Time for State Governments to take the lead on School Shootings

Stop moving the goal post. You specifically stated, in a condescending manner I might add:

No, you can't posses a high explosive ordinance under the pretense to arm your militia.

I already explained to you that its very difficult to get such a weapon due to a myriad of barriers. Strictly illegal? No. Plausible, yes.

You're not going to get state-of-the-art weapons because the designers/manufactures will only sell to the military.

The people who do have these legal explosive ordinances (or WMDs as you prefer to call them) typically create their own explosives.

 

I'm sorry bud, but if an AG has to sign off on you owning a missile, it's effectively illegal for the vast majority of citizens, even those who can afford it.

You are seriously grasping at straws at this point.

 

Where did anyone say an AG had to sign off besides Sweet Lou 4 2? If you bothered to read the thread, you would have noted Redfish81 corrected him and stated the ATF has to approve. And before you go off on an ATF rant, all restricted weapons have to be signed off by the ATF, which includes fully automatic weapons. Its not that difficult to get approval to own a fully automatic weapon. Most people can get legally own one. Its just most people really do not care to own one at the expense of the requirements to get approval, namely giving up the right of search and seizure.

The point being is explosives are not illegal for the sake of their destructive power or because a citizen is now allowed to have them. They are heavily restrictive as they should be.

Perhaps you should duck out of your echo chamber and stop blindly following random posts on the internet, especially from a poster who is constantly incorrect in their assumptions.

 

Hmm??? What are you trying to debate now?

What is your premise?

And I love the assumption of being in a bubble l. I'll wager my left nut that you've never been deeply imbeded in a ideological bubble that is the complete opposite of your own for four years like I have.

 

I've made essentially the same post (look the posts up, if you like) after several of these mass shootings, so many now in this country, 11 times more than any developed country in the world, that it is difficult to place a date on when they've occured, even if you can recall where they happened, and it is not an emotional reaction. I would counter that your post I replied to is an emotional reaction to what you perceive as a threat to your ability to own firearms. "I don't care about the NRA. I am not a member. I appreciate their opposition to the erosion of the 2nd Amendment, but in terms of any specific issue, I don't know or care what their stance is." Really? You are carrying their water, StupidMoniker.

You also had no reply to my suggestions regarding assault weapons (and high capacity magazines). Instead, you defended them. In other words, you would do nothing. I have ideas. I didn't even get into far more extensive background checks, raising the age to 21 for gun purchases (kids could still go hunting or target shooting with a parent or close relative under supervision, but not own or purchase them - the law would require all guns to be kept locked up and hard to get to by a crazed teen or a thief), heavily taxing gun buys, ammo (including what is needed to do reloads of empty cartridges). Allowing assault weapons and other unusual firearms to be possessed by collectors that paid for the privilege (and it should be a privilege) and had the most extensive background checks, but allow no purchases of them by a typical gun owner. I could come up with numerous possibilities for action on this issue, but I suspect you're more interested in "defending guns," than in taking action that is long overdue. In my humble opinion.

That's what happens after every one of these tragedies. The NRA, and those like you who support their positions, member or not, immediately attack any call for gun control legislation an "emotional reaction." "That now is not the time to act. Wait until emotions have cooled." I've heard this over and over again. Result? Nothing gets done. The only time there was a move by Congress to do any gun control worth mentioning (and that very limited), there was an "assault weapons ban." It was driven more by the Reagan shooting than anything else, had a time limit, a time limit like the tax cuts in the tax bill that don't apply to the wealthy and expire after a period of time, and that's what happened to the ban. It expired. An attempt by Democrats to extend it was defeated, more than once, predominantly by the GOP. You say you are a warm person, and I believe you likely are in most cases, certainly with your family and friends, but your reaction to this tragedy is as cold an the Antarctic. This isn't "emotion and feelings," StupidMoniker. It is an attempt to reduce the number of these unspeakable tragedies.

 

Something like the number of children that must drown before people talk about outlawing swimming pools, or the number of people that must be killed by drunk drivers before we outlaw alcohol, or the number of people that must be killed by dogs before we eliminate private canine ownership, or the number of people that must die from car accidents before we determine that the speed limits should be drastically reduced. In other words, there is probably some theoretical limit, but it isn't one that is ever going to be reached, because the actual number of deaths occurring is nowhere close to whatever that theoretical number is.

I suppose it could be characterized that way. I would say I am ideologically opposed to the restriction of the freedoms of hundreds of millions because of the tragedy occurring for a handful.

