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: OhioGreen on February 15, 2018, 08:07:08 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?
Feel like you're missing the point--responsible, law abiding citizens are the only ones who would be affected by a requirement to register!  What good does that do, outside of raising revenue, which is the main purpose of almost all licenses and registrations?  You can't control the bad guys until it's too late!  So stop trying to by harassing responsible gunowners!

As an aside, I am a registered gun owner, of my own choice, as I have a concealed carry permit.  People that have guns to protect their homes and property don't need CCW's, and would be an unnecessary hassle to them.  Not everyone lives in a city or suburban area where there's a cop around the corner!
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2018, 08:15:08 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?
Feel like you're missing the point--responsible, law abiding citizens are the only ones who would be affected by a requirement to register!  What good does that do, outside of raising revenue, which is the main purpose of almost all licenses and registrations?  You can't control the bad guys until it's too late!  So stop trying to by harassing responsible gunowners!

As an aside, I am a registered gun owner, of my own choice, as I have a concealed carry permit.  People that have guns to protect their homes and property don't need CCW's, and would be an unnecessary hassle to them.  Not everyone lives in a city or suburban area where there's a cop around the corner!

I just see registration more as “sensible and pretty unobtrusive”, rather than “harassment”.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 08:18:25 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 15, 2018, 08:18:39 PM
Was this kid receiving disability? Did he have somebody else legally appointed to manage his financial affairs?

If not, the rep payee executive order had nothing to do with this.

Background:

http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama
I'm aware of the designated payee debate. Ultimately, the wall of text you referenced is trying to argue that a bunch of people that can't cash a check are fit to own guns. I mean even, even the examples of the "wide variety of disorders" sound like folks that would be fine walking around with a long rifle: aging grandmothers, autistic young adults, and middle-aged men with anxiety disorders.

Narrowly speaking, this is irrelevant to the current case. Other than anecdotally, the candidate didn't have medically diagnosed mental issues he was receiving help with. But the irony of Trump talking about someone being "completely deranged" while rolling back regulation that makes it more difficult for mentally unstable people to obtain guns is not lost on me.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 15, 2018, 08:19:42 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 15, 2018, 08:25:44 PM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.   
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 08:28:06 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 08:31:33 PM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.

In Florida -

Not the alcohol part. The drug part, yes and no. 20 grams or more of weed is a felony, so a conviction on a felony charge won't allow you to get one. However, anything below that on marijuana is a misdemeanor and won't prevent you from purchasing one.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2018, 08:33:01 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 15, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I am talking about if there was a national registry, every register gun would require a license and so if caught with a gun and no registration of ownership, you get punished. Its a hypothetical.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 08:37:34 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.

Right and ATF can trace them back to their location of purchase, so despite this the problem still persists.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 15, 2018, 08:39:50 PM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 08:42:20 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

On living out in the country and less populated areas: I live in rural Ohio, about 20 minutes from 3 "big towns".  The county we live in stretches about 40-45 miles and is patroled by TWO sheriffs.  We don't need guns to hunt with, we need them to protect our lives as it is not uncommon to take a sheriff 45-60 minutes to get to your home in an emergency/crime!  If a criminal is breaking into your home with intent to rob, rape, or kill you, your wife or children, you better be armed and ready to do whatever is necessary.

Regardless of where you live, if someone enters your house with the intent to rape or kill you, most people will wish they had a gun at that moment.  What some might not know is that having a gun would not assure protection.  Gun ownership comes with it's own safety issues, and it's pretty well accepted in the gun world that using a gun effectively in a time of panic is easier fantasized about than done.  I think I understand that protection of self/home is a right and even though I don't feel the need for a gun to protect myself and my family, I realize that my point of view is only one among many perspectives.  Consideration of how to solve the problem has to begin with open minds.

I have a large dog which I think is far better than having a gun. I did own a shotgun when I lived out in the country for snakes and wild dogs and such. I'm not sure of the justification for owning a machine gun of any kind.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 08:47:36 PM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2018, 08:49:22 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.

Right and ATF can trace them back to their location of purchase, so despite this the problem still persists.

There’s no coordinated system or central database. 

For instance, felons and batterers can’t own guns in Maine. Yet, other than self-compliance, there’s zero way to know what guns these people own or what they’ve done with them.

That seems like a problem, doesn’t it?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Fan from VT on February 15, 2018, 08:49:53 PM
Bunch of basketball fans sitting around on the internet saying what will/might/won't/can't help.

It's almost like I wish there was a well established and respected institution with boatloads of people with expertise in data crunching, study design, study/data interpretation and knowledge of public health issues that could be deployed to at least look into the issue...but apparently just that is too partisan.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Fan from VT on February 15, 2018, 08:51:24 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.

Right and ATF can trace them back to their location of purchase, so despite this the problem still persists.

There’s no coordinated system or central database. 

For instance, felons and batterers can’t own guns in Maine. Yet, other than self-compliance, there’s zero way to know what guns these people own or what they’ve done with them.

That seems like a problem, doesn’t it?

Police will come knocking on your door if you stockpile too much Sudafed...but shooters can stockpile multiple guns and too much ammo to use without any flags getting tripped.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mr. dee on February 15, 2018, 08:51:24 PM
Or maybe American Government license guns with stricter examination and procedures. Do a character inspection, psychological test and gun simulations before giving away gun licenses. Worked well for countries like Japan.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 08:53:26 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.

Right and ATF can trace them back to their location of purchase, so despite this the problem still persists.

There’s no coordinated system or central database. 

For instance, felons and batterers can’t own guns in Maine. Yet, other than self-compliance, there’s zero way to know what guns these people own or what they’ve done with them.

That seems like a problem, doesn’t it?

But that's the point, only law abiding citizens will comply. A convicted felon in possession would be a charge in itself. You would only regulate those that have nothing to hide, which doesn't solve the issue.

I could easily envision a bunch of false burglary reports being generated by owners of firearms, subsequently convicted of a felony, as a means to not relinquish their registered firearm.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Fan from VT on February 15, 2018, 08:55:46 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.

Right and ATF can trace them back to their location of purchase, so despite this the problem still persists.

There’s no coordinated system or central database. 

For instance, felons and batterers can’t own guns in Maine. Yet, other than self-compliance, there’s zero way to know what guns these people own or what they’ve done with them.

That seems like a problem, doesn’t it?

But that's the point, only law abiding citizens will comply. A convicted felon in possession would be a charge in itself. You would only regulate those that have nothing to hide, which doesn't solve the issue.

And yet, it's a fairly effective component of public policy in just about everything else, but magically, it couldn't possibly work for guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2018, 08:56:31 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.

Right and ATF can trace them back to their location of purchase, so despite this the problem still persists.

There’s no coordinated system or central database. 

For instance, felons and batterers can’t own guns in Maine. Yet, other than self-compliance, there’s zero way to know what guns these people own or what they’ve done with them.

That seems like a problem, doesn’t it?

Police will come knocking on your door if you stockpile too much Sudafed...but shooters can stockpile multiple guns and too much ammo to use without any flags getting tripped.

I got my first red flag the other day for attempting to buy too much cough syrup in the wrong combination. I’m probably on a registry somewhere.

But, you’re right: I can go down to the sporting goods store and buy an AR-15, a half-dozen handguns, a few 100 round drums / magazines, and 10,000 rounds of ammo.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 09:11:15 PM
Two points

On registry of all gunowners/guns:  And who registers the guns of gangs and criminals? SMH

The law? If they break the law, arrest them.

I mean, do we refuse to collect taxes because some criminals work under the table?

If a cop sees someone with a gun they will have the right to ask for their registration card and if they don't have one, impound the gun and arrest the person with the gun.

Are you referring to a CCW permit because having your gun registered is definitely not the same thing? I'm not in Massachusetts, so don't know about the open carry law there, but "concealed" is the key word with CCW.
I think Roy is talking about the hypothetical case where there is a national firearm registry.

That won't help. The law abiding citizens will do it, but that doesn't help fix the problem. Buying a gun is really easy to do. It's not uncommon for firearms to be rented out on the streets. You can only imagine how many bodies these rentals have behind them.

And yet, almost all of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

If we as a society want to restrict guns from dangerous people - criminals, batterers, schizophrenics - then there needs to be a mechanism to keep track of weapons.

Right and ATF can trace them back to their location of purchase, so despite this the problem still persists.

There’s no coordinated system or central database. 

For instance, felons and batterers can’t own guns in Maine. Yet, other than self-compliance, there’s zero way to know what guns these people own or what they’ve done with them.

That seems like a problem, doesn’t it?

Police will come knocking on your door if you stockpile too much Sudafed...but shooters can stockpile multiple guns and too much ammo to use without any flags getting tripped.

I got my first red flag the other day for attempting to buy too much cough syrup in the wrong combination. I’m probably on a registry somewhere.

But, you’re right: I can go down to the sporting goods store and buy an AR-15, a half-dozen handguns, a few 100 round drums / magazines, and 10,000 rounds of ammo.

In Florida

Yeah, on the AR after a background check. However, not the handgun. You'd have to wait 3 days for that.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 15, 2018, 09:29:47 PM
I often see people who are against gun control laws, gun registries etc saying that it those things would be useless as only law abiding people would follow those laws.  I think that that is looking too narrowly at the problems we are facing.  Yes, stricter gun control laws and registries likely would have little to no effect on the "average street criminal" but these mass shooters are not your average street criminals.  These mass shooters motivation is different.  Crime is not a day-to-day way of life for them.  They are focused on one very vicious crime and they are getting their guns for that one purpose.  It seems as though few of them are acquiring guns in the same fashion as the average street criminal.  If there are a few more restrictions, if it takes a bit more time and effort it may have an effect on these type of criminals.  As a gun owner myself I say that if there is something that may stop just a minute percentage of these mass shootings it is something that must be considered.

We have a violence problem in this country and we have a gun problem in this country.  There are various reasons for both and many things that we should be looking at doing to curb the senseless violence.  Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 15, 2018, 09:31:59 PM
here's some approaches that I think deserve serious consideration (in no particular order):

1: Let the CDC study gun violence
(more here for those interested: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/)

2: Mandate the registration of guns (just like we register cars)

3: Ban certain types accessories or modifications to guns

4: Conduct some hearings (that is all I'm asking for, for crying out loud, a few hearings) on existing evidence on the link between certain laws/bans/etc and gun violence. I honestly think it is strange that for things like Russia's attempt to hack our elections, the role of AI in society, net neutrality (just to name a few) Congress conducts lots of public hearings. We have had hearings on gun violence, but very, very few. I think this would be a start, and would help keep people focused on the issue and start thinking through potential solutions (and the tradeoffs involved).

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 15, 2018, 09:35:01 PM
I often see people who are against gun control laws, gun registries etc saying that it those things would be useless as only law abiding people would follow those laws.  I think that that is looking too narrowly at the problems we are facing.  Yes, stricter gun control laws and registries likely would have little to no effect on the "average street criminal" but these mass shooters are not your average street criminals.  These mass shooters motivation is different.  Crime is not a day-to-day way of life for them.  They are focus on one very vicious crime and they are getting their guns for that one purpose.  It seems as though few of them are acquiring guns in the same fashion as the average street criminal.  If there are a few more restrictions, if it takes a bit more time and effort it may have an effect on these type of criminals.  As a gun owner myself I say that if there is something that may stop just a minute percentage of these mass shootings it is something that must be considered.

We have a violence problem in this country and we have a gun problem in this country.  There are various reasons for both and many things that we should be looking at doing to curb the senseless violence.  Thoughts and prayers are not enough.

Yep.

Also, gun violence and domestic violence/ violence against women.

It's true that gun laws won't stop clever terrorists.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have gun laws.
They might stop mentally ill teens from committing heinous crimes.
They might stop violent husbands from the same.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 15, 2018, 09:42:09 PM
I often see people who are against gun control laws, gun registries etc saying that it those things would be useless as only law abiding people would follow those laws.  I think that that is looking too narrowly at the problems we are facing.  Yes, stricter gun control laws and registries likely would have little to no effect on the "average street criminal" but these mass shooters are not your average street criminals.  These mass shooters motivation is different.  Crime is not a day-to-day way of life for them.  They are focused on one very vicious crime and they are getting their guns for that one purpose.  It seems as though few of them are acquiring guns in the same fashion as the average street criminal.  If there are a few more restrictions, if it takes a bit more time and effort it may have an effect on these type of criminals.  As a gun owner myself I say that if there is something that may stop just a minute percentage of these mass shootings it is something that must be considered.

We have a violence problem in this country and we have a gun problem in this country.  There are various reasons for both and many things that we should be looking at doing to curb the senseless violence.  Thoughts and prayers are not enough.

Would Cruz, despite having to register his firearms, still have committed the same act? I think the answer is clearly "yes", so I'm not sure I see how him registering his AR would've prevented yesterday's tragedy. That said, I would love for all guns to be registered, but that doesn't mean the majority of these mass shootings would be prevented since they're being purchased lawfully by, at the time of purchase, law abiding citizens.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 09:47:52 PM
here's some approaches that I think deserve serious consideration (in no particular order):

1: Let the CDC study gun violence
(more here for those interested: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/)

2: Mandate the registration of guns (just like we register cars)

3: Ban certain types accessories or modifications to guns

4: Conduct some hearings (that is all I'm asking for, for crying out loud, a few hearings) on existing evidence on the link between certain laws/bans/etc and gun violence. I honestly think it is strange that for things like Russia's attempt to hack our elections, the role of AI in society, net neutrality (just to name a few) Congress conducts lots of public hearings. We have had hearings on gun violence, but very, very few. I think this would be a start, and would help keep people focused on the issue and start thinking through potential solutions (and the tradeoffs involved).

Massachusetts has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and the lowest fatalities. Their is definitely a correlation.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 15, 2018, 09:59:35 PM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 15, 2018, 09:59:48 PM
I often see people who are against gun control laws, gun registries etc saying that it those things would be useless as only law abiding people would follow those laws.  I think that that is looking too narrowly at the problems we are facing.  Yes, stricter gun control laws and registries likely would have little to no effect on the "average street criminal" but these mass shooters are not your average street criminals.  These mass shooters motivation is different.  Crime is not a day-to-day way of life for them.  They are focused on one very vicious crime and they are getting their guns for that one purpose.  It seems as though few of them are acquiring guns in the same fashion as the average street criminal.  If there are a few more restrictions, if it takes a bit more time and effort it may have an effect on these type of criminals.  As a gun owner myself I say that if there is something that may stop just a minute percentage of these mass shootings it is something that must be considered.

We have a violence problem in this country and we have a gun problem in this country.  There are various reasons for both and many things that we should be looking at doing to curb the senseless violence.  Thoughts and prayers are not enough.

Would Cruz, despite having to register his firearms, still have committed the same act? I think the answer is clearly "yes", so I'm not sure I see how him registering his AR would've prevented yesterday's tragedy. That said, I would love for all guns to be registered, but that doesn't mean the majority of these mass shootings would be prevented since they're being purchased lawfully by, at the time of purchase, law abiding citizens.
Maybe not but just because it may not have stopped this instance does not mean it would not have stopped another shooter.  This is a complex issue we are facing.  Many things should be considered and enacted in an effort to curb this violence.  Registires, stricter common sense gun control, limits on magazine size, eliminate bumpstocks, seriously increased punishment for any crime committed with a gun, more studies on mental illness, increased security at schools.  Not one of these things is the magical cure but all combined it should have some positive effect.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 15, 2018, 10:03:26 PM
These are some crazy graphs and charts:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Beat LA on February 16, 2018, 01:55:18 AM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

Not many people in your position, i.e., having bipolar disorder, are nearly as candid about such matters, so TP :).

As for gun control, don't worry, everyone, if the most popular Tweets are any guide as to our country's current subject(s) of attention/hot topic(s) ::) ;D, America has moved onto the real issues ::), like Jennifer Aniston separating from Canada's Prime Minister ;) ::) ;D. #BackToBrad
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: JSD on February 16, 2018, 03:20:28 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Beat LA on February 16, 2018, 04:17:00 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: JSD on February 16, 2018, 04:57:02 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Also, what does the age have to do with this? Are you more compassionate than me? More morally sound? Is that your point? I'm curious. What exactly am I suppose to think about?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: JSD on February 16, 2018, 05:01:12 AM
It's these snarky remarks that drive me crazy around here and I always bite.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 16, 2018, 05:57:44 AM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 16, 2018, 07:25:48 AM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.

The screening process would be the problem to solve. Defining 'mental illness' for the purposes of being stripped of a constitutional right might be impossible. Everyone who sees a therapist has, at that time, a mental illness.  When, exactly, is the right to be lost, and for how long?  I think most present laws require a court determination for each individual, but that doesn't seem to be workable.

There will probably always be some folks that are on the edge, and any event in their personal lives could be the proverbial last straw. This is an individual thing.

The increased frequency of mass shootings seems like some sort of developing chorus trying to raise an alarm that society is going to crap. We are coming unbound as a society.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2018, 07:30:56 AM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.

The screening process would be the problem to solve. Defining 'mental illness' for the purposes of being stripped of a constitutional right might be impossible. Everyone who sees a therapist has, at that time, a mental illness.  When, exactly, is the right to be lost, and for how long?  I think most present laws require a court determination for each individual, but that doesn't seem to be workable.

There will probably always be some folks that are on the edge, and any event in their personal lives could be the proverbial last straw. This is an individual thing.

The increased frequency of mass shootings seems like some sort of developing chorus trying to raise an alarm that society is going to crap. We are coming unbound as a society.

I think you can draw broad lines. People diagnosed with schizophrenia, for instance, should be barred from owning guns. Sure, some individuals can control it with meds, but overall the risk is too great.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: GetLucky on February 16, 2018, 08:07:29 AM
I am a veteran who owns several guns, I believe in reasonable gun control.   People with mental illness have no business having guns.  Their rights should not trump public safety.  I don't know that I think that folks should have military grade weapons like an AR-15.   Hunting is very prevalent where I grew up but here in Ohio they make you use a shotgun to take deer.

We have a law like this in Ohio.
Quote
Weapon Under Disability
Ohio weapons under disability law forbid a person from having, trying to get, carrying or using a weapon if any of the following apply:

You’re a fugitive
You’re being indicted for a violent crime, you’ve been convicted of a violent crime or as a child you were convicted for what would be considered a violent felony if you had been an adult
You’re being indicted or have been convicted for a drug offense, either as an adult or a child
You’re a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent, or in danger of drug dependence
A judge has either deemed you mentally incompetent, mentally defective or mentally ill and subject to hospitalization, or you are or have been committed to a mental institution
Nearly every day in central Ohio people are charged with having weapons while under disability. Having weapons while under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to 36 months in prison.

https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/weapons-crimes/weapon-under-disability/

Does MA have this?   I wonder if FLA does I doubt it.
I have a mental illness. I have participated in society without issue. I am a former business owner. I have no history of violence or anger management of any kind. Why should I be declined the use of a gun? Very few people with mental illness are homocidal. Like minute.

Having a mental illness can't be the only reason one shouldn't have a gun. It must be like the Ohio law.

Depends on the type. I wouldn't want someone who is bi-polar, schizophrenic, manic depressant, etc. to have one.
I am bipolar

I think the Ohio law would preserve your right to own unless you had been hospitalized, been deemed not competent etc...  The implication of hospitalization  being that one has been imminently suicidal, homicidal or dangerously delusional/hallucinatory.   Many, if not all (used to be a diagnostic criterion I think) people with bipolar have had a delusion episode.
The overwhelming majority of people with bipolar are non-violent (when violent, it is much more likely to be at self).  From a societal perspective, however, the likelihood of delusional thinking is a significant consideration.  I think this needs to be better understood.  I think the diagnosis of major mental illness should be part of a litmus test for gun ownership only when there are other udentified factors that actually increase the likelihood of risk. This of course just further complicates the screening process.

The screening process would be the problem to solve. Defining 'mental illness' for the purposes of being stripped of a constitutional right might be impossible. Everyone who sees a therapist has, at that time, a mental illness.  When, exactly, is the right to be lost, and for how long?  I think most present laws require a court determination for each individual, but that doesn't seem to be workable.

There will probably always be some folks that are on the edge, and any event in their personal lives could be the proverbial last straw. This is an individual thing.

The increased frequency of mass shootings seems like some sort of developing chorus trying to raise an alarm that society is going to crap. We are coming unbound as a society.

I can confirm that the government's current screening for metal illness is not very nuanced. I have a friend who works in Washington. He suffers from severe depression, but he refuses to see a therapist in case he ever needs access to classified info.

That said, although I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter, something needs to change. I think some of the common sense solution Roy suggested are a good place to start.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 16, 2018, 08:10:46 AM
Quote
Police will come knocking on your door if you stockpile too much Sudafed...but shooters can stockpile multiple guns and too much ammo to use without any flags getting tripped.

Guns can be self-limiting in some ways as you can only fire two at a time and usually that is pistols and you won't be that accurate but does it matter if your fire in a massed pack of people.   Longarms can weight up to 8 lbs.  I own two pistols, one for the floors of my house and a shotgun and a muzzleloader.   I know that I can't really use them all at once.

Its the clips that guy people not the amount of the guns.  Assault weapons with big clips can be used recreationally or hunt but they were intended to kill your fellow man, and that is their real purpose.   

I am sorry to those in this thread that have mental illness.   But I can say that most people with mental illness are not violent.   I have worked in the field for 20 years and I have only been attacked once by a guy who had an impulse control disorder and in all honesty was more developmentally disabled.   The media makes all these shooters out to be mentally ill most of the time.  Its also used as a defense strategy by lawyers in many cases.

But we don't let blind people drive, and we should have limits on guns and mental illness.  Yeah, someone's rights get trampled but in both these cases it is in the interest of public safety. 

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2018, 08:23:13 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Well, if you’re going to drive into a crowd, you at least need a license and registration , which is more than can be said about guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: jaketwice on February 16, 2018, 08:28:40 AM
You can see a scenario where someone without a serious mental illness could just snap. I don't see why we need assault weapons, or even handguns.

The Second Amendment is designed to prevent government tyranny. But in reality, small arms (even assault weapons) are going to have no effect against government forces. A machine gun doesn't matter against napalm or planes with missiles.

More's the point, when, in the last 50/100 years has a violent response to government tyranny resulted in the reinstitution of democracy? If you look at the places where democracy has grown, it's always grown out of peaceful protests, not violent ones.

The places where a well armed militia has fought with the government have turned into atrocity ravaged hell-holes (e.g. Congo, South Sudan, Columbia/FARC). 

The reality is that the Second Amendment is an anachronism. The guns are just used by citizens to kill other citizens. I understand "rah rah I'm a Celtics fan..."  But "rah rah I'm a Democrat," or "rah rah I'm a Republican," is just stupid. Don't take a position just because "my party believes..."

Think for yourself.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vox_Populi on February 16, 2018, 08:34:19 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Also, what does the age have to do with this? Are you more compassionate than me? More morally sound? Is that your point? I'm curious. What exactly am I suppose to think about?
Well, you can't drive a semi truck into a school hallway for starters.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 08:53:02 AM
The only real solution is to ban guns outright



Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 16, 2018, 09:21:01 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPBa3IDs3s0

Marco Rubio is almost the worst of the feckless cowards on the right, because with him, you can kind of see he knows he's wrong, but he's gonna suppress that dry heave, turn his nose, and do it anyways.

Just gross.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 16, 2018, 09:34:35 AM
I would not make all guns illegal.

If I were king for a day, I would put forth the following:

Fund the development of as fool-proof and tamper-proof as reasonably possible, biometric gun safety locks.  These already exist and are getting better.  This technology should be federally supported and available to all gun manufacturers.

Mandate (with a reasonable time-frame) the phase out of manufacture of any gun without bio-metric safety locks.  Make it illegal to manufacture, sell export or import any gun without this technology.

Fund a buy-back-or-trade program for existing guns without the technology, with a reasonable time-window, after which it will be illegal to own a gun without the safety locks.

Register all guns just as we register all cars.

Require all gun owners to have a gun operators license (for which safety training is required) and liability insurance, just as we require with cars.

Yes, I understand that this is probably all fantasy and would never get enacted.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: number_n9ne on February 16, 2018, 09:39:58 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Also, what does the age have to do with this? Are you more compassionate than me? More morally sound? Is that your point? I'm curious. What exactly am I suppose to think about?
Well, you can't drive a semi truck into a school hallway for starters.

JSD, this response is very common from the right, yet listen to the actual victims of this tragedy. Do you see the issue with it? Do you really think the victims and their families want everything to stop until their loved ones are buried, or do you think they want action? Read the article below with REAL responses from the friends and families of the victims.

Quote
“I don’t want your condolences,” tweeted one student at Donald Trump. “Multiple of my fellow classmates are dead. Do something instead of sending prayers. Prayers won’t fix this. But Gun control will prevent it from happening again.”

source: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw5a8d/stoneman-douglas-students-dont-want-your-condolences

(http://i63.tinypic.com/ejg3gn.png)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 16, 2018, 09:49:53 AM
Bunch of basketball fans sitting around on the internet saying what will/might/won't/can't help.

It's almost like I wish there was a well established and respected institution with boatloads of people with expertise in data crunching, study design, study/data interpretation and knowledge of public health issues that could be deployed to at least look into the issue...but apparently just that is too partisan.

Absolutely. We all have our own opinions and experiences but ultimately none of us has the expertise and information to definitively pin down what will or won't be effective.

And both regular people like us and those that actually make policy can't be better informed about what would work, because we've forbidden any publicly funded research into it.  That's the travesty that underlies the policy debate.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 16, 2018, 09:53:30 AM
I'm almost in favor of banning guns just so we can move on to the next solution when that doesn't work.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2018, 09:56:12 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.


I think much of what I read on cblog about guns is apolitical. It is not "Republicans did this" and "democrats did that"

Instead it is: "let's consider this approach" or "lets consider that approach"

Having a debate about the tradeoffs of different approaches is not political.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 10:10:50 AM
I would not make all guns illegal.


Why not?

Us economy will survive and it would result in significan less mass murders, murders in general
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 10:19:02 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.


I think much of what I read on cblog about guns is apolitical. It is not "Republicans did this" and "democrats did that"

Instead it is: "let's consider this approach" or "lets consider that approach"

Having a debate about the tradeoffs of different approaches is not political.

I agree. I don't think this is a "Political " argument. I think people just want to feel safe and have their kids feel safe and they feel nothing is even being tried. The time is now to try and do something about this situation.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 16, 2018, 10:20:43 AM
I still believe that guns should be registered. 


I still believe that gun owners not only need a licence, but have had to have at least some sort of basic gun class.  If you can afford to buy a legal gun, you should be able to afford a low cost gun safety class. 


And I just don't see the purpose of assault weapons.  I know people want to shoot them.   So have gun ranges own them where people can go to shoot them. 


And increase the penalties for someone who lets their guns be used in crimes.  If it is stolen, report it.  If it is to be sold, report it. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 10:22:06 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 10:23:48 AM
I still believe that guns should be registered. 


I still believe that gun owners not only need a licence, but have had to have at least some sort of basic gun class.  If you can afford to buy a legal gun, you should be able to afford a low cost gun safety class. 


Would this one or two added steps done anything to prevent th vegas/florida mass shootings??
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 16, 2018, 10:34:51 AM
I still believe that guns should be registered. 


I still believe that gun owners not only need a licence, but have had to have at least some sort of basic gun class.  If you can afford to buy a legal gun, you should be able to afford a low cost gun safety class. 


Would this one or two added steps done anything to prevent th vegas/florida mass shootings??


Can anyone say it could or couldn't?


With most of the ideas, we don't know until we try it.   


But trying ideas to fix a problem is a whole lot better then not trying because there is a group who think it will not help. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 10:50:47 AM
The NRA will not even allow any steps to be taken. Something needs to be tried.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 16, 2018, 10:54:11 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 10:54:35 AM
I still believe that guns should be registered. 


I still believe that gun owners not only need a licence, but have had to have at least some sort of basic gun class.  If you can afford to buy a legal gun, you should be able to afford a low cost gun safety class. 


Would this one or two added steps done anything to prevent th vegas/florida mass shootings??


Can anyone say it could or couldn't?


With most of the ideas, we don't know until we try it.   


But trying ideas to fix a problem is a whole lot better then not trying because there is a group who think it will not help.

Registering weapons maybe helpful against gun buyers that sell it to folks who shouldnt be owning guns.

It wouldnt have helped in the vegas/florida mass shooting cases

These shooters register, attend gun class, sign documents not to hurt innocent people etc

Doesnt matter.

Real control would be banning bumper stocks. Semis. Increasing prices of guns, magazines.  Limiting purchase/ownership of guns per individual/household.  Raising min age gun purchase. Implementing - Automatic death penalty in the event of 1st degree mass murder charge where evidence is clear

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 11:08:02 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 16, 2018, 11:22:12 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 16, 2018, 11:24:11 AM
The primary reason that a common sense policy cannot be agreed to is that there is a large base out there that has been whipped up with lies to believe that if they allow any gun control at all that it will open the flood gates and shortly after the government will confiscate all guns.

Republicans fall into two categories relative to this conspiracy whisper campaign.  They are either actively promoting the conspiracy or they are quietly playing along keeping that voter base in their camp.  Vote for me or Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/etc. will take your guns away.

I will applaud the first "conservative" that comes out and says no one wants to take hunting rifles away from hunters.  There is no secret democratic/liberal conspiracy to confiscate all guns.  Now with that pretense, can we discuss some common sense reforms?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 16, 2018, 11:31:07 AM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.


I think much of what I read on cblog about guns is apolitical. It is not "Republicans did this" and "democrats did that"

Instead it is: "let's consider this approach" or "lets consider that approach"

Having a debate about the tradeoffs of different approaches is not political.

I would disagree, these approaches require political action to implement, so they're inherently political. Complaining about politicization is also usually a political statement, because it aligns with preferring political inaction and the status quo. 

What it's (mostly) not is what you're referring to - partisan or tribal arguments, which are toxic and get conflated with political discourse all the time. Political discussion isn't a bad thing!  It's how we decide what we want our society to look like. We've just made it a bad word because it so often veers toward dishonesty and vitriol.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 11:32:54 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of gun related murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 16, 2018, 11:38:38 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease

No, I don't know why you think police and military should have guns. I know why I think they have guns. Since your statements aren't making sense to me, I'm trying to get you to explain to me your line of thinking rather than me trying to anticipate your thinking and tell you what you think. That's counterproductive.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 16, 2018, 11:43:58 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of gun related murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease

I'm not even sure that robberies would increase (or that mass shootings would definitely decrease). However, I would just like to point out that you seem to be selecting a lesser negative consequence (robberies) as increasing, while the greater negative consequence (mass shootings) would decrease.

