Gun Control Debate #3

[kimlynn]

There's no such thing as registration in the United States, that I'm aware of. Maybe there a couple of cities that require registration of handguns? I'm not sure. But there really is no registration of firearms like a lot of people seem to think. When you buy a gun and there's a background check done, that's all it is, a background check. The firearm doesn't go into any kind of registry.

No serial number on the gun traced back to the owner?

 

[bluesneakers]

We've had five school shootings in 45 years. I guess you could rank that by each span of time/population/deaths.

If my ciphering is correct, and it's entirely possible that it's not, this is what I came up with for Kentucky. (It's super easy to find about every other pe capita rate of death though, but I've not found school shootings per state).

(11 deaths total from 1970 - 2018 / avg of 4,000,000 people statewide) * 100,000 = .275

Here is a link that gives a visual of each state. It only goes back to the 90s. I went back to the 70s.

Ballotpedia School Shootings By Region
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_school_shootings,_1990-present#South


Link that compares overall firearm deaths. Kentucky is ranked 13th in overall firearm deaths, 772, with 495 of those being suicides. We are, however, ranked as the 7th lowest state regarding violent crime. Fourth highest rank in poverty 18.5%.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nce-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

Thanks! There are so many factors and moving parts I find it all fascinating.

Sometimes I wish I had one of those brains that can compute everything and visually chart it up so it makes sense, like that guy.. in that show. Which I can't even remember.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I made sure that part was visible to readers. I had to chuckle when reading some earlier posts that seem to claim that gun ownership is unrestricted in the United States.

That sentiment is obviously not true. JMO

We've got lots of firearms that are not registered. They've been passed down from family member to family member, friends of the family have given my husband their husband's firearms b/c they had no children, or b/c their children never showed an intrest in them. I've got a beauty of a little revolver that was my mil's. Lord only knows where she got it from. Probably handed down, hand to hand, to her too. That little woman conceal carried before there was ever a class.

No problem, govt should mandate a registry for inherited guns. Put a timeline on it.

We cannot have guns out on the streets that are not registered. It’s simple gun control first steps. With that though, there needs to be stiffer penalties for crimes committed with illegal & non-registered weapons.

Second steps include enacting strong sentences for repeat offenders arrested while possessing a gun.

Identify and record into a central database those who are mentally ill making threatening statements & exhibit hostile actions. They cannot get guns. Boots on the ground investigation is necessary.

And if one has to go through a well thought out psychological test for licensure, so be it. Make the test be every 5 years as a requirement to have a gun license.

Enact stricter domestic violense laws where someone has guns in the household & is acting violent or irrational—confiscate & suspend their licensure with passing mental health tests before returning guns after a mandated cooling off period.

Increase the minimum age of legal gun licensure & purchase. We see the stats. We know the demographics of who is committing those gun crimes. Sorry, we must realistically focus on preventing the high risk sectors of getting guns in their hands.

By the way, put stricter controls on the brainwashing media, movies, lyrics, video games because they are inundating our youth’s impressionable minds. Truth.

 

[bluedivergirl]

Please don’t take this as anything other than an honest question.

Do you actually believe most of us here at WS are saying to take away ALL guns? If so, I respectfully suggest you read back through the threads when you are in a calm state of mind. I believe you will find most who may have suggested ALL were replying to something that was anger-provoking, perhaps even meant to rile things up here. [not that you are ... I really don’t always understand some of your posts at times, and that is how they may come through. Apology if I misread your intentions]

When you make statements like theins I quoted here, it only increases the likelihood of a retort, possibly with a sarcastic remark such as “take them ALL away”. That just gets us nowhere. Does that make sense to you?

I think, and may be mistaken, the majority here know there is never going to be a ban on all guns, every shape, size, strength or color. But do we really need any that rip apart your entire body so there is no chance of repair and saving your life? Does anyone under 21 need to own or buy a gun or a rifle or any other shooting weapon? Do we really need to own bump stocks? And can we add some way to determine a mental health status (without requiring a doctor’s signed note) that says we are a safe buyer/owner? I don’t know what that could be, however. But those would be my first steps toward improving the statistics on gun deaths. And I am still open to reasonable logic as to why they should not be acceptable steps to take, in every state.

And out of curiosity, if there were no bumpstocks could someone invent their own? I really don’t know, but if it is possible, it will get done by some curious or dangerous person.

thanks, if you are able to give me any considerate feedback.

