|
|
Post by BOGC on May 19, 2018 12:17:42 GMT -5
It is a real shame that so many schools still allow unfettered access, this time to a man carrying a shotgun. Where my grand kids attend public school, and their mom teaches, there is only one door that can be opened (without a key) from the outside. That opens onto the lobby where you only have access to an office. In there you can sign in (please note the sign informing everyone that the staff may be armed), then the attendant will open the door leading into the school. How easy would it be for congress (under any president and with any mix of parties) to tie federal school funds to a requirement that the school first controls access in the same manner? Too many fools want to make it about the tool, but unless you control access, everything else is moot. Wow the inventor of the silver bullet has solved the gun violence problem by concluding that all schools be forced to adopt restricted entrances to reduce and control access to the school. Doesn't matter if it might conflict with safety issues concerning mass evacuation in the event of fire or earthquake so long as it achieves restriction of loose cannons with weapons. Since when is an assault rifle with a 30 round clip deemed to be a "tool". The sole purpose of such an instrument is defined by the name "assault". The real fools are those that think ownership of any type of weapon is justifiable under the 2nd amendment and that there should be zero limits or restrictions around the magnitude or destructive capability. I knew of a Major that was a gun enthusiast that capped his collection off with the acquisition of a 105mm howitzer (minus firing pin and breach block). However it is possible for a good armourer to fabricate the missing components. Of course munitions might be more difficult to acquire but not impossible.
It is not likely that 2nd amendment will be repealed any time soon but certainly some restrictions could be made around not only "who" may purchase a weapon but also what weapons may be purchased. An easy first step to putting some caveats around the 2nd amendment would be to have a national referendum about whether caveats are needed to enhance the provisions of the 2nd amendment to improve the safety of the general public.
School kids today are far from stupid as what they are required to learn and know in order to survive in today's environment far surpasses what was required to many of us here on this forum. If today's people in power do not take some very serious steps to reduce gun violence then they will find that today's youth will show them how a restricted door accessing the seats of power actually works. I believe that this November will be a true wake-up call for members of the House that seek re-election. The definition of an "assault rifle" is so bogus as to have very little to do with firepower, it's absurd. Under the long-ago-expired federal ban, removing the flash suppressor (more like a flash redirector, since it just changes the angle that the flash makes you visible from) made it no longer an assault rifle. Some of us recall how to tear those down, clean them, and put them back together rather quickly, and whatever their quirks, are used to those; for something where the ammo is smaller and less expensive than a .308 (but some varieties are still suitable for anything up to deer), they're actually a practical enough choice. Just incidentally, the Texas shooter used a shotgun and a .38 revolver. Shotguns are the last sort of firearm that most people think of for such things, but propaganda about which guns are scary didn't stop the shooter from using whatever was available. People are the problem. London's murder rate is competing with New York city, and it's almost all knives. The cops there are shaking people down for so much as screwdrivers, unless of course they look foreign, in which case it might not be politically correct to search them. People are fixable...but it takes a generation. I don't see a rush of people getting rid of their cable subscriptions, their video game consoles, looking for constructive alternatives (join something harmless - even something that will teach SAFE and RESPONSIBLE firearms use; volunteer for something, hang out with people instead of online, think about whether maybe that sermon you heard had something in it that you could do better), etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on May 19, 2018 13:04:50 GMT -5
People are the problem. ... People are fixable...but it takes a generation. I agree that people are the problem. But I don't see how that problem can be fixed - in one generation or two or three. If we can't fix people (which is the preferred solution), then the only other action available is to better regulate guns. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 19, 2018 13:39:08 GMT -5
The shooter used a 38 revolver and a shotgun the two most common guns, shot guns are legal even in countries with strict gun laws, lets see what happens when they add revolver and shotguns to their list of guns they want to ban. Notice since he didn't use the AR-15 or any semi auto weapon it is not even the main news on most stations now. The liberal don't know what to say. I have said it many time a shot gun can be more deadly than an AR-15 because with 00 buck shot each pull of the trigger you are send 9 30cal. balls down range. Probably would have been more killed but he wasn't targeting everyone like the other shooters were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2018 14:48:14 GMT -5