Why would robberies possibly increase, but for instance, gun murders not also increase? What evidence is there that a gun would deter a robbery (by your admission), but would not also deter a gun violence, or even any other murder? If a gun could deter a robbery, couldn't a gun deter a murder? I'm just saying, you seem to be showing some bias in your selection. And I think the best answers are found when eliminating all the bias we can.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 11:54:37 AM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of gun related murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease

I'm not even sure that robberies would increase (or that mass shootings would definitely decrease). However, I would just like to point out that you seem to be selecting a lesser negative consequence (robberies) as increasing, while the greater negative consequence (mass shootings) would decrease.

Why would robberies possibly increase, but for instance, gun murders not also increase? What evidence is there that a gun would deter a robbery (by your admission), but would not also deter a gun violence, or even any other murder? If a gun could deter a robbery, couldn't a gun deter a murder? I'm just saying, you seem to be showing some bias in your selection. And I think the best answers are found when eliminating all the bias we can.

just study countries that dont allow guns..and you will find the answers you are looking for

society can function without it. And doesn't mean crime increases etc.  The positive result is unlikely mass shooting/casualties, less gun related murders.

You stated above you are not sure if mass shooting would even decrease without guns rotating freely in society...think about this for a sec.  Because the answer is, eventually it will
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Surferdad on February 16, 2018, 02:58:34 PM
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus it’s killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2018, 03:31:36 PM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.


I think much of what I read on cblog about guns is apolitical. It is not "Republicans did this" and "democrats did that"

Instead it is: "let's consider this approach" or "lets consider that approach"

Having a debate about the tradeoffs of different approaches is not political.

I agree. I don't think this is a "Political " argument. I think people just want to feel safe and have their kids feel safe and they feel nothing is even being tried. The time is now to try and do something about this situation.

Agreed. I think that is the political risk for Congress right now. It's pretty clear that "thoughts and prayers" haven't done much, and more and more people are fed up with Congress not doing anything. Basically not even acknowledging that there's a problem.

So, how about we have some Congressional hearings, or commission a study?

How about we let the CDC study the link between mental health and gun ownership?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2018, 03:47:44 PM
Shepard Smith (Fox News) video clip on the need for us to study this problem.

Paraphrasing: We are the greatest nation on earth. We put a man on the moon. But we have a problem. Only in our country are children killing each other. Why can't we solve it? Let's get the best and the brightest, give them whatever they need, give them funds, put them in a room together, to study this and solve this.

(pretty powerful stuff; worth a look)

https://youtu.be/iNnQX1rVYgY

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: JSD on February 16, 2018, 03:52:04 PM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Well, if you’re going to drive into a crowd, you at least need a license and registration , which is more than can be said about guns.

That’s not true. There is nothing stopping someone from stealing a truck and driving it into a crowd.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2018, 03:57:13 PM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Well, if you’re going to drive into a crowd, you at least need a license and registration , which is more than can be said about guns.

That’s not true. There is nothing stopping someone from stealing a truck and driving it into a crowd.

Why would they, when it’s a lot easier to legally buy a gun and high capacity magazines?

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: OhioGreen on February 16, 2018, 04:07:21 PM
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus it’s killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.
Any semi auto pistol can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled! Put your hand on a table and tap you index finger on it as fast as you can.......and let me know when you can tap 33 times in 3 seconds!
It can be mechanically fired that many times, actually 1200 rounds a minute,,,but not by any human being!  Let's stop distorting things, and them putting them out there so people actually think they are true!
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2018, 04:12:54 PM
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus it’s killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.
Any semi auto pistol can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled! Put your hand on a table and tap you index finger on it as fast as you can.......and let me know when you can tap 33 times in 3 seconds!
It can be mechanically fired that many times, actually 1200 rounds a minute,,,but not by any human being!  Let's stop distorting things, and them putting them out there so people actually think they are true!

It’s not really a distortion. That’s how fast the gun can be fired, and there are plenty of legal trigger / firing mechanisms that can be equipped to make the gun fire faster than you can manually tap the trigger.

But, regardless, how fast can you pull the trigger? How long would it take you to fire off 33 bullets? 10 seconds? 15?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2018, 04:36:37 PM
One of the stranger pieces to the recent shooting is how some alt-right people worked to trick ADL ABC and other reporters that Cruz was linked to extremist groups.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/16/florida-shooting-white-nationalists-415672
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 04:37:11 PM
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus it’s killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.

Correct. I mean you do have single action/double action which reduces firing time, but yeah, in a nutshell it's the same.

Obviously an AR causes more damage and is a more efficient tool in mass shootings, but handguns are responsible for many more deaths due to it's concealment.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 16, 2018, 04:40:15 PM
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus it’s killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.

Correct. I mean you do have single action/double action which reduces firing time, but yeah, in a nutshell it's the same.

Obviously an AR causes more damage and is a more efficient tool in mass shootings, but handguns are responsible for many more deaths due to it's concealment.
Handguns are definitely a bigger problem in this country than assault rifles.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 04:47:31 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 16, 2018, 04:52:40 PM
Quote
The Second Amendment is designed to prevent government tyranny. But in reality, small arms (even assault weapons) are going to have no effect against government forces. A machine gun doesn't matter against napalm or planes with missiles.

I tell this to people all the time and I am a veteran with combat arms experience.   All the AR-15s in the world would be little help against a M-1 Abrahms tank or an Apache or Cobra helicopter.   The days of minute men over throwing the government are long gone.  How about a scout laser ginding a Joint Direct Attack Munition from F-22 Raptor and the M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm rotary cannon.

So it should be clear the military edge sides with the government.   Not to mention Billy Bob Redneck would pee his pants if faced with military ordinance today.   Our civilian populace is pretty soft, too.   There is no safety space on the battlefield.

Quote
How long would it take you to fire off 33 bullets? 10 seconds? 15?

Most people should be able to get shot-to-shot splits at about 0.20 seconds, easy. I think I've done some 0.12 second splits with my Ruger 10-22. Assuming it takes 0.4 seconds for the first trigger pull, then 29 additional 0.15 second splits, that's about 4.7 seconds for a 30 round mag.  You won't be accurate but if the people are densely packed does it matter.   

One bullet from an AR-15 can go through several people folks.  Movies often show car doors blowing them but that is wishful thinking folks.  Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at 500 yards.  Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards.  Look at how many boards the round plowed through here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAOW59Ck9LU

Additionally, this round tumbles and causes massive damage and hydrostatic shock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr7dpEDNNC4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPzxBJSIaGA

This means if you watch those that is makes a huge space of damage within the human body.   Like an 8" long by 3" wide cavity of damage.

Quote
Handguns are definitely a bigger problem in this country than assault rifles.

Definitely, easier to hide and more likely to be used in anger.   Just look at poor Chicago.

FBI was warned about this guy and didn't follow protocol, too.

Quote
The FBI said Friday that it failed to follow "protocols" when it received a tip earlier this year about the teenager accused of killing 17 in a mass shooting at a South Florida high school.

In January, person close to the accused shooter, 19-year old Nikolas Cruz, called the FBI's public tipline and raised concerns about his gun ownership, desire to kill and warned of a possible school shooting.

But the FBI never reported the tip to its Miami field office or investigated the claim, the bureau said Friday.

"Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life," the FBI said in a statement. "The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami field office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

"We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the [Public Access Line] on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami field office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/374231-fbi-did-not-act-on-tip-warning-of-high-school-shooter

Which made this whole thing preventable....
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
Quote
The Second Amendment is designed to prevent government tyranny. But in reality, small arms (even assault weapons) are going to have no effect against government forces. A machine gun doesn't matter against napalm or planes with missiles.

I tell this to people all the time and I am a veteran with combat arms experience.   All the AR-15s in the world would be little help against a M-1 Abrahms tank or an Apache or Cobra helicopter.   The days of minute men over throwing the government are long gone.  How about a scout laser ginding a Joint Direct Attack Munition from F-22 Raptor and the M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm rotary cannon.

So it should be clear the military edge sides with the government.   Not to mention Billy Bob Redneck would pee his pants if faced with military ordinance today.   Our civilian populace is pretty soft, too.   There is no safety space on the battlefield.

Quote
How long would it take you to fire off 33 bullets? 10 seconds? 15?

Most people should be able to get shot-to-shot splits at about 0.20 seconds, easy. I think I've done some 0.12 second splits with my Ruger 10-22. Assuming it takes 0.4 seconds for the first trigger pull, then 29 additional 0.15 second splits, that's about 4.7 seconds for a 30 round mag.  You won't be accurate but if the people are densely packed does it matter.   

One bullet from an AR-15 can go through several people folks.  Movies often show car doors blowing them but that is wishful thinking folks.  Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at 500 yards.  Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards.  Look at how many boards the round plowed through here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAOW59Ck9LU

Additionally, this round tumbles and causes massive damage and hydrostatic shock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr7dpEDNNC4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPzxBJSIaGA

This means if you watch those that is makes a huge space of damage within the human body.   Like an 8" long by 3" wide cavity of damage.


Quote
Handguns are definitely a bigger problem in this country than assault rifles.

Definitely, easier to hide and more likely to be used in anger.   Just look at poor Chicago.

Especially when using 223 hollow point rounds
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 05:14:17 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 16, 2018, 05:17:36 PM
Ind states can start adopting Isaraels school protection policy

No fed approval required.

Main doors are locked during class.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 05:22:23 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 05:32:35 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 05:34:52 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

Why are you tasering your dogs?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 05:39:25 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 05:51:49 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348238/Owner-orders-police-kill-pit-bull-tasers-fail-stop-dog-attacking-girlfriend.html

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/510664/Pit-bull-ignores-police-tasers-vicious-attack-smaller-dog-sprawls-street

https://myeverettnews.com/2011/08/30/everett-police-shoot-and-kill-pit-bull-after-taser-fails-to-stop-attack-on-officers/
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 05:57:51 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348238/Owner-orders-police-kill-pit-bull-tasers-fail-stop-dog-attacking-girlfriend.html

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/510664/Pit-bull-ignores-police-tasers-vicious-attack-smaller-dog-sprawls-street

https://myeverettnews.com/2011/08/30/everett-police-shoot-and-kill-pit-bull-after-taser-fails-to-stop-attack-on-officers/

You need both prongs to connect, if not it's ineffective. Or if one prong misses you can dry stun and it'll have a complete connection. The distance between the two points is important because that's the part it's impacting. It only impacts from point A to point B, so the bigger the spread the better.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 06:01:13 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348238/Owner-orders-police-kill-pit-bull-tasers-fail-stop-dog-attacking-girlfriend.html

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/510664/Pit-bull-ignores-police-tasers-vicious-attack-smaller-dog-sprawls-street

https://myeverettnews.com/2011/08/30/everett-police-shoot-and-kill-pit-bull-after-taser-fails-to-stop-attack-on-officers/

You need both prongs to connect, if not it's ineffective. Or if one prong misses you can dry stun and it'll have a complete connection. The distance between the two points is important because that's the part it's impacting. It only impacts from point A to point B, so the bigger the spread the better.

Video two is with a hand taser. They are touching the dog, no effect....
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 06:08:18 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

Guns give a false sense of security: "Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger."

Dogs, not so much...
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 06:09:02 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348238/Owner-orders-police-kill-pit-bull-tasers-fail-stop-dog-attacking-girlfriend.html

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/510664/Pit-bull-ignores-police-tasers-vicious-attack-smaller-dog-sprawls-street

https://myeverettnews.com/2011/08/30/everett-police-shoot-and-kill-pit-bull-after-taser-fails-to-stop-attack-on-officers/

You need both prongs to connect, if not it's ineffective. Or if one prong misses you can dry stun and it'll have a complete connection. The distance between the two points is important because that's the part it's impacting. It only impacts from point A to point B, so the bigger the spread the better.

Video two is with a hand taser. They are touching the dog, no effect....

Again, that's ineffective. You need two points. The greater the spread, the more muscle mass it impacts.

Taser tested their X26's on bulls. Bulls! They would drop like a ton of bricks. If two prongs connect, it's over. I've never seen anything, human or animal, be able to fight through 2 properly connected prongs. What I've seen is one catching and the other not, either via a straight miss or as a result of thick clothing, so that doesn't do anything.

Believe me when I tell you that I'm probably one of the most experienced people you'll find on this board regarding Tasers.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 06:14:07 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348238/Owner-orders-police-kill-pit-bull-tasers-fail-stop-dog-attacking-girlfriend.html

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/510664/Pit-bull-ignores-police-tasers-vicious-attack-smaller-dog-sprawls-street

https://myeverettnews.com/2011/08/30/everett-police-shoot-and-kill-pit-bull-after-taser-fails-to-stop-attack-on-officers/

You need both prongs to connect, if not it's ineffective. Or if one prong misses you can dry stun and it'll have a complete connection. The distance between the two points is important because that's the part it's impacting. It only impacts from point A to point B, so the bigger the spread the better.

Video two is with a hand taser. They are touching the dog, no effect....

Again, that's ineffective. You need two points. The greater the spread, the more muscle mass it impacts.

Taser tested their X26's on bulls. Bulls! They would drop like a ton of bricks. If two prongs connect, it's over. I've never seen anything, human or animal, be able to fight through 2 properly connected prongs. What I've seen is one catching and the other not, either via a straight miss or as a result of thick clothing, so that doesn't do anything.

Believe me when I tell you that I'm probably one of the most experienced people you'll find on this board regarding Tasers.

I made my first taser out of what was supposed to be a lamp project in woodshop back in 1978... I would still take my Airedales for protect over a taser any day of the week...
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 06:16:11 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

Guns give a false sense of security: "Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger."

Dogs, no so much...

This is pretty silly. It's like comparing a bicycle with a car. Sure a bicycle is safer, but a vehicle is more effective as a mode of transportation. It seems as though you seem to think firearms and dogs offer the same level of protection.

1. Duh. A lot of criminals use guns, so obviously the numbers would reflect that. Not sure how suicide numbers ever pertain to the actual discussion.
2. Ok, bad parenting.
3. Ok, see above.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 06:20:58 PM
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun ownership for police and military would be different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

Ok, how about licensed security guards? Particularly those that work in banks, hospitals, operate Brinks trucks, etc.? What about when an officer retires? Should he have to give up his weapon even though the track record has been exemplary throughout his career? Same goes for miltary personnel, but how about reservists? Do you see the slippery slope you get into?

This dog notion really needs to stop. Baiting a dog with meat and then locking him up happens more routinely that you might think. Also, what constitutes a "guard dog"? Does that mean a big dog or one trained by credible K9 type schools? What if the dog you purchased doesn't have the disposition for protecting property? Do you keep purchasing dogs until one is ideal for your needs? I'm sure PETA would be very supportive of an idea that would cause the numbers of dogs to enter facilities for euthanasia to increase exponentially.

Buy a Doberman or a German Shepard, they are breed to be guard dogs. I have been around dogs my whole life and have never seen or heard of one being bated into a cage. That seems like something from a cartoon. My dogs and all the dogs of people I know have protected their owners and property every time it has come in to question. I have also owned guns and have never had to use them on anyone. No one wants to enter a property with a dog or dogs patrolling it. Have you ever owned a dog? Mine would and have protected me with there lives.

Have had dogs my entire life.

I'm sure you've never heard of it because why would MO ever be publicized, but it's reality. Just like a taser on a dog. You use that on dog and it's completely done. Once the 5 second cycle is off, he runs and hides. The most vicious of dog turns into a complete lamb. It's crazy to see.

What are you doing tasering your dog? You're dogs are ****es, mine aren't.... Your taser would just make my dogs mad.How you going to taser 10 dogs? What do you have some Pomeranians?

Who said I've tasered my dog? Why on earth would anyone do that?

I know you don't want to believe me because dogs often provide a false sense of security when individuals overestimate their abilities. That's cool. This though is the reaction I've always seen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

Oh and I've had all types of dogs from Rott's to Amstaff's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348238/Owner-orders-police-kill-pit-bull-tasers-fail-stop-dog-attacking-girlfriend.html

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/510664/Pit-bull-ignores-police-tasers-vicious-attack-smaller-dog-sprawls-street

https://myeverettnews.com/2011/08/30/everett-police-shoot-and-kill-pit-bull-after-taser-fails-to-stop-attack-on-officers/

You need both prongs to connect, if not it's ineffective. Or if one prong misses you can dry stun and it'll have a complete connection. The distance between the two points is important because that's the part it's impacting. It only impacts from point A to point B, so the bigger the spread the better.

Video two is with a hand taser. They are touching the dog, no effect....

Again, that's ineffective. You need two points. The greater the spread, the more muscle mass it impacts.

Taser tested their X26's on bulls. Bulls! They would drop like a ton of bricks. If two prongs connect, it's over. I've never seen anything, human or animal, be able to fight through 2 properly connected prongs. What I've seen is one catching and the other not, either via a straight miss or as a result of thick clothing, so that doesn't do anything.

Believe me when I tell you that I'm probably one of the most experienced people you'll find on this board regarding Tasers.

I made my first taser out of what was supposed to be a lamp project in woodshop back in 1978... I would still take my Airedales for protect over a taser any day of the week...

I'm sure your creation was really effective.

I'm not advocating for a taser as a be-all end-all tool. It does have it's function when dealing with a non-deadly force type of situation and I have seen it eliminate the threat of a dog when used as intended (again, 2 points of contact).
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 16, 2018, 06:21:22 PM
Quote
I made my first taser out of what was supposed to be a lamp project in woodshop back in 1978... I would still take my Airedales for protect over a taser any day of the week...

Can a taser put 5 out 6 rounds in 6 inch target at 30 paces?   Nope.  You would be dead before you could close enough to deploy the taser.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 16, 2018, 08:22:48 PM
Quote
I made my first taser out of what was supposed to be a lamp project in woodshop back in 1978... I would still take my Airedales for protect over a taser any day of the week...

Can a taser put 5 out 6 rounds in 6 inch target at 30 paces?   Nope.  You would be dead before you could close enough to deploy the taser.

Celtic4ever:  Could you speak (if you feel you can do so based on your experience and expertise) to what I believe is incorrect thinking that people who own guns to protect their homes -- or have one holstered in case they find themselves in the midst of a shooting -- will have the mental and physical capacity to effectively discharge their weapons when faced with the panic of an actual life/death situation.   Untrained people fantasize about how they'll respond, but how would they really respond?  My guess is that most people who have not faced combat or have not been highly trained to respond in life-death crises will act in ways that would be more likely to get themselves (or other innocents) killed as opposed to fulfilling an act of heroism.  I suspect that if there is an intruder in your home and you own a gun, the best thing you could possibly do would be to hide or sneak out of the house and run.  Deference here to highly trained and skilled people, but I would guess that most gun owners have no idea how they'd actually respond in a real situation even if they think they know how they'd respond.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 08:47:35 PM
Quote
I made my first taser out of what was supposed to be a lamp project in woodshop back in 1978... I would still take my Airedales for protect over a taser any day of the week...

Can a taser put 5 out 6 rounds in 6 inch target at 30 paces?   Nope.  You would be dead before you could close enough to deploy the taser.

Celtic4ever:  Could you speak (if you feel you can do so based on your experience and expertise) to what I believe is incorrect thinking that people who own guns to protect their homes -- or have one holstered in case they find themselves in the midst of a shooting -- will have the mental and physical capacity to effectively discharge their weapons when faced with the panic of an actual life/death situation.   Untrained people fantasize about how they'll respond, but how would they really respond?  My guess is that most people who have not faced combat or have not been highly trained to respond in life-death crises will act in ways that would be more likely to get themselves (or other innocents) killed as opposed to fulfilling an act of heroism.  I suspect that if there is an intruder in your home and you own a gun, the best thing you could possibly do would be to hide or sneak out of the house and run.  Deference here to highly trained and skilled people, but I would guess that most gun owners have no idea how they'd actually respond in a real situation even if they think they know how they'd respond.

Way too many variables for one to definitively say how they'll respond. Fight or flight response kicks in and how you respond is anyone guess.

I will say that shooting at a range will definitely improve your handling of a weapon and allow you to react quicker and more naturally during a time of stress.

Another thing, you'll be surprised just how honed in your senses become in a shooting. Your brain really locks to what's needed, visually things seem to happen slower than usual, and you don't really hear anything at all despite you firing without any ear protection. It's pretty fascinating considering how your ears will be ringing if you don't wear ear protection at a range.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Beat LA on February 16, 2018, 10:08:19 PM
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe it’s time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Also, what does the age have to do with this? Are you more compassionate than me? More morally sound? Is that your point? I'm curious. What exactly am I suppose to think about?

No, what I'm saying is that the reply that you gave has been issued in the aftermath of every massacre since Columbine, usually by Republicans, which is the epitome of irony given that the NRA, by substantially donating to the campaigns of many a Congressman/Congresswoman over the last few decades in order to push for more gun-friendly legislation, has made this a political issue. It would be one thing if the GOP wasn't bought and paid for by said group, but to sit there after decades of advocating for more guns and easier access thereof only to then turn around and say, "How dare you make the killing of innocent children a political issue! That's disgusting" is beyond disgusting, imo. Their policies have made these massacres both more frequent and horrific, thanks to, again, their heavy participation in politics over the last 30 years, but freedom! ::) And something about Obama, because Obama ::).

Get rid of the guns and you won't have this problem, and where was this 18-wheeler massacre, because I seem to have missed it. Forgive me, it's just that there have been so many of these atrocities/massacres/mass shootings/murders that I can't keep track.

Edit - regarding the age of the victims, my point is that, just as with Newtown, that tired and truly absurd argument, at least imo, which I realize doesn't count for anything, lol, has outlived the children - CHILDREN - who have been murdered. Do you not find that to be at all disturbing?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 10:10:22 PM
I hope something is done about gun control in the near future and that there are no more of these mass shoots and this thread is no longer relevant in our country.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Beat LA on February 16, 2018, 10:20:52 PM
This is pretty silly. It's like comparing a bicycle with a car. Sure a bicycle is safer, but a vehicle is more effective as a mode of transportation. It seems as though you seem to think firearms and dogs offer the same level of protection.

1. Duh. A lot of criminals use guns, so obviously the numbers would reflect that. Not sure how suicide numbers ever pertain to the actual discussion.
2. Ok, bad parenting.
3. Ok, see above.

In what universe is a bicycle safer than a car, and as for your comment about suicide numbers, such acts are made easier with guns present, hence they're relevance to the "discussion". That's just common sense, is it not?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 16, 2018, 10:34:38 PM
This is pretty silly. It's like comparing a bicycle with a car. Sure a bicycle is safer, but a vehicle is more effective as a mode of transportation. It seems as though you seem to think firearms and dogs offer the same level of protection.

1. Duh. A lot of criminals use guns, so obviously the numbers would reflect that. Not sure how suicide numbers ever pertain to the actual discussion.
2. Ok, bad parenting.
3. Ok, see above.

In what universe is a bicycle safer than a car, and as for your comment about suicide numbers, such acts are made easier with guns present, hence they're relevance to the "discussion". That's just common sense, is it not?

See, that's exactly why JSD referred to your post as snarky.

In what universe? Maybe in the one the rest of us, except you, seem to reside in. Since you know, or perhaps not,  according to data in 2015 there were 5,376 motor vehicle deaths compared to 816 bicyclists deaths. Perhaps the numbers differ in the parallel universe you reside in so please share.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Beat LA on February 16, 2018, 10:40:57 PM
The 2nd Amendment's not going away, but neither are these mass murders. For me finding a middle ground absolutely needs to start with lifting the absurd, pathetic federal ban on the CDC collecting any data or conducting any studies about the effects of gun violence. Can't fix the problem if we can't study it.

While I understand your overall position from an official standpoint, I think we both know that this issue has been studied at home and abroad for decades, now, and the findings are quite predictable. We don't need to waste any more time in "studying" this crap, we need to fix it, and should have done so after Columbine. Unless, of course, you'd prefer to see an NFL-CTE kind of situation develop, as in delay, delay, delay. I mean, how long would such a study take - 5 years? Ten? How many people are going to die in the interim while we wait for the Captain Obvious examination to conclude and confirm what we already know? Sorry, I just think that this whole issue is beyond ridiculous.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Beat LA on February 16, 2018, 10:53:03 PM
This is pretty silly. It's like comparing a bicycle with a car. Sure a bicycle is safer, but a vehicle is more effective as a mode of transportation. It seems as though you seem to think firearms and dogs offer the same level of protection.

1. Duh. A lot of criminals use guns, so obviously the numbers would reflect that. Not sure how suicide numbers ever pertain to the actual discussion.
2. Ok, bad parenting.
3. Ok, see above.

In what universe is a bicycle safer than a car, and as for your comment about suicide numbers, such acts are made easier with guns present, hence they're relevance to the "discussion". That's just common sense, is it not?

See, that's exactly why JSD referred to your post as snarky.

In what universe? Maybe in the one the rest of us, except you, seem to reside in. Since you know, or perhaps not,  according to data in 2015 there were 5,376 motor vehicle deaths compared to 816 bicyclists deaths. Perhaps the numbers differ in the parallel universe you reside in so please share.

I mean, it's just common sense. At least in a car you have airbags and the metal framework of the body to absorb some of the blow, but when you're riding a bike on a street with the presence of a car/cars, you have none of that, and no amount of elbow and knee pads, not to mention a helmet, is going to do anything to protect you if you get hit by any kind of vehicle, as you're totally exposed. I'd like to know the statistical breakdown of a person's chance of surviving a crash sustained from a car while riding a bike as opposed to two cars plowing into each other. Let's call it bike-on-bike/car-on-car crime ::).

One more thing - how many of those bicyclists died at the hands of a car?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 16, 2018, 11:06:47 PM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-knee-jerk-shootings_us_5a864263e4b05c2bcac94502
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Beat LA on February 16, 2018, 11:13:41 PM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-knee-jerk-shootings_us_5a864263e4b05c2bcac94502

Lol, like Paul Ryan cares about facts.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 17, 2018, 08:35:01 AM
Quote
My guess is that most people who have not faced combat or have not been highly trained to respond in life-death crises will act in ways that would be more likely to get themselves (or other innocents) killed as opposed to fulfilling an act of heroism.  I suspect that if there is an intruder in your home and you own a gun, the best thing you could possibly do would be to hide or sneak out of the house and run.  Deference here to highly trained and skilled people, but I would guess that most gun owners have no idea how they'd actually respond in a real situation even if they think they know how they'd respond.

The sad reality is everyone thinks they are Rambo until you get into combat.   Sometimes training takes over and you do what you have been trained.   Some guys go through the motions discharging their weapon, to make it look like they are fighting.   This is one of the reasons that it takes 250,000 rounds to kill a man.

Quote
US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html

Some guys cower in fear and these are guys who have been trained.   We are all human and all us overestimate our abilities from time to time.

Even trained soldiers have accidents and quite frankly some of the ordinance is so powerful that people forget it sometimes.  In the military, we call it friendly fire when soldiers get killed by their own side.  To illustrate this:

Quote
1991 Gulf War
Main article: Gulf War § Friendly fire
During the Battle of Khafji, 11 American Marines were killed in two major incidents when their light armored vehicles (LAV's) were hit by missiles fired by a USAF A-10.
Two soldiers of the U.S. Army were killed and a further six wounded when an American Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter fired upon and destroyed a U.S. Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle and an M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier (in the same incident) during night operations.
A British officer was severely injured when his FV510 Warrior vehicle was attacked by a Challenger 1 tank of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.
An American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacked British Warrior MICVs, resulting in nine British dead and numerous casualties.
During the Battle of Phase Line Bullet, American M1 Abrams tanks in the rear fired in support of American troops facing dug-in Iraqi troops. American Infantry Fighting Vehicles were hit by fire from the tanks, resulting in two fatalities.
Several friendly fire incidents took place during the Battle of 73 Easting, wounding 57 American soldiers, but causing no fatalities.
One American soldier was killed by friendly fire during the Battle of Medina Ridge.
Two soldiers from 10 Air Defence Battery, Royal Artillery, were badly injured when two FV103 Spartan from which they had dismounted were fired upon by Challenger 1 tanks from 14th/20th King's Hussars with thermal sights beyond the range of unaided visibility (about 1500 m). The rearmost vehicle was hit and burst into flames. The other vehicle was also damaged in the ensuing fire.
A large number of friendly fire incidents took place during the Battle of Norfolk, resulting in 5 American casualties.
A Challenger 1 tank fired several rounds at a British artillery position, resulting in at least 4 casualties.
In the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15Cs involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters over northern Iraq, killing 26 Coalition military and civilian personnel.