There are several Europeans who clearly do.

A certain portion of gun ownership is to kill large mammals, who we then eat. There has to be enough power to kill the animal quickly and humanely. I am 61 years old. I have been around hunters for 61 years. I have seen the respect hunters have for the animal that has been sacrificed so that we may eat.

I am sure there are hunters who fit the caricatures, but I have never met them.

Bumpstocks should have been illegal more than a year ago. I have no idea why the Obama administration approved them. Supposedly it was to make hunting more available to the disabled. It makes no sense to me.

I have read anecdotal evidence that they can be manufactured. I don't believe any hunter would want one. My DH preferred a bolt-action for deer hunting. A semi is not accurate enough, let alone a bumpstock.

 

[bobcat]

What I said about the internal damage, I was referring to the description from the doctors who treated the Stoneman victims, and he described these as much more difficult to treat than any other types of gunshots. The link is way back in the thread somewhere. But I think I understand sort of where you are coming from.

Maybe we shouldn't just assume someone’s opinion without asking for clarification? I don’t believe in a ban on all shooting devices. Do you believe a ban on the type of weapon used at the school would also include rifles such as 30-30 or [FONT=&].30/06, etc, that we used for deer hunting, am I correct? I am not asking for those to be taken away. So, if I am not mistaken, you find fault with the terminology used, not necessarily with the type of weapon limitation? I find myself afraid to call any guns/rifles/assault-weapons, etc by any name because someone always gets upset if the wrong term gets used. But by your standards, I think we agree that "assault-rifles’ need a bigger discussion and possible ban. [/FONT]

Is this definition from Wikipedia at least close to yours?
Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.
If it is, should we be discussing changes to all semi-automatic and automatic weapons? Guns that shoot multiple shots on one pull, perhaps? I personally am only familiar with my 30-30 and shotguns, that I no longer have here, so I can't be more specific; hope you understand what I am asking. [please, I am so trying to understand the discussions here and would like to better understand your side, and others who share your views. We may not be as far apart as we think]

I know nothing about bump stocks, either, but I was just curious and figured you could answer. Thanks for that ... it was what I expected to hear, but did not find any info anywhere else.

ETA ... I don’t believe under 21 needs to own a gun to hunt. can;t they use dad’s or an uncles, etc.? I didn’t own the guns I hunted with at the time, but it was legal. I’m not asking for that to change, just the age to purchase.


Appreciate your time and helpful reply! :tyou:

The previous link that talked about internal damage, I believe was referring to the damage caused by the AR-15 versus what a typical handgun wound would look like. The difference is simply because of the higher velocity of the rifle versus the handgun. Any rifle would do the same, if not more damage, than the AR-15, which like I posted previously, is actually a very small caliber.

The problem in defining "assault weapon" is that there are many guns that are semi-automatic with a detachable magazine, but they don't all look the same. Like the pistol grip that's mentioned in the Wikipedia info, that's typical of AR-15's and such, but it doesn't make it any more deadly. A standard wood stocked semi-automatic rifle, that doesn't look anything like your typical assault rifle will shoot just as fast and if it uses detachable magazines, there's often magazines available that might hold 20, 30, 50, or even 100 cartridges, even if the rifle only comes from the factory with a 5 or 10 round magazine.

 

[bluedivergirl]

No other gun can be used for hunting except a rifle? And no I see no need for anything used for hunting as I don't hunt animals.
Of course that has nothing to do with your need or desire to hunt animals. IMO

For large mammals, no. There is not.

You can hunt squirrels and rabbits with a .22 rifle. That is not considered a high-powered rifle. It is a 'varmit rifle'.

You can also hunt birds and small mammals with a shotgun. That is a gun that holds bb's (shot) of varying sizes and power. You want to eat the bird, not blow it to kingdom come.

 

[bobcat]

No serial number on the gun traced back to the owner?

Yes, they do have the ability to use a serial number and go back through the background check paperwork, and find out who originally purchased the gun. But it doesn't tell them who currently owns it. Handguns may be a little different. I think they keep better records of handgun purchases, although that may be more of a state thing or city, I'm not so sure.

 

[rsd1200]

There's no such thing as registration in the United States, that I'm aware of. Maybe there a couple of cities that require registration of handguns? I'm not sure. But there really is no registration of firearms like a lot of people seem to think. When you buy a gun and there's a background check done, that's all it is, a background check. The firearm doesn't go into any kind of registry.