People are the problem. ... People are fixable...but it takes a generation. I agree that people are the problem. But I don't see how that problem can be fixed - in one generation or two or three. If we can't fix people (which is the preferred solution), then the only other action available is to better regulate guns. Please tell us of the gun regulations you envision which would prevent the shooting in Texas, while still allowing for private ownership? |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on May 19, 2018 15:59:27 GMT -5
Please tell us of the gun regulations you envision which would prevent the shooting in Texas, while still allowing for private ownership? The Texas shooter had access to his father's guns. Guns need to be registered to the owners, and they need to be kept locked up in a secure place accessible only to the owner. That would prevent guns from being stolen or being found by kids (which often happens, with tragic results). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2018 17:49:21 GMT -5
Please tell us of the gun regulations you envision which would prevent the shooting in Texas, while still allowing for private ownership? The Texas shooter had access to his father's guns. Guns need to be registered to the owners, and they need to be kept locked up in a secure place accessible only to the owner. That would prevent guns from being stolen or being found by kids (which often happens, with tragic results). That could have been done by the father without any such regulations, and any such regulations can be easily ignored, unless of course you propose no-notice home inspections of "registered" gun owners to ensure they are complying? Do you really think such regulations offer more protection for school kids, than simply locking the doors, and controlling entry to the school? |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on May 19, 2018 18:54:08 GMT -5
That could have been done by the father without any such regulations He could have done it but he didn't. People often don't do the right thing until they are "encouraged" to do so. any such regulations can be easily ignored, unless of course you propose no-notice home inspections of "registered" gun owners to ensure they are complying? I propose enforcing it like enforcing seat belt use. Nobody would enter a home specifically to check gun compliance but if a federal, state or local official enters a home for any other reason, gun compliance could be checked very easily. (Mandatory gun registration would flag that home as one containing firearms.) Do you really think such regulations offer more protection for school kids, than simply locking the doors, and controlling entry to the school? These two measures are not mutually exclusive. They should do BOTH. But a large high school will have a large campus with multiple buildings, auditoriums, sports fields, swimming pools, parking areas, etc. Controlling access may be difficult or expensive. But I have no objection if it can be done cost effectively. |
|
gordy
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by gordy on May 19, 2018 23:36:32 GMT -5
I believe reasonable debate over the subject "Gun Control" is a good and healthy thing. When the discussion moves from debate of the subject to non productive trouncing of the person expressing opinion then things become pointless as they the "person - criticizer" brings nothing new to the discussion and only show that any logic expressed in the discussion is way over their head.
Hunting is an almost eon old way of life and survival. Through the ages we progressed to early firearms but by the time repeating rifles appeared, cattle, sheep, pigs and other domestic meat animals were abundant to the point that hunting dear, buffalo and bear for sustenance was not really necessary. Hunting slowly evolved in to sport and trophy hunting. My point is that an extremely poor sportsman or trophy hunter needs to have a weapon, holding 30 rounds and can fire auto and semi automatically. Those that feel the need for such are people you do not want to be with in a hunting area. You can bet they often partake in sound shots.
There is no need for ownership of an auto or semi automatic weapon to be owned for self defence nor for any other non criminal activity...... except by the military and perhaps SWAT teams that encounter those that have acquired illegal firearms and pose a threat to the public.
In the case of todays school shooting incident conducted by a 17 year old school student he used a shotgun and a 38 revolver owned by his dad. Dad should have had his weapons locked away, with separation between, weapon, firing pin (if possible) and ammunition. However, I imagine that the argument against lock and key with separation of weapon and munitions would be the elimination of the need to be able to protect oneself.......even if you are at work and your weapons are secured at home.