Quote
War in Afghanistan (2001–17)
In the Tarnak Farm incident of 18 April 2002, four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others injured when U.S. Air National Guard Major Harry Schmidt, dropped a laser-guided 500 lb (230 kg) bomb from his F-16 jet fighter on the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry regiment which was conducting a night firing exercise near Kandahar. Schmidt was charged with negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, and dereliction of duty. He was found guilty of the latter charge. During testimony Schmidt blamed the incident on his use of "go pills" (authorized mild stimulants), combined with the 'fog of war'.[119] The Canadian dead received US medals for bravery, along with an apology.
Pat Tillman, a former professional American football player, was shot and killed by American fire on 22 April 2004. An Army Special Operations Command investigation was conducted by Brigadier General Jones and the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that Tillman's death was due to friendly fire aggravated by the intensity of the firefight. A more thorough investigation concluded that no hostile forces were involved in the firefight and that two allied groups fired on each other in confusion after a nearby improvised explosive device was detonated.
On 6 April 2006, a British convoy in Afghanistan wounded 13 Afghan police officers and killed seven, after calling in a US airstrike on what they thought was a Taliban attack.[120]
In Sangin Province, a RAF Harrier pilot mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy by 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban on 20 August 2006. This angered British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who in a leaked email called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan".
Canadian soldiers opened fire on a white pickup truck, about 25 kilometres west of Kandahar, killing an Afghan officer with 6 others injured on 26 August 2006.[121]
Operation Medusa (2006): 1 – Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts accidentally strafed NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham.
On 5 December 2006, an F/A-18C on a Close Air Support mission in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, mistakenly attacked a trench where British Royal Marines were dug-in during a 10-hour battle with Taliban fighters, killing one Royal Marine.[122]
Lance Corporal Matthew Ford, from Zulu Company of 45 Commando Royal Marines, died after receiving a gunshot wound in Afghanistan on 15 January 2007, which was later found to be due to friendly fire. The final inquest ruled he died from NATO rounds from a fellow Royal Marine's machine gun. The report added there was no "negligence" by the other Marine, who had made a "momentary error of judgment".[123][124]
Canadian troops mistakenly killed an Afghan National Police officer and a homeless beggar after their convoy was ambushed in Kandahar City.[125]
Of two helicopters called in to support operations by the British Grenadier Guards and Afghan National Army forces in Helmand, the British Westland WAH-64 Apache engaged enemy forces, while the accompanying American AH-64D Apache opened fire on the Grenadiers and Afghan troops.[126]
23 August 2007: A USAF F-15 called in to support British ground forces in Afghanistan dropped a bomb on those forces. Three privates of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, were killed and two others were severely injured. It was later revealed that the British forward air controller who called in the strike had not been issued a noise-cancelling headset, and while he supplied the correct target co-ordinates, in the confusion and stress of the battle incorrectly confirmed one wrong digit mistakenly repeated by the pilot, and the bomb landed on the British position 1000 metres away from the enemy.[127] The coroner at the soldiers' inquest stated that the incident was due to "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness".[128]
On 26 September 2007, British soldiers in operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, fired Javelin anti-tank missiles at Danish soldiers from the Royal Life Guards, killing two.[129] It is also confirmed from Danish forces that the British fired a total of 6–8 Javelin missiles, over a 1½ hour period and only after the attack was completed did they realize that the missiles were British, based upon the fragments found after the incident.[130]
On 12 January 2008, two Dutch soldiers and two allied Afghan soldiers were shot dead by fellow Dutch soldiers in Uruzgan, Afghanistan.[131]
In the night on 14 January 2008 in Helmand Province, British troops saw a bunch of Afghans "conducting suspicious activities". Visibility was too bad for rifle-fire and they were too far away to call in mortar strikes. The squad decided to use a Javelin anti-tank missile they were carrying. British soldiers fired their missile on the nearby roof but the victims were their own Afghan army sentries. 15 Afghan soldiers were killed.[132]
On 9 July 2008, nine British soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment were injured after being fired upon by a British Army Apache helicopter while on patrol in Afghanistan.[133]
A statement issued jointly by the American and the Afghan military commands said a contingent of Afghan police officers fired on United States forces on 10 December 2008 after the Americans had successfully overrun the hide-out, killing the suspected Taliban commander and detaining another man. The US forces after securing the hideout came under heavy small arms fire and explosive grenades from the Afghan Police forces. "Multiple attempts to deter the engagement were unsuccessful," and the US forces returned fire. Afghan police have stated that they came under fire first and that the initial firing on the US forces came from the building next to the police station. This has led the US forces to conclude that the Afghan police forces might have been compromised. Initial reports indicate that this was a tragic case of mistaken identity on both parts.[134]
Captain Tom Sawyer, aged 26, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, and Corporal Danny Winter, aged 28, Zulu Company 45 Commando Royal Marines, were killed by an explosion on 14 January 2009 from a Javelin missile fired by British troops acting on the orders of a Danish officer. Both men were taking part in a joint operation with a Danish Battle Group and the Afghan National Army in a location north east of Gereshk in central Helmand Province.[135][136]
On 9 September 2009, British Special Boat Service forces were sent to rescue New York Times journalist Stephen Farrell and his Afghan translator Sultan Munadi who were kidnapped by Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan near Kunduz four days earlier. During the raid, Farrell was rescued, but Munadi was shot and killed in the firefight between the Taliban and British forces. It is later found out that Munadi was running towards the helicopter when he was shot in the front by a British soldier, in addition to being shot in the back by the Taliban, after the British mistook him for the Taliban. Two Afghan civilians also died from the hail of bullets by British and Taliban forces.
A British Military Police officer was shot dead by a fellow British soldier while on patrol.[137] It was reported that no charges are to be brought against a British army sniper who killed a British Military Policeman because he was allowed to open fire if he believed that his life was in danger.[138]
In December 2009, British commanders called upon a U.S. airstrike which killed Lance Corporal Christopher Roney from 3rd Battalion The Rifles who was engaging along with his comrades with the Taliban. The incident happened when a firefight was going on between British soldiers of 3rd Battalion The Rifles and the insurgents in Sangin Province. Senior British officers were watching a drone's grainy images of the fight from Camp Bastion, about 30 miles from the battle at Patrol Base Almas. The officers mistook the soldiers' mud-walled compound for an enemy position and called down a U.S. Apache airstrike on the base. Roney was fatally shot in the head after a helicopter gunship opened fire on the base. He died later the next day after being taken to Camp Bastion. Eleven other British soldiers were wounded in the attack. The coroner criticised the British commanders for the fact Patrol Base Almas was not marked on military maps, for the 'unprofessional' use of grainy images and for insisting there were no friendly forces in the area to the Apache crew.[139]
German soldiers killed six Afghan soldiers in a friendly fire incident on their way to attack a group of Taliban. Afghan soldiers were traveling in support of other Afghan troops in the area. The German Patrol opened fire killing six.[140]
Sapper Mark Antony Smith, age 26, of the 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, was killed by a smoke shell fired upon by British troops in Sangin Province, Afghanistan. The MoD is investigating his death and said a smoke shell, designed to provide cover for soldiers working on the ground, may have fallen short of its intended target.[141][142]
Friendly fire between ISAF and Pakistan on 26 November 2011. ISAF forces opened fire on Pakistani forces killing 24 Pakistani soldiers and causing a great diplomatic standoff between U.S. and Pakistan. ISAF forces argue they were there to hunt down militants at the AF-PAK border. Pakistan had stopped transit of goods through its territory to ISAF in Afghanistan because of the incident. After an official apology by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 3 July 2012 the NATO supply routes were restored.
Two New Zealand soldiers were wounded by friendly fire from a 25mm gun mounted on an armored New Zealand LAV during a 12-minute firefight with insurgents in Bamyan Province on 4 August 2012.[143][144]
A British female soldier and a Royal Marine man were mistakenly killed by another British unit on patrol after her unit opened fire on an Afghan policeman assuming he was a Taliban insurgent. The British unit who killed a female soldier and a Royal Marine assumed they were under attack after the firing happened.[145]
Five United States Special forces operatives, and an Afghan Army counterpart were killed by friendly fire in Southern Zabul Province on June 9, 2014. Whilst on patrol, and coming under heavy Taliban fire, an air-strike was called in and a B-1 Lancer bomber misdirected its payload killing the six military personnel amongst others.[146][147]

Quote
Iraq War from 2003
File:Friendly Fire Iraq.ogv
Video of the 28 March 2003 friendly fire incident, showing errors of identification
In the Battle of Nasiriyah, an American force of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs) and infantry under intense enemy fire were misidentified as an Iraqi armored column by two U.S. Air Force A-10s who carried out bombing and strafing runs on them. 18 were killed as a result.
A U.S. Patriot missile shot down a British Panavia Tornado GR.4A of No. 13 Squadron RAF, killing the pilot and navigator. Investigations showed that the Tornado's identification friend or foe indicator had malfunctioned and hence it was not identified as a friendly aircraft.[148][149]
Sgt Steven Roberts, a tank commander of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, was killed when a fellow British soldier manning a tank-mounted machine gun mistakenly hit him while firing at a stone wielding Iraqi protester at a roadblock in Az Zubayr near Basra on 24 March 2003.[150] It was reported that no British soldiers were to be charged for his death.[151]
A British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight. The turret was blown off and two of the crewmembers were killed.[152][153]
190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident – 28 March 2003. A pair of American A-10s from the 190th attacked four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing L/CoH. Matty Hull and injuring five others.
British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison was killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.[154]
U.S. Patriot missile batteries fired two missiles on a U.S. Navy F/A-18C Hornet 50 mi (80 km) from Karbala, Iraq.[155] One missile hit the aircraft of pilot Lieutenant Nathan Dennis White of VFA-195, Carrier Air Wing Five, killing him. This was the result of the missile design flaw in identifying hostile aircraft.[156]
American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & U.S. Special Forces convoy, killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson were injured. The incident was filmed.[157]
Fusilier Kelan Turrington, of the 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was killed by machine-gun fire from a British tank.[158]
American soldier Mario Lozano killed an Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari and is suspected of wounding Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Sgrena was rescued from a kidnapping by Calipari, and it was claimed that the car they were escaping in failed to stop at an American checkpoint, whereupon U.S. soldiers opened fire. Video evidence shows the car was respecting speed limits and proceeding with its headlights on. The shooting commenced well before 50 meters, in contrast with what Lozano and other soldiers testified.[159]
During a raid on 16 July 2006 to apprehend a key terrorist leader and accomplice in a suburb of North Basra, Cpl John Cosby, of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, was killed by a 5.56 mm round from a British-issued SA80. It was ruled to be a case of friendly fire by the coroner. It was reported that the British forces who shot him were unclear about the rules of engagement.[160][161]
An American airstrike killed eight Kurdish Iraqi soldiers. Kurdish officials advised U.S. helicopters hit the men who were guarding a branch of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in Mosul. The U.S. military said the attack was launched after soldiers identified armed men in a bunker near a building reportedly used for bomb-making, and that American troops called for the men to put down their weapons in Arabic and Kurdish before launching the strike.[162]
Dave Sharrett, II was shot and killed in a firefight with insurgents near the village of Bichigan, north of Baghdad in January 2008, during Operation Hood Harvest. The incident has since been described as friendly fire.[163]
SPC Donald Oaks, SGT Todd Robbins, and SFC Randall Rehn of the D Battery(C/3-13 FA), 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division Artillery were killed when a US fighter jet mistook the rocket artillery from US MLRS as enemy targets on 3 April 2003. The ordnance struck the vehicles of the soldiers killing SFC Rehn instantly, while SGT Robbins and SPC Oaks died shortly after from their wounds. 5 other soldiers were WIA from the event.[164][165]

Bullets go a long way folks and some of them can go right through drywall and straight into a neighbor house.  People do always follow basic gun safety, I have known guys not clear a weapon and die cleaning it.

Quote
Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).23

If you have own be very careful, always double check for safety reasons. 
For the record, I do not carry guns around with me all the time.   My are locked up in case I need them but easy to get too.  I don't consider myself super knowledgeable on guns as I have friends who know more than I do.   I like to shoot recreationally and I am a veteran who has got to fire some of this stuff for real but that is it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Erik on February 17, 2018, 09:12:17 AM
I'm all for gun control. I don't own a gun and I don't think that I ever will because I think that they're too dangerous to even own. I actually would like it if I knew that there were 0 guns in the country. Unfortunately, most people would push back on it. Some would say that it's impossible to find all the guns and only the criminals would have the guns. Some would say that even if you did get rid of all of them, now what do I do when a group of people break into my home and kill my family. And then there are the nuts who think that the government will try to kill them after getting their guns. Anything other than removing all guns from the society (including all small additional measures to make things harder for people) and you are going to have shootings like this. If you are determined to attack a target with no defense (no armed people), you are going to be able to do it. You'll find a gun somehow. It's not that hard in a country with 300 million guns. And it's not just AR-15's (although I don't care if we ban them). The guy would have done just as much damage with a simple 12 gauge shotgun.

I think we should take a step back and look at why Americans kill each other. Not just guns. Why do Americans want to hurt other Americans? I think the answer to that question is the fact that we don't have any cultural identity and too much division. It starts with ideology (50% of the country does not like the other 50%) and is compounded with hyphens. People are more proud of the first part of the hyphen and not the second part. We're just "a big melting pot of people that are not like me." I think that if we were to drop these divisions and come together as Americans, the violence would decrease. Just my thoughts. Could be a completely wrong, but that's really the only major difference between America and other countries. Canadians have a ton of guns as well, but Canadians don't want to kill each other, and I've never heard of an <insert other region>-Canadian before.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Sophomore on February 17, 2018, 09:58:58 AM
The hardest thing for me to take in all of this is the way people keep saying: there will always be bad people, and there is no way to prevent all gun violence. They say  whatever solution you propose won’t eliminate all gun deaths, so it’s all pointless. Just give up.

Folks, there are bad people everywhere. In England and Australia and Canada and Germany. They aren’t walking into schools and malls and blowing people away. There are things that have worked to reduce or almost illuminate gun violence in other countries, and it doesn’t require confiscating all the guns. It does require being smarter about who can have a gun and limits on the kinds of guns they can have.

The fact that one reform won’t prevent the shooting, or that we can’t drive the number of firearm homicides to zero, doesn’t mean it’s all hopeless and we should just throw up our hands; we don’t do that with any other problem. We can be a lot safer even by making incremental gains. In Washington DC, there were about 480 homicides in 1991; last year there were 116. You notice! It’s not zero, but it’s a lot better.

There are things that have worked in other countries we could try,  or new things we can try. Throwing up our hands and saying this is an unsolvable problem is bull****; it has been solved elsewhere. We haven’t tried very hard because a vocal minority has prevented the majority from protecting itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 17, 2018, 03:56:20 PM
POTUS?

https://mashable.com/2018/02/17/donald-trump-parkland-smiling-thumbs-up-obama/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results#31HbV9NUQqq3
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 17, 2018, 04:21:01 PM
POTUS?

https://mashable.com/2018/02/17/donald-trump-parkland-smiling-thumbs-up-obama/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results#31HbV9NUQqq3

This is nonsense created by people just looking for things to criticize. In all the photos everyone was smiling, doctors, nurses, first responders, Governor Scott, etc. Unless you prefer crocodile tears without action like the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

Quote
Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word,"
former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.


Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is "committed to the highest care of those in our military family."

"Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all service members," said Little. "The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident."

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.

"If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis," McHugh told ABC News. "It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform."

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.

"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."

"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.

For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful.

"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.

Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be "in the line of duty" but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.

Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.

"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh. "So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."

Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve.

"It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind," McCaul told ABC News. "I think the victims should be treated as such."

Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.

Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.

"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit," said Munley. She is also raising money for a movie about Fort Hood, and says some of the proceeds will go to the victims.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: jambr380 on February 17, 2018, 05:00:41 PM
POTUS?

https://mashable.com/2018/02/17/donald-trump-parkland-smiling-thumbs-up-obama/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results#31HbV9NUQqq3

This is nonsense created by people just looking for things to criticize. In all the photos everyone was smiling, doctors, nurses, first responders, Governor Scott, etc. Unless you prefer crocodile tears without action like the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

Come on Eddie, are you really going to try to compare the character of Obama to that of Trump? Sure, everybody was smiling, but those people were probably all just excited to be meeting the President. Trump should know better than to smile and give the thumbs up in such a situation. Regardless of how he 'really' feels, it just comes down to at least looking like you care. If this were a one time thing, then it could be excused, but he has shown a complete lack of genuine social awareness and sympathy time and time again.

Quote
Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.

So somebody probably dropped the ball here, but you make it seem like Obama directly had something to do with this. As for the actual quote - no kidding! Every person in the history of the world who has been asked to sit next to the 1st lady during the SOTU adress has been used for some kind of political advantage. Nobody accidentally sits next to any 1st lady at such an event.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rondohondo on February 17, 2018, 05:13:26 PM
POTUS?

https://mashable.com/2018/02/17/donald-trump-parkland-smiling-thumbs-up-obama/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results#31HbV9NUQqq3

This is nonsense created by people just looking for things to criticize. In all the photos everyone was smiling, doctors, nurses, first responders, Governor Scott, etc. Unless you prefer crocodile tears without action like the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

Quote
Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word,"
former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.


Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is "committed to the highest care of those in our military family."

"Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all service members," said Little. "The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident."

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.

"If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis," McHugh told ABC News. "It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform."

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.

"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."

"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.

For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful.

"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.

Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be "in the line of duty" but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.

Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.

"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh. "So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."

Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve.

"It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind," McCaul told ABC News. "I think the victims should be treated as such."

Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.

Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.

"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit," said Munley. She is also raising money for a movie about Fort Hood, and says some of the proceeds will go to the victims.

Speaking of crocodile tears....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG0a04PX-zY&app=desktop





Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 18, 2018, 03:51:44 PM
The students at Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County Florida are either wise beyond their years or are accepting good advice from some wise adults.  They are determined (as so many are immediately following a shooting) to keep this in the news and they have a very nice branding that I think may finally pressure Congress to turn the corner away from its despicable deference to the NRA.   

They have selected March 24th as the date for "March for Our Lives" in response to those who say it's too soon to talk politics when all the victims have yet to be buried.  They've decided that March 24th will not be too soon, and thus they will be able to avert the initial bluster and subsequent burn out that the NRA counts on to keep the gun debate under control.   

The students are directly, aggressively and emotionally calling out the NRA, Congress and the POTUS, saying that March 24th will be the date to affirm whether you are with us or against us.  They are calling upon adults to act as adults and do something substantial to protect Americans, especially the children.  They are messaging very strongly with powerful and memorable language: to Congress: your absence on March 24th and any continued alliance with NRA's stonewalling will be a badge of shame that you'll be wearing on your chest come November.

POTUS was glad to label Colin Kaepernick and his football kneelers as "SOBs who should be fired" for peacefully (albeit disrespectfully to many) exercising their 1st amendment right to protest.    POTUS has not yet labeled members of Congress as "SOBs who should be fired".   He apparently sees Colin Kaepernick's actions as worse than the actions of those who have time and again blocked, avoided, delayed and voted down attempts to explore all avenues of information and action.  It's time (hopefully) to open the doors that could lead to the appropriate balance of protection of (gun) rights and liberty with the protection of human lives -- especially with regard to our children who congregate every day in public venues blindly trusting that the adults in our society will do their most fundamental job -- keep them safe.

 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/18/nows-not-time-talk-guns-heres-eflorida-school-shooting-survivors-plan-march-our-lives-end-gun-violen/349263002/
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 18, 2018, 05:45:57 PM
The students at Stoneman Douglas High School in Brower County Florida are either wise beyond their years or are accepting good advice from some wise adults.  They are determined (as so many are immediately following a shooting) to keep this in the news and they have a very nice branding that I think may finally pressure Congress to turn the corner away from its despicable deference to the NRA.   

They have selected March 24th as the date for "March for Our Lives" in response to those who say it's too soon to talk politics when all the victims have yet to be buried.  They've decided that March 24th will not be too soon, and thus they will be able to avert the initial bluster and subsequent burn out that the NRA counts on to keep the gun debate under control.   

The students are directly, aggressively and emotionally calling out the NRA, Congress and the POTUS, saying that March 24th will be the date to affirm whether you are with us or against us.  They are calling upon adults to act as adults and do something substantial to protect Americans, especially the children.  They are messaging very strongly with powerful and memorable language: to Congress: your absence on March 24th and any continued alliance with NRA's stonewalling will be a badge of shame that you'll be wearing on your chest come November.

POTUS was glad to label Colin Kaepernick and his football kneelers as "SOBs who should be fired" for peacefully (albeit disrespectfully to many) exercising their 1st amendment right to protest.    POTUS has not yet labeled members of Congress as "SOBs who should be fired".   He apparently sees Colin Kaepernick's actions as worse than the actions of those who have time and again blocked, avoided, delayed and voted down attempts to explore all avenues of information and action.  It's time (hopefully) to open the doors that could lead to the appropriate balance of protection of (gun) rights and liberty with the protection of human lives -- especially with regard to our children who congregate every day in public venues blindly trusting that the adults in our society will do their most fundamental job -- keep them safe.

 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/18/nows-not-time-talk-guns-heres-eflorida-school-shooting-survivors-plan-march-our-lives-end-gun-violen/349263002/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-students-march-washington-call-gun-reform-160746587.html
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: liam on February 18, 2018, 10:51:09 PM
The NRA should be trying to prevent this by helping pass some sensible gun control laws:


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: KGs Knee on February 18, 2018, 11:51:00 PM
The NRA should be trying to prevent this by helping pass some sensible gun control laws:


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

I really cannot stand the NRA.  As an organization they have no sensibility whatsoever.

I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and probably own more guns than would make some people comfortable (only one is semi-automatic though).  And I used to support the NRA, but came to the realization they don't have any interest in anything other than the unfettered solicitation of as many firearms as possible.

And the truth of the matter is, there's no logical reason not to have better, stronger laws in place.  But my fear is, if conservatives don't concede this point soon, there's going to be a backlash strong enough to possibly lead to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

And I don't know what I'd do if that happened. I'm a peaceful person, and mean no one any harm.  But I have a right to protect myself and my property, and do not wish to solely rely on the government to provide such protection.  Not to mention I'm not about to just willingly give up hunting.  I suppose I could be ok with giving up the semi-automatic firearm, but not the others, they're just pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, muzzle-loaders, or revolvers.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 19, 2018, 02:42:15 AM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 19, 2018, 08:24:12 AM
..... lead to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

And I don't know what I'd do if that happened. I'm a peaceful person, and mean no one any harm.  But I have a right to protect myself and my property, and do not wish to solely rely on the government to provide such protection.  Not to mention I'm not about to just willingly give up hunting.  I suppose I could be ok with giving up the semi-automatic firearm, but not the others, they're just pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, muzzle-loaders, or revolvers.

I doubt that the second amendment would ever be repealed.  They don't need to in order to implement common sense regulations on weaponry.  But even if they did repeal the 2nd amendment, there is no reason to believe that it would suddenly lead to a ban on hunting rifles.  No one wants to ban hunting rifles, not Obama, not Clinton, not Pelosi or Sanders and not any of the student in Parkland.  Handguns in your home are pretty much in the same category.  I have never heard anyone propose legislation to outlaw owning a gun in your home.

This whole idea of classifying hunting rifles differently than assault weapons is something I have brought up many times.  It is always met with the response that you can't define a hunting rifle.  I think you could, and pretty easily (you just did) but you have to actually be willing to try.  It would be a little harder but hand guns could be classified as say residential meaning they have limited power and magazines but are more than suitable for home security.  More exotic handguns could still be owned but perhaps with greater background checks and registration requirements.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Erik on February 19, 2018, 08:45:09 AM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

Can't compare gays and marijuana to guns. It's more difficult to take away rights than to give them. For example, I have voted for gay rights and marijuana every time even though I don't smoke and never will and I'm not gay. I am willing to fight for other people to gain rights even though I have no vested interest. When you take away my rights though, that's automatically a vested interest. Now, I may not care as much as someone who loves guns, but you can see how it would be more difficult with this premise.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Sophomore on February 19, 2018, 09:25:33 AM
The right wing in this country argues that the way to be safer is to turn schools into something like the old west - everybody carry and let the quickest draw win. I don’t know if this is more about genuine ideology or carrying water for the gun manufacturers (who profit enormously by the fear stoked by the NRA - which they control - and right-wing pundits). But it’s a terrible, terrible idea.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/18/limbaugh-guns-schools-concealed-carry-416864

Meanwhile, here is what it is like to get a firearm in Israel. All guns are licensed and registered (like cars, imagine that!). There are extensive background checks. And owners are responsible for what happens with the weapons they own. “If your weapon is stolen from your house and you cannot prove that a safe was broken open to get at the weapon, then you are a criminal and may do jail time. And if we ever have to use a weapon in self-defense? You had better be certain that you had no other recourse, that you did what you could to warn the attacker, and that had you not taken action, at least one innocent life could have been lost. And you may still do jail time.“ Life is not a Hollywood action movie.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-why-school-shootings-don-t-happen-in-israel-1.5406039
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Sophomore on February 19, 2018, 09:28:38 AM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

The NRA is controlled by gun manufacturers, who have figured out that spreading fear leads to more sales. They are profiting now and will worry about the future when it arrives.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 19, 2018, 09:28:41 AM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

It only takes 13 states to veto any amendment. Alaska, Maine, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and a bunch of Southern states will never cave, based upon hunting alone.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 19, 2018, 10:03:26 AM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

It only takes 13 states to veto any amendment. Alaska, Maine, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and a bunch of Southern states will never cave, based upon hunting alone.
That's now. But in 25 or 50 years? Can we be so sure? What atmosphere will be created with another couple of decades with mass murders at schools in America?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 19, 2018, 10:18:07 AM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

It only takes 13 states to veto any amendment. Alaska, Maine, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and a bunch of Southern states will never cave, based upon hunting alone.
That's now. But in 25 or 50 years? Can we be so sure? What atmosphere will be created with another couple of decades with mass murders at schools in America?

Hunting is so engrained in these places, and has been as long as there have been people. I think the only way any of those individual states change is if there’s a tragedy there, and I think if you took a vote in Colorado (site of Columbine) I bet an anti-gun bill (let one an amendment) would fail.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 19, 2018, 10:25:41 AM
Expecting extreme gun law changes are not going to happen.   The 2nd is not going away.


The goal should be to protect the rights of hunters and those who choose to protect themselves while removing assault style weapons and doing the better job of tracking where these weapons are and who has them.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 19, 2018, 11:03:11 AM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

It only takes 13 states to veto any amendment. Alaska, Maine, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and a bunch of Southern states will never cave, based upon hunting alone.
That's now. But in 25 or 50 years? Can we be so sure? What atmosphere will be created with another couple of decades with mass murders at schools in America?

Hunting is so engrained in these places, and has been as long as there have been people. I think the only way any of those individual states change is if there’s a tragedy there, and I think if you took a vote in Colorado (site of Columbine) I bet an anti-gun bill (let one an amendment) would fail.
You may be right. But on the other hand, we don't know what another 20-30 years of mass killings is going to do to an entire new voting block. It isn't the 1700s, 1800s or 1900s anymore. Its a world of instant news access, especially for children. These children may grow up thinking hunting is pretty stupid when weighed against the lives of young children. The newer voting blocks could see hunting as passe. You just don't know.

We will see what type of turnout this March for Life has amongst children, especially high schoolers in this country. The future voting blocks may give a sign on what they think about gun control and the 2nd Amendment. Remember, these are kids that to this point have been unaffected by NRA propaganda yet.

All I am saying is this country and the NRA better get massive gun control legislation passed before a couple of new voting generations growing up in fear of mass killings in schools gets to make the decision for them.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 19, 2018, 11:58:29 AM
Hunting is so engrained in these places, and has been as long as there have been people. I think the only way any of those individual states change is if there’s a tragedy there, and I think if you took a vote in Colorado (site of Columbine) I bet an anti-gun bill (let one an amendment) would fail.

Who said anything about banning hunting or hunting rifles?  Hunting is already one of the most regulated and controlled activities that you can do.  You need a specific license.  You can only do it during specific seasons.  You can only use certain fire arms and ammunition.  I agree that if you took a vote to outlaw hunting through constitutional amendment, yes it would fail.  But you don't need to amend the constitution in order to have sensible regulation on assault rifles.

The younger generation will be less interested in hunting from what I can tell but that does not mean they want to outlaw it.  They just don't want it to be so easy to buy an assault rifle.  The students that are speaking out in Parkland are very clear and consistent in what they are saying.  I have not heard one say that all guns should be outlawed or that hunting should be outlawed.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Sophomore on February 19, 2018, 01:22:28 PM
You don't need to do away with the 2d Amendment to enact reasonable regulations on gun ownership - that's allowed under Heller.

And Heller may not last. It isn't hard to imagine a court 20 years from now significantly narrowing the holding of that case, or even overturning it. The country got along pretty well for more than 200 years before a court discovered an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution; it would do fine if that innovation was abandoned
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 19, 2018, 01:45:07 PM
You don't need to do away with the 2d Amendment to enact reasonable regulations on gun ownership - that's allowed under Heller.

And Heller may not last. It isn't hard to imagine a court 20 years from now significantly narrowing the holding of that case, or even overturning it. The country got along pretty well for more than 200 years before a court discovered an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution; it would do fine if that innovation was abandoned

You've got a mismatch going on here though. On one hand, you are stating that the court ruling in 2008 established individual citizens' rights to bear arms and proposing that things were fine before then. However, the reality is that individuals were armed for those 200 years you say the "country got along pretty well". It was only ruled that this status quo was covered by the 2nd amendment in 2008. I don't think that's the statement you want to make given what it seems like you are trying to say.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 11:19:07 AM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment. 


Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 11:24:01 AM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 11:37:07 AM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.

Well it needs to

Germany has this evaluation and they rank #4 in gun ownership in the world...yet less than 1000 related gun kills per year. I think it was less than 500 last year.  No mass shooting deaths in years

Compare this to 11,000 related gun deaths in the US and 5-7 mass type shooting in the last 12 months alone
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: number_n9ne on February 20, 2018, 11:52:47 AM
I am both Pro Gun and Pro Common Sense Gun Laws. This should not be a divisive stance to take. Yet the paranoid NRA followers will tell you that common sense gun laws will take away their ability to fend of 15 intruders who've come to steal their $300 TV. This line of thought is based in a fictional reality. This is America, not Mad Max, there are no gangs of armed thieves running around stealing and pillaging. I grew up in the hood, I can't think of a single instance that a robbery turned into a homicide. Yet the NRA has these people shaking in their boots like it's a commonplace circumstance. This is nonsense. Should citizens be able to own guns? Yes. Should they need to register them, take the proper training, get background checks, get a national PTP, comply with what ever the government deems necessary to own a gun? Absolutely. Do they need assault rifles, automatic hand guns, high capacity magazines, silencers, bump stocks, or military and tactical gear? Nope. There is no need, none of those things are necessary. If people admit the only rational reason they want any of those things is because they think they are cool and saw it in CoD, or they want to pretend they are in the service, maybe we could get somewhere. But these bogus rationalizations of protecting their families from armed invasions, or being able to stop the government if needed keep this debate going, keeps the NRA in power, and keeps getting innocents killed.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Moranis on February 20, 2018, 11:59:17 AM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.
Sure it could.  I mean a felon can't own a gun, even a felon for some white collar crime or drug offense that harms no one. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you can't just say whatever you want wherever you want either.  Same goes for assembly.  There is nothing stopping reasonable regulation of a constitutional right, especially when the provision specifically talks about regulation.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: seancally on February 20, 2018, 11:59:54 AM
What concerns me is that Scalia's D.C. vs. Heller ruling in 2008 (?) basically affirmed a constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms with little restriction. My worry is that the gun reform we need would end up running up against that decision and the second amendment (as it's now interpreted) at large. Meaning we need to reexamine that amendment and I'm not sure that can happen in my lifetime.

Secondly, even if we implement strict gun control regulations, there are still SO MANY GUNS in the U.S. I am very confident I could get my hands on a high-caliber rifle through secondhand means if I really wanted one. So while I agree we need better measures - that's a must - I'm not sure that's enough. But I think as soon as we start talking "confiscation" people will start claiming TRYANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: seancally on February 20, 2018, 12:04:23 PM
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

It only takes 13 states to veto any amendment. Alaska, Maine, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and a bunch of Southern states will never cave, based upon hunting alone.
That's now. But in 25 or 50 years? Can we be so sure? What atmosphere will be created with another couple of decades with mass murders at schools in America?

Hunting is so engrained in these places, and has been as long as there have been people. I think the only way any of those individual states change is if there’s a tragedy there, and I think if you took a vote in Colorado (site of Columbine) I bet an anti-gun bill (let one an amendment) would fail.
You may be right. But on the other hand, we don't know what another 20-30 years of mass killings is going to do to an entire new voting block. It isn't the 1700s, 1800s or 1900s anymore. Its a world of instant news access, especially for children. These children may grow up thinking hunting is pretty stupid when weighed against the lives of young children. The newer voting blocks could see hunting as passe. You just don't know.

We will see what type of turnout this March for Life has amongst children, especially high schoolers in this country. The future voting blocks may give a sign on what they think about gun control and the 2nd Amendment. Remember, these are kids that to this point have been unaffected by NRA propaganda yet.