That tends to happen when people or groups share an overarching ideological position. Eugenicists and pro-choice Democrats both advocated for the legality of abortion, but they are not one in the same. Both I and the NRA oppose the erosion of 2nd Amendment rights, as such, my posts with regard to gun control will likely overlap with the NRA at points.

Actually I would push back against the restrictions that already exist, but doing nothing is preferable to increased restrictions.

Bad ones, from my perspective.

I wouldn't support legislation mandating any of these requirements.

I'm not saying that we should wait until emotions have cooled. I'm saying legislating to prevent mass shootings at the expense of gun rights is always based on emotion (Won't someone think of the children?) because mass shootings of any kind, and school shootings in particular are not statistically significant. It isn't the timing, it is the content. The timing just makes the emotional nature of the calls for increased gun control more clear.

Considering the proposals for what you want to get done, I am thankful to get nothing.

The assault weapons ban was in 1994. It wasn't a reaction to the assassination attempt on Reagan, it was Clinton taking office with a Dem. controlled congress. There are those who say it also ended Dem. control of congress. Not surprisingly it could not be extended under Bush and a Republican controlled congress in 2004. There is a reason California has assault weapons laws very similar to the 1994 AWB, and Texas doesn't.

The issue is that the number is already extremely low. Policy decisions should be made with cold logic and facts, not appeals to tragic, but ultimately rare cases.

 

I didn't say the AG had to sign-off, Redfish did:

The point is if Jeff Sessions has to sign-off on anyone owning a missile, it's clear it's not a 2nd Amendment right. That's what I have been trying to say. You can try to weasel your way around or attack me to distract away from that point, but it won't do you any good.

The point being that why is it so hard for a citizen to get a missile but so easy to get one of these rifles that can kill 50 people in a few minutes.

 

Or the number of people that don't understand the difference between accidents and pre-meditated murder.

Let's all play. 9/11 only killed 2,500 people while the flu kills 36,000 a year. We should divert all those troops to fight the flu, not Al-Qaeda. Boy oh boy, playing an obtuse, detached guy on the internets is fun.

 

I am glad you brought up alcohol. It is more regulated than guns. In most cases you have be 21 drink not so for guns.

 

Swimming pools are not weapons intended to do bodily harm, nor is alcohol so comparing them to shootings isn't "logical". Though interesting to note that there are laws limiting sales by age and also limiting sales to people already inebriated. I think the parents of children killed in school shooting would be curious to hear your "logical" discussion connecting shooting deaths to accidental drownings. And btw, automobiles require registration, tests to prove proficiency, and operator "rights" can be restricted and even removed. So you probably don't want to go down that path.

So again, you stated school shootings don't happen enough to logically merit policy decisions... so "logically" you should have a number or level when it would merit policy decisions. Was that an illogical

One last question... there was one instance of someone attempting to blow up an airplane with explosives in his tennis shoes to merit policy decisions requiring passengers to remove their shoes. There was one instance of hijackers attacking an airplane cockpit with box cutters to warrant policy decisions that prevent passengers carrying knives and even nail cutters, metal nail files and even tweezers onto airplanes.

 

As are automobiles.

 

Who doesn't understand the difference between accidents and pre-meditated murder? You know murder is already illegal right? What we are discussing is at what level is an inanimate object so dangerous that it should be banned. I am comparing the inanimate object ("assault weapons") to other objects (animate or not) that cause deaths (alcohol, cars, pools, dogs). There is no moral agency to any of these objects. The moral wrong of murder has already been addressed thousands of years ago.

Just like we arrest murderers, we go after groups that have attacked us. I would agree that we devote far too many resources as a response to terrorist attacks though.

It shouldn't be. There are plenty of countries where the drinking age is lower (sometimes much lower) without issue. A key distinction though, is that we have a right to guns, no right to alcohol.

See above response to CometsWin.

There are laws limiting sale of guns by age and to those who have already misused them (as well as other felons). We haven't outlawed whiskey because it gets you drunk quicker than wine or beer though.

I don't care what the parents of children killed in school shootings would be curious about, because this is an appeal to emotion. The connection is obvious and was laid out above.

Automobile registration is a tax. The driver doesn't have to be a registered owner. There are tests to prove proficiency, and there is a reason you put rights in quotes. You have no right to operate a motor vehicle, it is a privilege. You do have a right to own a firearm. Your right to own a firearm can be removed as well. It is illegal for felons to possess firearms.

I covered this in the original post. There is likely some number, but it would be much higher than will ever be reached.

I don't see a question, but I would say those were stupid and emotional reactions to those incidents. I don't think we should have responded that way to those incidents. I've stated multiple times that I think the threat of terrorism is far overblown and our responses to it are ridiculous. I would prefer we go back to pre-9/11 airport security.