I propose all retired grandparents report to their grandchildren's schools fully armed and taking station at all accesses complete with roving patrols monitoring perimeter fences. If nothing else, it would be cheap and the NRA would support more people carrying weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on May 20, 2018 1:59:16 GMT -5
People are the problem. ... People are fixable...but it takes a generation. I agree that people are the problem. But I don't see how that problem can be fixed - in one generation or two or three. If we can't fix people (which is the preferred solution), then the only other action available is to better regulate guns. ...and knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, cast-iron frying pans and heavy rolling pins, etc. Not to mention requiring a license to learn advanced martial arts, because hands and feet and the brain behind them is all it really takes to kill, provided someone is determined rather than impatient. Nonsense. Short of grenades and up (inherently nonselective, and there's certainly little enough use for grenades for non-battlefield self-defense, hunting, sports...even for taking out a tyrant's jackbooted thugs, a Molotov cocktail is much more available), tools are just not the issue AT ALL. There have been mass killings with knives in places where guns were unavailable. Or with homemade chemical weapons. If someone is determined, even if they're not willing to spend six months or more building skills, but just do the research, they'll probably succeed. People _can_ be fixed, mostly. Commit the crazies, after due process but NOT unlimited appeals. Execute all convicted 1st degree murderers, publicly, by hanging, with a botched knot so they do the dangle and drop dance for longer. Discipline kids, and take away those whose parents won't (and sterilize the parents, if it comes to that). Stop using schools as babysitters, send the troublemakers to a boot camp so horrible (see the movie "Holes") they'll be grateful to have the privilege of going to a normal school afterward. Boycott violent entertainment (except for those public executions...if I get the popcorn franchise, I'll accept a kickback from the drink franchise for adding extra salt). In other words, get radically tough with those who engage in bad behavior, preferably in ways that don't require putting tens of millions more in jail where they'd learn to behave even worse (although there may be a surplus of Soylent Green). |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on May 20, 2018 9:13:46 GMT -5
Your curse word replacer needs to be smarter. In fact, since that's also a word for a rooster, for pulling back the hammer on a firearm, for a hat or eyebrow at an angle, and appears as part of 162 (at least) other words or names, that's probably not the best choice for a word to replace at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 9:56:22 GMT -5
Your curse word replacer needs to be smarter. In fact, since that's also a word for a rooster, for pulling back the hammer on a firearm, for a hat or eyebrow at an angle, and appears as part of 162 (at least) other words or names, that's probably not the best choice for a word to replace at all. Okay, Richard, I fixed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on May 20, 2018 10:03:31 GMT -5
...and knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, cast-iron frying pans and heavy rolling pins, etc. Every other first world country has lower gun death rates (homicide, suicide, accidental) and more stringent gun regulations. And they have achieved it without the necessity to regulate kitchen knives or baseball bats. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on May 20, 2018 10:36:42 GMT -5
Your curse word replacer needs to be smarter. In fact, since that's also a word for a rooster, for pulling back the hammer on a firearm, for a hat or eyebrow at an angle, and appears as part of 162 (at least) other words or names, that's probably not the best choice for a word to replace at all. Okay, Richard, I fixed it. Better, thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on May 20, 2018 10:44:48 GMT -5
...and knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, cast-iron frying pans and heavy rolling pins, etc. Every other first world country has lower gun death rates (homicide, suicide, accidental) and more stringent gun regulations. And they have achieved it without the necessity to regulate kitchen knives or baseball bats. Remove the violence-ridden inner cities from the stats, and the comparison is much closer. Not to mention that 2/3 are suicides...many or most of which would happen some other way (pills are less messy, just about as easy to obtain, etc). The differences are probably not due to firearms at all; if we had none, we'd be killing each other nearly as much with knives or whatever. The advantage of a firearm is that it's the "great equalizer" - a grandma, so long as her eyes are good and hands steady, is the equal of a couple of thugs, if she's packing. And a ragtag band of patriots (so long as they've put some work into it as well) is the equal of a potential tyrant, which is the real point. Yes, I said equal, even without cannon, tanks, or black helicopters, because the numbers favor the citizenry. edit: The comparison to Switzerland (with universal military service for males, and firearms ownership - or keeping their duty weapon at home - quite common) is often made and argued about. The suicide rate in Switzerland is very nearly as high as ours (12.5 per 100K vs 13 per 100K), but the method is instructive (following from the wikipedia page for suicide in Switzerland): A statistic of suicide methods compiled for the period of 2001–2012 found that the preferred suicide method for men was by shooting (29.7%), followed by hanging (28.7%), poison (16.5%), jumping from a height (9.8%) and by train (7.9%). The statistics for women are markedly different, the most preferred method being poison (38.8%), and higher rates for jumping from a height (16.0%) and suicide by train (9.5%), but lower rates for hanging (18.5%) and shooting (3.0%). Sure looks to me like availability determined method, but unavailability of any particular method was probably NOT a deterrent. Stir together Switzerland, something of an old West attitude, and gang-ridden inner cities, and that's really close to us, which means that controls on firearms (rather than shooters) are silly in the sense of not being likely to make that much difference, esp. given that confiscation is grossly unfeasible, and there are probably more firearms than people in the US. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 12:23:20 GMT -5
Is the debate really necessary? Those of you who do not believe in personal self-defense, can take your chances by not being armed against the violent among us and so may meet your demise in a defenseless way. But, if you believe in self-defense, and, the defense of others, for the purpose of postponing the inevitable, then pack your heat and harden the soft targets in your communities. You are, in essence, at war.  |
|
