Gun Control Debate #1

[EuTuCroquet?]

100 percent all of this, Betty. :goodpost:

As a first step, I favor restoring the Federal Assault Weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 and allowed to expire in 2004. It should have been renewed, as the majority of Americans wanted. It worked very well. Some of the weapon models and types banned would need to be updated, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

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



Probably need to include bump stocks now

Renewing the ban on assault weapons will have a significant impact on the number of mass killings, including a reduction in the number of victims in each. Despite many new precautionary measures, the number of people killed in mass shootings is increasing due to the fatal efficiency of these weapons in killing the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time.

 

[Betty P]

100 percent all of this, Betty. :goodpost:

And remember, this law was challenged several times in court. It prevailed. It's Constitutional to the max. I remember calling my legislators to get them to sign on back then. We didn't have fax or email easily available back in 93-94.

 

[kaen]

I have worked in schools with metal detectors. They work. It is important to note that in order for the metal detectors to be effective you need safety officers to do the scans of the materials brought with students and scanning the students. One school I was in had over 4000 students. In order to scan the students in less than 20 minutes, there had be 6 machines with 2 officers on each machine and an extra lane for hand searches of children in wheelchairs or with metal walking aids. There was also an officer who escorted visitors toward signing in and watched the controlled seating area until visitors were met by school officials. Our building has no less than 20 officers each day at the building. After the morning scans, the detector area was broken down to two lanes that were supervised all day.

Our officers routine canvased the building to ensure that doors were locked and secure. There was a whole separate area for video surveillance of the outside perimeter.

Our school was known to have at least three gangs represented in the student body. Prior to the installation of the detectors, school disruptions were an almost daily occurrence. We also had a cell phone ban which meant students had to submit their cellphones into an envelope and secured bin each morning and pick up their phones at the end of the day-- before they went through the detectors.

 

[Inthedetails]

As a first step, I favor restoring the Federal Assault Weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 and allowed to expire in 2004. It should have been renewed, as the majority of Americans wanted. It worked very well. Some of the weapon models and types banned would need to be updated, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

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



Probably need to include bump stocks now

Renewing the ban on assault weapons will have a significant impact on the number of mass killings, including a reduction in the number of victims in each. Despite many new precautionary measures, the number of people killed in mass shootings is increasing due to the fatal efficiency of these weapons in killing the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time.

I'm new to the thread so maybe this has been discussed already, but are there stats on the recent mass killings in schools - have those guns been legally purchased?

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking the guns used by students in school shootings were usually legally purchased (though might have belonged to a parent, not the student shooter). Is that right?

And what are the stats on recent school shootings on the type of gun used and how many people killed by type of gun - anyone know that info? Gruesome database to put together, but I'd like to see what the numbers say.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

What about all the adults who survived this massacre and how they feel about the issue? Many of them are calling for safety regulations, too.

I stand by my post.

I respect these kids and feel for them in what has to be a very emotional time.

That doesn't mean they are in a postilion to dictate gun control policy.

 

[yurena]

As a first step, I favor restoring the Federal Assault Weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 and allowed to expire in 2004. It should have been renewed, as the majority of Americans wanted. It worked very well. Some of the weapon models and types banned would need to be updated, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

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



Probably need to include bump stocks now

Renewing the ban on assault weapons will have a significant impact on the number of mass killings, including a reduction in the number of victims in each. Despite many new precautionary measures, the number of people killed in mass shootings is increasing due to the fatal efficiency of these weapons in killing the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time.

Perfect post Betty P. and already experts are saying that should be the case.

It is Time to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, gun violence experts say
The Washington Post -published two days ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.1d8273b4f055

 

[Betty P]

I'm new to the thread so maybe this has been discussed already, but are there stats on the recent mass killings in schools - have those guns been legally purchased?

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking the guns used by students in school shootings were usually legally purchased (though might have belonged to a parent, not the student shooter). Is that right?

And what are the stats on recent school shootings on the type of gun used and how many people killed by type of gun - anyone know that info? Gruesome database to put together, but I'd like to see what the numbers say.

Yes, they were legally purchased (this one and the weapons used in the Mandalay Bay massacre), but only because the Federal Assault Weapons ban was allowed to expire. If that law were still in effect, the killers would not have been able to purchase the weapons they used.

