Gun Control Debate #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
The absolute worst thing that could happen is an unfunded governmental mandate to implement certain security things, like a specific level of metal detector, or a certain number of metal detectors tied to the population of the school.

I support increased security measures in K-12 public schools (not necessarily in charter or private schools), but if they are mandated and unfunded, this would be yet another financial disaster for public education. Already in our state, a change in the formula for funding special education is requiring funds from general education to be re-allocated. This is resulting in proposed teacher lay offs, cuts in programs, cuts in services like custodians, etc. Because paying for special ed is mandated, even though funding it, is not.

We simply can't get to a point where more unfunded mandates are hurriedly passed into laws in political theater.

Re BBM
I agree that schools are having trouble already with funding so I would like to see government help fund any additional security mandate.

That was my biggest beef with the previous health care mandate that everyone was to buy health insurance or get a taxed penalty. I was fine with the mandate if the government threw in money for it. Even if they would have given 50% of the cost of it up to a certain max I would have liked the mandate. But unfunded mandate is what made it so undesirable to me.

For tornado prone areas there was some type of government assistance to buy a storm shelter but it only lasted a certain number of years. I wish they would bring that back as it saved lives too.

This whole topic is about saving lives and with all the government waisted money on things it seems to me that saving lives should be one thing they could prioritize and give a little money towards.
 
Yes, the ongoing costs could certainly be budget-breakers.

And I would be furious if I lived in a district that cuts school programs, where teachers and parents buy supplies out of their own pockets for the classroom....and then a shiny metal detector suddenly shows up.

This does not imply I don't take safety seriously. I do! But I also take education seriously and the quality of life for our children seriously.

Entering a school building day after day, year after year, by going through a metal detector and seeing armed guards.....this is not a way to raise children. I am baffled by it. I understand the comfort of having a secure building, but wish this much emphasis was going into PREVENTING the desire to kill in the first place and PREVENTING the means to kill.

To me that means the priorities should be on early childhood and gun control.

But those priorities take personal commitment in terms of time and money - not just from parents but from everyone deciding these are important - and I don't think we're willing as a culture to put importance on them. Easier to buy stronger windows and a metal detector as fixes to the problem...until the next funeral.

I've gone through a gamut of emotions just on this thread - and right now, I'm at the mad-as-hell stage. Come on, people, we (as a culture) are raising children who want to kill. That's got to be addressed! And they can legally and easily get the guns to kill. That's got to be addressed!

jmopinion

JMO
I have been trying to think of things that can be done FAST and that is why I like the idea of metal detectors as a deterrent.

Some schools may be able to afford it and they dont have to wait on any government legislation. A school could make that change immediately if they want to.

Each school can elect to change their policy just like their dress code policy.

To me it is one small thing that can be done as a deterrent to help prevent kids walking right in the front door with a weapon. It happened again just yesterday for crying out loud. A 7th grader in Ohio walked right in with a weapon and killed himself in the bathroom. No telling what his plans may have been.

I like that idea a lot to help stop such easy access. Its a deterrent and not a catch all fix but it will help. Guaranteed to help. Dont have to wait on Government for anything.

Much more can be done but we need to start doing some things and this is one relatively simple thing that can be done immediately.
 
JMO
I have been trying to think of things that can be done FAST and that is why I like the idea of metal detectors as a deterrent.

Some schools may be able to afford it and they dont have to wait on any government legislation. A school could make that change immediately if they want to.

Each school can elect to change their policy just like their dress code policy.

To me it is one small thing that can be done as a deterrent to help prevent kids walking right in the front door with a weapon. It happened again just yesterday for crying out loud. A 7th grader in Ohio walked right in with a weapon and killed himself in the bathroom. No telling what his plans may have been.

I like that idea a lot to help stop such easy access. Its a deterrent and not a catch all fix but it will help. Guaranteed to help. Dont have to wait on Government for anything.

Much more can be done but we need to start doing some things and this is one relatively simple thing that can be done immediately.

Yes, I agree - it's a quick and easy response.
 
