Smart gun laws

[snoscythe]

The fact that the VA Tech shooter did not used an AR-15 is not an argument in my book for not banning assault weapons like the AR-15. And the fact that the Virginia Tech rampage happened years ago and nothing has happened is not because I am only now concerned. I have been concerned for a long time. But.Nothing.Has.Changed.

I'm right on board with changes needing to happen, but an "assault weapons" or AR-15 ban is fools gold. It's the perfectly wrong change to make.

My personal preference would be a mandatory one-year civil service period as a pre-requisite to receiving certain government benefits such as student loans, USDA home loans, FHA home loans, etc, grand-fathering in any person over a certain age (say 25), with a college degree, or currently enrolled in college. Civil service would include a 60-day military style bootcamp that includes firearms and self-defense training and is a good opportunity for general mental wellness evaluations that could be roped into future background check systems. Remainder of service could include Teach For America, religious missions, Habitat for Humanity, you name it--just do something that is not self-centered for 10 months.

We also need to empower counselors, school staff, and local law enforcement to end violence before it happens to catch problems better before they leave high school.

I am pro universal background checks and providing better indemnity protections for individuals who report information that results in a person being placed on a do-not-fly list or failing a firearms purchase background check.

I have a hard time blaming the weapon of choice for Florida when the local law enforcement was called to this kid's home 39 times for "mentally ill person", "domestic disturbance," and abuse, but still he was able to pass a routine background check to get a firearm. He should not have access to a muzzleloader, much less handguns or AR-15s.

An AR-15 ban is just a pinkie in the dike--I doubt 95% of people calling for an "AR-15" or "assault weapons" ban could even define those terms without some help from Google. Even you have claimed in this thread that the Orlando night club shooter used an AR-15. He did not. He used a SIG MPX, which requires an additional conversion system to make into an AR-15, but no one has reported that he did that coversion. Calling for an "AR-15" or "assault weapons" ban without being able to identify what those things are is a facile response to a systemic problem.

You want to slow down school and mass shootings--I get that.

I would prefer to eliminate them by addressing the cultural contributions to the issue--the devaluation of human life, the glorification of violence and gore, and the selfcentric worldview that social media continues to feed. That doesn't happen with gun control, that only happens with addressing hearts and minds.

[Ddawg]

My understanding is that the AR-15-style rifle was used in the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the theater in Aurora, Colo.; Santa Monica and San Bernardino, Calif.; the nightclub in Orlando, Florida and now Parkland. How many massacres does it take to decide we have a problem?

In every single case you listed above, the criminal perpetrator was either mentally ill or a radical Muslim. There is your answer. Focus on depressed mentally ill and radical Muslims.

[jvquarterback]

I have no problem with banning all Auto and semiauto weapons, because there seems to be no legitimate public need for them.

This is pretty ludicrous. Are we going to throw out even the possibility that individual gun ownership deters our own government, let alone foreign governments, from taking more and more of our rights. Forget that no foreign government has seriously considered invading our country since the early 1800s (and the British can hardly be called a foreign country) - which the Soviets and Japanese plainly stated was due to individual gun ownership. Perhaps the reason the involuntary servitude and slavery you argue for in the form of compulsory military service isn't an option is because enforcement of such a tyrannical idea wouldn't go over well with a public that is armed well enough to stop that.

People like to cite the idea that there are more shootings in the US than in Europe or some Asian countries (forget the fact that 100 million people have died in those same countries in part because the people there were forbidden to own guns), but the US is much more like the rest of the Americas than it is like any of those countries. In fact, the countries we are most similar to are Mexico and Brazil (with large indigenous populations and a history of large scale slavery of foreigners). Mexico and Brazil don't allow individual gun ownership, neither do Colombia, Cuba, or Venezuela, yet they have much more violence in those countries than ours, whether it is state sponsored, as in Cuba and Venezuela, or cartel sponsored as in Mexico and Colombia.

And as long as we're blaming inanimate objects for all of our problems, why don't we make government schools illegal - don't you think that would go a lot further than outlawing guns in terms of stopping school shootings? The thing is, guns and schools don't kill people, people do.

This doesn't even get to the idea that any halfway competent person can mill a lower receiver from a chunk of metal. Have you seen the automatic weapons derived from paintball guns used by the gangs in the favelas of Brazil? Banning guns will do nothing but make us more susceptible to criminals on the streets and criminals in government.

[BoiseBYU]

The fact that the VA Tech shooter did not used an AR-15 is not an argument in my book for not banning assault weapons like the AR-15. And the fact that the Virginia Tech rampage happened years ago and nothing has happened is not because I am only now concerned. I have been concerned for a long time. But.Nothing.Has.Changed.