All I am saying is this country and the NRA better get massive gun control legislation passed before a couple of new voting generations growing up in fear of mass killings in schools gets to make the decision for them.

I'd be pumped if there are still enough animals in our wilderness to hunt in 20-30 years. Or enough wilderness to walk around in and look for animals.

EDIT: Sorry for the back-to-back post. Is that frowned upon? Feel like it's frowned upon.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: number_n9ne on February 20, 2018, 12:05:39 PM
What concerns me is that Scalia's D.C. vs. Heller ruling in 2008 (?) basically affirmed a constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms with little restriction. My worry is that the gun reform we need would end up running up against that decision and the second amendment (as it's now interpreted) at large. Meaning we need to reexamine that amendment and I'm not sure that can happen in my lifetime.

Secondly, even if we implement strict gun control regulations, there are still SO MANY GUNS in the U.S. I am very confident I could get my hands on a high-caliber rifle through secondhand means if I really wanted one. So while I agree we need better measures - that's a must - I'm not sure that's enough. But I think as soon as we start talking "confiscation" people will start claiming TRYANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

I agree, a lot needs to be looked at, but it needs to happen whether it's difficult or not. Also, the bolded is not a good enough reason to not try and curb guns getting into the wrong hands now. Steps need to be taken, there needs to be some kind of action. There is too many excuses on why it will be difficult and a lot of hand wringing.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 12:09:16 PM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.
Sure it could.  I mean a felon can't own a gun, even a felon for some white collar crime or drug offense that harms no one. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you can't just say whatever you want wherever you want either.  Same goes for assembly.  There is nothing stopping reasonable regulation of a constitutional right, especially when the provision specifically talks about regulation.

No, it wouldn’t. 

For individual possession of a firearm, most Circuits and states apply the strict scrutiny standard. Do you think that any court would find that a law imposing a psych assessment on tens of millions of people unnecessarily is “narrowly tailored “?

Reasonable regulation is fine. Unreasonable regulation isn’t. You can limit guns, but you can’t require all owners the undue burden of passing a psychiatric assessment.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: seancally on February 20, 2018, 12:10:53 PM
What concerns me is that Scalia's D.C. vs. Heller ruling in 2008 (?) basically affirmed a constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms with little restriction. My worry is that the gun reform we need would end up running up against that decision and the second amendment (as it's now interpreted) at large. Meaning we need to reexamine that amendment and I'm not sure that can happen in my lifetime.

Secondly, even if we implement strict gun control regulations, there are still SO MANY GUNS in the U.S. I am very confident I could get my hands on a high-caliber rifle through secondhand means if I really wanted one. So while I agree we need better measures - that's a must - I'm not sure that's enough. But I think as soon as we start talking "confiscation" people will start claiming TRYANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

I agree, a lot needs to be looked at, but it needs to happen whether it's difficult or not. Also, the bolded is not a good enough reason to not try and curb guns getting into the wrong hands now. Steps need to be taken, there needs to be some kind of action. There is too many excuses on why it will be difficult and a lot of hand wringing.

Totally agree - it's not an either-or, all-or-nothing thing.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 12:14:14 PM
What concerns me is that Scalia's D.C. vs. Heller ruling in 2008 (?) basically affirmed a constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms with little restriction. My worry is that the gun reform we need would end up running up against that decision and the second amendment (as it's now interpreted) at large. Meaning we need to reexamine that amendment and I'm not sure that can happen in my lifetime.

Secondly, even if we implement strict gun control regulations, there are still SO MANY GUNS in the U.S. I am very confident I could get my hands on a high-caliber rifle through secondhand means if I really wanted one. So while I agree we need better measures - that's a must - I'm not sure that's enough. But I think as soon as we start talking "confiscation" people will start claiming TRYANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

Anytime the word "gun control" flies, NRA becomes alarmed of potential loss of $$$....then feeds its folks fear of loss of access/use of guns.

Its a game

But NRA cant beat mass shooting incidents and the victims voices keeps getting louder.  Mayors, senators etc. cant keep ignoring

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 12:16:01 PM
I am both Pro Gun and Pro Common Sense Gun Laws. This should not be a divisive stance to take. Yet the paranoid NRA followers will tell you that common sense gun laws will take away their ability to fend of 15 intruders who've come to steal their $300 TV. This line of thought is based in a fictional reality. This is America, not Mad Max, there are no gangs of armed thieves running around stealing and pillaging. I grew up in the hood, I can't think of a single instance that a robbery turned into a homicide. Yet the NRA has these people shaking in their boots like it's a commonplace circumstance. This is nonsense. Should citizens be able to own guns? Yes. Should they need to register them, take the proper training, get background checks, get a national PTP, comply with what ever the government deems necessary to own a gun? Absolutely. Do they need assault rifles, automatic hand guns, high capacity magazines, silencers, bump stocks, or military and tactical gear? Nope. There is no need, none of those things are necessary. If people admit the only rational reason they want any of those things is because they think they are cool and saw it in CoD, or they want to pretend they are in the service, maybe we could get somewhere. But these bogus rationalizations of protecting their families from armed invasions, or being able to stop the government if needed keep this debate going, keeps the NRA in power, and keeps getting innocents killed.

With your mindset, stuff would actually get done
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 12:26:23 PM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.
Sure it could.  I mean a felon can't own a gun, even a felon for some white collar crime or drug offense that harms no one. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you can't just say whatever you want wherever you want either.  Same goes for assembly.  There is nothing stopping reasonable regulation of a constitutional right, especially when the provision specifically talks about regulation.

No, it wouldn’t. 

For individual possession of a firearm, most Circuits and states apply the strict scrutiny standard. Do you think that any court would find that a law imposing a psych assessment on tens of millions of people unnecessarily is “narrowly tailored “?

Reasonable regulation is fine. Unreasonable regulation isn’t. You can limit guns, but you can’t require all owners the undue burden of passing a psychiatric assessment.

How is this an unreasonable regulation?? I already provided example that Germany has implemented this type of assessment and the gun related deaths has sharply dropped

One should be of sound of mind to own a gun...

If it came down to it, I would feel safer with someone sound of mind owning 5 guns vs an unstable person owning a gun
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 20, 2018, 12:30:38 PM


EDIT: Sorry for the back-to-back post. Is that frowned upon? Feel like it's frowned upon.
Not at all. Post as many times in a row as you want.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 12:36:41 PM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.
Sure it could.  I mean a felon can't own a gun, even a felon for some white collar crime or drug offense that harms no one. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you can't just say whatever you want wherever you want either.  Same goes for assembly.  There is nothing stopping reasonable regulation of a constitutional right, especially when the provision specifically talks about regulation.

No, it wouldn’t. 

For individual possession of a firearm, most Circuits and states apply the strict scrutiny standard. Do you think that any court would find that a law imposing a psych assessment on tens of millions of people unnecessarily is “narrowly tailored “?

Reasonable regulation is fine. Unreasonable regulation isn’t. You can limit guns, but you can’t require all owners the undue burden of passing a psychiatric assessment.

How is this an unreasonable regulation?? I already provided example that Germany has implemented this type of assessment and the gun related deaths has sharply dropped

One should be of sound of mind to own a gun...

If it came down to it, I would feel safer with someone sound of mind owning 5 guns vs an unstable person owning a gun

It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 20, 2018, 12:47:01 PM
It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
So which one of these behaviors provides you the means to hurt large amounts of people really fast?

You already have psych screening for police officers. I don't find it unreasonable to treat candidate gun owners the way you treat candidate policemen.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 20, 2018, 12:50:01 PM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.
Sure it could.  I mean a felon can't own a gun, even a felon for some white collar crime or drug offense that harms no one. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you can't just say whatever you want wherever you want either.  Same goes for assembly.  There is nothing stopping reasonable regulation of a constitutional right, especially when the provision specifically talks about regulation.

No, it wouldn’t. 

For individual possession of a firearm, most Circuits and states apply the strict scrutiny standard. Do you think that any court would find that a law imposing a psych assessment on tens of millions of people unnecessarily is “narrowly tailored “?

Reasonable regulation is fine. Unreasonable regulation isn’t. You can limit guns, but you can’t require all owners the undue burden of passing a psychiatric assessment.

How is this an unreasonable regulation?? I already provided example that Germany has implemented this type of assessment and the gun related deaths has sharply dropped

One should be of sound of mind to own a gun...

If it came down to it, I would feel safer with someone sound of mind owning 5 guns vs an unstable person owning a gun

It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
Absolutely right. Even some of the mental health restrictions right now can be seen as obtrusive. I think I read that in some states if you were ever in a mental health hospital, whether voluntary or not, you are disqualified from ownership. That's definitely infringing on the rights of people who have been in a mental institution and then gotten their life and health back in shape voluntarily. Involuntarily I get but voluntary, I don't.

And the only way someone can know if you have been in a mental institution voluntarily is if you forced to turn over your medical records or if the state forces hospitals to turn over their patient lists. I think both are against the law.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 12:52:38 PM
It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
So which one of these behaviors provides you the means to hurt large amounts of people really fast?

You already have psych screening for police officers. I don't find it unreasonable to treat candidate gun owners the way you treat candidate policemen.

Exactly!
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 12:57:25 PM
It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
So which one of these behaviors provides you the means to hurt large amounts of people really fast?

You already have psych screening for police officers. I don't find it unreasonable to treat candidate gun owners the way you treat candidate policemen.

Becoming a member of law enforcement is a career choice. Owning a gun is a Constitutional right.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 20, 2018, 01:03:12 PM
Also, as Roy stated, who determined which psychiatric diseases disqualifies someone from ownership. There's a lot of mental illnesses and even with the same diagnosis there are varying degrees.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 01:03:25 PM
NRA is paranoid to the max ...its incredible

Take away AR15s...NRA: what next are you going to take away? How are we going to protect ourselves from imaginary monsters that will come for us?  You know cars can kill alot of people also, take away their licenses ...and on and on BS logic

The guns and excitement of shooting it has taken over any logical/reasonal thinking .  Nobody is stating to ban guns outright but to implement more control so that it doesnt fall into the wrong hands that can cause mass killings

Gun Control will pass with this type of unrelentless pressure from victims/family + pass gun victims etc

Its not unreasonable to ban assault rifles, raise age limit,  implement a gun registry and for 1st time gun owners to go through some type of psychiatric assessment.

Requiring a psychiatric assessment to exercise a Constitutional right wouldn’t fly.
Sure it could.  I mean a felon can't own a gun, even a felon for some white collar crime or drug offense that harms no one. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you can't just say whatever you want wherever you want either.  Same goes for assembly.  There is nothing stopping reasonable regulation of a constitutional right, especially when the provision specifically talks about regulation.

No, it wouldn’t. 

For individual possession of a firearm, most Circuits and states apply the strict scrutiny standard. Do you think that any court would find that a law imposing a psych assessment on tens of millions of people unnecessarily is “narrowly tailored “?

Reasonable regulation is fine. Unreasonable regulation isn’t. You can limit guns, but you can’t require all owners the undue burden of passing a psychiatric assessment.

How is this an unreasonable regulation?? I already provided example that Germany has implemented this type of assessment and the gun related deaths has sharply dropped

One should be of sound of mind to own a gun...

If it came down to it, I would feel safer with someone sound of mind owning 5 guns vs an unstable person owning a gun

It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?

US can speak/receive advice from Germany, Norway who already has this type of assessment in place

Kids, innocent people are dying due to these mass shootings. From different angles things have to "upgraded" to prevent
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Sophomore on February 20, 2018, 01:06:16 PM
You don't need to do away with the 2d Amendment to enact reasonable regulations on gun ownership - that's allowed under Heller.

And Heller may not last. It isn't hard to imagine a court 20 years from now significantly narrowing the holding of that case, or even overturning it. The country got along pretty well for more than 200 years before a court discovered an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution; it would do fine if that innovation was abandoned

You've got a mismatch going on here though. On one hand, you are stating that the court ruling in 2008 established individual citizens' rights to bear arms and proposing that things were fine before then. However, the reality is that individuals were armed for those 200 years you say the "country got along pretty well". It was only ruled that this status quo was covered by the 2nd amendment in 2008. I don't think that's the statement you want to make given what it seems like you are trying to say.

No, I don't have a mismatch. Before the Supreme Court discovered a new constitutional right in 2008, the federal government, states, and municipalities enacted regulations on gun ownership. We could return to a world where gun safety regulations is a matter for democratically elected officials limited by Due Process rights and the Commerce Clause, and we should.

The fact that people owned guns before Heller doesn't conflict with this rather straightforward observation; it means that most states and localities did not seek to prohibit ownership and rather issued regulations.   

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 20, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
What concerns me is that Scalia's D.C. vs. Heller ruling in 2008 (?) basically affirmed a constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms with little restriction. My worry is that the gun reform we need would end up running up against that decision and the second amendment (as it's now interpreted) at large. Meaning we need to reexamine that amendment and I'm not sure that can happen in my lifetime.

Secondly, even if we implement strict gun control regulations, there are still SO MANY GUNS in the U.S. I am very confident I could get my hands on a high-caliber rifle through secondhand means if I really wanted one. So while I agree we need better measures - that's a must - I'm not sure that's enough. But I think as soon as we start talking "confiscation" people will start claiming TRYANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
A common refrain from people who are against any sort of gun control is that criminals will still get the guns.  While that is certain to be true for some/many common street criminals I feel as though the "average mass shooter" are worlds away from common street criminals and that most would have no idea how to get black market guns.  I know I would not have the first guess on where to illegally purchase guns.

(Note: I absolutely hated typing "average mass shooter" as it seems to normalize these horrible acts as every day events.)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 01:10:45 PM
Also, as Roy stated, who determined which psychiatric diseases disqualifies someone from ownership. There's a lot of mental illnesses and even with the same diagnosis there are varying degrees.

Yeah, my wife is a psychiatric clinician, and I asked her which diagnoses she would absolutely restrict guns from. The only two she would unequivocally bar were Antisocial personality disorder and schizophrenia.  Others were case by case.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 20, 2018, 01:27:53 PM
Also, as Roy stated, who determined which psychiatric diseases disqualifies someone from ownership. There's a lot of mental illnesses and even with the same diagnosis there are varying degrees.

Yeah, my wife is a psychiatric clinician, and I asked her which diagnoses she would absolutely restrict guns from. The only two she would unequivocally bar were Antisocial personality disorder and schizophrenia.  Others were case by case.
That seems reasonable.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 01:29:12 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/gun-owners-destroy-guns/index.html

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 20, 2018, 01:40:27 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/gun-owners-destroy-guns/index.html
Good for these people. That's pretty respectable things to do.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: seancally on February 20, 2018, 02:28:17 PM
What concerns me is that Scalia's D.C. vs. Heller ruling in 2008 (?) basically affirmed a constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms with little restriction. My worry is that the gun reform we need would end up running up against that decision and the second amendment (as it's now interpreted) at large. Meaning we need to reexamine that amendment and I'm not sure that can happen in my lifetime.

Secondly, even if we implement strict gun control regulations, there are still SO MANY GUNS in the U.S. I am very confident I could get my hands on a high-caliber rifle through secondhand means if I really wanted one. So while I agree we need better measures - that's a must - I'm not sure that's enough. But I think as soon as we start talking "confiscation" people will start claiming TRYANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
A common refrain from people who are against any sort of gun control is that criminals will still get the guns.  While that is certain to be true for some/many common street criminals I feel as though the "average mass shooter" are worlds away from common street criminals and that most would have no idea how to get black market guns.  I know I would not have the first guess on where to illegally purchase guns.

(Note: I absolutely hated typing "average mass shooter" as it seems to normalize these horrible acts as every day events.)

I hear your point, and I mean... I don't really want to type "guns black market" into Google in case I end up on some list somewhere. But that might be the start.

There are a few pieces (with basic, cursory research on my part) that speak to the issue you raise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.6e3858c008c6

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/07/it-took-me-two-hours-to-get-ak-47-black-market-welcome-to-america

I want to be clear: I think we need stricter laws, fewer guns, etc - I think it should be really, really hard to get a weapon. And I think certain types of guns (like the AR-15) never need to be in civilian hands. And if you're worried about a tyrannical gov't going crazy, your gun won't save you anyway. But I also recognize the counter-arguments and that they'll need to be addressed for action to occur.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: number_n9ne on February 20, 2018, 02:57:11 PM
What concerns me is that Scalia's D.C. vs. Heller ruling in 2008 (?) basically affirmed a constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms with little restriction. My worry is that the gun reform we need would end up running up against that decision and the second amendment (as it's now interpreted) at large. Meaning we need to reexamine that amendment and I'm not sure that can happen in my lifetime.

Secondly, even if we implement strict gun control regulations, there are still SO MANY GUNS in the U.S. I am very confident I could get my hands on a high-caliber rifle through secondhand means if I really wanted one. So while I agree we need better measures - that's a must - I'm not sure that's enough. But I think as soon as we start talking "confiscation" people will start claiming TRYANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
A common refrain from people who are against any sort of gun control is that criminals will still get the guns.  While that is certain to be true for some/many common street criminals I feel as though the "average mass shooter" are worlds away from common street criminals and that most would have no idea how to get black market guns.  I know I would not have the first guess on where to illegally purchase guns.

(Note: I absolutely hated typing "average mass shooter" as it seems to normalize these horrible acts as every day events.)

I hear your point, and I mean... I don't really want to type "guns black market" into Google in case I end up on some list somewhere. But that might be the start.

There are a few pieces (with basic, cursory research on my part) that speak to the issue you raise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.6e3858c008c6

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/07/it-took-me-two-hours-to-get-ak-47-black-market-welcome-to-america

I want to be clear: I think we need stricter laws, fewer guns, etc - I think it should be really, really hard to get a weapon. And I think certain types of guns (like the AR-15) never need to be in civilian hands. And if you're worried about a tyrannical gov't going crazy, your gun won't save you anyway. But I also recognize the counter-arguments and that they'll need to be addressed for action to occur.

This is so rational and commonsensical. I appreciate this. This is a point of view that many can learn from.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 03:28:59 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/gun-owners-destroy-guns/index.html
Good for these people. That's pretty respectable things to do.

Yes. Whats sad is some gun pro folks who mock these people under comments on fb
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 20, 2018, 03:58:59 PM
It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
So which one of these behaviors provides you the means to hurt large amounts of people really fast?

You already have psych screening for police officers. I don't find it unreasonable to treat candidate gun owners the way you treat candidate policemen.

Becoming a member of law enforcement is a career choice. Owning a gun is a Constitutional right.
So are life and liberty, but the federal government has found a way to execute and imprison people.

Frankly, if the constitution is an obstacle to sensible gun reform, perhaps it's time to explore amending the constitution again. It's not like it hasn't been done dozens of times already.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 20, 2018, 03:59:38 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/gun-owners-destroy-guns/index.html
Good for these people. That's pretty respectable things to do.

Yes. Whats sad is some gun pro folks who mock these people under comments on fb

It's a silly reaction, which basically blames the firearm. A better approach, although it wouldn't be as sensational, would be to sell it to a police department (plenty of gun buy programs) and send the proceeds to a victim's go fund me.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 20, 2018, 04:05:25 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/gun-owners-destroy-guns/index.html
Good for these people. That's pretty respectable things to do.

Yes. Whats sad is some gun pro folks who mock these people under comments on fb

It's a silly reaction, which basically blames the firearm. A better approach, although it wouldn't be as sensational, would be to sell it to a police department (plenty of gun buy programs) and send the proceeds to a victim's go fund me.
Sensational is necessary if you want to have more hits and push the message more.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 04:20:30 PM
It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
So which one of these behaviors provides you the means to hurt large amounts of people really fast?

You already have psych screening for police officers. I don't find it unreasonable to treat candidate gun owners the way you treat candidate policemen.

Becoming a member of law enforcement is a career choice. Owning a gun is a Constitutional right.
So are life and liberty, but the federal government has found a way to execute and imprison people.

Frankly, if the constitution is an obstacle to sensible gun reform, perhaps it's time to explore amending the constitution again. It's not like it hasn't been done dozens of times already.

The problem with amending it, as a practical matter, is that it only takes 13 states to veto.

That’s why any reforms need to be done with the assumption that gun ownership is a Constitutional right.  The harder reforms make it to get a gun, the less likely they are to be upheld.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 04:37:44 PM
It’s unreasonable because it’s intrusive and overly broad.

Should every American have to pass a psychiatric exam to vote? To go to church? To engage in free speech? To have access to habeas corpus or a court-appointed attorney?

What mental health diagnoses should be disqualifying? Who makes that assessment? Who pays for it?
So which one of these behaviors provides you the means to hurt large amounts of people really fast?

You already have psych screening for police officers. I don't find it unreasonable to treat candidate gun owners the way you treat candidate policemen.

Becoming a member of law enforcement is a career choice. Owning a gun is a Constitutional right.
So are life and liberty, but the federal government has found a way to execute and imprison people.

Frankly, if the constitution is an obstacle to sensible gun reform, perhaps it's time to explore amending the constitution again. It's not like it hasn't been done dozens of times already.

The problem with amending it, as a practical matter, is that it only takes 13 states to veto.

That’s why any reforms need to be done with the assumption that gun ownership is a Constitutional right.  The harder reforms make it to get a gun, the less likely they are to be upheld.

How hard was it for Clinton to ban assault rifles?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 04:55:41 PM
Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 05:03:42 PM
Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'

Sensible as a small measure, but much too little.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 20, 2018, 05:04:25 PM
Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'
Good.  That is a step in the right direction but it should have happened after Las Vegas. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: triboy16f on February 20, 2018, 05:19:43 PM
Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'

Sensible as a small measure, but much too little.

Seriously

But if it quiets down, he will minimize damage for NRA

I dont think this will....

NRA does not want AR15 or any other guns banned. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 20, 2018, 05:28:54 PM
Also, as Roy stated, who determined which psychiatric diseases disqualifies someone from ownership. There's a lot of mental illnesses and even with the same diagnosis there are varying degrees.

Yeah, my wife is a psychiatric clinician, and I asked her which diagnoses she would absolutely restrict guns from. The only two she would unequivocally bar were Antisocial personality disorder and schizophrenia.  Others were case by case.

I wonder how frequently anti-social personality disorder (basically, I think, who they used to refer to as sociopaths) is actually diagnosed in advance of criminal adjudication.  Please ask your wife if it even is allowable to diagnose antisocial PD prior to age 18.  I think it used to be that personality disorders were never formally diagnosed unless over 18.   I think many youth with Conduct Disorder become skilled avoiders of mental health treatment when adults - my guess is that it is only by being caught in criminal activity that folks with this diagnostic picture would engage in some (forced)  mental health treatment. 

Also please ask her what she thinks about teens with post-traumatic stress, attachment related disorder, and comorbid substance misuse (prescribed or not) with access to guns.  I still think even with these multiple risk indicators that the predictability of  mass murderers is something of a crap shoot.  But I am sure there are commonalities among those who plan and implement these types of killing sprees.  I don't think the MH world has figured out effective treatments to addresss these complex (and typically help-resistant) cases.


Edit:  As I re-read my post, I wonder if I came across as challenging to you or your wife about this.  If so, it was not intended at all. I meant to convey only curiosity.  I think there is so much to learn about MH issues and the confluence  of circumstances and diagnostics that create the profile most risky for gun ownership.  I was hoping for more info and more opinions from those who are working every day in the MH field.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 20, 2018, 09:39:06 PM
Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'

Great! A small step, but in the right direction.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 21, 2018, 07:14:02 AM
Conspiracy nuts and bots throwing their usual madness at FLA victims.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 21, 2018, 07:51:24 AM
Quote
I wonder how frequently anti-social personality disorder (basically, I think, who they used to refer to as sociopaths) is actually diagnosed in advance of criminal adjudication.

Personality disorders are usually harder to diagnose.   Anti-socials tends to be charming and sometimes are intelligent enough to hide it. 

Quote
People with ASPD usually disregard the law and the rights of others, and are skillful manipulators. They're also more prone to substance abuse. The disorder is more common among men than women. About 3 percent of men and 1 percent of women have ASPD
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Androslav on February 21, 2018, 08:12:19 AM
We, Europeans (living on the arguably bloodiest continent ever) and Americans share so many cultural values that it makes us easily relatable toward each other. I really enjoy that connectivity. Heck, NBA basketball (the best thing ever) is one of those.
However, I often feel we can't be further away culturally regarding the use and possession of firearms. To me, it is clear as a day that more guns bring more gun-related deaths/crimes/abuse. It is not a singular reason for it surely, but it multiplies the negative factors. I was a kid that grew up in the war-affected country, the guns were pretty available after the initial scarcity. They were even more available after the war, logical as there was less use and need for it. Big, small, any...you could get it somehow, but I wanted to get away from it. My father, a war veteran too. He kept some for a year, but went to the police one day and returned all of it.
I know how to shot the pistol, automatic guns like uzi, rifle if the situation calls for it (hopefully not), but possessing one is like steering your karma to its use and inviting trouble IMO.

I also hope that American youth isn't so competitive toward each other in the future as it is also clear that these are "peer crimes".
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 21, 2018, 10:13:19 AM
Conspiracy nuts and bots throwing their usual madness at FLA victims.

Yep.  And that insanity is being fueled and amplified by, yes, Russian troll-bots eager to inflame divisiveness, posting crap on both sides of the issue.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 21, 2018, 11:41:21 AM
Conspiracy nuts and bots throwing their usual madness at FLA victims.
Truly sad what some of the far right wing crazies are spouting off. They'll say and make up whatever they can to protect guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: seancally on February 21, 2018, 11:44:47 AM
We, Europeans (living on the arguably bloodiest continent ever) and Americans share so many cultural values that it makes us easily relatable toward each other. I really enjoy that connectivity. Heck, NBA basketball (the best thing ever) is one of those.
However, I often feel we can't be further away culturally regarding the use and possession of firearms. To me, it is clear as a day that more guns bring more gun-related deaths/crimes/abuse. It is not a singular reason for it surely, but it multiplies the negative factors. I was a kid that grew up in the war-affected country, the guns were pretty available after the initial scarcity. They were even more available after the war, logical as there was less use and need for it. Big, small, any...you could get it somehow, but I wanted to get away from it. My father, a war veteran too. He kept some for a year, but went to the police one day and returned all of it.
I know how to shot the pistol, automatic guns like uzi, rifle if the situation calls for it (hopefully not), but possessing one is like steering your karma to its use and inviting trouble IMO.

I also hope that American youth isn't so competitive toward each other in the future as it is also clear that these are "peer crimes".

Thanks for sharing. My wife is from Bosnia and shares a similar viewpoint.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 21, 2018, 11:56:01 AM
Conspiracy nuts and bots throwing their usual madness at FLA victims.
Truly sad what some of the far right wing crazies are spouting off. They'll say and make up whatever they can to protect guns.

It's the same motivation as climate change denial - don't need to have a solution if you refuse to acknowledge a problem.  It's just that there's much more immediate evidence to reject here.  Many pick the softer version of declaring the body count inevitable instead.

What's disturbing is like other conspiratorial ideas it keeps penetrating closer to mainstream right-wing rhetoric. Seems like an inevitable consequence of rejecting outside authority and sources of evidence.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 21, 2018, 12:45:09 PM
I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, and I've been meaning to post it since last week, but:

Quote
Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!

Just want to again point out that the actual President of the United States said this after the worst high school shooting I can remember.  (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965075589274177536)

I remember seeing this last week and basically trying not to vomit. I cannot believe so many people are still okay with Trump saying stuff like this.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 21, 2018, 12:48:36 PM
I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, and I've been meaning to post it since last week, but:

Quote
Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!

Just want to again point out that the actual President of the United States said this after the worst high school shooting I can remember.  (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965075589274177536)

I remember seeing this last week and basically trying not to vomit. I cannot believe so many people are still okay with Trump saying stuff like this.


Mind you all the follow up comments about investigating Obama instead really sells his point well.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 21, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
Watching these kids speak out just absolutely rips the heart from your chest. It is heart breaking.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 21, 2018, 01:27:43 PM
I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, and I've been meaning to post it since last week, but:

Quote
Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!

Just want to again point out that the actual President of the United States said this after the worst high school shooting I can remember.  (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965075589274177536)

I remember seeing this last week and basically trying not to vomit. I cannot believe so many people are still okay with Trump saying stuff like this.


Mind you all the follow up comments about investigating Obama instead really sells his point well.

It is insane how obvious his first instinct is to say, "But what about ME!", and people are all so cool with that.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 21, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, and I've been meaning to post it since last week, but:

Quote
Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!

Just want to again point out that the actual President of the United States said this after the worst high school shooting I can remember.  (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965075589274177536)

I remember seeing this last week and basically trying not to vomit. I cannot believe so many people are still okay with Trump saying stuff like this.


Mind you all the follow up comments about investigating Obama instead really sells his point well.

It is insane how obvious his first instinct is to say, "But what about ME!", and people are all so cool with that.
His photo ops in Parkland with the big smiles and thumbs up were equally sickening and out of place as well.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 21, 2018, 02:55:31 PM
I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, and I've been meaning to post it since last week, but:

Quote
Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!

Just want to again point out that the actual President of the United States said this after the worst high school shooting I can remember.  (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965075589274177536)

I remember seeing this last week and basically trying not to vomit. I cannot believe so many people are still okay with Trump saying stuff like this.

It's disgusting but remember this is just the comments section brought into the highest office in the country. This kind of shallow reactionary non sequitur is very popular.

Also, while I've so far given the benefit of the doubt to "maybe Trump wasn't coordinating with Russia and it's just his dumb ego that's led to all this denial and guilty behavior", this sure makes him sound like he's very, very guilty and knows it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 21, 2018, 09:52:52 PM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 21, 2018, 10:21:54 PM
What's next. Encasing every school in America with multiple fences around them and three police officers working there. One to monitor the surveillance cameras, one at the entrance and one walking the halls inside. What? All for the sake of not passing some excellent gun control laws?

Teachers with guns is a stupid move on so many levels.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: jambr380 on February 21, 2018, 10:39:50 PM
Don't worry - Florida has come to the rescue! The Florida House has approved a bill to post, "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in all public schools. We don't need gun control - religion will save us all  ::)

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/ (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 21, 2018, 11:33:21 PM
If we go way out of our way, nationally even, to protect schools, with bulletproof this and armed guard that, are we not just tacitly admitting that we’re okay with mass shootings not under those specific contexts? Churches, ballparks, food courts, playgrounds, if we just say ‘we are going to protect schools’ and stop there are we not just saying, ‘but if it happens outside of school, you’re on your own’

Doesn’t the whole idea of just acting to protect schools (and which schools? Who pays for
It? Do all schools get this treatment? Primary schools? Nursery schools? Is there a minimum student count?) especially if it is based around someone being armed, whether it is a teacher or what, aren’t we just saying, ‘but hope someone else who is capable, trained, and prepared is nearby’?

