Smart gun laws

BoiseBYU wrote:
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.

BoiseBYU wrote:

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.

Mars wrote:

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.

snoscythe wrote:

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.

Ddawg wrote:

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.

snoscythe wrote:

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.

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.

jvquarterback wrote:
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 wrote:

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.

snoscythe wrote:

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):

Mars wrote:

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?

snoscythe wrote:

- 1966 University of Texas (17 dead) where hunting rifle was used.

An interesting thing about the Texas shooting was that had one of the other people there that day who had his rifle in his truck, had he not gone and gotten it and held the shooter at bay, more would have died. Many times, it takes a gun to stop a gun. We can add that to the SLC shooting that was stopped by an off duty cop who just happened to have his gun on him in a "gun free" zone.



How many more Utahans would have died that day had he not had his gun and been able to pin the guy down until help arrived?

Mars wrote:

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.

There is a legitimate public need for them. The grazing standoff as well as all the government corruption that we are just finding out about are the perfect examples. We the people are in charge of this nation. We send representatives to make laws and decisions on our behalf. When those people or in this case unelected bureaucrats usurp power and have the means to "wage war" on the citizenry, then it is in the interest of the country and every citizen that they be able to protect themselves and put down this sort of insurrection. If any guns should be confiscated it should be those currently held by most of the federal agencies. The FBI was established only for the purpose of investigating crimes and criminals and then letting local law enforcement execute those laws. And why does the DOE need their own SWAT style police force? They don't helicopter them in to school shootings. No they come for ordinary citizens.



https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/beware-the-us-education-department-swat-team

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.



The Constitution is much like the Bible- Good, but fallible. It allowed slavery, people. It's not 100% gospel. That being said, again, limiting is not the same as abolishing.



There are many steps that are not the same as each other. Illegal to buy, illegal to own, and government confiscation are all different. Confiscation will never work in America.



And for the record, trading government service for government services may be a better idea than mandating service. Kinda like Starship Troopers.

Mars wrote:

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.



The Constitution is much like the Bible- Good, but fallible. It allowed slavery, people. It's not 100% gospel. That being said, again, limiting is not the same as abolishing.



There are many steps that are not the same as each other. Illegal to buy, illegal to own, and government confiscation are all different. Confiscation will never work in America.



And for the record, trading government service for government services may be a better idea than mandating service. Kinda like Starship Troopers.

You don’t believe the people can stand up to a corrupt government agency? It’s been done in the past and is in fact the legacy of this country. A bunch of farmers and simpletons defeated the greatest army to that date. Courage and resolve can defeat greed and power ambitious drones.

jvquarterback wrote:
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?

We get it. You're the guy whose favorite word is "no".



Given the current state of affairs, what practical solution do you propose?

Mars wrote:

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

You obviously never saw the movie "avatar"?

;)

BroncoBot wrote:

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

You obviously never saw the movie "avatar"?

;)

LOL! Good one. But they were really fast arrows!

BroncoBot wrote:

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

You obviously never saw the movie "avatar"?

;)

I never said we should ban dinosaurs.

I'm surprised no one had any thoughts on my two posts on the topic. You guys hurt my feelings! It's like I don't even matter here anymore. :sulk: :sulk: :sulk:



So here were my two posts:

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.

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.

Thoughts?

I did read your entries Spiff, I just didn't comment on them. So...I like your first 2 paragraphs. Blanket laws haven't worked.



Law enforcement has very much dropped the ball. For one organization, the FBI improvement is needed for sure.



There is a problem with hiring more teachers. Last year there was word they couldn't find enough teachers. Also hiring more will be very expensive and the tax payers are overburdened now.