Thanks. I thought the gun shop would have some sort of record of the background check, and sale, but I've actually never asked that question. I learned something new!

 

[bobcat]

Thanks. I thought the gun shop would have some sort of record of the background check, and sale, but I've actually never asked that question. I learned something new!

Yes, there are records but it's not really considered a register of guns. I've heard they have to dig through boxes and boxes of papers to find the old paperwork from the background check on a particular gun.

 

[Gardenista]

I've seen only a few on here say ban all weapons but surely they are allowed an opinion as much as anyone else.
I see no need for a weapon and think the world would be a better place without them,but allow that some think they need a weapon so I accept that.
Maybe you're buying into the NRA and conservative claims that gun reform means grab all guns?

Poll: 82% Of Dems Favor Banning All Semiautomatic Weapons, Evenly Split On Banning All Guns

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03...iautomatic-weapons-evenly-split-banning-guns/

 

[bluesneakers]

Poll: 82% Of Dems Favor Banning All Semiautomatic Weapons, Evenly Split On Banning All Guns

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03...iautomatic-weapons-evenly-split-banning-guns/

Um...

Hot Air:

Senior Editor “Allahpundit” has been blogging for Hot Air since its inception in April 2006. He is cited in Mary Mapes’s book as one of the right-wing bloggers whose “wild and hateful claims” helped destroy CBS’s story about the Bush National Guard memos, which pleases him to no end.

HotAir.com is part of the Townhall Media alongside *************, BearingArms.com, RedState.com, Twitchy.com, Townhall Finance and Human Events.

I give this source a hard pass.

 

[Safeguard]

Well, because I know a lot of people, and I think it's pretty obvious that people who own guns don't want them taken away. And that's really what gun control comes down to, as I said- registration and confiscation. Registration comes first, then the government knows who has guns, and confiscation is then possible. Just from reading the gun control threads on this forum it's apparent that many people would like to see guns gone entirely in the United States. All guns. I don't need a poll to tell me that the Americans who do own guns, are in favor of giving up their guns, the guns that they use for in their daily lives, and for recreation, and for protection. Yes, a huge percentage of people, mostly people who live in the cities, don't want people to have guns. Because THEY don't have them, or want them. So they think nobody else should either.

Well... I've never seen any evidence that anyone, here, or elsewhere, that people want guns "gone entirely". I just see evidence that people are against dead kids... the slaughtering of our young people. Just as those who are against teachers carrying in the schools, are not saying "all teachers are incompetent with guns", but that the potential for unintentional harm is high. It's a worthy concern imo.

Perhaps an armed teacher is better than throwing pencils, books or chairs at an assailant, as is being taught in the ALICE drills, but fear of the possibility of unintentional harm is valid as well. ( The ALICE drills greatly alarm me, as they are taught in my child's school, and involve students throwing classroom resources at the gunman in order to distract, to provide an opportunity to rush at the shooter. I would be lying if I were to say, I prefer that over an armed teacher!).

But we have reached a crisis situation. Compromise does not equal slowly encroaching on constitutional rights until no one has a gun. It just means that those who would use them to cause the death and destruction of our children would be unable to acquire them as easily, if at all.

I don't want my beautiful 13 yr. old daughter, Lily, slaughtered because someone felt their recreational/ self protection needs were being encroached upon. JM( very passionate)O!

 

[Bernina]

I'd actually be fine with that. Purchasing age of a firearm wouldn't really have much affect on legal shooting and hunting. However there would be an issue for those young adults who didn't grow up shooting and hunting with their family, as I'm not sure how they would get a gun if they wanted to take up hunting. In my state, a person cannot buy a firearm for someone else, unless it's a family member. So tell me how that would work?

I don't know........here you just have to write up a "gift" intent. But that would change, I would imagine.

If someone under the legal age is "borrowing" a weapon for hunting or other purposes, the owner is responsible. I wouldn't buy a firearm for a non-family member to begin with. If their parent won't buy them one, I'm certainly not.

Case in point:
I grew up in a family where my father did not allow firearms, heck, we couldn't even have a cap gun. My father's brother went hunting and all 7 of his kids knew how to handle a firearm.
There was a good reason why my father didn't allow firearms........his violent abuse would have surely been met with deadly force. Seriously, the man was a monster. Ie, broken bones. Nuf said.
If someone would have bought me, or any of my siblings a weapon, it would have not ended well.