It’s guns or nothing.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 21, 2018, 11:41:36 PM
Don't worry - Florida has come to the rescue! The Florida House has approved a bill to post, "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in all public schools. We don't need gun control - religion will save us all  ::)

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/ (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/)
Ludicrous. Only in the south! ::)

First, I am not sure that is legal given the fact that its supporting Christian beliefs over others in a public facility, but why stop there? Why isn't Florida putting "In God we Trust" in every gay bar in the state? Surely that will protect innocent gay people from being massacred in a mass killing.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 22, 2018, 06:35:59 AM
Don't worry - Florida has come to the rescue! The Florida House has approved a bill to post, "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in all public schools. We don't need gun control - religion will save us all  ::)

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/ (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/)
Ludicrous. Only in the south! ::)

First, I am not sure that is legal given the fact that its supporting Christian beliefs over others in a public facility, but why stop there? Why isn't Florida putting "In God we Trust" in every gay bar in the state? Surely that will protect innocent gay people from being massacred in a mass killing.

You should incinerate all your US currency if you feel so strongly about the phrase. Sure it's a silly thing to engrave, but who really cares? And the Orlando nightclub thing was a bit much.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: CelticD on February 22, 2018, 07:39:03 AM
Don't worry - Florida has come to the rescue! The Florida House has approved a bill to post, "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in all public schools. We don't need gun control - religion will save us all  ::)

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/ (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/)

I think this is pointless but I understand the sentiment. I just hope that when the inevitable next mass shooting happens they don't try to flip the narrative and say the shooter was "not a true believer in god" and then Atheists and Agnostics become vilified. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 22, 2018, 08:05:51 AM
A determined attacker is always gone to find a way,  that being said, we should make it as hard on them as possible.   You takes these measures and they will shoot up the bus, still something needs to be done.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 22, 2018, 08:23:35 AM
Don't worry - Florida has come to the rescue! The Florida House has approved a bill to post, "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in all public schools. We don't need gun control - religion will save us all  ::)

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/ (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/)
Ludicrous. Only in the south! ::)

First, I am not sure that is legal given the fact that its supporting Christian beliefs over others in a public facility, but why stop there? Why isn't Florida putting "In God we Trust" in every gay bar in the state? Surely that will protect innocent gay people from being massacred in a mass killing.

You should incinerate all your US currency if you feel so strongly about the phrase. Sure it's a silly thing to engrave, but who really cares? And the Orlando nightclub thing was a bit much.

I have a problem with this as well.  Christianity is not the official religion of the USA.  Now you could argue that "In God We Trust" is generic enough that it is not strictly a Christian slogan (is that the right word) but I don't see any reason that this should be engraved in every school.  These are public institutions/facilities, they should be neutral to religion as should courts, state houses, etc.

But this has nothing to do with gun laws.  This time it feels different.  The sight of Marco Rubio trying to explain why there is no reason to restrict the sale of assault rifles.  He said something along the lines of "If I thought banning assault rifles would have prevented this, I would support legislation..."  He was roundly booed.

I heard Sen. Trey Gowdy say "whether you are killed with a gun or a brick, you are equally dead".  Yeah, that makes sense.  These are just such lame rationalizations for continuing to support this well funded political special interest.

Really what Rubio Gowdy should have said is "if I thought I could vote for the legislation and still get the funding from the NRA and the votes from the radical gun base, I would vote for it".
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: jambr380 on February 22, 2018, 08:27:18 AM
Don't worry - Florida has come to the rescue! The Florida House has approved a bill to post, "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in all public schools. We don't need gun control - religion will save us all  ::)

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/ (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/)
Ludicrous. Only in the south! ::)

First, I am not sure that is legal given the fact that its supporting Christian beliefs over others in a public facility, but why stop there? Why isn't Florida putting "In God we Trust" in every gay bar in the state? Surely that will protect innocent gay people from being massacred in a mass killing.

You should incinerate all your US currency if you feel so strongly about the phrase. Sure it's a silly thing to engrave, but who really cares? And the Orlando nightclub thing was a bit much.

The phrase totally goes against how this country was built. Personally, I have a major problem with it being added to our money [in 1957] and with 'under god' being added to the Pledge of Allegiance [in 1954]. I am not going to turn this into a freedom of religion argument (although god and guns are very intertwined in our country), but sweeping all of this under the rug and saying that god will protect us is insane...like clinically insane.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Donoghus on February 22, 2018, 08:33:57 AM
Rubio has gone from supposedly the “rising star” of the GOP just a couple of years ago to becoming a walking punch line. Talk about a PR disaster last night.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 22, 2018, 09:01:01 AM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.


As a teacher, I wouldn't want it.


Lets just look at the different times the military, or the police or armed security have hit the wrong person.   Now we want teachers to be shooting at a gun man while students are running everywhere?   

There are not that many teachers that are ex-military or police.   And their is not way they would get the constant training that someone in the police or military get when they are active.   


Now having police stationed at the schools make sense. 

And this thing about these shooters being cowards?   Don't most of them want to or plan die during their plan? 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 22, 2018, 09:03:58 AM
I also do not get the "We do just this one thing and everything is fixed" mentality coming from both sides.


It is as if the blame can only be attached to either the guns or the mental makeup of the person. 


Of course the problem is both.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 22, 2018, 09:32:48 AM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 22, 2018, 09:36:25 AM
Don't worry - Florida has come to the rescue! The Florida House has approved a bill to post, "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in all public schools. We don't need gun control - religion will save us all  ::)

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/ (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/02/21/florida-house-approves-bill-to-post-in-god-we-trust-in-all-public-schools/)
Ludicrous. Only in the south! ::)

First, I am not sure that is legal given the fact that its supporting Christian beliefs over others in a public facility, but why stop there? Why isn't Florida putting "In God we Trust" in every gay bar in the state? Surely that will protect innocent gay people from being massacred in a mass killing.

You should incinerate all your US currency if you feel so strongly about the phrase. Sure it's a silly thing to engrave, but who really cares? And the Orlando nightclub thing was a bit much.

The phrase totally goes against how this country was built. Personally, I have a major problem with it being added to our money [in 1957] and with 'under god' being added to the Pledge of Allegiance [in 1954]. I am not going to turn this into a freedom of religion argument (although god and guns are very intertwined in our country), but sweeping all of this under the rug and saying that god will protect us is insane...like clinically insane.

Says a lot about the national culture in the 50's. Outwardly (almost competitively) religious, and of course male and white dominated.

Also nutso-commie-phobic, because communism was supposedly "atheistic" by nature, whatever that means. He
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 22, 2018, 09:55:25 AM
Wow, after taking a 6 day weekend post-Parkland, the NRA's new attack line, in ads and CPAC speeches, is that "the media loves mass shootings" and "are putting out the casting call for the next mass shooter".  Utterly shameless and despicable.  Can we just completely cut them out of the national discussion already?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 22, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
You can ban all AR's and then people will adjust. Put a sear and the problem isn't solved, just the weapon changes. In fact, this is a lot more deadly than the AR Cruz used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIX0HsczlY
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 22, 2018, 10:47:51 AM
The notion that the solution to this is to arm teachers is insane.

The notion that raising the age limit to 21 for purchase of semi-automatics is going to help anything is either pathetically stupid or pathologically cynically dismissive.

Both notion also tend to misrepresent this issue as being a 'school' problem, which completely dismisses the huge number of victims in Las Vegas and other venues such as the Florida nightclub or the Colorado theatre.  As well as the thousands -- yes, thousands -- of other victims of mass shootings that have happened in this country in recent years that no one talks much about.

The problem is not school shootings.  The problem is mass shootings, of which school events are just some of the most visible, horrific examples.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rondohondo on February 22, 2018, 11:01:03 AM
You can ban all AR's and then people will adjust. Put a sear and the problem isn't solved, just the weapon changes. In fact, this is a lot more deadly than the AR Cruz used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIX0HsczlY

Also what's going to happen when 3D printers are widely available? This is a serious question.....
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Snakehead on February 22, 2018, 11:03:37 AM
You can ban all AR's and then people will adjust. Put a sear and the problem isn't solved, just the weapon changes. In fact, this is a lot more deadly than the AR Cruz used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIX0HsczlY

I'd say every other major country that doesn't have these problems says otherwise.  You people need to wake up.  America is the one that can't figure this out and some delusional people want to just keep on this path.  It makes me sick that people don't care about kids dying.  This is the least we can do to start and we go from there. 

There's no arguments otherwise unless you don't care about kids dying.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Snakehead on February 22, 2018, 11:07:52 AM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes.

We had a police officer armed every day in my school.

True story: My history teacher was an Iraq war vet and reserve officer who helped rebuild the Iraqi government (put us on a conference call with the interim President of Iraq once even in fact).

One day we had basically a school shooting equivalent drill.  This man was very funny with a dry sense of humor and no reservations, so he told us what the code was ("Dr. ____ is in the building) for the active shooter that would come over the PA.  He said at that point everyone should just run from the building because that's what he was going to do.  He said "I love officer ____ (our cop at school) but I wouldn't trust him with my life or to take down any shooter". 

Absolutely right on.  I think conservatives have watched too much Die Hard and Under Siege.  It'd be funny if kids weren't dying.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rondohondo on February 22, 2018, 11:23:00 AM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.

There was only one guard at a school with over 3,00 students, and multiple buildings.

There has to be a limited amount of entrances into these schools(maybe 3 or 4), and should have an armed guard at each enterance. This could come from  active/retired police/military.

You're right it only takes 5 mins to go on a killing spree, and it takes swat teams 5-10 minutes to even enter the building. To me this means you need armed guards to be able to stop, and alert at the point of entry .

Also should have cameras in the parking lot and entrance points of the buildings to be able to alert a lockdown as soon as possible.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 22, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
You can ban all AR's and then people will adjust. Put a sear and the problem isn't solved, just the weapon changes. In fact, this is a lot more deadly than the AR Cruz used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIX0HsczlY

I'd say every other major country that doesn't have these problems says otherwise.  You people need to wake up.  America is the one that can't figure this out and some delusional people want to just keep on this path.  It makes me sick that people don't care about kids dying.  This is the least we can do to start and we go from there. 

There's no arguments otherwise unless you don't care about kids dying.

So is your point that AR's are the problem? That's blaming the tool and not the individual, despite the fact that there is a direct correlation between mental illness and mass shooters. In fact, there is evidence that our country has the highest rate of illness/lowest amount of treatment when compared to other advanced country.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030507080958.htm

Removing AR's will eliminate one tool, but not the problem. Like the video above demonstrated, in close quarters a full auto glock is more deadly than a stock AR. Just like the VTech shooter used 2 semi-auto handguns to kill 30 something innocent people.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 22, 2018, 11:28:31 AM
You can ban all AR's and then people will adjust. Put a sear and the problem isn't solved, just the weapon changes. In fact, this is a lot more deadly than the AR Cruz used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIX0HsczlY

I'd say every other major country that doesn't have these problems says otherwise.  You people need to wake up.  America is the one that can't figure this out and some delusional people want to just keep on this path.  It makes me sick that people don't care about kids dying.  This is the least we can do to start and we go from there. 

There's no arguments otherwise unless you don't care about kids dying.

So is your point that AR's are the problem? That's blaming the tool and not the individual, despite the fact that there is a direct correlation between mental illness and mass shooters. In fact, there is evidence that our country has the highest rate of illness/lowest amount of treatment when compared to other advanced country.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030507080958.htm

Removing AR's will eliminate one tool, but not the problem. Like the video above demonstrated, in close quarters a full auto glock is more deadly than a stock AR. Just like the VTech shooter used 2 semi-auto handguns to kill 30 something innocent people.


Seems like an easy combining of idea.


Remove the easy to access tools while improving the ways we diagnose these individuals and improve how we help them. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: seancally on February 22, 2018, 11:48:32 AM
This is essentially how I feel. I have other thoughts too. But this rings true to me:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Moranis on February 22, 2018, 11:51:30 AM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.

There was only one guard at a school with over 3,00 students, and multiple buildings.

There has to be a limited amount of entrances into these schools(maybe 3 or 4), and should have an armed guard at each enterance. This could come from  active/retired police/military.

You're right it only takes 5 mins to go on a killing spree, and it takes swat teams 5-10 minutes to even enter the building. To me this means you need armed guards to be able to stop, and alert at the point of entry .

Also should have cameras in the parking lot and entrance points of the buildings to be able to alert a lockdown as soon as possible.
Who is paying for the armed guards?  Are you willing to pay more in taxes to fund armed guards at every entrance of every school?  We are talking billions of dollars to do this, which means a lot of money you are giving up out of your own pocket.  Isn't it just easier to make AR 15's (and similar guns) harder (if not impossible) to get.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 22, 2018, 11:58:23 AM
You can ban all AR's and then people will adjust. Put a sear and the problem isn't solved, just the weapon changes. In fact, this is a lot more deadly than the AR Cruz used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIX0HsczlY

Also what's going to happen when 3D printers are widely available? This is a serious question.....
So, let's not try to make it harder for folks to shoot a large number of other folks dead because we won't be able to root out shootings completely?

If you don't see why this argument is morally bankrupt, you should pause and think why you aren't applying the same logic to border control and illegal border crossings.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 12:37:30 PM
I think there’s too much focus on AR-15s, frankly.  They kill way, way fewer people than handguns.  Even if all “assault rifles” disappeared tomorrow, it would make a relatively small dent in the problem.  I think we need general solutions that apply to all guns, such as a reduction on magazine size and a national registry.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 12:48:24 PM
The reaction from people in the country is vastly different this time. I think American citizens have finally reached a tipping point with the inaction of the government after these mass shootings. The NRA is being demonized more and more. Bandaids won't work to satisfy the angry electorate. And if Republicans don't see this and get something done, this is going to be huge for the mid terms.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 22, 2018, 01:01:29 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/wayne-lapierre-cpac-speech-nra/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/wayne-lapierre-cpac-speech-nra/index.html)

They are not just coming to take away your guns, they are coming to take away your entire way of life....

So divisive in the name of a special interest.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: heyvik on February 22, 2018, 01:08:22 PM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.

There was only one guard at a school with over 3,00 students, and multiple buildings.

There has to be a limited amount of entrances into these schools(maybe 3 or 4), and should have an armed guard at each enterance. This could come from  active/retired police/military.

You're right it only takes 5 mins to go on a killing spree, and it takes swat teams 5-10 minutes to even enter the building. To me this means you need armed guards to be able to stop, and alert at the point of entry .

Also should have cameras in the parking lot and entrance points of the buildings to be able to alert a lockdown as soon as possible.

gotta poke a hole in this argument - I worked for the NFPA - fire protection - which deals with building egresses - it is impossible to lessen the number of doors in a given building due to amount of individuals  and the size of the building. You can not just block/restrict doors for any reason, what if a legitimate fire happened? the doors are there to get people out safely and within a given time period.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: heyvik on February 22, 2018, 01:12:00 PM
What kills me is this -
if we arm more teachers what happens?
When does the teacher decide to fire on the 'shooter'? what if it is a hoax by silly teenagers? does the teacher shoot right away without seeing a weapon? do they shoot after seeing it and there is a legit threat and if so how do they even know? what if the teacher is out of position and not near their firearm at the time of the shooting?

What if the teacher shoots and kills an innocent kid during a hoax?

Too many questions....I say just ban assault weapons as a start.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 22, 2018, 01:12:41 PM
You can ban all AR's and then people will adjust. Put a sear and the problem isn't solved, just the weapon changes. In fact, this is a lot more deadly than the AR Cruz used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIX0HsczlY

I'd say every other major country that doesn't have these problems says otherwise.  You people need to wake up.  America is the one that can't figure this out and some delusional people want to just keep on this path.  It makes me sick that people don't care about kids dying.  This is the least we can do to start and we go from there. 

There's no arguments otherwise unless you don't care about kids dying.

So is your point that AR's are the problem? That's blaming the tool and not the individual, despite the fact that there is a direct correlation between mental illness and mass shooters.

There is a far, far tighter correlation between per-capita gun ownership and mass shootings.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 22, 2018, 01:28:40 PM
I think there’s too much focus on AR-15s, frankly.  They kill way, way fewer people than handguns.  Even if all “assault rifles” disappeared tomorrow, it would make a relatively small dent in the problem.  I think we need general solutions that apply to all guns, such as a reduction on magazine size and a national registry.

I concur with this.   I think focusing the discussion too much on just school shootings and 'assault rifles' is way too focused and misses the forest.

I do think that banning assault weapons is a reasonable part of the solution, but the bulk of the solution has to come with reducing the prevalence of guns in our society in general.    The gun sub-culture in the USA is like no other in the world with it's absurd statistics.

I'm all for reasonable and responsible private gun ownership, but the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that the 2nd amendment is subject to regulation.  It does not grant free right to own _any_ weapon.    The ability to own an AR-15, or a stockpile of dozens of guns and thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo is not a constitutional right.  It is a grant by laws written by the Congress and the States.   We need for the the Congress and the States to rewrite those laws to apply reasonable and responsible regulation that does not brazenly and openly cater to the gun lobby.

I think that banning assault-style weapons and large-clip sizes,  setting up a national registry, removing all 'gun show' and 'private sale' loop-holes and requiring both operator training/licensing and liability insurance are all reasonable steps that should be taken.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 22, 2018, 01:51:44 PM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.

There was only one guard at a school with over 3,00 students, and multiple buildings.

There has to be a limited amount of entrances into these schools(maybe 3 or 4), and should have an armed guard at each enterance. This could come from  active/retired police/military.

You're right it only takes 5 mins to go on a killing spree, and it takes swat teams 5-10 minutes to even enter the building. To me this means you need armed guards to be able to stop, and alert at the point of entry .

Also should have cameras in the parking lot and entrance points of the buildings to be able to alert a lockdown as soon as possible.

gotta poke a hole in this argument - I worked for the NFPA - fire protection - which deals with building egresses - it is impossible to lessen the number of doors in a given building due to amount of individuals  and the size of the building. You can not just block/restrict doors for any reason, what if a legitimate fire happened? the doors are there to get people out safely and within a given time period.
As someone said elsewhere... "You're describing a prison".
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Sophomore on February 22, 2018, 02:17:52 PM
What kills me is this -
if we arm more teachers what happens?
When does the teacher decide to fire on the 'shooter'? what if it is a hoax by silly teenagers? does the teacher shoot right away without seeing a weapon? do they shoot after seeing it and there is a legit threat and if so how do they even know? what if the teacher is out of position and not near their firearm at the time of the shooting?

What if the teacher shoots and kills an innocent kid during a hoax?

Too many questions....I say just ban assault weapons as a start.

Absolutely. And these are only some of the questions. Like, what if the kids figure out where the teacher keeps her gun, or they take it away from her? Remember, we are talking about distributing a *lot* of guns here - there are about 3.5 million elementary school and high school teachers. Suppose just 1 in 4 gets a gun. You've added about a million firearms to the schools. Gosh. What could go wrong!

Also, remember that teachers are human beings, who have ordinary human frailties. Some of them are suicidal or in poor control of their impulses. We just gave them a loaded gun and told them to take it into a classroom.

What do we get for this? How significant *is* the deterrent effect? I doubt we get very much at all. Does the Parkland shooter really say - gee, I was going to go into the school armed to the teeth and take out a bunch of kids, but if the English teacher is armed, forget about it. If he does leave the school, the NRA logic seems to say he would go someplace else where people aren't carrying. Which of course leads the NRA to the next loony idea - everyone should be carrying all the time!

Maybe the best question to ask is this: how has this worked in other countries that have tried it? The answer is, there are no other countries that have tried it! The reason is that this is an incredibly bad idea.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Sophomore on February 22, 2018, 02:23:37 PM
The reaction from people in the country is vastly different this time. I think American citizens have finally reached a tipping point with the inaction of the government after these mass shootings. The NRA is being demonized more and more. Bandaids won't work to satisfy the angry electorate. And if Republicans don't see this and get something done, this is going to be huge for the mid terms.

I sincerely hope so. February is a long way from November.

People were pretty angry after Sandy Hook, too. There will be initial disappointments - as the FL legislature showed. People have to stick with it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 22, 2018, 02:30:44 PM
What kills me is this -
if we arm more teachers what happens?
When does the teacher decide to fire on the 'shooter'? what if it is a hoax by silly teenagers? does the teacher shoot right away without seeing a weapon? do they shoot after seeing it and there is a legit threat and if so how do they even know? what if the teacher is out of position and not near their firearm at the time of the shooting?

What if the teacher shoots and kills an innocent kid during a hoax?

Too many questions....I say just ban assault weapons as a start.

Listening to Trump talk about this, it is so ridiculous. It is like an 11 year old came up with the plan and the only words missing are, "super powers".

Quote
"If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly," he said, "This would be obviously only for people who were very adept at handling a gun, and it would be, it's called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They'd go for special training and they would be there and you would no longer have a gun-free zone," Trump said. "Gun-free zone to a maniac -- because they're all cowards -- a gun-free zone is 'let's go in and let's attack because bullets aren't coming back at us.'"

(in extreme Trump voice)

"And the teachers could have laser eyes, and we could give them special glasses so they would only use their laser eyes when they wanted. And we could build a fort in the gym with tunnels people could run through and make the tunnels trickey so only me and Mike Pence know the right way to get to the top to throw snowballs. And afterwards Mike Pence's momwife will make us hot cocoa and cinnamon sugar toast.."

Get outta here man. I hope the democrats and the people energized by the latest horrific attack don't stop at 'bump stocks' and nonsense. I hope someone has some determination for once.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 02:37:14 PM
I’m just thinking of all my elementary school teachers, almost all of whom fit into the “sweet, patient lady” mold. Even the males tended to be pretty pacifistic.  The thought that our school could be protected by them going toe-to-toe with a killer sounds like black comedy.

It’s a massive stereotype, but most people I know who go into teaching aren’t the killing type.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: heyvik on February 22, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
We want to arm teachers?
Here's the cost - 71.8 million dollars according to the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/22/the-economics-of-arming-americas-schools/?utm_term=.28c951c0d048


Quote
“A lot of people are talking about it — it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss,” Trump said. “But concealed-carry for teachers and for people of talent — of that type of talent — so let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force. Because that’s pretty much the number, and you said it — an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders — for the police to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with — who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly.”
In the abstract, adding armed staff to schools does seem as if it could help curtail mass shooting incidents. Not prevent them, mind you; even Trump’s aim in that quote is ending mass shootings faster, not preventing them. That difference echoes a report prepared by the National School Shield Task Force in 2013. That document, funded by the National Rifle Association, similarly argued that incidents in which other armed individuals had been able to confront school shooters resulted in fewer deaths.

It’s worth considering, though, what Trump is proposing. What does it mean in economic terms for one out of every five teachers to be prepared to engage with an armed individual intent on murdering students at a school? Or, if you prefer, a proposal from former House speaker Newt Gingrich to hire “six to eight” guards to patrol every school. What’s the tab for that?
A fifth of teachers
Data from the Department of Education indicates there are an estimated 3.1 million public school and 400,000 private-school teachers in the United States. In total, there are about 3.6 million teachers.
One-fifth of that total is 718,000 — a bit fewer than the number of people in the Army and the Navy combined as of last December. We would essentially be adding 50 percent to the size of the military by mandating that nearly three-quarters of a million people be trained and prepared to take up arms to defend civilians.
The first cost that needs to be considered is training. What sort of training would be required isn’t clear. Do we want to simply teach the teachers how to target an individual and fire a weapon? Or do we want something more expansive?

Let’s say we want the bare minimum, just enough to pass the safety requirement for gun ownership. In Maryland, there’s a company that will charge you $100 for that training. The cost, then, would be about $71.8 million for all of our teachers.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rondohondo on February 22, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.

There was only one guard at a school with over 3,00 students, and multiple buildings.

There has to be a limited amount of entrances into these schools(maybe 3 or 4), and should have an armed guard at each enterance. This could come from  active/retired police/military.

You're right it only takes 5 mins to go on a killing spree, and it takes swat teams 5-10 minutes to even enter the building. To me this means you need armed guards to be able to stop, and alert at the point of entry .

Also should have cameras in the parking lot and entrance points of the buildings to be able to alert a lockdown as soon as possible.

gotta poke a hole in this argument - I worked for the NFPA - fire protection - which deals with building egresses - it is impossible to lessen the number of doors in a given building due to amount of individuals  and the size of the building. You can not just block/restrict doors for any reason, what if a legitimate fire happened? the doors are there to get people out safely and within a given time period.
As someone said elsewhere... "You're describing a prison".

A prison to have armed security officers at entrances?

Like banks, businesses , sports stadiums?

Gun free zones are an obvious target to a mass murderer/psycho
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: blink on February 22, 2018, 02:54:30 PM
I’m just thinking of all my elementary school teachers, almost all of whom fit into the “sweet, patient lady” mold. Even the males tended to be pretty pacifistic.  The thought that our school could be protected by them going toe-to-toe with a killer sounds like black comedy.

It’s a massive stereotype, but most people I know who go into teaching aren’t the killing type.

Arming teachers is gotta be top 5 in the dumbest things ever out of Trumps-NRA's mouth.  Those teachers didn't sign up to be part of that.  They aren't trained to be law enforcement / military.  The thought that we should bring more guns into schools is just idiocy. 

Until the elected leaders in the US Congress refuse to be compromised by the NRA there won't be sensible gun law reform.  The NRA leaders are telling everyone that it is law enforcement's fault that all those people are dead.  Inviting the NRA to the table in these discussions is like asking the Tobacco companies how can we stop people from smoking. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 22, 2018, 03:03:36 PM
As someone said elsewhere... "You're describing a prison".

A prison to have armed security officers at entrances?

Like banks, businesses , sports stadiums?

Gun free zones are an obvious target to a mass murderer/psycho

So why wouldn't you look at it from the point of view of, 'man our banks, some businesses, and sports stadiums are a lot like our prisons in the way we protect them. We should work on why we feel we have to do that.'?

If my local school district started arming teachers and bullet proofing doors I think I'd look really hard at alternative solutions. In New York State right now metal detectors are a hot button issue in many communities, and most of my teacher friends, especially those in districts that 'need' metal detectors are very against them. They think they'll just further make the kids feel like the enemy. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 03:07:31 PM
We want to arm teachers?
Here's the cost - 71.8 million dollars according to the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/22/the-economics-of-arming-americas-schools/?utm_term=.28c951c0d048


Quote
“A lot of people are talking about it — it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss,” Trump said. “But concealed-carry for teachers and for people of talent — of that type of talent — so let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force. Because that’s pretty much the number, and you said it — an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders — for the police to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with — who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly.”
In the abstract, adding armed staff to schools does seem as if it could help curtail mass shooting incidents. Not prevent them, mind you; even Trump’s aim in that quote is ending mass shootings faster, not preventing them. That difference echoes a report prepared by the National School Shield Task Force in 2013. That document, funded by the National Rifle Association, similarly argued that incidents in which other armed individuals had been able to confront school shooters resulted in fewer deaths.

It’s worth considering, though, what Trump is proposing. What does it mean in economic terms for one out of every five teachers to be prepared to engage with an armed individual intent on murdering students at a school? Or, if you prefer, a proposal from former House speaker Newt Gingrich to hire “six to eight” guards to patrol every school. What’s the tab for that?
A fifth of teachers
Data from the Department of Education indicates there are an estimated 3.1 million public school and 400,000 private-school teachers in the United States. In total, there are about 3.6 million teachers.
One-fifth of that total is 718,000 — a bit fewer than the number of people in the Army and the Navy combined as of last December. We would essentially be adding 50 percent to the size of the military by mandating that nearly three-quarters of a million people be trained and prepared to take up arms to defend civilians.
The first cost that needs to be considered is training. What sort of training would be required isn’t clear. Do we want to simply teach the teachers how to target an individual and fire a weapon? Or do we want something more expansive?

Let’s say we want the bare minimum, just enough to pass the safety requirement for gun ownership. In Maryland, there’s a company that will charge you $100 for that training. The cost, then, would be about $71.8 million for all of our teachers.
Yup. Let's add another 100 million guns to a country that already has 300 million guns in their populace. Why don't we just get rid of laws and arm everyone. Back to the wild, wild west.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: heyvik on February 22, 2018, 03:12:32 PM
We want to arm teachers?
Here's the cost - 71.8 million dollars according to the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/22/the-economics-of-arming-americas-schools/?utm_term=.28c951c0d048


Quote
“A lot of people are talking about it — it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss,” Trump said. “But concealed-carry for teachers and for people of talent — of that type of talent — so let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force. Because that’s pretty much the number, and you said it — an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders — for the police to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with — who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly.”
In the abstract, adding armed staff to schools does seem as if it could help curtail mass shooting incidents. Not prevent them, mind you; even Trump’s aim in that quote is ending mass shootings faster, not preventing them. That difference echoes a report prepared by the National School Shield Task Force in 2013. That document, funded by the National Rifle Association, similarly argued that incidents in which other armed individuals had been able to confront school shooters resulted in fewer deaths.

It’s worth considering, though, what Trump is proposing. What does it mean in economic terms for one out of every five teachers to be prepared to engage with an armed individual intent on murdering students at a school? Or, if you prefer, a proposal from former House speaker Newt Gingrich to hire “six to eight” guards to patrol every school. What’s the tab for that?
A fifth of teachers
Data from the Department of Education indicates there are an estimated 3.1 million public school and 400,000 private-school teachers in the United States. In total, there are about 3.6 million teachers.
One-fifth of that total is 718,000 — a bit fewer than the number of people in the Army and the Navy combined as of last December. We would essentially be adding 50 percent to the size of the military by mandating that nearly three-quarters of a million people be trained and prepared to take up arms to defend civilians.
The first cost that needs to be considered is training. What sort of training would be required isn’t clear. Do we want to simply teach the teachers how to target an individual and fire a weapon? Or do we want something more expansive?

Let’s say we want the bare minimum, just enough to pass the safety requirement for gun ownership. In Maryland, there’s a company that will charge you $100 for that training. The cost, then, would be about $71.8 million for all of our teachers.
Yup. Let's add another 100 million guns to a country that already has 300 million guns in their populace. Why don't we just get rid of laws and arm everyone. Back to the wild, wild west.
That's just teachers....Some  point to Israel as a place where there's security everywhere...but that's just Israel, which is about the size of New Jersey...try multiplying to all the US states!! Get rid of those types of guns and you will START getting rid of part of the problem.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 22, 2018, 03:15:11 PM
Gun free zones are an obvious target to a mass murderer/psycho
Except they aren't, really.

