Smart gun laws

[SpiffCoug]

We need individualized solutions not blanket restrictions on everyone.

One proposal I heard was a "gun violence restraining order" that could be requested by family (or people living with them or treating them) and quickly granted by a judge. This could prevent them from purchasing a gun and/or if the authorities are notified they have a weapon it can be confiscated. They could be set to expire after a period of time unless requested.

Most of the recent shooters were known to be "that guy" that everyone is afraid of. Then when they just "snap" no one is surprised. That needs to change. We need mechanisms to get these people help. They need coping skills. They need treatment. And honestly, if they won't seek or accept it, then they are removed from society. If they want to keep their freedom, they need to be contributing members of society that know how to live peacefully with others.

It's time for us to recognize and ACT on the warning signs and red flags that everyone just ignores.

While I do think mental health will go further to helping reduce mass shootings than gun laws, I would be willing to seek some form of compromise. A requirement to take and pass some sort of gun safety course would probably be ok. I don't like a license because that's basically a registry so the government knows who has what weaponry, but I would be willing to accept some form of licensing.

In the end, whatever gun laws are passed, they're only as good as those enforcing them. And many of the recent shootings have seen the ball dropped hugely by those law enforcement entities.

Thoughts?

[snoscythe]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004.

The ban was in place at the time of

- 1998 Westside Middle School (5 dead) where they used handguns and three hunting rifles
- 1998 Thurston High School (4 dead) where he used a 10/22 and two handguns
- 2000 Columbine (12 dead) where they used handguns, shotguns, and a Hi-point carbine.

The ban did not stop the shootings as each of the weapons used was not subject to the ban.

An assault weapon ban also would not have stopped, just as a short list:

- 1764 Enoch Brown school (10 dead) where tomahawks were used.
- 1966 University of Texas (17 dead) where hunting rifle was used.
- 2005 Red Lake High School (10 dead) where he used handguns and a shotgun.
- 2006 West Nickel Mines Amish School (6 dead) where he used a handgun.
- 2007 Virginia Tech massacre (33 dead) where he used two handguns.
- 2008 Northern Illinois University (6 dead) where he used three handguns and a shotgun.
- 2012 Oikos University shooting (7 dead) where he used a handgun.
- 2014 Marysvill Pilchuk High School (5 dead) where he used a handgun.
- 2015 Umpqua Community College (10 dead) where he used two handguns.

In fact, I can only find three school shootings where "assault rifles" were used:

- 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School (28 deaths)
- 2017 Rancho Tehama Reserve (6 dead)
- 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High (17 dead)

So, what exactly are we thinking an "assault weapon" ban will do? The concept of a school shooting as we know it was conceived during the ban using weapons that were not subject to it. Most shooters do not use "assault weapons", and in fact 2 of the top 3 deadliest (and 6 of the 8 deadliest) shootings did not involve assault weapons.

What concerns me is the acceleration in the occurrence of these shootings--the Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and Denver theater shooters all expressed some sentiment of wanted to set a high score in their shooting. The most recent shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas posted online that he wanted to be a "professional school shooter."

It is my belief that, beginning with Columbine, the way the media reacts to these horrific stories creates our future shooters by thrusting these troubled young men into the spotlight and giving them fame and a platform to air their troubles. My question is how do we dial the attention back?

[nuk13]

There has been some very good points here. I don't see where Ddawg was suggesting we do nothing. Looking at the gun being the problem, as Snoscythe and Ddawg adeptly point out, will not solve the problem. A gun is a tube with a charge and a projectile in it. The Chinese have taught us that anything can be used as a weapon. I know people who need no weapon at all to take someone out. Happily they are of impeccable character. Media isn't helping. Neither is the violent games that are readily available. To be frank about it, like it or not, it isn't going to stop no matter what kind of gun bans or other laws are passed. Only the the Messiah coming will end it. Until then I believe more attention needs to be payed to the problems of these people rather than on objects.

[Ddawg]

The ultimate goal of the knee jerk liberal MSM is not really to stop future mass shootings. Their cries to ban "assault rifles" (remember, they are just semi-auto rifles) tug at our heart strings and superficially seem to be a quick band-aid remedy to the school violence problem. Bear in mind, these knee jerk emotional pleas come from the left. Ultimately, they want to confiscate all weapons eliminate the 2nd Amendment. That is a fact.

You do not protect school children by taking away a constitutional right away from millions of law abiding citizens (no one really knows how many gun owners there are in the U.S., as many guns are unregistered Some estimates say up to 42% of Americans own guns. 42% of 320 million folks is a lot. Higher? Lower? No one knows). The wisdom of the Founding Fathers ensured the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for a reason. The liberal left wants to strip that right away.