 

[rsd1200]

Thanks! There are so many factors and moving parts I find it all fascinating.

Sometimes I wish I had one of those brains that can compute everything and visually chart it up so it makes sense, like that guy.. in that show. Which I can't even remember.

I love charts and graphs! I'm not very good at them but I love them! :loveyou:


P., in 1993, was almost text book. I linked his shooting, (which was six years before Columbine), last post, b/c his writing, and his teacher's concern, were similar to the shooter's in Columbine, which hadn't happened yet.

 

[flourish]

I do want to say, that I find it interesting that when Trump called for stronger immigration policy (extreme vetting), to prevent violence, the very same demographic that was against it, are for controlling gun access to prevent violence now... Hmmmm...

Quite the assumptions involved in this post. Many don't believe that the immigration policy's actual purpose is "to prevent violence." It's not a straight comparison. So twisty! I'm not going to get more into it than that, as it's completely off topic.

 

[flourish]

Well... I've never seen any evidence that anyone, here, or elsewhere, that people want guns "gone entirely". I just see evidence that people are against dead kids... the slaughtering of our young people. Just as those who are against teachers carrying in the schools, are not saying "all teachers are incompetent with guns", but that the potential for unintentional harm is high. It's a worthy concern imo.

Perhaps an armed teacher is better than throwing pencils, books or chairs at an assailant, as is being taught in the ALICE drills, but fear of the possibility of unintentional harm is valid as well. ( The ALICE drills greatly alarm me, as they are taught in my child's school, and involve students throwing classroom resources at the gunman in order to distract, to provide an opportunity to rush at the shooter. I would be lying if I were to say, I prefer that over an armed teacher!).

But we have reached a crisis situation. Compromise does not equal slowly encroaching on constitutional rights until no one has a gun. It just means that those who would use them to cause the death and destruction of our children would be unable to acquire them as easily, if at all.

I don't want my beautiful 13 yr. old daughter, Lily, slaughtered because someone felt their recreational/ self protection needs were being encroached upon. JM( very passionate)O!

What does compromise equal?

 

[K_Z]

This is an investigative journalism article that I think is important for anyone interested in school safety and security to read. It contains links to actual policies and official agreements between school systems (Broward) and the police department (Broward).

This approach (no discipline, no police, no record) is proliferating all over the country, as a result of policies pursued during the previous presidential administration, via the Justice Department, and the Department of Education. Schools actually are threatened with loss of funding streams, if they don’t officially adopt policies to stop involving police in crimes that occur on school property, by students. I don’t’ care what your political leanings are, these kind of astoundingly misguided policies make ALL students LESS safe at school. And they ENABLE troubled kids to escalate their violence.

This investigative journalism piece for Real Clear Investigations (a mainstream site that is part of Real Clear Politics, and about a dozen other RC topics) is written by Paul Sperry, who is a regular author for NY Post, IBD, WSJ, Fox, and other conservative, but mainstream publications.

Florida: Behind Cruz's Rampage, Obama's School-Leniency Policy

Despite committing a string of arrestable offenses on campus before the Florida school shooting, Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient.

Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence. The aim was to slow the "school-to-prison pipeline."

“He had a clean record, so alarm bells didn’t go off when they looked him up in the system,” veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello told RCI. “He probably wouldn’t have been able to buy the murder weapon if the school had referred him to law enforcement."

Disclosures about the strategy add a central new element to the Parkland shooting story: It's not just one of official failings at many levels and of America's deep divide over guns, but also one of deliberate federal policy gone awry.

BBM.

https://www.realclearinvestigations...cipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html

Who is the author, Paul Sperry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sperry

Timeline: The Making of School Leniency in Broward

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/03/02/broward_timeline.html

Press Release from the FL Dept of Juvenile Justice:

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/news/pre.../04/29/zero-tolerance-bill-passes-full-senate

Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline:

https://www.browardprevention.org/w...10/Fully-Executed-Collaborative-Agreement.pdf

210 page document on strategies to "eliminate the school to prison pipeline" Broward County:

https://www.browardprevention.org/w...10/Fully-Executed-Collaborative-Agreement.pdf

*If* we can begin to agree that we ALL care deeply about school safety and preventing school shootings, regardless of our political leanings, then PART of our righteous outrage should be channeled at these kind of “soft on discipline” official policies. These policies, and the misguided mindset behind them, ENABLE very troubled kids, of ALL races, to avoid (over and over, in most cases) ANY official responsibility and accountability for their criminal and violent actions at school. That leads to young adults with “no record”, who can then have unfettered access to dangerous weapons.