But even if they were, your solution is to arm everyone, everywhere?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 22, 2018, 03:52:25 PM
Gun free zones are an obvious target to a mass murderer/psycho

And, sadly, gun-carrying zones are also obvious targets for a mass murderer/psycho
(think about the recent shootings at Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, Navy Yards, etc).
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: blackbird on February 22, 2018, 03:52:40 PM
Arming teachers is the saddest “solution” I can imagine. It’s totally reactive, designed not to prevent attacks, but to keep body counts in the single digits. It’s a capitulation, an admission that we’re not going prevent children from being murdered in schools. We’re looking at a future when 4 dead kids will get positive spin if a teacher kills the shooter. Society’s absolute failure will be spun as a policy success.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: TheisTheisBaby on February 22, 2018, 04:07:27 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 04:19:51 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.

How many intentional murders are there every years for cars?

For guns, there are 8000 - 10,000 murders per year in this country.  Shouldn’t guns be regulated at least to the same degree as the automobiles you’re worried about? Licenses and registration?

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 04:24:42 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.
Cars are necessary in society as a means to transport and travel. They are not usually used as killing weapons. A guns sole purpose is to kill. Weather its animals or humans that is the function of it as a tool. Just makes complete sense, and stats back it up, that if you get rid of tools that kill, there will be less killing done.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: TheisTheisBaby on February 22, 2018, 04:31:46 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.
Cars are necessary in society as a means to transport and travel. They are not usually used as killing weapons. A guns sole purpose is to kill. Weather its animals or humans that is the function of it as a tool. Just makes complete sense, and stats back it up, that if you get rid of tools that kill, there will be less killing done.

True, cars are needed as transport.  But they're also used as tools for killing.  (See Charlotesville).  My point was if some sick POS wants to do damage to an individual or a large group of people they will find a way.  You can scream "BAN GUNS" all you want but the people who were going to shoot you will now just find other means to get you. 

I'm of the opinion that we need stricter punishments for these sickos.  In a case like a school shooting, why waste the energy and tax dollars on keeping the shooter alive?  Death penalty should be mandatory.  Dylan Roof?  Death penalty.  There's zero reason for these criminal to be given 3 square and a bed.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: TheisTheisBaby on February 22, 2018, 04:32:29 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.

How many intentional murders are there every years for cars?

For guns, there are 8000 - 10,000 murders per year in this country.  Shouldn’t guns be regulated at least to the same degree as the automobiles you’re worried about? Licenses and registration?

Do you consider drunk driving killings intentional? 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 22, 2018, 04:36:46 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act. 

First, I had to google this because it sounded fake. It was not fake.

But look at all the regulations and bureaucratic institutions we have regarding cars. It is a rate exponentially higher than guns.

Imagine if you had to take a class on how to use your gun, show you could do so to a trained instructor, register it at purchase and every other year, and had to carry insurance on it for the possibility that maybe it could cause unintentional damage to someone else's persons or property.

What I'm saying is that your comparison doesn't hold water.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 22, 2018, 04:37:57 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.
Cars are necessary in society as a means to transport and travel. They are not usually used as killing weapons. A guns sole purpose is to kill. Weather its animals or humans that is the function of it as a tool. Just makes complete sense, and stats back it up, that if you get rid of tools that kill, there will be less killing done.

True, cars are needed as transport.  But they're also used as tools for killing.  (See Charlotesville).  My point was if some sick POS wants to do damage to an individual or a large group of people they will find a way.  You can scream "BAN GUNS" all you want but the people who were going to shoot you will now just find other means to get you. 

I'm of the opinion that we need stricter punishments for these sickos.  In a case like a school shooting, why waste the energy and tax dollars on keeping the shooter alive?  Death penalty should be mandatory.  Dylan Roof?  Death penalty.  There's zero reason for these criminal to be given 3 square and a bed.
People (most people anyway) are not asking for a ban on guns, they are asking for a ban of certain guns and accessories that aids in killing many people in a short period of time.  AR-stlyed weapons, large volune magazines and bumpstocks and the like.  In addition to that they want things like increased penalties for gun related crimes, studies of gun violence and me tal helth, closing loopholes, gun registries etc.  Some even are on-board with qualified armed security.  There is no fix for tbis problem but there are things we can do to try to stop some of this violence or to at least minimize the damage done.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 04:40:37 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.
Cars are necessary in society as a means to transport and travel. They are not usually used as killing weapons. A guns sole purpose is to kill. Weather its animals or humans that is the function of it as a tool. Just makes complete sense, and stats back it up, that if you get rid of tools that kill, there will be less killing done.

True, cars are needed as transport.  But they're also used as tools for killing.  (See Charlotesville).  My point was if some sick POS wants to do damage to an individual or a large group of people they will find a way. You can scream "BAN GUNS" all you want but the people who were going to shoot you will now just find other means to get you. 


How exactly? Drive a car into a building? Knife? Sword? Crossbow? Bow and arrow? You can't see how much more difficult it would be to kill 20-50 people that way?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 22, 2018, 04:42:30 PM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.

There was only one guard at a school with over 3,00 students, and multiple buildings.

There has to be a limited amount of entrances into these schools(maybe 3 or 4), and should have an armed guard at each enterance. This could come from  active/retired police/military.

You're right it only takes 5 mins to go on a killing spree, and it takes swat teams 5-10 minutes to even enter the building. To me this means you need armed guards to be able to stop, and alert at the point of entry .

Also should have cameras in the parking lot and entrance points of the buildings to be able to alert a lockdown as soon as possible.

gotta poke a hole in this argument - I worked for the NFPA - fire protection - which deals with building egresses - it is impossible to lessen the number of doors in a given building due to amount of individuals  and the size of the building. You can not just block/restrict doors for any reason, what if a legitimate fire happened? the doors are there to get people out safely and within a given time period.
As someone said elsewhere... "You're describing a prison".

A prison to have armed security officers at entrances?

Like banks, businesses , sports stadiums?

Gun free zones are an obvious target to a mass murderer/psycho

In the majority of these mass shootings the murderer is targetting a location because it is a place where they feel wronged and seek revenge, not because they are gun free zones.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 04:45:26 PM
I understand armed guards. Armed teachers, though? Even if the logistics and liability issues could be worked out, I’m skeptical.

There was an armed guard at Parkland - heck there was an armed guard at Columbine! - but it's kinda hard for them to have an impact when one person can kill 17 people in less than 5 minutes. Even with the argument that they might sometimes stop mass shooters from shooting more people, there's still the underlying issue that shooters can almost always rack up a massive body count before they ever get there.

Armed teachers, especially actively carrying, fails risk-benefit assessment so hard I have to assume people that are gungho about it either haven't considered any risks or have a vested interest in selling more guns.

There was only one guard at a school with over 3,00 students, and multiple buildings.

There has to be a limited amount of entrances into these schools(maybe 3 or 4), and should have an armed guard at each enterance. This could come from  active/retired police/military.

You're right it only takes 5 mins to go on a killing spree, and it takes swat teams 5-10 minutes to even enter the building. To me this means you need armed guards to be able to stop, and alert at the point of entry .

Also should have cameras in the parking lot and entrance points of the buildings to be able to alert a lockdown as soon as possible.

gotta poke a hole in this argument - I worked for the NFPA - fire protection - which deals with building egresses - it is impossible to lessen the number of doors in a given building due to amount of individuals  and the size of the building. You can not just block/restrict doors for any reason, what if a legitimate fire happened? the doors are there to get people out safely and within a given time period.
As someone said elsewhere... "You're describing a prison".

A prison to have armed security officers at entrances?

Like banks, businesses , sports stadiums?

Gun free zones are an obvious target to a mass murderer/psycho

In the majority of these mass shootings the murderer is targetting a location because it is a place where they feel wronged and seek revenge, not because they are gun free zones.
In addition, was Las Vegas a kill free zone, you know, the place that had the worst mass shootings in US history?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 22, 2018, 04:54:49 PM
Yeah I wonder about mandatory liability insurance. Probably no way to work that out. Like for a car. That doesn't really work either.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 05:14:17 PM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.
Cars are necessary in society as a means to transport and travel. They are not usually used as killing weapons. A guns sole purpose is to kill. Weather its animals or humans that is the function of it as a tool. Just makes complete sense, and stats back it up, that if you get rid of tools that kill, there will be less killing done.

True, cars are needed as transport.  But they're also used as tools for killing.  (See Charlotesville).  My point was if some sick POS wants to do damage to an individual or a large group of people they will find a way. You can scream "BAN GUNS" all you want but the people who were going to shoot you will now just find other means to get you. 


How exactly? Drive a car into a building? Knife? Sword? Crossbow? Bow and arrow? You can't see how much more difficult it would be to kill 20-50 people that way?

Yeah, any society would be safer with zero guns.

I’m sympathetic to the argument that if you took all the guns from law-abiding people, many criminals would still find them, but that’s different than the “killers find a way” argument. Without guns, that killing is harder and less efficient.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 22, 2018, 05:48:22 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Donoghus on February 22, 2018, 05:52:01 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

You mean not everyone will turn into John McClane in this situation and save the day?

You don't say.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 22, 2018, 06:24:16 PM
True, cars are needed as transport.  But they're also used as tools for killing.  (See Charlotesville).  My point was if some sick POS wants to do damage to an individual or a large group of people they will find a way.  You can scream "BAN GUNS" all you want but the people who were going to shoot you will now just find other means to get you. 

This isn't a point, it's a rationalization. Mass murder is not inevitable and the number of victims of a mass murderer is not set in stone. Spree killers are not MacGyvers of death, their success and often willingness to even try is directly related to how much lethal force they can easily get their hands on and use. 

I don't know any other topic where not being able to eliminate risk is confused with not being able to reduce it, but it sure gets leaned on a lot to defend easy access to highly lethal guns.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 06:38:45 PM
Quote
Mass murder is not inevitable ...

Sadly, I disagree with this. That said, I do think we as a society have to find ways to reduce the frequency of these attacks  and to limit the casualties.  We need to make it as hard on mass murderers as possible.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 06:44:31 PM
On the “enforcement of existing laws”, yesterday I saw our prosecutors arraign two people for “possession of a firearm by a prohibited person”, meaning in this case a person possessing a firearm contrary to Federal law.

Their punishment can be up to 364 days for this specific crime. Their punishment? $250 fine, plus $70 in surcharges.  That’s a real deterrent, huh?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 22, 2018, 06:48:13 PM
Quote
Mass murder is not inevitable ...

Sadly, I disagree with this. That said, I do think we as a society have to find ways to reduce the frequency of these attacks  and to limit the casualties.  We need to make it as hard on mass murderers as possible.

Mass murder overall is unavoidable barring some horrible police state, but I mean individual cases, which is what I think you mean too.

I have personal experience with a guy who wanted to commit mass murder at my university and failed miserably because he couldn't get a gun and tried to run people over instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/us/defendant-offers-details-of-jeep-attack-at-university.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/us/defendant-offers-details-of-jeep-attack-at-university.html)

It almost certainly goes from attempted to actual mass murder if he's firing semiautomatic weapons into the same crowd.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 22, 2018, 06:59:51 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from his first trip overseas visiting his girlfriend’s family.  When I asked what the highlight of his trip was a he told me it was a visit to a gun store with a range where you can fire a number of guns.  You pay per bullet.  Apparently the average customer fires a few bullets from a handful of guns and spends about the equivalent of $5-$10 American.  My buddy said he fired a full clip from just about every gun that they had and spent $285.  His very favorite part was firing a “street sweeper” where he wiped out all of the paper targets.  The people at the store had never seen anything like it.  Again, it was not the historical sites, different foods or culture that he liked, it was shooting a crap ton of guns.

To me that pretty much is the perfect example of the American gun culture.  To the Europeans guns are a tool, to many Americans they are a toy.  People say we have a violence problem and not a gun problem.  I say our gun culture is impacting our violence problem as it is awful hard to get people to even consider any sort of gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 22, 2018, 07:05:45 PM
On the “enforcement of existing laws”, yesterday I saw our prosecutors arraign two people for “possession of a firearm by a prohibited person”, meaning in this case a person possessing a firearm contrary to Federal law.

Their punishment can be up to 364 days for this specific crime. Their punishment? $250 fine, plus $70 in surcharges.  That’s a real deterrent, huh?
I think we need to put severe punishment on any crime that involves a gun.  Put some real teeth into punishment and make it a real deterrent. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: keevsnick on February 22, 2018, 07:14:43 PM
I just got a chance to watch some footage from the Town Hall CNN hosted with the Florida Shooting Victims and others and I really just can't overstate how impressive I find these kids who are out there fighting for tougher gun control measures. When i was in High School I barely had the courage to raise my hand in class, let alone take on US senators. For all the talk I hear about how young people are ruining this country stuff like this does give me some hope.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 07:36:33 PM
I just got a chance to watch some footage from the Town Hall CNN hosted with the Florida Shooting Victims and others and I really just can't overstate how impressive I find these kids who are out there fighting for tougher gun control measures. When i was in High School I barely had the courage to raise my hand in class, let alone take on US senators. For all the talk I hear about how young people are ruining this country stuff like this does give me some hope.
I was waiting for the kid onstage asking about NRA contributions to say: "Well maybe you need to be replaced"!
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: TheisTheisBaby on February 22, 2018, 08:00:34 PM
I just got a chance to watch some footage from the Town Hall CNN hosted with the Florida Shooting Victims and others and I really just can't overstate how impressive I find these kids who are out there fighting for tougher gun control measures. When i was in High School I barely had the courage to raise my hand in class, let alone take on US senators. For all the talk I hear about how young people are ruining this country stuff like this does give me some hope.

You mean the complete CNN set up?  While I prefer kids with a logical opinion to speak up using stats, facts, and logic over silent, angry types what the Town Hall was was nothing more than Liberal democrats using these teenagers to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda's.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 22, 2018, 08:09:00 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: heyvik on February 22, 2018, 08:33:50 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 08:51:30 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 09:55:52 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 22, 2018, 10:07:28 PM
I just got a chance to watch some footage from the Town Hall CNN hosted with the Florida Shooting Victims and others and I really just can't overstate how impressive I find these kids who are out there fighting for tougher gun control measures. When i was in High School I barely had the courage to raise my hand in class, let alone take on US senators. For all the talk I hear about how young people are ruining this country stuff like this does give me some hope.

You mean the complete CNN set up?  While I prefer kids with a logical opinion to speak up using stats, facts, and logic over silent, angry types what the Town Hall was was nothing more than Liberal democrats using these teenagers to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda's.
Or maybe it was the up and coming voters speaking from their hearts and minds.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: keevsnick on February 22, 2018, 10:43:01 PM
I just got a chance to watch some footage from the Town Hall CNN hosted with the Florida Shooting Victims and others and I really just can't overstate how impressive I find these kids who are out there fighting for tougher gun control measures. When i was in High School I barely had the courage to raise my hand in class, let alone take on US senators. For all the talk I hear about how young people are ruining this country stuff like this does give me some hope.

You mean the complete CNN set up?  While I prefer kids with a logical opinion to speak up using stats, facts, and logic over silent, angry types what the Town Hall was was nothing more than Liberal democrats using these teenagers to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda's.

That town hall had nothing to do with liberal democratics, it was people who had just been part of a terrible nightmare demanding that their government representatives do something aboout it. If there was anger it was justfied. Please don't try to undermine the legitmate feelings of a group of people by inffering they are merely the puppets of an outsdie group attempting to use them for political game. That's fox news' job.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 10:52:49 PM
I just got a chance to watch some footage from the Town Hall CNN hosted with the Florida Shooting Victims and others and I really just can't overstate how impressive I find these kids who are out there fighting for tougher gun control measures. When i was in High School I barely had the courage to raise my hand in class, let alone take on US senators. For all the talk I hear about how young people are ruining this country stuff like this does give me some hope.

You mean the complete CNN set up?  While I prefer kids with a logical opinion to speak up using stats, facts, and logic over silent, angry types what the Town Hall was was nothing more than Liberal democrats using these teenagers to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda's.

That town hall had nothing to do with liberal democratics, it was people who had just been part of a terrible nightmare demanding that their government representatives do something aboout it. If there was anger it was justfied. Please don't try to undermine the legitmate feelings of a group of people by inffering they are merely the puppets of an outsdie group attempting to use them for political game. That's Fox News ' job.

I think what he’s referring to is a report from one of the survivors that CNN censored him / required him to ask scripted questions. CNN has denied the report.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 23, 2018, 07:00:13 AM
Quote
The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.

This is even true of some soldiers and 100% true.  It's a rare person that charges towards the danger when one's life in danger.   Some guys can't do it with all their training.   Folks like School resource officer Scot Peterson should be working at desk and not on the front lines.

When I heard Scot Peterson, I thought of Scott  Peterson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: CelticD on February 23, 2018, 07:35:47 AM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.

This. Anyone can use a gun to defend themselves, but asking people to deliberately run into harm's way to stop a mass shooter is something completely different, especially when they themselves are in a safe place.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 23, 2018, 07:35:54 AM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.

Fight or flight is a real thing though. It's one thing to lack fortitude generally, and another when facing assault weapons. We had a dude crouched in he fetal position in a corner in Mogadishu. A trained soldier. Commo.guy, but still. The security guy may well have looked at his .38 and thought about his own kids, and waited for backup. Everyone thinks they'll be John Wayne or John Rambo.  Nobody wants to think they'd be Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 07:46:54 AM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.

Fight or flight is a real thing though. It's one thing to lack fortitude generally, and another when facing assault weapons. We had a dude crouched in he fetal position in a corner in Mogadishu. A trained soldier. Commo.guy, but still. The security guy may well have looked at his .38 and thought about his own kids, and waited for backup. Everyone thinks they'll be John Wayne or John Rambo.  Nobody wants to think they'd be Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West.

It’s interesting to get the perspective of law enforcement and military on this stuff. Like nick, I know a lot of LEOs, and saw this discussion linked on one of their pages:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2075758609313019&id=1413185958903624

(Warning for language).

There are a mix of reactions, from empathy to vitriolic contempt. Most fall in the second category.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 23, 2018, 09:11:55 AM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.

Fight or flight is a real thing though. It's one thing to lack fortitude generally, and another when facing assault weapons. We had a dude crouched in he fetal position in a corner in Mogadishu. A trained soldier. Commo.guy, but still. The security guy may well have looked at his .38 and thought about his own kids, and waited for backup. Everyone thinks they'll be John Wayne or John Rambo.  Nobody wants to think they'd be Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West.

It’s interesting to get the perspective of law enforcement and military on this stuff. Like nick, I know a lot of LEOs, and saw this discussion linked on one of their pages:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2075758609313019&id=1413185958903624

(Warning for language).

There are a mix of reactions, from empathy to vitriolic contempt. Most fall in the second category.

Oh yeah. Let me just say that I understand the guy doing what he did. It would appear from his immediate retirement he was at the end of the trail, but a sharp, trained individual should experience the training kick in, which didn't happen in this case. The guy was likely retired on the job. That itself worthy of contempt in my view because it can lead to things like this. Someone else should've been in that spot. That's as much empathy as I can muster for that piece of ****.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: johnnygreen on February 23, 2018, 10:28:01 AM
I know this may be a technicality, but where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have a right to ammunition?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 10:45:31 AM
I know this may be a technicality, but where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have a right to ammunition?

Generally, courts will give Constitutional protection to things that are in necessary furtherance of a Constitutional right.

But, my guess is that the 1780s definition of arms included bullets. Some definitions in that time period even included defensive armor.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 23, 2018, 11:03:03 AM
I know this may be a technicality, but where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have a right to ammunition?

Generally, courts will give Constitutional protection to things that are in necessary furtherance of a Constitutional right.

But, my guess is that the 1780s definition of arms included bullets. Some definitions in that time period even included defensive armor.
Well, I have no problem with the public having the right to own unlimited amounts of 1780s style arms and armor.  8)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
I know this may be a technicality, but where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have a right to ammunition?

Generally, courts will give Constitutional protection to things that are in necessary furtherance of a Constitutional right.

But, my guess is that the 1780s definition of arms included bullets. Some definitions in that time period even included defensive armor.
Well, I have no problem with the public having the right to own unlimited amounts of 1780s style arms and armor.  8)

Little known fact: there were repeating firearms in the 1700s that could fire 20+ times without reloading.

There’s one thing about humanity: our inventiveness in coming up with new technology to kill each other is boundless.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rondohondo on February 23, 2018, 11:49:00 AM
I know this may be a technicality, but where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have a right to ammunition?

Generally, courts will give Constitutional protection to things that are in necessary furtherance of a Constitutional right.

But, my guess is that the 1780s definition of arms included bullets. Some definitions in that time period even included defensive armor.
Well, I have no problem with the public having the right to own unlimited amounts of 1780s style arms and armor.  8)

Little known fact: there were repeating firearms in the 1700s that could fire 20+ times without reloading.

There’s one thing about humanity: our inventiveness in coming up with new technology to kill each other is boundless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFuA50H9uek&app=desktop

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Cman on February 23, 2018, 11:51:09 AM
I just read that some nutjob drove his car into a hospital ER in CT and proceeded to light himself on fire.  The solution is obvious, BAN ALL CARS!!  This would have never happened had he not been given access to a car like that.  If he didn't have a car, he would clearly have been of sound mind and body and thought twice about committing this disgusting act.

This sounds like "we can't solve all problems so let's not try to solve any problems."
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Moranis on February 23, 2018, 11:58:43 AM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.

Fight or flight is a real thing though. It's one thing to lack fortitude generally, and another when facing assault weapons. We had a dude crouched in he fetal position in a corner in Mogadishu. A trained soldier. Commo.guy, but still. The security guy may well have looked at his .38 and thought about his own kids, and waited for backup. Everyone thinks they'll be John Wayne or John Rambo.  Nobody wants to think they'd be Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West.

It’s interesting to get the perspective of law enforcement and military on this stuff. Like nick, I know a lot of LEOs, and saw this discussion linked on one of their pages:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2075758609313019&id=1413185958903624

(Warning for language).

There are a mix of reactions, from empathy to vitriolic contempt. Most fall in the second category.

Oh yeah. Let me just say that I understand the guy doing what he did. It would appear from his immediate retirement he was at the end of the trail, but a sharp, trained individual should experience the training kick in, which didn't happen in this case. The guy was likely retired on the job. That itself worthy of contempt in my view because it can lead to things like this. Someone else should've been in that spot. That's as much empathy as I can muster for that piece of ****.
Who should have been in that spot though?  If you put an active in their prime cop at that spot, and do that for every school in the country, there wouldn't be anyone doing actual police work. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: keevsnick on February 23, 2018, 12:25:14 PM
I just got a chance to watch some footage from the Town Hall CNN hosted with the Florida Shooting Victims and others and I really just can't overstate how impressive I find these kids who are out there fighting for tougher gun control measures. When i was in High School I barely had the courage to raise my hand in class, let alone take on US senators. For all the talk I hear about how young people are ruining this country stuff like this does give me some hope.

You mean the complete CNN set up?  While I prefer kids with a logical opinion to speak up using stats, facts, and logic over silent, angry types what the Town Hall was was nothing more than Liberal democrats using these teenagers to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda's.

That town hall had nothing to do with liberal democratics, it was people who had just been part of a terrible nightmare demanding that their government representatives do something aboout it. If there was anger it was justfied. Please don't try to undermine the legitmate feelings of a group of people by inffering they are merely the puppets of an outsdie group attempting to use them for political game. That's Fox News ' job.

I think what he’s referring to is a report from one of the survivors that CNN censored him / required him to ask scripted questions. CNN has denied the report.

Oh well as long as he's quoting a single unsubstantiated report in order to call into question  the integrity of dozens of shooting survivors I guess that's okay. Man, on a side note I miss the days when facts meant something.   
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: keevsnick on February 23, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.

Fight or flight is a real thing though. It's one thing to lack fortitude generally, and another when facing assault weapons. We had a dude crouched in he fetal position in a corner in Mogadishu. A trained soldier. Commo.guy, but still. The security guy may well have looked at his .38 and thought about his own kids, and waited for backup. Everyone thinks they'll be John Wayne or John Rambo.  Nobody wants to think they'd be Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West.

It’s interesting to get the perspective of law enforcement and military on this stuff. Like nick, I know a lot of LEOs, and saw this discussion linked on one of their pages:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2075758609313019&id=1413185958903624

(Warning for language).

There are a mix of reactions, from empathy to vitriolic contempt. Most fall in the second category.

Oh yeah. Let me just say that I understand the guy doing what he did. It would appear from his immediate retirement he was at the end of the trail, but a sharp, trained individual should experience the training kick in, which didn't happen in this case. The guy was likely retired on the job. That itself worthy of contempt in my view because it can lead to things like this. Someone else should've been in that spot. That's as much empathy as I can muster for that piece of ****.
Who should have been in that spot though?  If you put an active in their prime cop at that spot, and do that for every school in the country, there wouldn't be anyone doing actual police work.

To be honest this story doesn't even make me mad, it just makes me sad. Like maybe soemthing could have been doen, or maybe the guy would have stepped into the hallway and we'd have 18 victims instead. I mean if a police officer hesitates are we really gonna expect our teachers to fend off mass shooters?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 23, 2018, 12:45:34 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.

Fight or flight is a real thing though. It's one thing to lack fortitude generally, and another when facing assault weapons. We had a dude crouched in he fetal position in a corner in Mogadishu. A trained soldier. Commo.guy, but still. The security guy may well have looked at his .38 and thought about his own kids, and waited for backup. Everyone thinks they'll be John Wayne or John Rambo.  Nobody wants to think they'd be Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West.

It’s interesting to get the perspective of law enforcement and military on this stuff. Like nick, I know a lot of LEOs, and saw this discussion linked on one of their pages:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2075758609313019&id=1413185958903624

(Warning for language).

There are a mix of reactions, from empathy to vitriolic contempt. Most fall in the second category.

Oh yeah. Let me just say that I understand the guy doing what he did. It would appear from his immediate retirement he was at the end of the trail, but a sharp, trained individual should experience the training kick in, which didn't happen in this case. The guy was likely retired on the job. That itself worthy of contempt in my view because it can lead to things like this. Someone else should've been in that spot. That's as much empathy as I can muster for that piece of ****.

I disagree with the bolded part. Because that normalizes the notion that the job description for a school security guard suddenly should require being constantly prepared to play John Rambo.   We can't normalize this sort of violence in school.   This sort of job is supposed to be about making sure doors are locked or unlocked when they are supposed to, that kids aren't smoking in the bathroom and breaking up the occasional fight.

It's a reality:  Cops are human beings just like everyone else.  And even if at some point when they are young and in their peak they might have been ready and able to take on any danger, the fact is, like all humans, they get older.  They have families.  They have less physical ability to play action hero and at the same time they have more to lose.  That's why so many older cops shift to different roles within law enforcement, whether it be administrative or by patrolling the halls of what should be a peaceful school.

The poor guy probably has a family.   I expect they are glad he didn't try to play super-hero if he isn't bullet-proof.

The problem isn't in how some old deputy handled himself here.  The problem isn't in how school teachers might somehow magically morph into Rambo clones if only they had been packing.   The problem isn't in how people working in the school setting responded to an eruption of massive violence.

The problem is the enablement by our larger society of sick individuals to easily and quickly deliver massive violence almost anywhere.  Not just in schools.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Fan from VT on February 23, 2018, 12:48:31 PM
That Washington Post article brought up some interesting things:

The headline is basically geared around the premise that legal gun owners don’t commit gun crimes. But the crux is this:

Quote
"All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.
and

Quote
But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown.”

and finally,

Quote
Additionally, past research has demonstrated that a small fraction of gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns used in crimes in the United States. A 2000 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year.


The firearms bureau knows exactly who these gun dealers are — but they're not allowed to share that information with policymakers or researchers due to a law passed by Congress in 2003. As a result, solutions for stanching the flow of guns from these dealers to crime scenes remain frustratingly out of reach for public-health researchers.

At a minimum, I would like:

Need to be 18 to purchase or own a firearm.
- All firearms need easily visible unique serial #
--- Removing serial number = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- All sales reported to database, all guns have deed of ownership
--- Failure to transfer deed of ownership or produce deed of ownership (or copy from gun dealer) within xxxx amount of time if asked by law enforcement = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- Mandatory criminal background check
- All ammunition sales also tagged to same database, to watch for stockpiling
- Mandatory waiting period 2 weeks from purchase to take home.
- Criminal and civil consequences/liability if your firearm is used in a crime by someone else and you hadn’t yet reported your firearm stolen or missing.
- Pending improved hand-ID technology, all firearms must be sold with trigger locks.
- 1-2 year phase in period during which you can register your currently owned firearms and obtain an easily visible unique ID and a certificate of ownership OR get cash in a buyback program.
- If you are a gun dealer, and a gun you sold (by ID number) is used to commit a crime and you cannot produce legitimate proof of sale and background check prior to sale, lose your privileges to sell firearms.
- CDC is allowed to address and study this as a public health issue: Mortality and Morbidity (injury) data, economic impact of medical costs, missed work, etc; research into all prevention strategies, from a homicide, risk reduction, suicide perspective, etc.


I would also prefer (may not be feasible/practical to implement, face even more resistance, etc)
- Intimate partners are notified that their partners are purchasing a firearm
- Outlawing sale of certain gun types (high capacity magazine, etc.)



Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 23, 2018, 01:04:51 PM
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: keevsnick on February 23, 2018, 01:39:25 PM
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

True. But just because it wouldn't be super effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 23, 2018, 01:46:55 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this but it turns out the armed security officer in Parkland responded to the shooting but stayed in the parking lot, refusing to go into the building with the shooter while students and teachers were killed.

He's resigned and retired. As much as he deserves it, castigating the guy in a post he'll never see feels pretty hollow, so I'll just say this is an example of yet another point of failure in the "guns vs guns" approach. Trained or not, you can't reliably know how someone will react in this kind of situation until they're in it, and a substantial percentage will either panic or freeze.

Holy crap. I'm not even mad I'm more just sad.

as much as I hate to write it.....does this now blow a hole in the "good guy" with a gun arguement? You had a resource officer who was armed but did not engage.....Where are the proponents for more guns now??

and Dems DO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY....STOP WITH THE SAME ANTI-2ND Amendment crap. There should be a ban on citizens owning assault rifles.

The problem is that many people with guns — even some in law enforcement— are cowards, and they use their guns to compensate.
Bingo. Lots of my family are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing. Take away their guns and they all know people who could never do their jobs.

Fight or flight is a real thing though. It's one thing to lack fortitude generally, and another when facing assault weapons. We had a dude crouched in he fetal position in a corner in Mogadishu. A trained soldier. Commo.guy, but still. The security guy may well have looked at his .38 and thought about his own kids, and waited for backup. Everyone thinks they'll be John Wayne or John Rambo.  Nobody wants to think they'd be Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West.

It’s interesting to get the perspective of law enforcement and military on this stuff. Like nick, I know a lot of LEOs, and saw this discussion linked on one of their pages:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2075758609313019&id=1413185958903624

(Warning for language).

There are a mix of reactions, from empathy to vitriolic contempt. Most fall in the second category.