"In the aftermath of the deadly Florida high school shooting on Feb. 14 that left 17 people dead, a man named Aaron shared a very personal letter with Colorado-based television station KUSA, describing how decades ago, he too 'was almost a school shooter' but said he ultimately wasn’t able to be because he 'didn’t have access to guns.'”......

He acknowledges the argument that mental health is the problem, adding that in the past, he was depressed and felt as if there was 'nothing at all in life to look forward to' and said he “literally had nothing to lose.' But the bigger problem for him 'was love.'”

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/i-was-almost-a-school-shooter/
 
Analysis: This is Trump's big chance on changing gun laws -- if he wants to take it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-trump-gun-reform-florida-massacre/index.html

“Trump could march into the Conservative Political Action Conference, a bulwark of support for the Second Amendment, on Friday and explain why change is needed following the latest mass tragedy last week at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.”
 
Sometimes when my kids were being self-centered about something, I would say, "This isn't about you." Sometimes when threads derail on WS, Tricia reminds us "this isn't about you."

I want to say that now to gun owners who resist regulations. This isn't about YOU. It's about preventing violence. At least come to the table ready to talk and listen.

jmo
 
The NRA Says ‘Eddie Eagle,’ Not New Laws, Is the Way to Keep Curious Kids Away from Unsecured Guns

But research has found there’s a big difference between a child being able to talk about safety measures and actually being able to perform them.

American children younger than 15 are nine times more likely to die by gun accident than children in other developed countries.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/nra-eddie-eagle-child-gun-safety-program-ineffective/



Court Sides With Doctors and Families Over Gun Lobby

Imagine if doctors were not allowed to tell patients smoking may cause cancer, or kids should wear bicycle helmets, or medications should be stored out of reach of children. Imagine if a doctor could lose her medical license for doing her job.

That was the law in Florida for guns, until February 16, 2017. In 2011 the corporate gun lobby convinced the state legislature to enact a law restricting doctors from talking about guns with their patients. The law authorized the Board of Medicine to revoke doctors' medical licenses and subject them to fines up to $10,000 per offense if they talked to patients about the risks posed by guns. But these important discussions are recommended medical protocol -- and save lives. That's why the American Association of Pediatrics and other medical associations suggest all pediatricians ask whether there are guns in the home, and recommend their safe storage.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/court-sides-with-doctors-and-families-over-gun-lobby

---

IMO we have as many mixed messages as we have guns in this country. None more confusing than for children because guns are plastic toys, too. Educating parents on gun safety, "ASK" if there is an unlocked, loaded gun in the house before Little David's play date, education through PTA, and the legal precedent case for a doctor's ability to recommend gun safety are all measures to help parents save children's lives.
 
Florida lawmakers refuse to debate assault rifles -- but say 🤬🤬🤬🤬 is dangerous


https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/health/florida-legislature-🤬🤬🤬🤬-dangerous-but-not-weapons/index.html

What they will do is carry on about bump stocks which were used once out of 472 mass shootings in history.
 
The National Rifle Association has agreed to participate in a CNN town hall on Wednesday with students and parents affected by the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Fla.

The gun advocacy group will be represented by national spokeswoman Dana Loesch, according to CNN.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/37...nvitation-to-participate-in-town-hall-on-guns


---

Tonight at 9 pm.

Oh, please let them remember these students and families have been through a tragedy and are still raw. I have seen horrible and insensitive comments directed at the students and families in the past couple of days, and I hope this is not an opportunity for more of that.

Fingers crossed for reasonable and thoughtful discussion.

jmo
 
Presidential memos are a total crock.


It says nothing does nothing it is a 5 paragraph invitation for someone (no one knows who! )

I have posted it here for your humor and enjoyment.

The last line ([FONT=&amp]You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.) means are you ready for it it is given a number ! [/FONT]

It is, shall we say, "hot air" moo

Here it is guys :

It is is 249 words!

Presidential Memorandum on the Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices (The typo is our govt not mine!)