ETA: It's late, so I'm not going to look up the stats now on the other mass killings. We can do that tomorrow. But IIRC, nearly all of the mass shootings done in the last few years were done with weapons purchased after the FWB expired in 2004. Semi-automatic weapons are the gun of choice for mass murderers. I read somewhere the other day that they've been used in about 27% of mass shooting incidents since the 90's, but I think if you measure it according to the severity of the event - the number of people killed per massacre - assault weapons kill many more people.

 

[TooCurious]

What is the difference between these 2 guns? Which one is an assault rifle which one is a hunting rifle?

 

[PetDetective]

My prediction is that the mental health debate regarding gun access will go **exactly nowhere.**

Why?

Because, inevitably, the argument boils down to civil and legal and Constitutional liberties.

Where's the line? Suicidality? Homicidal tendencies? Who would be legally responsible to report? To confiscate?

Many first responders and law enforcement officers who have to witness these slaughters over and over and over again will have PTSD. Some will be suicidal. Some might be hospitalized. Many will seek counseling.

Do we take away their firearms? No, of course not.

Many of the parents and community members and students will be angry, traumatized, suicidal. They'll say things like, "I wanna kill that guy."

Do they forfeit their second amendment rights, too? No.

Now, let's realistically broaden the view. Does anyone who has ever been diagnosed suicidal, is being treated for it and owns a firearm forfeit their second amendment rights to protect themselves and their families? No.

Do our country's servicemen and servicewomen who return home with PTSD, who complete suicide at a higher rate than the national average ... do they forfeit their second amendment rights? No. Of course not.

Heck, well over half of American citizens are diagnosed with clinical depression, and/or PTSD, and/or severe mental illness, and/or suicidality at some point in their lives. With proper treatment (and very often without it) probably 99 percent don't kill anyone, except maybe themselves — most often with a firearm.

FIRST: Even IF we could work a loophole into HIPPA, logically, it would essentially require what NOBODY wants, which is the confiscation of weapons.

SECOND: In order for us to keep guns out of the hands of potentially violent, severely mentally ill people, there will be more regulations. Yet too many believe more laws will change nothing.

So let's step away from that argument. It's not going to happen.

It's a diversion. And it restigmatizes mental illness. It's a regressive, damaging, fruitless discussion.

WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS.

We want to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of baddies. We all agree on that. Here are a few ideas:

• Closing the loopholes we have.

• Consistently enforcing the laws we have.

• Longer waiting periods

• Banning bump stocks

• More stringent background checks

• Requiring our guns to be insured

• Changing laws that remove all legal liability from gun owners who do not safely store their weapons.

• Up to half a million guns are stolen every year in this country — from legal, otherwise law-abiding citizens. That fuels the black market. (It helps baddies get guns.)

• Requiring gun owners to report when their guns are stolen.

• Periodic relicensing and retraining

NONE, BUT NONE, REQUIRE WHOLESALE CONFISCATION, BANNING OF GUNS OR INHIBIT THE RIGHT WE ALL HAVE AS LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS TO DEFEND OUR LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.

Yeah?

Actions speak louder than words, and we have to do SOMETHING.

Because mass shootings aren’t inevitable, CHANGE is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TooCurious]

Food for thought, those 3 brave teachers that gave their lives to protect students, what would have happened if one of them were armed?

 

[CoolJ]

They have to follow the Constitution

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Are all gun owners in America members of this “well regulated militia”?

What is the name of this “well regulated militia”?

When are they finally going to wage war against your tyrannical government?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Thank you, Detective!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kaen]

That doesn't mean they are in a postilion to dictate gun control policy.

RSBM. Just as you can have a position on gun control policy, they can as well. Their experience and emotional response does not mean they should be dismissed or their opinion (and, ultimately, vote-- as many are 18 or almost 18) belittled or discounted either. They know they can't dictate but they can certainly lead and use their experience to push for change.

 

[TooCurious]

View attachment 130381

What is the difference between these 2 guns? Which one is an assault rifle which one is a hunting rifle?