Oh yeah. Let me just say that I understand the guy doing what he did. It would appear from his immediate retirement he was at the end of the trail, but a sharp, trained individual should experience the training kick in, which didn't happen in this case. The guy was likely retired on the job. That itself worthy of contempt in my view because it can lead to things like this. Someone else should've been in that spot. That's as much empathy as I can muster for that piece of ****.
Who should have been in that spot though?  If you put an active in their prime cop at that spot, and do that for every school in the country, there wouldn't be anyone doing actual police work.

That's right. Maybe if they're at the door running the metal detectors.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: number_n9ne on February 23, 2018, 01:49:17 PM
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

Upping the age to purchase is a small step to a larger problem. If we keep sweeping away the small steps claiming that "it won't do that much," nothing will ever change. Just because it won't fix the entire problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Banning AR-15's won't stop all shootings, does that mean we shouldn't do it? Banning high capacity mags won't stop all shootings, does that mean we shouldn't do it? If we stop looking at the separate ideas as not worth it due to the fact that it won't stop all shootings and start viewing these steps as a cumulative effort that will reduce shootings (even if it doesn't completely fix it), we will get somewhere. Furthermore I find the argument of "it won't stop all shootings" to just be lazy. Shouldn't we be trying our best to reduce even if we can't fully stop?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: KGs Knee on February 23, 2018, 01:52:32 PM
That Washington Post article brought up some interesting things:

The headline is basically geared around the premise that legal gun owners don’t commit gun crimes. But the crux is this:

Quote
"All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.
and

Quote
But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown.”

and finally,

Quote
Additionally, past research has demonstrated that a small fraction of gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns used in crimes in the United States. A 2000 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year.


The firearms bureau knows exactly who these gun dealers are — but they're not allowed to share that information with policymakers or researchers due to a law passed by Congress in 2003. As a result, solutions for stanching the flow of guns from these dealers to crime scenes remain frustratingly out of reach for public-health researchers.

At a minimum, I would like:

Need to be 18 to purchase or own a firearm.
- All firearms need easily visible unique serial #
--- Removing serial number = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- All sales reported to database, all guns have deed of ownership
--- Failure to transfer deed of ownership or produce deed of ownership (or copy from gun dealer) within xxxx amount of time if asked by law enforcement = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- Mandatory criminal background check
- All ammunition sales also tagged to same database, to watch for stockpiling
- Mandatory waiting period 2 weeks from purchase to take home.
- Criminal and civil consequences/liability if your firearm is used in a crime by someone else and you hadn’t yet reported your firearm stolen or missing.
- Pending improved hand-ID technology, all firearms must be sold with trigger locks.
- 1-2 year phase in period during which you can register your currently owned firearms and obtain an easily visible unique ID and a certificate of ownership OR get cash in a buyback program.
- If you are a gun dealer, and a gun you sold (by ID number) is used to commit a crime and you cannot produce legitimate proof of sale and background check prior to sale, lose your privileges to sell firearms.
- CDC is allowed to address and study this as a public health issue: Mortality and Morbidity (injury) data, economic impact of medical costs, missed work, etc; research into all prevention strategies, from a homicide, risk reduction, suicide perspective, etc.


I would also prefer (may not be feasible/practical to implement, face even more resistance, etc)
- Intimate partners are notified that their partners are purchasing a firearm
- Outlawing sale of certain gun types (high capacity magazine, etc.)





I'd say I have no issue with any of these ideas, save for may be the very last one.

I'm fine with tougher, better regulations on purchasing and owning a gun. I don't need to hide the fact I own guns, nor do I feel it's unreasonable to ask I demonstrate a basic 'fitness' to purchase or own a gun. I'm fully in support of keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

I don't really feel like it's necessary to outlaw any guns that are currently legal, though. I assume when most people say this they are talking about semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15, AR-57, or an AK-47. And the question is always ask myself is, why should the government have a right to take mine away simply because a small number of other people cannot act properly? My possessing such a firearm poses no threat to anyone.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 02:02:01 PM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 02:04:37 PM
That Washington Post article brought up some interesting things:

The headline is basically geared around the premise that legal gun owners don’t commit gun crimes. But the crux is this:

Quote
"All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.
and

Quote
But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown.”

and finally,

Quote
Additionally, past research has demonstrated that a small fraction of gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns used in crimes in the United States. A 2000 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year.


The firearms bureau knows exactly who these gun dealers are — but they're not allowed to share that information with policymakers or researchers due to a law passed by Congress in 2003. As a result, solutions for stanching the flow of guns from these dealers to crime scenes remain frustratingly out of reach for public-health researchers.

At a minimum, I would like:

Need to be 18 to purchase or own a firearm.
- All firearms need easily visible unique serial #
--- Removing serial number = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- All sales reported to database, all guns have deed of ownership
--- Failure to transfer deed of ownership or produce deed of ownership (or copy from gun dealer) within xxxx amount of time if asked by law enforcement = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- Mandatory criminal background check
- All ammunition sales also tagged to same database, to watch for stockpiling
- Mandatory waiting period 2 weeks from purchase to take home.
- Criminal and civil consequences/liability if your firearm is used in a crime by someone else and you hadn’t yet reported your firearm stolen or missing.
- Pending improved hand-ID technology, all firearms must be sold with trigger locks.
- 1-2 year phase in period during which you can register your currently owned firearms and obtain an easily visible unique ID and a certificate of ownership OR get cash in a buyback program.
- If you are a gun dealer, and a gun you sold (by ID number) is used to commit a crime and you cannot produce legitimate proof of sale and background check prior to sale, lose your privileges to sell firearms.
- CDC is allowed to address and study this as a public health issue: Mortality and Morbidity (injury) data, economic impact of medical costs, missed work, etc; research into all prevention strategies, from a homicide, risk reduction, suicide perspective, etc.


I would also prefer (may not be feasible/practical to implement, face even more resistance, etc)
- Intimate partners are notified that their partners are purchasing a firearm
- Outlawing sale of certain gun types (high capacity magazine, etc.)





I'd say I have no issue with any of these ideas, save for may be the very last one.

I'm fine with tougher, better regulations on purchasing and owning a gun. I don't need to hide the fact I own guns, nor do I feel it's unreasonable to ask I demonstrate a basic 'fitness' to purchase or own a gun. I'm fully in support of keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

I don't really feel like it's necessary to outlaw any guns that are currently legal, though. I assume when most people say this they are talking about semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15, AR-57, or an AK-47. And the question is always ask myself is, why should the government have a right to take mine away simply because a small number of other people cannot act properly? My possessing such a firearm poses no threat to anyone.

What about limits on magazine size? Does anybody really need more than 10 rounds at a time? I’d probably authorize renting high-capacity magazines at gun ranges, but that would be it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: KGs Knee on February 23, 2018, 02:28:40 PM
That Washington Post article brought up some interesting things:

The headline is basically geared around the premise that legal gun owners don’t commit gun crimes. But the crux is this:

Quote
"All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.
and

Quote
But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown.”

and finally,

Quote
Additionally, past research has demonstrated that a small fraction of gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns used in crimes in the United States. A 2000 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year.


The firearms bureau knows exactly who these gun dealers are — but they're not allowed to share that information with policymakers or researchers due to a law passed by Congress in 2003. As a result, solutions for stanching the flow of guns from these dealers to crime scenes remain frustratingly out of reach for public-health researchers.

At a minimum, I would like:

Need to be 18 to purchase or own a firearm.
- All firearms need easily visible unique serial #
--- Removing serial number = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- All sales reported to database, all guns have deed of ownership
--- Failure to transfer deed of ownership or produce deed of ownership (or copy from gun dealer) within xxxx amount of time if asked by law enforcement = automatic confiscation, plus citation
- Mandatory criminal background check
- All ammunition sales also tagged to same database, to watch for stockpiling
- Mandatory waiting period 2 weeks from purchase to take home.
- Criminal and civil consequences/liability if your firearm is used in a crime by someone else and you hadn’t yet reported your firearm stolen or missing.
- Pending improved hand-ID technology, all firearms must be sold with trigger locks.
- 1-2 year phase in period during which you can register your currently owned firearms and obtain an easily visible unique ID and a certificate of ownership OR get cash in a buyback program.
- If you are a gun dealer, and a gun you sold (by ID number) is used to commit a crime and you cannot produce legitimate proof of sale and background check prior to sale, lose your privileges to sell firearms.
- CDC is allowed to address and study this as a public health issue: Mortality and Morbidity (injury) data, economic impact of medical costs, missed work, etc; research into all prevention strategies, from a homicide, risk reduction, suicide perspective, etc.


I would also prefer (may not be feasible/practical to implement, face even more resistance, etc)
- Intimate partners are notified that their partners are purchasing a firearm
- Outlawing sale of certain gun types (high capacity magazine, etc.)





I'd say I have no issue with any of these ideas, save for may be the very last one.

I'm fine with tougher, better regulations on purchasing and owning a gun. I don't need to hide the fact I own guns, nor do I feel it's unreasonable to ask I demonstrate a basic 'fitness' to purchase or own a gun. I'm fully in support of keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

I don't really feel like it's necessary to outlaw any guns that are currently legal, though. I assume when most people say this they are talking about semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15, AR-57, or an AK-47. And the question is always ask myself is, why should the government have a right to take mine away simply because a small number of other people cannot act properly? My possessing such a firearm poses no threat to anyone.

What about limits on magazine size? Does anybody really need more than 10 rounds at a time? I’d probably authorize renting high-capacity magazines at gun ranges, but that would be it.

I mean, sure, limiting magazine size seems reasonable.

I'm not sure need is a good argument though. People don't need lots of things. Alcohol related deaths far outnumber gun related deaths, and clearly no one needs alcohol. But we already saw how well prohibition worked.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 23, 2018, 02:54:10 PM
This is lunacy.

Quote
In Allen Parish, a teenager found out quickly that any type of joke about guns or shooting will result in swift action.

On Wednesday night, KATC reported that The Allen Parish Sheriff's Department responded to a comment that an Oberlin High School student made about the square root symbol looking like a gun.
.................
Right now, the school district is not allowing the student on school property, and he's awaiting an expulsion hearing to determine if he can continue attending the school system.

Superintendent Doucet says he is concerned by the new stricter guidelines, but he says he's doing what it takes to get the best results.

"Does it concern me sometimes? Sure it does! But if you lost a child and didn't take an incident seriously because you thought it was minor and something did happen, that parent that lost that child would be hard to explain.”

http://www.katc.com/story/37572205/oberlin-student-found-not-a-threat-by-law-enforcement-still-banned-from-school
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 23, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

True. But just because it wouldn't be super effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yeah, but there is a real danger that we will fall for the trick of passing what is essentially meaningless and useless legislation and certain politicians will hide behind it as 'tough gun legislation' and 'standing up to the NRA!'.

Let's raise the age to 91.  That might actually be effective. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: jaketwice on February 23, 2018, 03:34:51 PM
Ra ra ra! I'm a Republican! My party tells me to oppose gun control so I oppose it!

Blind faith. #notinteresting

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 23, 2018, 03:47:10 PM
Ra ra ra! I'm a Republican! My party tells me to oppose gun control so I oppose it!

Blind faith. #notinteresting

There's...almost none of that in here.  A lot of thoughtful individual perspectives instead.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: keevsnick on February 23, 2018, 03:51:33 PM
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

True. But just because it wouldn't be super effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yeah, but there is a real danger that we will fall for the trick of passing what is essentially meaningless and useless legislation and certain politicians will hide behind it as 'tough gun legislation' and 'standing up to the NRA!'.

Let's raise the age to 91.  That might actually be effective.

It's a good point, we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum and call it victory. But at this point it would feel like victory.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 23, 2018, 05:55:29 PM
So, a popular 'gun control' measure being advocated by various up-to-now gun-rights-advocates is to raise the age for gun purchases to 21.   Florida Governor Scott just proposed that.

The problem is, that doesn't really do much at all.  Not only does it ignore that probable most of the guns "owned" by younger folks were actually purchased by their elders (For example, Adam Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother) it also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents are carried out by shooters significantly older than 21.

Here is list of mass shootings from 1982-2018 that Mother Jones accumulated for some of their research:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

It is not meant to be comprehensive because broader definitions of 'mass shooting' could explode the list by hundreds more, but is probably a fair representative sample.

Only a tiny handful of all those shooters was under 21.   The average age was 35.   The vast majority were white males, fwiw.

True. But just because it wouldn't be super effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yeah, but there is a real danger that we will fall for the trick of passing what is essentially meaningless and useless legislation and certain politicians will hide behind it as 'tough gun legislation' and 'standing up to the NRA!'.

Let's raise the age to 91.  That might actually be effective.

It's a good point, we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum and call it victory. But at this point it would feel like victory.

When you hold the line so firmly as the NRA and its favored politicians like Rick Scott and Marco Rubio have done for so many years and then let go of just a tiny piece, the tendency is to call that "movement" or "a start" or "progress".   But this is the game they've been playing for decades, and I think most people would agree that gun violence is just getting worse.   They continue to close the door on anything that has to do with restricting the sale of "war guns" or high capacity magazines.  They continue to use inflammatory rhetoric to rationalize their positions and label those who oppose them with the harshest of characterizations: if you want to ban AK-47's you are an enemy of individual freedom.   Wayne Lapriere listens to no one.  When reasonable people talk about wanting to preserve the 2nd amendment but modify it's scope, or re-interpret it based on current conditions (as we've done with the first amendment), he rallies the base with hyperbole and fear-mongering.  It is no different than when liberals mischaracterize conservatives as racist.  The hatred is wrong and it is killing this country, body and soul.  We need senators and congress to open the dialogue to consider (consider)  measures that could, in a package proposal, have an impact. We all know there is not a singular approach that will do the job.   We also know that ""bump-stocks", raising the age to 21, and strengethening background checks are all VERY low-hanging fruit.   I refuse to say "movement" or "progress" until our leaders are seriously addressing and including the banning of war guns and high capacity magazines.  If this congress can't handle it, VOTE THEM OUT. 


Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 23, 2018, 06:55:39 PM
NRA losing sponsors over stance after Parkland:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/366548002

Dana Loesch: "Many in legacy media love mass shootings."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/dana-loesch-cpac-media/index.html


Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 07:07:27 PM
Quote
Dana Loesch: "Many in legacy media love mass shootings.

I don’t think she’s wrong. Terrorism, child abductions, school shootings, natural disasters, car wrecks.
That stuff sells, so the media eats it up.  Corporations don’t have much of a social conscience.

(https://resizing.flixster.com/OsobE53ZBIPL26AqG0QBUahv_v0=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTE4OTQ3MztqOzE3Njc5OzEyMDA7ODAwOzEyMDA)

The above is a good movie exploring some of that.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 07:15:15 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 23, 2018, 07:23:36 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 07:34:12 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

Yes, officers that respond to crimes with regularity.

The SRO is a coward, but I guess I can understand how people get complacent in a job like his.  The other officers presumably more regularly respond to dangerous situations, or it was at least likely they’d do so.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 23, 2018, 07:34:15 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent.  Trump has this notion that delusional and dissociated individuals, whether they are world leaders ("Rocket Man") or school shooters (Lansa; Cruz), actually think rationally.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 23, 2018, 07:41:27 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

Yes, officers that respond to crimes with regularity.

The SRO is a coward, but I guess I can understand how people get complacent in a job like his.  The other officers presumably more regularly respond to dangerous situations, or it was at least likely they’d do so.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. I think that just comes from within. Whether he was handling calls daily or dealing with kids skipping school the fight or flight was clearly leaning one way with him. Besides, handling calls daily wouldn't replicate the echoing sounds of an AR and the overall situation he was dealing with, so he would've hid no matter his current assignment.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 23, 2018, 07:47:04 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 23, 2018, 08:02:38 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 23, 2018, 08:27:09 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 23, 2018, 08:39:42 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.

I think we can say that cortisol may heighten your senses in high stress situations, but it's virually impossible to say how any individual will react to these situations (unless they've been in similar situations).  I've heard it said that most people in panic will be highly unlikely to coordinate a straight shot with a gun.  Even the coach, who may have gone into fight mode, still may not have been steady with a gun.  Let's just say that arming teachers comes with potential gains and possible costs (puts outweaponed, non-combat proven civilians in harms way and highly likely to miss targets and possibly hit innocents), and is by no means THE answer.   I understand Trump favors only military trained staff members would be eligible.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2018, 08:41:44 PM
Quote
Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger,

I wonder, though, does it apply equally in all situations?

I’ve come to others’ aid in serious situations twice, once when a very large swarm of wasps attacked my then-girlfriend, and another time when I saved my ex’s neighbor from drowning. Both were very risky situations, and I just reacted without hesitation. But, I’m not sure if I could kill somebody. I never got into hunting, because I always hesitated shooting. I couldn’t do it. Now, if my kids were in danger, I think I’d kill anybody in my way. For complete strangers, I’m not sure.  I’d like to think I’d rise to the task, but I just can’t guarantee it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 23, 2018, 08:46:49 PM
Quote
Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger,

I wonder, though, does it apply equally in all situations?

I’ve come to others’ aid in serious situations twice, once when a very large swarm of wasps attacked my then-girlfriend, and another time when I saved my ex’s neighbor from drowning. Both were very risky situations, and I just reacted without hesitation. But, I’m not sure if I could kill somebody. I never got into hunting, because I always hesitated shooting. I couldn’t do it. Now, if my kids were in danger, I think I’d kill anybody in my way. For complete strangers, I’m not sure.  I’d like to think I’d rise to the task, but I just can’t guarantee it.

This part is key. In some ways, their students are like their kids and definitely not strangers.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 23, 2018, 08:53:59 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.
You may be right but you are only speculating.  The coach may have been in "fight mode" or he may have been in "protect mode".  Obviously we cannot say with any certainty what he would have done if he had a weapon.  As far as I know we also cannot tell if he even would have carried a weapon IF he was allowed.  All we can say with certainty is he was a brave man and a hero.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 23, 2018, 08:59:17 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.

I think we can say that cortisol may heighten your senses in high stress situations, but it's virually impossible to say how any individual will react to these situations (unless they've been in similar situations).  I've heard it said that most people in panic will be highly unlikely to coordinate a straight shot with a gun.  Even the coach, who may have gone into fight mode, still may not have been steady with a gun.  Let's just say that arming teachers comes with potential gains and possible costs (puts outweaponed, non-combat proven civilians in harms way and highly likely to miss targets and possibly hit innocents), and is by no means THE answer.   I understand Trump favors only military trained staff members would be eligible.

He may or may not have been accurate, but that has a large portion to do with his familiarity with a firearm. I could be in full fight mode, but I would be pretty worthless if I had to operate a rig. Now, if I were familiar with operating it then i would be fine.

This doesn't mean that I support arming any and all teachers. However, there are those, especially those familiar with firearms, that might perform pretty well if called. I do think that they could have routine training courses at Police Training Bureau, which would also include things like addressing massive hemorrhaging and the proper way of applying tourniquets. Before you think this idea is farfetched, various South American countries send their police personnel, which isn't very skilled to say the least, to Police Training Bureau's to train. Practice ammo isn't available in many of these countries, so these are people that have been given a firearm and have never fired one single round even at a range.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 23, 2018, 09:04:06 PM
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

It’s sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. He’s not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? That’s breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.
You may be right but you are only speculating.  The coach may have been in "fight mode" or he may have been in "protect mode".  Obviously we cannot say with any certainty what he would have done if he had a weapon.  As far as I know we also cannot tell if he even would have carried a weapon IF he was allowed.  All we can say with certainty is he was a brave man and a hero.

There's no such thing as a "protect mode". Fight or flight is in fact a clinical definition to a person's response. This does not mean that a person will always fight, but in this situation he reacted as such and died heroically.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: KGs Knee on February 24, 2018, 01:14:40 AM
I think the debate on whether or not a teacher would be any good with a gun is just a silly debate.  It's just not a good idea at all to have teachers carrying guns in schools, period.  There's just too many things that could go wrong.

That aside

I maintain the guns themselves aren't the problem, it's the fact they are too easy to obtain that is the issue.  None of my guns are even registered with any agency and do not need to be per NH law.  All but one of them was bought from a licensed dealer, so I'm sure the government could track those to me, but my AK-47 was bought via a private sale, so the government doesn't even know I have that gun.  Private sales in NH do not need to be reported, and there is no background check process, so it's basically no different than selling a used lawnmower.

And that to me is the issue.  Anybody can get their hands on a gun, even if they shouldn't have one.  I'm all for changing that.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: freshinthehouse on February 24, 2018, 04:17:24 AM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 24, 2018, 04:38:57 AM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: LatterDayCelticsfan on February 24, 2018, 04:52:16 AM
Quick question. What does the 'well regulated' part of the 2nd amendment mean?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on February 24, 2018, 07:22:01 AM
I'm a bit late to this dance but I'll grab a partner and cut the rug a bit anyway.

The thought of my wife (A middle school teacher for several years now and a GOOD one at that) carrying a GUN at school under Pres. Trump's suggestion is HORRIBLE.

HORRIBLE.

He (and some in his administration) seem out of touch with Modern Americans.

LOOK - I know that there are some layers to this issue. I believe in the RIGHT for Americans to carry a gun - even though guns TERRIFY me personally.

I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns and while I respect those that have them I have no idea why some choose to collect them.

Like I stated earlier - HORRIBLE HORRIBLE idea to arm teachers.

What happens if a student tries to grab it?

Will there be an ARMORY at the school for teachers to turn in - check out - their weapons?

Will they have to purchase their weapons?

What happens in a situation where an ARMED TEACHER is in a hot situation with an armed assailant and he / she accidentally SHOOTS a student in the name of protecting them?

There is NO WAY we can expect a TEACHER to be as proficient with a weapon as a trained Police Officer.

HORRIBLE idea.

Did I say HORRIBLE enough?

I grieve for the students affected in the Florida Tragedy. I'm praying for their loses and also their COURAGE as they undertake this issue of Guns in our Country.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 24, 2018, 08:11:57 AM
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you would have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on February 24, 2018, 08:23:38 AM
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.

lol my "good" buddy Eddie20. If you're not hounding me then you're hounding Rollie in a different thread.

I'll dance with you.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/bTzFnjHPuVvva/giphy.gif)

Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

STILL didn't gloat over the fact that I carried guns on watch. They were a part of my duty. If tasked to carry out that duty in a hot situation I'd do it.

(https://www.rogersfamilyco.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cupofjoe2.jpg)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 24, 2018, 08:42:28 AM
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on February 24, 2018, 08:47:08 AM
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.

Eddie20 - did YOU serve?

You have no idea how I'd respond in such a situation.

Carrying a GUN on watch was only a PART of my service - a small part.

But AGAIN - answer my question about whether YOU served. And don't lie.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 24, 2018, 08:55:41 AM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You can’t just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. It’s discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? That’s an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 24, 2018, 09:46:17 AM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You can’t just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. It’s discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? That’s an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 24, 2018, 10:47:48 AM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You can’t just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. It’s discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? That’s an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right.

Regardless of whether it *should* be a right, it is one. It’s embodied in the Bill Of Rights. Possessing guns is given the same protection as the right to Due Process, free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.  It’s subject to some reasonable regulation, but completely barring adults from a Constitutional right is not really an appropriate regulation.

That’s the key difference between gun ownership and drinking, driving, buying cigarettes, etc.

Now, overall the Supreme Court has been very passive regarding gun regulations (read Clarence Thomas’ dissent this week), but there’s no principled or Constitutional reason for such bans to be valid.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 24, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.
Lets halt this right here. GF served this country honorably and none should be questioning his ability to do his duty.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 26, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 26, 2018, 11:45:52 AM
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.

He must have meant if he had his full Secret Service detail with him.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: rondohondo on February 26, 2018, 11:50:38 AM
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.


(https://images.newrepublic.com/2a1fc72d33729a106b3e794d3102b0da81dcaea7.jpeg?w=1000&q=65&dpi=3&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&crop=faces&h=667)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 26, 2018, 11:51:19 AM
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.

He must have meant if he had his full Secret Service detail with him.

No, we can actually take this as literal truth.

He believes it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 26, 2018, 12:20:52 PM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You can’t just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. It’s discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? That’s an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right.

Regardless of whether it *should* be a right, it is one. It’s embodied in the Bill Of Rights. Possessing guns is given the same protection as the right to Due Process, free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.  It’s subject to some reasonable regulation, but completely barring adults from a Constitutional right is not really an appropriate regulation.

That’s the key difference between gun ownership and drinking, driving, buying cigarettes, etc.

Now, overall the Supreme Court has been very passive regarding gun regulations (read Clarence Thomas’ dissent this week), but there’s no principled or Constitutional reason for such bans to be valid.

Before I declare with conviction that I favor repeal of the 2nd amendment, I want to be clear that I understand this well enough:  regulations/moderations to Freedom of Speech -- e.g., practical speech restrictions like not yelling "fire" in a theater, or not using hate speech to incite others -- are different than protecting the general welfare by raising the age of owning an assault rifle from 18 to 21.    If I got it correct, then I guess I have crossed the line over the past week from favoring reasonable regulation to the 2nd amendment to favoring repeal.

I actually do believe people should have the privilege of owning guns for recreation and protection, but if framed as a "right", after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018, I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles, any more than it is a right to own a bazookas or hand grenades.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 26, 2018, 12:28:38 PM
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

I’m sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on “assault rifles”? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 26, 2018, 12:38:07 PM
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.

This wreaks of the voice of ignorance and an attack on GreenFaith1819's competence based on nothing you could possibly know.  Please stop.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: wdleehi on February 26, 2018, 12:46:54 PM
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

I’m sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on “assault rifles”? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 26, 2018, 12:56:38 PM
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

I’m sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on “assault rifles”? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.

Right, but they’re a very small part of the problem of gun violence.  FBI statistics suggest there are fewer than 400 murders with rifles of any kind per year. In the wake of the Pulse shooting,  Huffington Post suggested that “assault” rifles make up less than 1% of gun fatalities.

The prior “assault weapon” ban had almost no affect. With at least some political momentum now, why focus it on such a small problem? Are the thousands of kids killed and injured by handguns worth less than the dozens of casualties from school shootings?

Gun control advocates should come up with their own “Contract With America” that is aggressive, but appealing to the majority of the country.

* Comprehensive universal background checks, including all non-family transfers

* National registry of all firearms

* A waiting period for all gun sales

* Limits on magazine size

* No modifications to make a gun fire faster like bump stocks

* Requirements for trigger locks, etc.

* Mandatory safety classes for all new gun purchases

* Huge increases in block grants to the states for increased mental health funding

Keep it simple, and make it clear you support hunters and folks protecting their homes
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 26, 2018, 01:03:47 PM
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

I’m sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on “assault rifles”? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.

Right, but they’re a very small part of the problem of gun violence.  FBI statistics suggest there are fewer than 400 murders with rifles of any kind per year. In the wake of the Pulse shooting,  Huffington Post suggested that “assault” rifles make up less than 1% of gun fatalities.

The prior “assault weapon” ban had almost no affect. With at least some political momentum now, why focus it on such a small problem? Are the thousands of kids killed and injured by handguns worth less than the dozens of casualties from school shootings?
I agree completely and say it every time gun control is brought up. The real plague on this country is handgun deaths. And the NRA knows this which is why they will probably fight like hell and make a spectacle about raising the age limit on buying assault rifles and banning bump stocks, so that the real issue of handguns never gets brought up.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 26, 2018, 01:04:48 PM
I don’t thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. It’s going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. I’ve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  They’re no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but can’t own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You can’t just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. It’s discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? That’s an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right.

Regardless of whether it *should* be a right, it is one. It’s embodied in the Bill Of Rights. Possessing guns is given the same protection as the right to Due Process, free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.  It’s subject to some reasonable regulation, but completely barring adults from a Constitutional right is not really an appropriate regulation.

That’s the key difference between gun ownership and drinking, driving, buying cigarettes, etc.

Now, overall the Supreme Court has been very passive regarding gun regulations (read Clarence Thomas’ dissent this week), but there’s no principled or Constitutional reason for such bans to be valid.

Well, it's not really that black and white.  The right to bear arms is protected and the courts have held that, despite the vagueness (and multiple versions of) the "well regulated militia being necessary" part, that the provision refers to individual rights.

But the SCOTUS has on multiple occasions made it clear that the right does not extend to possession of any arms and that Congress and the States have legitimate authority to regulate that right.   Just as they have authority to place curbs on other rights protected by the Constitution.

The National Fire Arms act of 1934, which imposed numerous restrictions, taxes and regulations on guns (including bans on certain types of guns), was enacted in response to all the gangland killings during prohibition.  It was challenged (based on the 2nd amendment) and supported by the SCOTUS in 1938.

This has established strong precedence that the government _can_ tightly regulate guns in a variety of ways in this country and is the model for prior and existing legislation that has controlled gun ownership at both the Fed and State level.

The current free-for-all, basically un-controlled access to guns that we've had over recent years is not really the product of the 2nd Amendment.  It is the product of the dramatic gutting of prior (Constitutionally allowed) Federal gun control laws.  In particular the 2003 Tiahrt amendment (which prohibited law enforcement from publicly releasing data showing where criminals bought their firearms), the failure of Congress to renew the assault weapons ban when it expired in 2004 and then the 2005 Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which granted gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits.

Those three acts by a GOP Congress under a GOP President are what have enabled the current waive of massive gun availability in this country.  Not the 2nd Amendment.

Those acts are fully subject to repeal and modification, should a future Congress and President decide to do so.

The 1994 ban on assault weapons could be re-instated permanently, should a future Congress and President decide to do so.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 26, 2018, 01:13:42 PM
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

I’m sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on “assault rifles”? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.

Right, but they’re a very small part of the problem of gun violence.  FBI statistics suggest there are fewer than 400 murders with rifles of any kind per year. In the wake of the Pulse shooting,  Huffington Post suggested that “assault” rifles make up less than 1% of gun fatalities.

The prior “assault weapon” ban had almost no affect. With at least some political momentum now, why focus it on such a small problem? Are the thousands of kids killed and injured by handguns worth less than the dozens of casualties from school shootings?

I concur with your basic point here, but you need to extend it by not just focusing on kids.  As I've tried to point out before, the problem isn't just school shootings and it isn't just young killers and young victims.   The vast majority of 'mass shootings' in this country are

a) committed by much older men (average age = ~ 35).
b) committed in settings other than schools.
c) committed with hand-guns, not assault rifles.

I'd also point out that their frequency geographically correlates tightly with the laxness of gun laws.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 26, 2018, 01:29:02 PM
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

I’m sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on “assault rifles”? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.

Because assault rifles are not hunting rifles and there is no rational explanation why anyone would need to own one, other than to go on a shooting rampage at some point.  For example, in Florida,  there are very strict regulations as to what type of fire arm can be used to take game.  One such is as follow:

  Prohibited methods and equipment for taking resident game
Point being if this guy tried this with an actual hunting rifle or a cross bow (both allowed for hunting in Florida), the outcome would have been much different.  I actually don't believe you need any kind of semi-automatic weapon to hunt.  I have never used one.  I got by with a pump action shot gun and a lever action 30-30 back when I was into it.  And to reload, you put the shells in one at a time, no clips.  You don't need any of that to hunt.