[FONT=&amp]Issued on: February 20, 2018


[/FONT]
:
After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, (this is not after - it is over a quarter of a year later) I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.( does this include washer machines!)

Although the Obama Administration (this is a memo - not a history lesson- who cares?)repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns. (They are not fully automatic machine guns . Fully automatic machine guns are already fully automatic machine guns. These things turn machine guns that are not automatic into automatic that is their purpose!)

.
Accordingly, following established legal protocols, ( vague as heck translation : bureaucratic cra@)

the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of “machine gun” under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. SO if I am following this major step correctly --we are going to commence a discussion of what a machine gun is ? Who is confused here?)

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017.(Noone was back in Washington until Jan 7!)

Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments. Translation : 100,000 random people posted something! Cool!

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources (well that is specific now everyone knows who is gonna do what and when- in any context if you are told to dedicate resources do you have a clue what that means? What is "all" ? What determines "available" - the tooth fairy? )

to complete the review of the comments received, ( so someone, somewhere. in some agency, in some role , at some time, in the future ,is going to read the 100.000 posts from random people)

and, as expeditiously (is that 2 months or two decades!) as possible, to propose for notice and comment

Who exactly is doing all this noticing and commenting ?,

How long does this noticing and commenting go on for?

Who decides the deadline for either noticing or commenting or just noticing or just commenting?

After all this noticing and commenting by god knows who ,then what happens?

What are the qualifiers for these folks noticing and commenting>?

What makes their taking note and then commenting valuable?


How would a noticer and commenter even know where or when to notice and comment ?

Where would they send comments based on all this noticing going on ?

If one wanted to to notice and comment and put it in a bottle in the ocean would that count as it relates to this noticing and commenting?

Is there a procedure for a noticer and commenter who decides after some more noticing that he /she wants to change their comments ?

Can anyone notice as long as they want?

Where does one who wants to do some noticing and then some commenting do this commenting?

Can someone who wants to partake in noticing but not commenting is that ok ?

Where does one go to find the things they may want to notice and possibly, after some noticing ,do some commenting?


.....!
a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.

Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes.

Doing this the right way (wtf does that mean?) will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress. You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.



Do you guys realize if your 10 year old were given an assignment your kid will fail -- it says nothing!!

Fox will herald the signing of this Memo and it will be used to create all these headlines about action being taken!


 
For those who want stricter gun regulations, what exactly is it that you want? We already have background checks as a requirement for all firearm purchases. This supposedly prevents those people with a criminal record from obtaining firearms. However, it did not stop Nikolas Cruz, as he had no criminal record. So we somehow need a new law that prevents the purchase of a gun by a person who is thought to be LIKELY to commit a crime in the future? Or a minimum age of 21 to purchase semi-automatic rifles?

Most people who are proponents of stricter gun control say they don’t want to take away the guns people use for hunting. Well, how are those guns specifically defined? Lots of people use semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for hunting. So how do you propose to restrict the rights of people to own the firearms that are sometimes used to commit murder without also restricting the rights of people to use those same guns for hunting?
 
<snipped>
I want to say that now to gun owners who resist regulations. This isn't about YOU. It's about preventing violence. At least come to the table ready to talk and listen.
jmo

The thing is, it is about us, at least partially. We’re the ones being asked to make sacrifices that people who don’t own guns, and have no use for them, are not. It’s good to have discussions, and talking to gun owners is a good start: The mere fact that a person has gone through the process of buying a gun, and knows what was involved, usually puts their general knowledge on the subject above your average non-gun owner. But the most important thing is that the discussion not turn into a lecture, which all too often is what happens (the one on this thread has been good and respectful, for the most part).

I’m one of those people most of you would characterize as “unyielding” on the subject. It’s not because I don’t care about people dying. My heart sinks whenever I hear about one of these events, but I usually get about 30 seconds to feel sad before some demagoguing politician blasts out a tweet basically accusing people like me of being complicit in it.