Yeah, kinda didn't figure you guys screaming for gun control could identify an assault rifle from a hunting rifle. You want to ban things that you don't even know about

 

[Inthedetails]

Yes, they were legally purchased (this one and the weapons used in the Mandalay Bay massacre), but only because the Federal Assault Weapons ban was allowed to expire. If that law were still in effect, the killers would not have been able to purchase the weapons they used.

Yes.

Also, opponents often claim that if there is a ban, criminals will still get their hands on guns. But I don't think student school shooters will. In Florida, the 19yo who shot up the high school went to the gun shop and legally bought his weapon that allowed him to kill 17 young people in a matter of minutes. The school shooters tend to be white males with access to guns - not street-smart kids with access to the blackmarket.

I'm not against gun ownership. I grew up in a family that hunted (though I myself did not). We had guns the house when I was a kid - never bothered me at all and still doesn't. I know they can be used responsibly. And, I also know why the 2nd amendment was written and have no desire to undermine it.

The banning of the high-powered assault weapons seems totally reasonable to me. What is the opposition? Banning some weapons does not mean the right to bear arms is infringed upon.

At the moment, my concern is about school shootings. I know gun violence is bigger than that, but I'm shook up after this week's Florida school shooting and that's where my focus is - on school shootings.

jmo

 

[Betty P]

Are all gun owners in America members of this “well regulated militia”?

What is the name of this “well regulated militia”?

When are they finally going to wage war against your tyrannical government?

Agree, what's the name of the militia? In my state, there used to be a state militia, but it was incorporated into the state National Guard.

If there's another legal militia, who is in charge of it? Where do they train? What is their function? Who oversees them and ensures they're legit? They're supposed to be a "well regulated" militia, so which government agency is regulating them? Who are they allowed to attack, under which circumstances and under whose orders?

So many questions about that elusive well regulated militia.

 

[RANCH]

IIRC, Australia was successful with a strong gun buy back program. Pay people to turn in their guns. Give them a tax break, etc.

I favor returning to our old laws regulating the amount of ammunition people are allowed to purchase. Also prohibit large ammo clips - IIRC the old regulations limited them to 10 or fewer bullets/shells whatever. I'm also so old that I remember when there was a nationwide ban on armor piercing bullets - possession, sale, manufacture, importation.

Another great idea is to require gun owners to license their weapons and purchase insurance, just as you would car insurance.

Lots of good ideas out there, most of which were in place and worked well years ago.

First off Australia doesn't have the Second Amendment. If their "buy back" confiscation program was so successful why did they have to do it twice?

Would Americans give up their guns voluntarily with a "buy back". I doubt it would be very successful. The Second Amendment would get in the way of any mandatory buy back and would have to be repealed.

I've never heard of a law that limit's how much ammo a person can buy but there have been large capacity magazine bans. Most of those bans limit magazines to 10 rounds. I think that with a bit of practice a person can get just as many rounds on target with a 10 round magazine vs a larger one.

Armor piercing ammo is a complicated subject. I'm not aware of it being a problem. Regular rifle ammo will go thru most vests without being anything special.

Registration works great for confiscation. How does insurance stop someone from killing someone with a gun?

 

[RANCH]

What about all the adults who survived this massacre and how they feel about the issue? Many of them are calling for safety regulations, too.

Everyone can voice their opinion.

 

[Inthedetails]

Yeah, kinda didn't figure you guys screaming for gun control could identify an assault rifle from a hunting rifle. You want to ban things that you don't even know about

Got me. I couldn't tell the difference.

I wouldn't know meth if I saw it either, or heroin - but I think they are dangerous and should be eradicated.

 

[CoolJ]

In this political environment I don't see a consensus on even the most obvious things. Way too partisan.

Our system is the best in the world. People need to stop automatically voting for incumbents and try to educate themselves on who and what they vote for.

Stop with using your emotions to decide how to vote and instead use reasoning.

Reasoning vs. Emotions. So lemme guess. Voting with emotions is liberal and reasoning is conservative?

The options are endless. It’s gotta be hard to vote in America. So many choices.

But you are right RANCH those high school kids probably won’t be voting anytime soon. Kids these days are much too savvy for that. They see the ridiculousness of a two party system.

JMO with a little sarcasm added to make up for the absurdity of it all.