I don't think a 100% ban on assault rifles is necessarily needed, just make people get a special permit that includes a reason (maybe you are a security guard at a bank or something like that).
 I don't see how any reasonable person can argue that it is OK or not "fixable" that an 18 year old can just walk in and buy this type of fire arm for no reason, with no training, no nothing.  Just throw your hands up and say nothing we can do.

So many have been so duped by the NRA and the politicians that pander to this base.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: KGs Knee on February 26, 2018, 01:35:57 PM
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

I’m sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on “assault rifles”? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.

Right, but they’re a very small part of the problem of gun violence.  FBI statistics suggest there are fewer than 400 murders with rifles of any kind per year. In the wake of the Pulse shooting,  Huffington Post suggested that “assault” rifles make up less than 1% of gun fatalities.

The prior “assault weapon” ban had almost no affect. With at least some political momentum now, why focus it on such a small problem? Are the thousands of kids killed and injured by handguns worth less than the dozens of casualties from school shootings?

I concur with your basic point here, but you need to extend it by not just focusing on kids.  As I've tried to point out before, the problem isn't just school shootings and it isn't just young killers and young victims.   The vast majority of 'mass shootings' in this country are

a) committed by much older men (average age = ~ 35).
b) committed in settings other than schools.
c) committed with hand-guns, not assault rifles.

I'd also point out that their frequency geographically correlates tightly with the laxness of gun laws.


Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 26, 2018, 02:27:55 PM
Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

Interesting. I thought heroin was a big problem in NH, and I'd think you'd see some spike in violent crime as a result. BTW, was just in Portsmouth. You have crappy comic book shops. Good bakeries.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 26, 2018, 03:28:43 PM
Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

Interesting. I thought heroin was a big problem in NH, and I'd think you'd see some spike in violent crime as a result. BTW, was just in Portsmouth. You have crappy comic book shops. Good bakeries.
If you're going to Portsmouth for comic books, you're doing it wrong :P
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: feckless on February 26, 2018, 03:38:42 PM
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.

And that's why as a brave, patriotic, America loving, young man (like Robert Mueller), Donald Trump volunteered for and served with distinction during the Vietnam war.  And this is how Donald through his service and bravery earned the right to call P O W's cowards.

Oh wait  five deferments, one for bad feet, limited his heroism & patriotism.  Too bad the country could have used him.

Are there any examples of Donald serving or doing anything brave or patriotic for America?

USMC 1971-1973.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 26, 2018, 03:52:11 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 26, 2018, 03:56:40 PM
Are there any examples of Donald serving or doing anything brave or patriotic for America?
Well, he's made many sacrifices. He's worked very very hard, built many structures, and had lots of success.

 ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 26, 2018, 04:03:23 PM
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.

And that's why as a brave, patriotic, America loving, young man (like Robert Mueller), Donald Trump volunteered for and served with distinction during the Vietnam war.  And this is how Donald through his service and bravery earned the right to call P O W's cowards.

Oh wait  five deferments, one for bad feet, limited his heroism & patriotism.  Too bad the country could have used him.

Are there any examples of Donald serving or doing anything brave or patriotic for America?

USMC 1971-1973.

Yeah so this is why Mrs. B. loses her flipping mind to hear that person criticize anyone's service,  courage or commitment. She just gets so p---ed. Me too.  He's pretty quick to it as well. He is flat out bullying that unfortunate deputy. A lot of problems here. 

Interesting statement from Peterson. He claims he was initially called to a report of firecrackers. At a high school, that's a pretty likely, and routine, call for a deputy that likely had settled into a nice routine in that position. Seems he doesn't want to be the scapegoat for the whole thing. They sure wasted no time throwing him under the train.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 26, 2018, 04:04:50 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Fan from VT on February 26, 2018, 04:53:34 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.

So overdoses by opiates are not an opiate issue;
death by alcoholism (liver cancer, liver failure, drunk driving) is not an alcohol issue;
Highway deaths are not a vehicle issue.

Got it.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 26, 2018, 05:01:45 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.

So overdoses by opiates are not an opiate issue;
death by alcoholism (liver cancer, liver failure, drunk driving) is not an alcohol issue;
Highway deaths are not a vehicle issue.

Got it.

And let's add that firearms are the most lethal mode of suicide attempt.

Just one more example of a situation where the presence of a firearm makes a difference. This from someone who has lost a friend who committed suicide via gun, and a cousin who did it by pills.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 26, 2018, 05:07:36 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.

Saying Vermont has a "higher" gun ownership rate is relative.  Vermont is still only in the middle of the pack with gun ownership.  And also has a pretty low population density.

How is suicide with a gun not a gun issue?

The Harvard School of Public Health did a study back in 2008 and found, "a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides."   The American Journal of Public Health concluded a long study in 2013 that found:  "The analysis found that firearm ownership was a significant predictor of male firearm suicide rates, which increased 3.3 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. For women, firearm suicide rates increased 0.5 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. The study also found an association between gun ownership rates and suicides by any means (including non-gun-related acts) among males, but not among females."

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Fan from VT on February 26, 2018, 05:40:40 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.

Saying Vermont has a "higher" gun ownership rate is relative.  Vermont is still only in the middle of the pack with gun ownership.  And also has a pretty low population density.

How is suicide with a gun not a gun issue?

The Harvard School of Public Health did a study back in 2008 and found, "a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides."   The American Journal of Public Health concluded a long study in 2013 that found:  "The analysis found that firearm ownership was a significant predictor of male firearm suicide rates, which increased 3.3 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. For women, firearm suicide rates increased 0.5 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. The study also found an association between gun ownership rates and suicides by any means (including non-gun-related acts) among males, but not among females."

Ssssshhhhhhhh...
Guns are passive objects; a letter opener or shoelace can also kill in the right (wrong) hands, it's all about the makeup of the person with the object.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: td450 on February 26, 2018, 07:05:50 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.

Saying Vermont has a "higher" gun ownership rate is relative.  Vermont is still only in the middle of the pack with gun ownership.  And also has a pretty low population density.

How is suicide with a gun not a gun issue?

The Harvard School of Public Health did a study back in 2008 and found, "a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides."   The American Journal of Public Health concluded a long study in 2013 that found:  "The analysis found that firearm ownership was a significant predictor of male firearm suicide rates, which increased 3.3 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. For women, firearm suicide rates increased 0.5 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. The study also found an association between gun ownership rates and suicides by any means (including non-gun-related acts) among males, but not among females."

Ssssshhhhhhhh...
Guns are passive objects; a letter opener or shoelace can also kill in the right (wrong) hands, it's all about the makeup of the person with the object.

So there are two doors, and an equally violent man is behind each door.

Behind door number one, the man has a shoelace.

Behind door number two, the man has a gun.

Are you saying you really don't think it matters which door you go through?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 26, 2018, 07:38:28 PM
Quote
Behind door number one, the man has a shoelace.

A shoe lace could make a good garotte in the right circumstance and kill you just as dead as a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote

It's just a little more work.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 26, 2018, 07:47:46 PM
Quote
Behind door number one, the man has a shoelace.

A shoe lace could make a good garotte in the right circumstance and kill you just as dead as a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote

It's just a little more work.

Can't tell if you are being serious or not. I mean I get that the point is made tongue in cheek but do you actually mean you think there isn't a real difference between a gun and a shoelace because theoretically both could be used to murder someone?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 26, 2018, 07:49:31 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.

Saying Vermont has a "higher" gun ownership rate is relative.  Vermont is still only in the middle of the pack with gun ownership.  And also has a pretty low population density.

How is suicide with a gun not a gun issue?

The Harvard School of Public Health did a study back in 2008 and found, "a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides."   The American Journal of Public Health concluded a long study in 2013 that found:  "The analysis found that firearm ownership was a significant predictor of male firearm suicide rates, which increased 3.3 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. For women, firearm suicide rates increased 0.5 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. The study also found an association between gun ownership rates and suicides by any means (including non-gun-related acts) among males, but not among females."

Ssssshhhhhhhh...
Guns are passive objects; a letter opener or shoelace can also kill in the right (wrong) hands, it's all about the makeup of the person with the object.

The reason that the solution needs to be multi-pronged is that the issue is complex.  Of course the makeup of the person matters.  A gun is almost always safer in the hands of a non-violent, emotionally stable person.  But create an emotionally destabilizing context (e.g., a perceived threat to life) for an otherwise stable person and perhaps they are not so safe with the gun.   

A shoelace in the hands of an unstable person who is having violent thoughts might be dangerous -- but mostly to self or the person closest to him.   Give that same person an AR-15 with a 30-round clip in the midst of violent-thinking and emotional volatility and you risk 30 deaths.   

It is really not hard to understand that the least risky circumstance is a stable person with a shoelace while the most risky circumstance is a violent person with a gun.   Both the makeup of the person AND access to guns matter. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Fan from VT on February 26, 2018, 08:21:35 PM
Sorry, to clarify, i was being heavily sarcastic.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 26, 2018, 08:22:28 PM

Well, except for NH, which has probably the most lax gun laws in the country, yet hasn't had a mass shooting ever that I can recall, and has very little violent crime at all.

New Hampshire, despite having lax gun control laws, actually has very low gun ownership rates.  Just 14.4%, based on a 2015 survey, which puts it in the bottom 5 or so states for gun ownership.  Even lower than Massachusetts.

This is probably a matter of regional culturalism.  NH is surrounded by states, from the mid-atlantic up through NY & MA that all have some of the tougher gun control laws and up through ME that all have very low gun ownership rates compared to the rest of the nation.
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A04.png)

Clearly people living in the greater NE region just don't own guns at the extreme rates that the middle & southern parts of the country do and NH is part of that same New England culture.

Here is are a couple of maps showing gun death rates vs gun law rating:
(https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A05.png)

There are clearly a few exceptions, but the overall trending seems pretty clear, though gun ownership rates (regardless of local laws) is the stronger correlation.

Yeah, Vermont is probably a better example with fewer gun restrictions, higher gun ownership and still low on gun deaths and violent crime.

Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though.

Saying Vermont has a "higher" gun ownership rate is relative.  Vermont is still only in the middle of the pack with gun ownership.  And also has a pretty low population density.

How is suicide with a gun not a gun issue?

The Harvard School of Public Health did a study back in 2008 and found, "a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides."   The American Journal of Public Health concluded a long study in 2013 that found:  "The analysis found that firearm ownership was a significant predictor of male firearm suicide rates, which increased 3.3 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. For women, firearm suicide rates increased 0.5 per 100,000 for each 10 percent increase in gun ownership. The study also found an association between gun ownership rates and suicides by any means (including non-gun-related acts) among males, but not among females."

Ssssshhhhhhhh...
Guns are passive objects; a letter opener or shoelace can also kill in the right (wrong) hands, it's all about the makeup of the person with the object.

The reason that the solution needs to be multi-pronged is that the issue is complex.  Of course the makeup of the person matters.  A gun is almost always safer in the hands of a non-violent, emotionally stable person.  But create an emotionally destabilizing context (e.g., a perceived threat to life) for an otherwise stable person and perhaps they are not so safe with the gun.   

A shoelace in the hands of an unstable person who is having violent thoughts might be dangerous -- but mostly to self or the person closest to him.   Give that same person an AR-15 with a 30-round clip in the midst of violent-thinking and emotional volatility and you risk 30 deaths.   

It is really not hard to understand that the least risky circumstance is a stable person with a shoelace while the most risky circumstance is a violent person with a gun.   Both the makeup of the person AND access to guns matter.

The tragic mistake everyone seems to be making is the false assumption that emotional stability/mental health doesn't change much. A stressful event can cause folks to crack.  Plenty of workplace shootings, for example, and the so-called crime of passion. A guy I know came home to find a dude boning his wife. Threw him out the 2nd floor window, charged with attempted manslaughter. Pled down, did 6 months but was dishonorably discharged from the Corps due to being in jail. He's screwed.

What I'm saying is you just never know.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 27, 2018, 01:45:24 AM
Sorry, to clarify, i was being heavily sarcastic.

I usually catch sarcasm (I think) and the post didn't sound like you (though sometimes I mess up who's who based on similar sounding names), but I completely took your post literally despite the "shhhh".  My bad -- sorry about that (not sarcasm).
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: FatKidsDad on February 27, 2018, 05:49:47 AM
Sorry, to clarify, i was being heavily sarcastic.

This is where emojis help.

Not being critical - just helpful  ;)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 27, 2018, 07:09:19 AM
Quote
Can't tell if you are being serious or not

Serious,  It is an old method of sentry removal and execution.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 27, 2018, 08:57:02 AM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 27, 2018, 09:24:19 AM
Quote
Can't tell if you are being serious or not

Serious,  It is an old method of sentry removal and execution.

Okay, then I'm wondering what the actual point is. Is this basically, 'There are many lethal options outside of guns, and if someone wants to commit a crime in similar to what happened in Stoneman Douglas, they'll find a way.'
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: indeedproceed on February 27, 2018, 09:33:25 AM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.

Suicide and gun laws are absolutely issues that a inextricably linked. I understand people commit suicide in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying suicide only happens to people who own guns or live in a gun household.

The reason they're linked is because more than with some other popular methods, when a desperate person thinks that suicide is the only option, a gun usually makes sure that it takes.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: kozlodoev on February 27, 2018, 12:08:26 PM
I don't think we've talked nearly enough about that elected official in GA that stated his intent to use his office to retaliate against a private company for the way they choose to do business.

But I do thank him he was so kind as to confirm that refusing to do business with the NRA means you're "attacking conservatives".
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 27, 2018, 01:11:42 PM
Quote
Can't tell if you are being serious or not

Serious,  It is an old method of sentry removal and execution.

Okay, then I'm wondering what the actual point is. Is this basically, 'There are many lethal options outside of guns, and if someone wants to commit a crime in similar to what happened in Stoneman Douglas, they'll find a way.'

Yeah, it is about the same to have some one run into a school with a shoe lace as with an assault rifle.  I wonder if the deputy would have gone after the assailant if he had a shoe lace?

(and yes, I am being sarcastic, perhaps even cynical )
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 27, 2018, 01:22:08 PM
I don't think we've talked nearly enough about that elected official in GA that stated his intent to use his office to retaliate against a private company for the way they choose to do business.

But I do thank him he was so kind as to confirm that refusing to do business with the NRA means you're "attacking conservatives".

Agree, that sounds like textbook influence peddling.  "Give my friends a price break and I will pass a tax break for you".  I would think this guy is in big trouble; like needs to resign trouble.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 27, 2018, 01:55:46 PM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.

Suicide and gun laws are absolutely issues that a inextricably linked. I understand people commit suicide in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying suicide only happens to people who own guns or live in a gun household.

The reason they're linked is because more than with some other popular methods, when a desperate person thinks that suicide is the only option, a gun usually makes sure that it takes.

That's an incredible oversimplified way of looking at it. Set out to solve the suicide problem and gun laws will be way down on the to-do list. But try to solve the gun problem and suicides are lumped in with other types of gun violence.

It's a disservice to at-risk populations to focus on gun laws in regard to suicides.

"Reducing suicide rates in the U. S. is not as simple as instituting more restrictive gun control laws.  Suicide is a complex issue, best addressed by grappling with the difficult problems of social and economic disparities and better access to mental healthcare."

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people. " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide)
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 27, 2018, 02:52:47 PM
I don't think we've talked nearly enough about that elected official in GA that stated his intent to use his office to retaliate against a private company for the way they choose to do business.

But I do thank him he was so kind as to confirm that refusing to do business with the NRA means you're "attacking conservatives".

Agree, that sounds like textbook influence peddling.  "Give my friends a price break and I will pass a tax break for you".  I would think this guy is in big trouble; like needs to resign trouble.

Why should he get in trouble?

He’s considering the views of his constituents in determining whether a huge company deserves a giant tax break.  You might not like it under this circumstance, but what about when politicians advocated ending associations with North Carolina due to their bathroom laws?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: More Banners on February 27, 2018, 02:54:53 PM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.

Suicide and gun laws are absolutely issues that a inextricably linked. I understand people commit suicide in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying suicide only happens to people who own guns or live in a gun household.

The reason they're linked is because more than with some other popular methods, when a desperate person thinks that suicide is the only option, a gun usually makes sure that it takes.

That's an incredible oversimplified way of looking at it. Set out to solve the suicide problem and gun laws will be way down on the to-do list. But try to solve the gun problem and suicides are lumped in with other types of gun violence.

It's a disservice to at-risk populations to focus on gun laws in regard to suicides.

"Reducing suicide rates in the U. S. is not as simple as instituting more restrictive gun control laws.  Suicide is a complex issue, best addressed by grappling with the difficult problems of social and economic disparities and better access to mental healthcare."

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people. " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide)

Could we reframe and focus on gun laws with some possible risk reduction in the area of suicide as one of several expected upsides?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Moranis on February 27, 2018, 02:56:48 PM
I don't think we've talked nearly enough about that elected official in GA that stated his intent to use his office to retaliate against a private company for the way they choose to do business.

But I do thank him he was so kind as to confirm that refusing to do business with the NRA means you're "attacking conservatives".

Agree, that sounds like textbook influence peddling.  "Give my friends a price break and I will pass a tax break for you".  I would think this guy is in big trouble; like needs to resign trouble.

Why should he get in trouble?

He’s considering the views of his constituents in determining whether a huge company deserves a giant tax break.
I don't think he actually did that because there is no way squeezing one of your state's biggest employers makes any real sort of sense for your constituents over something like Delta not giving discounts to members of a private organization (It isn't like Delta said no NRA member can fly, they just stopped giving them a discount).  Imagine what would happen to Atlanta (and Georgia in general), if Delta decides to leave or at least transfer major parts of its headquarters elsewhere.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Roy H. on February 27, 2018, 03:03:28 PM
I don't think we've talked nearly enough about that elected official in GA that stated his intent to use his office to retaliate against a private company for the way they choose to do business.

But I do thank him he was so kind as to confirm that refusing to do business with the NRA means you're "attacking conservatives".

Agree, that sounds like textbook influence peddling.  "Give my friends a price break and I will pass a tax break for you".  I would think this guy is in big trouble; like needs to resign trouble.

Why should he get in trouble?

He’s considering the views of his constituents in determining whether a huge company deserves a giant tax break.
I don't think he actually did that because there is no way squeezing one of your state's biggest employers makes any real sort of sense for your constituents over something like Delta not giving discounts to members of a private organization (It isn't like Delta said no NRA member can fly, they just stopped giving them a discount).  Imagine what would happen to Atlanta (and Georgia in general), if Delta decides to leave or at least transfer major parts of its headquarters elsewhere.

Views of his constituents, not best interests of his constituents.

32% of his constituents own guns. The leading gubernatorial candidates are all calling to kill the tax break proposal now, so I assume it’s politically popular.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Moranis on February 27, 2018, 03:16:38 PM
I don't think we've talked nearly enough about that elected official in GA that stated his intent to use his office to retaliate against a private company for the way they choose to do business.

But I do thank him he was so kind as to confirm that refusing to do business with the NRA means you're "attacking conservatives".

Agree, that sounds like textbook influence peddling.  "Give my friends a price break and I will pass a tax break for you".  I would think this guy is in big trouble; like needs to resign trouble.

Why should he get in trouble?

He’s considering the views of his constituents in determining whether a huge company deserves a giant tax break.
I don't think he actually did that because there is no way squeezing one of your state's biggest employers makes any real sort of sense for your constituents over something like Delta not giving discounts to members of a private organization (It isn't like Delta said no NRA member can fly, they just stopped giving them a discount).  Imagine what would happen to Atlanta (and Georgia in general), if Delta decides to leave or at least transfer major parts of its headquarters elsewhere.

Views of his constituents, not best interests of his constituents.

32% of his constituents own guns. The leading gubernatorial candidates are all calling to kill the tax break proposal now, so I assume it’s politically popular.
frankly, I hope Georgia does it and Delta leaves as a result to some state that will gladly give Delta all the tax breaks it wants. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Eddie20 on February 27, 2018, 03:31:53 PM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.

Suicide and gun laws are absolutely issues that a inextricably linked. I understand people commit suicide in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying suicide only happens to people who own guns or live in a gun household.

The reason they're linked is because more than with some other popular methods, when a desperate person thinks that suicide is the only option, a gun usually makes sure that it takes.

That's an incredible oversimplified way of looking at it. Set out to solve the suicide problem and gun laws will be way down on the to-do list. But try to solve the gun problem and suicides are lumped in with other types of gun violence.

It's a disservice to at-risk populations to focus on gun laws in regard to suicides.

"Reducing suicide rates in the U. S. is not as simple as instituting more restrictive gun control laws.  Suicide is a complex issue, best addressed by grappling with the difficult problems of social and economic disparities and better access to mental healthcare."

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people. " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide)

TP

Suicide via firearm is not a gun issue, it's a mental health one. Do those that believe it is also think that suicide via hanging is a rope issue?
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: gift on February 27, 2018, 03:40:00 PM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.

Suicide and gun laws are absolutely issues that a inextricably linked. I understand people commit suicide in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying suicide only happens to people who own guns or live in a gun household.

The reason they're linked is because more than with some other popular methods, when a desperate person thinks that suicide is the only option, a gun usually makes sure that it takes.

That's an incredible oversimplified way of looking at it. Set out to solve the suicide problem and gun laws will be way down on the to-do list. But try to solve the gun problem and suicides are lumped in with other types of gun violence.

It's a disservice to at-risk populations to focus on gun laws in regard to suicides.

"Reducing suicide rates in the U. S. is not as simple as instituting more restrictive gun control laws.  Suicide is a complex issue, best addressed by grappling with the difficult problems of social and economic disparities and better access to mental healthcare."

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people. " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide)

Could we reframe and focus on gun laws with some possible risk reduction in the area of suicide as one of several expected upsides?

It became a focus of the discussion because I was reminding people to beware the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics because they include suicides in that number. Here's what I said:

"Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though."

The general responses either doubled down on the notion that suicide by gun was actually a gun issue, or were dismissive of the reality that suicide is a more complex issue. So I needed to clear that up.

As for a "possible risk reduction in the area of suicide as one of several expected upsides", I'm not sure I see evidence of that. For instance, that's exactly the opposite of the information I provided, even if it seems counter-intuitive to some.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Vermont Green on February 27, 2018, 04:02:41 PM
I don't think we've talked nearly enough about that elected official in GA that stated his intent to use his office to retaliate against a private company for the way they choose to do business.

But I do thank him he was so kind as to confirm that refusing to do business with the NRA means you're "attacking conservatives".

Agree, that sounds like textbook influence peddling.  "Give my friends a price break and I will pass a tax break for you".  I would think this guy is in big trouble; like needs to resign trouble.

Why should he get in trouble?

He’s considering the views of his constituents in determining whether a huge company deserves a giant tax break.  You might not like it under this circumstance, but what about when politicians advocated ending associations with North Carolina due to their bathroom laws?

It implies that his vote for the tax break in the first place was a quid pro quo for giving money to the NRA (essentially), who then gave money to the Lt. Gov.  So the bottom line is this politician sold his vote on a tax break to Delta via the NRA.  Not hard to follow the money here.  People can interpret this how they want but I see it as an outrageous breach of ethics if not blatant State authoritarianism.

It would be similar (but in reverse) if a State government told a bakery it would rescind their tax break if they sell cup cakes to gay people.  Or if a liberal government rescinded a tax break because a company would not give a discount to the Sierra Club or Green Peace or something.

Not so many years ago, you could be having this conversation but the players could be the Klu Klux Klan or inter-racial marriage instead of NRA and Gays.  The NRA may be as obsolete as the KKK someday, if they keep getting more and more extreme. 

Wayne LaPierre said at CPAC (I think) recently that liberals weren't just coming for your guns, they are coming for you very way of life.  That to me is pretty extreme.  I guess he was talking about their discount on Delta.  Maybe they should join AAA.  They have good discounts too.

Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: mmmmm on February 27, 2018, 04:20:50 PM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.

Suicide and gun laws are absolutely issues that a inextricably linked. I understand people commit suicide in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying suicide only happens to people who own guns or live in a gun household.

The reason they're linked is because more than with some other popular methods, when a desperate person thinks that suicide is the only option, a gun usually makes sure that it takes.

That's an incredible oversimplified way of looking at it. Set out to solve the suicide problem and gun laws will be way down on the to-do list. But try to solve the gun problem and suicides are lumped in with other types of gun violence.

It's a disservice to at-risk populations to focus on gun laws in regard to suicides.

"Reducing suicide rates in the U. S. is not as simple as instituting more restrictive gun control laws.  Suicide is a complex issue, best addressed by grappling with the difficult problems of social and economic disparities and better access to mental healthcare."

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people. " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide)

Yeah, because sure:  Japan is a valid cultural comp for the entirety of the USA. 

That article has several issues with it.  Anecdotal deviations are anecdotal.  No one is suggesting that gun prevalence is the sole correlation with suicide rates.  The point is that the correlation is still strong.

I think the Harvard and APHS studies, which used gun ownership rate differences within the states is a far more valid study.
(https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2012/12/SPR08staterankprevalence.jpg)
(https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2012/12/SPR08stateranksuicide.gif)

Certainly, removing guns from the equation would not eliminate all suicides.  But it would almost certainly reduce them by some amount.    And it is a false dichotomy to suggest that because we might do that, that we would not also want to address other correlated causes associated with suicides.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Moranis on February 27, 2018, 04:34:02 PM
Wow, some of you guys seriously need to check your gun bias. I don't have time to get into it, but I said it was misguided to think suicide is a gun issue. It is misguided. You are doing harm to frame suicide as a gun issue. But I'd encourage you to learn more. I know more about suicide than I do about guns. That's where that statement comes from. Not from trying to win an argument.

Suicide and gun laws are absolutely issues that a inextricably linked. I understand people commit suicide in a multitude of ways. I'm not saying suicide only happens to people who own guns or live in a gun household.

The reason they're linked is because more than with some other popular methods, when a desperate person thinks that suicide is the only option, a gun usually makes sure that it takes.

That's an incredible oversimplified way of looking at it. Set out to solve the suicide problem and gun laws will be way down on the to-do list. But try to solve the gun problem and suicides are lumped in with other types of gun violence.

It's a disservice to at-risk populations to focus on gun laws in regard to suicides.

"Reducing suicide rates in the U. S. is not as simple as instituting more restrictive gun control laws.  Suicide is a complex issue, best addressed by grappling with the difficult problems of social and economic disparities and better access to mental healthcare."

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people. " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide)

Could we reframe and focus on gun laws with some possible risk reduction in the area of suicide as one of several expected upsides?

It became a focus of the discussion because I was reminding people to beware the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics because they include suicides in that number. Here's what I said:

"Also, be careful of the gun deaths per 100,000 statistics as those include all gun deaths, including suicide and often do not report homicide numbers (some states report "n/a"). It's misguided to think that suicide with a gun is a gun issue.

I think it's interesting to look at poverty rates and gun violence though."

The general responses either doubled down on the notion that suicide by gun was actually a gun issue, or were dismissive of the reality that suicide is a more complex issue. So I needed to clear that up.

As for a "possible risk reduction in the area of suicide as one of several expected upsides", I'm not sure I see evidence of that. For instance, that's exactly the opposite of the information I provided, even if it seems counter-intuitive to some.
you would need to see data on attempted suicides and the means they were attempted.  You could then determine what method is the most common attempt and what the success rates were for all methods.  So if suicide by gun is 90% effective, suicide by hanging is 80% effective, and suicide by pill is 50% effective, then eliminating a gun would in fact eliminate some successful suicides.  I imagine you could also find data on the likelihood of a suicide attempt increasing based on the availability of certain things.  For example, does the likelihood of a person attempting suicide increase if there is a gun nearby, or a high bridge, or readily available pills and alcohol, etc. 
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: OHCeltic on February 27, 2018, 05:00:24 PM
Last time I was at the gun range shooting I didn't see a gun standing by its self shooting it self.
Criminals and crazy people are not going to follow the law no matter what. Tighter background checks is part of the answer. Another part and by far the toughest part how to evaluate for mental illness probables.  Pass tighter background checks now then start working on the mental health issue which will take much longer to figure out.  They have to start somewhere.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: OHCeltic on February 27, 2018, 05:01:14 PM
problems
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: libermaniac on February 27, 2018, 05:27:37 PM
Last time I was at the gun range shooting I didn't see a gun standing by its self shooting it self.
Criminals and crazy people are not going to follow the law no matter what. Tighter background checks is part of the answer. Another part and by far the toughest part how to evaluate for mental illness probables.  Pass tighter background checks now then start working on the mental health issue which will take much longer to figure out.  They have to start somewhere.
I agree we need to start somewhere, and there are many issues at play here.

But, to me, the main issue is how much damage someone who is already intent on killing can do.  With easier access to automatic weapons, more people end up dead then in say, a utopian society where there are zero guns.  Why don't we just allow everyday citizens the ability to create their own nuclear weapons?  There are certain types of weapons that have no place outside of war.

You can argue that bad guys will get the guns anyway, but that can be said about any law.  Why is any law in place if criminals will just commit the crimes anyway?  It will be a deterrent ... thereby cutting down on the frequency and severity of these mass murders.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: freshinthehouse on February 27, 2018, 05:42:55 PM
Last time I was at the gun range shooting I didn't see a gun standing by its self shooting it self.
Criminals and crazy people are not going to follow the law no matter what. Tighter background checks is part of the answer. Another part and by far the toughest part how to evaluate for mental illness probables.  Pass tighter background checks now then start working on the mental health issue which will take much longer to figure out.  They have to start somewhere.

You could say the same thing about nuclear weapons.  Or mustard gas canisters.  But sane people realize that our society is better off without its citizens having access to arms like those.  And in the near future, the American people are hopefully going to decide that we are better off not allowing its citizens to go buy a rifle that can rattle off a few dozen rounds within seconds.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 27, 2018, 08:37:32 PM
Using a tax break for a political threat should be wrong no matter what side of the isle your from.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: nickagneta on February 27, 2018, 08:57:34 PM
Using a tax break for a political threat should be wrong no matter what side of the isle your from.
Yeah, the Georgia state government threateninng to take away Delta's fuel tax break unlesss they reinstate the NRA discount is sickening. That's corporate/ government blackmail.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post by: Erik on February 27, 2018, 11:19:31 PM
Using a tax break for a political threat should be wrong no matter what side of the isle your from.
Yeah, the Georgia state government threateninng to take away Delta's fuel tax break unlesss they reinstate the NRA discount is sickening. That's corporate/ government blackmail.

Yep. This is where republicans and conservatives part ways.
Title: Re: Gun Control?
Post