Let's look at Switzerland. There has never been a school shooting in Switzerland. Yet Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership ratios in the world. Only Yemen and the U.S. have higher gun ownership ratios than Switzerland. Yet Switzerland has never had a school shooting, and the U.S. has had 6 in 2018 (that 6 in 45 days). Switzerland has a different culture than the U.S. Culture is very important. Ours is deteriorating and school shootings are on the rise. Coincidence?

The 2 most important items that can reimplemented to stop school shootings are going to cost a lost of money and effort. Both are important.

1. Invest lots of money into mental health. Have a psychologist on each campus that is accessible to students that want help. And, these psychologists also call in students interview those that they receive word about because of red flag signals. If necessary, intervention teams are alerted. All Teachers need to be educated and trained in how to spot potential troubled students and possible attackers. Teachers would then report concerns to the school psychologists.

2. Schools are a soft and easy target. Schools need to be hardened. This is done by ending the traditional open campuses. Ingress and egress are severely limited and campus access only through control points. How many control points depends on the school population. There must be armed guards on campus and and they man the control points and supervise the screening and searching of students entering school. Sorry, schools need to be given the lawful right to screen, search, and confiscate weapons and drugs without the students consent.

It will be expensive. It will work. The kids are worth it.

[SpiffCoug]

Here's also another practical step. Double or triple the number of teachers. This will greatly reduce the number of students for whom teachers are responsible. The students will greatly benefit from the smaller class sizes. They'll have a better chance of making friends. And students who struggle will benefit also from the closer mentorship and relationship with an adult who cares for them.

[BoiseBYU]

I think the suggestions about mental health focus and giving much greater attention to school security are good ideas. And looking at quick gun prohibition or gun removal hearings are worthy of attention. I don’t think these ideas are mutually exclusive. I think they all need to be explored. I also don’t think that banning semi assault weapons is THE solution. I do think it is part of a better way forward. In one day I’ve seen multiple ideas worthy of consideration. I have been given many ideas to ponder. I am without hope that our Congress or my state legislature will do anything though.

[Mars]

I don't know the answer, but there are lots of parts at play. I think discussing this subject is good, and contacting your local politicians is even better.

I have no problem with banning all Auto and semiauto weapons, because there seems to be no legitimate public need for them. But that may be the smallest thing at play here.

The American news is the worst media in the world, in my opinion. They glorify violence and crime nightly, and even more so in these cases. I have no idea how to stop that. If it bleeds, it leads in the U.S. That seems to be a major difference between us and Canada, where many people still don't feel the need to lock their front doors at night.

Families have broken down. Again, hard to legislate. Maybe getting out of foreign wars and not imprisoning non-violent drug users would help there be more fathers in homes. Our jails are overpopulated. Improving the economy might be the best answer, as low economic background is the biggest factor in criminality, which helps contribute to broken families.

The best way I see to improve the economy is to put increased funding into education. The two are closely tied together. Of course, that would require cuts elsewhere (military spending and prisons are what came to mind first for me, right or wrong, but everything in the gov can always use a trim).

Mental health is another large factor, and applies to any discussion on violence, jails, or criminality heavily. People need to be able to be prescribed and given the necessary meds. Dawg's suggestion #1 is a smaller and easier piece of that, and makes a lot of sense to me. Much easier to implement that idea than to create and pay for a common healthcare system.

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

[Mars]

P.S. A friend of ours was the young women's teacher for 2 of the LDS girls that were shot in Florida. One was killed, one is still in the hospital with massive injuries. That's why I brought the topic up.

If we could lower school shootings by even 1% with some simple changes (affecting less than 1% of gun owners), I don't see why we wouldn't. Limits, registries, waiting periods, whatever. Some ideas may stink, but others must have some merit. I listen to the teenage survivors in Florida, and I feel that they have the right to be heard, and to feel that politicians are listening.

[hawkwing]

I will say that the idea that many people in Canada do not lock their doors at night is untrue. I served my mission in Canada and crime while maybe less than the United States is still a serious issue and no one in the areas I served in would ever risk not locking their doors. Far more people in Utah don't lock their doors than people in Canada in my experience.

[Ddawg]

If we could lower school shootings by even 1% with some simple changes (affecting less than 1% of gun owners), I don't see why we wouldn't. Limits, registries, waiting periods, whatever.

Are you taking about outlawing AR-15's? Again, your are talking in generic circles with no specifics. Get specific. Outlawing AR-15's would have NO effect. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Look at Chicago, you cannot own an AR-15 in Chicago, yet it's a bloody slaughterhouse.
Chicago 2017 there were:
625 shot and killed.
2,936 shot and wounded.
3,561 total shot.

How are all these shootings happening in Chicago without AR-15's? Instead of knee-jerk feel good reactions, we have to implement real changes. It's going to be expensive and require focused effort, will genuinely protect people, and keeps our kids safe.