I’ve been informally following and learning about gun policy for the better part of twenty years. I’m pretty well acquainted with the realities of guns in America. For the record, there are about 300 million civilian owned firearms in the US, with millions more added every year, and these weapons have a “shelf life” of decades or longer.

So when well-meaning people make gun control proposals, and talk about things like eliminating private sales, banning magazines over a certain size, or increasing background check times, I immediately know that these modest changes are going to do next to nothing to stop mass shootings (or gun homicide in general, the vast majority of which are not mass shootings).

OK, maybe they would help from a statistical perspective. Maybe we’ll move from 12 horrific shootings a year with 10 fatalities each (making up those numbers) to 10 with 8 (I strongly doubt any of the changes proposed would be even that effective). But they won’t stop, just due to the sheer number of guns out there. And what will happen then? Will everyone who pushed for those changes in the law, and their elected officials, be content to stop there? When the next “Breaking News” headline hits, with pictures of screaming, sobbing children and family members all over the internet, will what’s already passed seem like enough? I’m guessing no- once they’ve enacted the currently politically-palatable ideas, they’ll move the window and ask for more.

The truth is, without drastic, wholesale bans on most types of firearms, with mandatory confiscation combined with draconian enforcement, you’re never going to see an end to these types of shootings (and you’d probably still occasionally see them even then, since the existing supply is so vast). I personally don’t want that, and don’t believe the Constitution allows that.

I know most people here will say “No, that’s a scare tactic, that’s not where it’s going” (and to those who admitted otherwise, thanks for your honesty), I know that it’s not the stated goal at this point. But thirty years down the line, with gun ownership under ever increasing restrictions, with the total number of guns owners decreasing to a smaller and smaller percentage, can you vouch for that generation of elected officials, and the voters who are putting them in office?

By all means, let’s increase what goes into these background checks; I’m always totally astounded when the histories of these shooters come out, and the utter craziness of their behaviors is revealed, that none of it ever made it into an official record. Let’s look at school security and see what can be done there, because if you’re not controlling access, you’re not keeping guns out. But restricting what responsible, adult American citizens can buy? I say no to that, and I don’t want to take a single step down that road, because I’m pretty sure I know where it ends.
 
Its a circular dialog -- will go nowhere -- we are dealing with a govt that is grossly understaffed.

Agency heads are leaving in hoards -- it would take massive manpower to update the background stuff that is clealy not helping

we are talking about having resources to basically connect more and different systems

we are talking about training staff in a multide of agencies regarding new reporting mandates

I remember the HIppa rollout that took 18 months!

The background stuff has nothing to do with gun shows private sellers or black market sales

there are so many out there in this country it is really just an exercise

the kids are awesome -- the really good thing is a whole generation might be activated around Nov .

there was another massive demo swing the other day i dont recall what city

that is the real direction that hopefully this will result in Nov then things can be addresses hopefully in a meaningful manner

but hey it activates this generation to actually clear the swamp and that is a good thing !
 
For those who want stricter gun regulations, what exactly is it that you want? We already have background checks as a requirement for all firearm purchases. This supposedly prevents those people with a criminal record from obtaining firearms. However, it did not stop Nikolas Cruz, as he had no criminal record. So we somehow need a new law that prevents the purchase of a gun by a person who is thought to be LIKELY to commit a crime in the future? Or a minimum age of 21 to purchase semi-automatic rifles?

Most people who are proponents of stricter gun control say they don&#8217;t want take away the guns people use for hunting. Well, how are those guns specifically defined? Lots of people use semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for hunting. So how do you propose to restrict the rights of people to own the firearms that are sometimes used to commit murder without also restricting the rights of people to use those same guns for hunting?

Sorry but the US has NO gun control at all. You can walk into a gunshow, have no checks and walk out with a high powered, high calibre killing machine. Gun control is not gun prohibition. It's not about taking all your guns away, it's about CONTROL! How do teenagers end up with semi-automatic/assault rifles. Because mommy and daddy in suburbia believe that they NEED this type of weapon, and obviously do not take the necessary safe-guards to keep these killing machines out of the hands of their children.