I'm right on board with changes needing to happen, but an "assault weapons" or AR-15 ban is fools gold. It's the perfectly wrong change to make.

My personal preference would be a mandatory one-year civil service period as a pre-requisite to receiving certain government benefits such as student loans, USDA home loans, FHA home loans, etc, grand-fathering in any person over a certain age (say 25), with a college degree, or currently enrolled in college. Civil service would include a 60-day military style bootcamp that includes firearms and self-defense training and is a good opportunity for general mental wellness evaluations that could be roped into future background check systems. Remainder of service could include Teach For America, religious missions, Habitat for Humanity, you name it--just do something that is not self-centered for 10 months.

We also need to empower counselors, school staff, and local law enforcement to end violence before it happens to catch problems better before they leave high school.

I am pro universal background checks and providing better indemnity protections for individuals who report information that results in a person being placed on a do-not-fly list or failing a firearms purchase background check.

I have a hard time blaming the weapon of choice for Florida when the local law enforcement was called to this kid's home 39 times for "mentally ill person", "domestic disturbance," and abuse, but still he was able to pass a routine background check to get a firearm. He should not have access to a muzzleloader, much less handguns or AR-15s.

An AR-15 ban is just a pinkie in the dike--I doubt 95% of people calling for an "AR-15" or "assault weapons" ban could even define those terms without some help from Google. Even you have claimed in this thread that the Orlando night club shooter used an AR-15. He did not. He used a SIG MPX, which requires an additional conversion system to make into an AR-15, but no one has reported that he did that coversion. Calling for an "AR-15" or "assault weapons" ban without being able to identify what those things are is a facile response to a systemic problem.

You want to slow down school and mass shootings--I get that.

I would prefer to eliminate them by addressing the cultural contributions to the issue--the devaluation of human life, the glorification of violence and gore, and the selfcentric worldview that social media continues to feed. That doesn't happen with gun control, that only happens with addressing hearts and minds.

Every one of your ideas strike me as eminently reasonable. That we might diverge on my also supporting an assault like weapon ban as one more piece of the puzzle does not mean your ideas would not go farther and be more effective. For me it is not a my whole way or no way sort of view. If your way were to be adopted and no ban of any sort were part of the solution, I’d still support it. Wholeheartedly. We can’t allow this carnage to continue.

[BoiseBYU]

My understanding is that the AR-15-style rifle was used in the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the theater in Aurora, Colo.; Santa Monica and San Bernardino, Calif.; the nightclub in Orlando, Florida and now Parkland. How many massacres does it take to decide we have a problem?

In every single case you listed above, the criminal perpetrator was either mentally ill or a radical Muslim. There is your answer. Focus on depressed mentally ill and radical Muslims.

And the fact that the mentally ill or demented person had easy access to weapons of much harm.

[Mars]

The fact that the VA Tech shooter did not used an AR-15 is not an argument in my book for not banning assault weapons like the AR-15. And the fact that the Virginia Tech rampage happened years ago and nothing has happened is not because I am only now concerned. I have been concerned for a long time. But.Nothing.Has.Changed.

I'm right on board with changes needing to happen, but an "assault weapons" or AR-15 ban is fools gold. It's the perfectly wrong change to make.

My personal preference would be a mandatory one-year civil service period as a pre-requisite to receiving certain government benefits such as student loans, USDA home loans, FHA home loans, etc, grand-fathering in any person over a certain age (say 25), with a college degree, or currently enrolled in college. Civil service would include a 60-day military style bootcamp that includes firearms and self-defense training and is a good opportunity for general mental wellness evaluations that could be roped into future background check systems. Remainder of service could include Teach For America, religious missions, Habitat for Humanity, you name it--just do something that is not self-centered for 10 months.

We also need to empower counselors, school staff, and local law enforcement to end violence before it happens to catch problems better before they leave high school.

I am pro universal background checks and providing better indemnity protections for individuals who report information that results in a person being placed on a do-not-fly list or failing a firearms purchase background check.

I have a hard time blaming the weapon of choice for Florida when the local law enforcement was called to this kid's home 39 times for "mentally ill person", "domestic disturbance," and abuse, but still he was able to pass a routine background check to get a firearm. He should not have access to a muzzleloader, much less handguns or AR-15s.

An AR-15 ban is just a pinkie in the dike--I doubt 95% of people calling for an "AR-15" or "assault weapons" ban could even define those terms without some help from Google. Even you have claimed in this thread that the Orlando night club shooter used an AR-15. He did not. He used a SIG MPX, which requires an additional conversion system to make into an AR-15, but no one has reported that he did that coversion. Calling for an "AR-15" or "assault weapons" ban without being able to identify what those things are is a facile response to a systemic problem.