Raising the age to buy guns, and banning accessories like bump stocks, won’t make a dent in this problem, although these things are largely agreeable to those on both sides of the issue. IMO, they will pass both into laws, and I'm fine with that. But these measures will not save a single life, IMO. But it will make a lot of people and politicians feel like they "did" something, so there's that. It's a strategy of the incremental effort to ever more restrict lawful gun ownership-- much like the far right pushes to enact ever more incremental restrictions on abortion, with the goal of eliminating legal abortion.

So while many advocate for more restrictions and bans, intellectually honest people must ALSO advocate loudly and persistently to abolish these “no discipline, no police, no record” policies immediately. These dangerous policies, and the motivations and mindset that created them, have made schools vastly LESS SAFE from disgruntled and disaffected kids bent on planning and carrying out school shootings.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I agree with everything you wrote, Berlina.

But I would add there needs to be a central reporting agency that denotes those that are mentally ill that make threatening and violent acts so they can never purchase a gun.

Additionally, there needs to be a crack down on known criminals and felons who get caught committing a crime with a gun. Much stiffer penalties for them....no plea bargains or slaps on the wrists. The same goes for those that are caught committing a crime with an illegal weapon too. Stiffer sentences need to be imposed.

I might tweak the “mentally ill” to domestic violence convictions (closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole”), documented history of threats or attempts to harm self or others, violence and threat-related restraining orders. And maybe not *ever* purchase a gun, but recertification, training, licensing, application every two or so years after the initial date.

And I agree with re-upping the enforcement of laws against illegally owning and use of firearms by felons.

Heck YES, ATasteOfHoney, looks like there are a whole lot of people seeking consensus on gun reform!

I urge everyone to further their conversation with lawmakers and public leaders. (If we’re not already!!)

 

[K_Z]

And I'll add that it makes no sense to argue that we need more armed police on our school campuses, but simultaneously have official policies that they can't be involved in investigating, arresting, and juvenile justice.

Every time I read the "no armed teachers; lots more armed police on campus" arguments I'm astonished at the hypocrisy, in light of these "no discipline, no police, no record" policies.

What exactly are the armed police supposed to DO while they are on the school property?? Are they supposed to just stand there, or patrol the halls, UNTIL some killer gets in and starts shooting??

Is that what we REALLY want? Because that is the very definition of a war zone. Do we want that for our kids?

Are they just "rent-a-cops" to man the metal detectors?

Should they have rifles, or only handguns? Helmets? Body armor? Body cameras? What exactly is what we want these increased numbers of police to look like? What do we want them to DO? One in each classroom? One in each hall? One in each administrator's office?

Do we want them in full riot gear patrolling the lunchrooms with rifles? Armored vehicles in the school parking lots?

More "security theater"? Or more ACTUAL police involvement with security and policing?

Those with liberal/ progressive leanings have a love/ hate relationship with police, and even the IDEA of actual policing.

It can't be both ways-- bemoaning the lack of police presence and involvement, and in the same breath disparaging the role, functions, and presence of police. And there can't be official policies that discourage police presence and action, and then criticize lack of involvement.

I can't wrap my head around that level of hypocrisy.

The world has changed. Every day that passes, we make it MORE okay for violent crime with our squishy policies and ivory tower ideologies.

So now we are reaping what has been sown. Soft on violent crime = more violent crime.

Lack of serious legal and social consequences emboldens criminals, whether it's school violence, or community violence.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

No serial number on the gun traced back to the owner?

Apologies is this has already been answered. Your question piqued my curiosity. Guns can be traced be serial number in some instances. There’s a lack of consistency in recording person-to-person sales, etc.

Gun laws by state. (This is a Wikipedia link, so I’m not sure how up-to-date it is.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

So there are federal laws, then state laws. In some instances, like in Florida, with a heavy pro-gun lobby, enforcement of federal requirements is often lax.

Even considering that, for example, the gun shop that sold the semiautomatic rife to the Pulse nightclub shooter worked 100 percent by the book. The shop has a long record of following the law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-trump-wrong-about-pulse-nightclub-shooting/