No one has yet given a good argument as to why someone needs a semi-automatic/assault rifle in suburban America. The "bad guys have big weapons so we need one" is ridiculous. The (predominantly young) men who walk into public and start shooting up the scene are not defending anyone from a "bad guy with a big gun". They are utilising mommy and daddy's paranoia that Rambo is about to go rogue and burst into their home annihilating everyone inside, to create carnage and terror. When was the last time a burglar entered a home with an assault rifle and massacred a family? Compare that to the last time a teenager shot up a school, a family member took their gun and murdered their family, someone got road rage and shot a stranger, a toddler got hold of mommy's gun and shot themselves/another child.

Also where does it end? Bad guys have high powered/high calibre guns. So does that mean that you need an RPG? A load of C4? A cruise missile? A nuclear bomb? That might sound like hyperbole, but that is basically the argument. The bad guys have an assault weapon (not likely) so we need a higher powered weapon to defend against them.

Control is the word here. STRICT control. Most people in the US don't need a semi-automatic rifle, but hey the 2nd amendment says you can bear arms, so buy the biggest, most powerful one you can and then leave it around so that a teenager can walk into a school and shoot their classmates and teachers.
 
My questions to responsible gun owners. Would there be an issue with reforming the following:
Background check wait times. What is reasonable?
Close loopholes on gun show purchases?
Registry for semiauto large magazine guns?
Raise the age to 21?

SBM

I don't know anyone that would have an issue with longer wait times. The Armalite Rifle is no different than a regular rifle but seems to have popularity as the gun to hate. It looks lethal but is not more so than any other rifle that holds a 30 round clip. So, longer wait times for AR-15s makes no sense unless there are also longer wait lines for all rifles and there is the stickiest of wickets in the debate. WHICH guns would have a longer wait time? All? The ones that look scariest?

I don't know what loopholes people are talking about with gun shows but honestly, I think gun shows should not be allowed. My city is one of the world's most dangerous places with per capita murders hitting the highest levels. Yet, we have gun shows. It makes me sick.

All gun purchases are registered. Unless it is done through private seller. Do we outlaw private sales? Gifts? Or do we require registration of all sales, even private ones, and donations?

Raise the age? 18 year olds are adults and are entitled to their 2d amendment rights. Can we make adults wait until they are 21 to allow them to exercise any of their rights?

Security and common sense rule the day on this issue and we have to start implementing same, even if it hurts some people's feelings when we decide that we will not mainstream the mentally challenged, dangerous and adults into our classrooms. And that is just a start.
 
Students in Florida (Broward County?) walking out of classes in protests. I don't have a WS'able link - I saw it on my Twitter as a retweet. If someone has a video link, please share.
 
Sometimes when my kids were being self-centered about something, I would say, "This isn't about you." Sometimes when threads derail on WS, Tricia reminds us "this isn't about you."

I want to say that now to gun owners who resist regulations. This isn't about YOU. It's about preventing violence. At least come to the table ready to talk and listen.

jmo

To be blunt and graphic,kids are getting their heads blown off and some people still won't give an inch.
They can have all the guns in the world but since it's their right to have an AR-15 by god they will have it.
I wonder if the rights of others to have safety will ever matter.
 
Students in Florida (Broward County?) walking out of classes in protests. I don't have a WS'able link - I saw it on my Twitter as a retweet. If someone has a video link, please share.

Replying to myself. Looks like student protest at the Florida state capital. (I've never had trouble finding a MSM link before. I'm multi-tasking today and I'm not good at it.)

Anyway, protests today in Florida. First of many, probably. One will not be enough.

jmo
 
Blef,

Thanks for answering my questions. From reading between the lines your solution seems to be ban and confiscate all semi-automatic firearms in the United States, correct? At least we know where you stand. This is why there will be no changes to our current gun laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
805
Total visitors
951

Forum statistics

Threads
625,993
Messages
18,518,257
Members
240,922
Latest member
brolucas
Back
Top