You want to slow down school and mass shootings--I get that.

I would prefer to eliminate them by addressing the cultural contributions to the issue--the devaluation of human life, the glorification of violence and gore, and the selfcentric worldview that social media continues to feed. That doesn't happen with gun control, that only happens with addressing hearts and minds.

This is great. Like I said, I'm not a gun guy, so defining "assault weapon" or "semiautomatic" is outside of my wheelhouse.

Who can buy weapons is probably a much bigger problem than what type of weapons. It seems do-not-sell-to lists should be nationalized, and much easier to put a temporary hold on. I like Sno's suggestions. I also like the idea of increased mental health worker presence in schools, as well as concealed carry holders being allowed in schools. Though the problem is bigger than schools, as previously discussed (movie theatres, night clubs, outdoor concerts, etc).

I do think that people on both sides of the topic get overly emotional, and that we need better data and studies to base political decisions on.

[Mars]

Just for a comparison (not saying whether it is better or worse):

In the UK, all semi-auto rifles have been banned since 1987. All pistols have been banned since 1996, with a 5-year jail sentence for violators. You need license to own a firearm or shotgun, and before you can get a license the gov searches your criminal, alcohol, drug, abuse, and mental illness histories. These licenses can later be revoked.

[snoscythe]

Perhaps the reason the involuntary servitude and slavery you argue for in the form of compulsory military service isn't an option is because enforcement of such a tyrannical idea wouldn't go over well with a public that is armed well enough to stop that.

FWIW -- I was the one that brought up a one-year civil service period, not BoiseBYU. It was not, as you characterized it, a "compulsory military service".

What I suggested was a one-year civil service period only for those who want to take advantage of government programs such as USDA-backed home loans, FHA home loans, federally backed student loans, etc. If a person does not want to take part in the civil service, they are not required to--it just limits their access to optional federal programs down the road.

Only 2 of the 12 months would be a military style boot camp, not to train a future military, but to go through the full tear-down of selfishness and the build-up of team values that is at the backbone of bootcamps. With that, there would be firearms and self-defense training. If we are to have an armed populace, I prefer one that is educated in properly handling those tools.

[Ddawg]

Just for a comparison (not saying whether it is better or worse):

In the UK, all semi-auto rifles have been banned since 1987. All pistols have been banned since 1996, with a 5-year jail sentence for violators. You need license to own a firearm or shotgun, and before you can get a license the gov searches your criminal, alcohol, drug, abuse, and mental illness histories. These licenses can later be revoked.

They do not have the Bill of Rights with the 2nd Amendment in the UK. In the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, we have constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Thank goodness we are not like the UK. We fought 2 wars against England to not be ruled by their law.

[jvquarterback]

Perhaps the reason the involuntary servitude and slavery you argue for in the form of compulsory military service isn't an option is because enforcement of such a tyrannical idea wouldn't go over well with a public that is armed well enough to stop that.

FWIW -- I was the one that brought up a one-year civil service period, not BoiseBYU. It was not, as you characterized it, a "compulsory military service".

What I suggested was a one-year civil service period only for those who want to take advantage of government programs such as USDA-backed home loans, FHA home loans, federally backed student loans, etc. If a person does not want to take part in the civil service, they are not required to--it just limits their access to optional federal programs down the road.

Only 2 of the 12 months would be a military style boot camp, not to train a future military, but to go through the full tear-down of selfishness and the build-up of team values that is at the backbone of bootcamps. With that, there would be firearms and self-defense training. If we are to have an armed populace, I prefer one that is educated in properly handling those tools.

Mars was the one who supported compulsory military service (and he's the one I quoted):

And I still think the U.S. should mandate military service for every citizen, but that will never happen.

I'd oppose your proposal as well on multiple levels. We don't need any more military. Our countrymen love war and worship the military enough as it is. I'd be for ending all of the programs you mentioned. None of them do a bit of good and none of them in any way are endorsed by the constitution. If the states want to pay for gun safety courses there isn't anything in the constitution that keeps them from taking more money from us for that purpose. If you want more graft in government by all means expand it beyond the monstrosity it already is. At least my kids will get more out of that than the government propaganda they hear every day in their schooling.

Also the kids in Sunday School yesterday went off on the compulsory "service hours" they are required to complete to graduate high school without my prompting one bit - I even had to rein it in a bit - so you'd have some argument from them too. Compulsory service doesn't teach you anything at all except to hate service.

More important than any of that though - why do gun control advocates always avoid the argument that individual gun ownership helps prevent violence. The violent crime rates in Mexico and throughout Latin America are much higher (with lower gun ownership) than the United States and Canada, yet no one seems willing to address this issue. Why?