 

Apparently you don't because you want to equate accidents by happenstance with murder as a reason why we should or should not act to prevent murders. A pool isn't designed with maximum lethality in mind. An AR15 is designed to be an incredibly effective killing machine, very purposely designed that way. If I don't want my son to drown I teach him how to swim or I don't let him in the pool. If I don't want my son to get murdered at school, I prevent nuts from getting the most lethal weapons available. If a nut could take a swimming pool to school and drown all the kids there then we could address nuts getting their hands on swimming pools. If an inanimate object is so dangerous that it can be used to murder scores of people in a matter of minutes then we need to look at who is getting their hands on it and how we can stop unstable people from getting them. We don't sit around after a bunch of kids are murdered in their classroom and talk about how statistically insignificant those murders are compared to the people that die of the flu and then repeat the conversation when it happens again and again. You are incredibly tone deaf.

 

If you are basing solely on the number of deaths caused, then bazookas, mortars, flamethrowers, stingers missile launchers, sarin gas should all be legal, since I don't believe many people are killed by them each year.

But we do outlaw weapons, see above.

I don't care what the parents of children killed in school shootings would be curious about, because this is an appeal to emotion. The connection is obvious and was laid out above.

Automobile registration is also a limitation on ownership and operation... you cannot operate a car on public roads without a valid registration. . Your car also has to pass certain environmental and safety regulations else it can not be operated. You cannot operate a car on public roads without the correct environmental and safety regulations met.

The government, in these instances a republican led government, acted in the interest of public safety and welfare to limit personal freedom. If another airplane was used to fly into the Pentagon, or a plane filled with passengers had been blown up by a terrorist wearing a bomb in his shoe then Americans would have criticized the government for not taking steps to protect people.

 

The first bit of government aid has arrived

 

Age limits and waiting periods for assault weapons? Florida legislators considering it
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article200909094.html

 

My bad about the 1994 bill. The major recent gun control bills were passed in 1968, 1986, 1993, and 1994. The '86 and '93 laws were related to the Reagan assassination attempt. So you would do nothing, and get rid of any "gun control" legislation that exists in this country. Typical extreme stance supported by the NRA, member or not.

 

You don't have a constitutional right to own or operate an automobile, if you did, then it would be a legitimate comparison.

 

I'm not against making it more intrusive to get a semi auto magazine fed rifle like the AR15. I am against banning them and confiscating them. For instance, the shooter that shot up the church in Sutherland, TX passed the background check to purchase a gun (even though his military criminal record should have stopped that ) but he failed the background check used to get a concealed handgun license in Texas. Seems like adjusting the NICS system to be more like the CHL background check might be a good idea. Also, I would not mind raising the age to own an AR15 to 21. That could have actually stopped this most recent nutbag from having that rifle. Also, privacy for mental health records for gun owners needs to be reduced. Mental health records need to be digitalized and we need a better way of blocking mentally ill from getting guns. A standard of having to be forced into a mental facility by a judge or other legal board is not good enough. I know all to well... my best friend went to mental hospitals multiple times but voluntarily. He was still able to get guns. He ended up shot to death in his parents backyard by the police because he had a gun and turned towards an officer.

My problem is the stats on banning "assault rifles" do not add up to making a difference and even honest journalists at liberal media sites that do their homework can see the facts.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-deaths_us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123

"But as momentum builds for a new assault weapons ban, data shows just how small of an effect such legislation would have on the overall levels of gun violence in the U.S."

"At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend."

"Those deaths account for about 2 percent of the 6,153 gun deaths and less than 1 percent of the 12,560 gun injuries the Gun Violence Archive has counted so far this year."

2 percent..... that's the rallying cry for anti-gun people right now. That's like finding out that 2% of drunk drivers that kill someone are drinking Mike's Hard Lemonade. So let's ban Mike's Hard Lemonade to solve the problem...Does that mean we should do nothing? NO.. but at least my ideas might have made a difference in the actual shootings that happened.

Many of the gun control advocates refuse to look at the reality in this country. An Australia or Great Britain type ban is not a realistic possibility in this country. Even California is having trouble banning 30 round magazines. They banned them in the early 2000s but said anyone that owns one made before that can keep it. Just recently they passed another ban saying nope now you have to turn them in. Currently, it is going through our court system but as of now the ban was stopped. The argument is that requiring someone to turn in a piece of property or destroy it when they purchased it legally violates property seizure without compensation. If that is upheld get out your checkbooks... there are hundreds of millions of those magazine and you would also have to buy the guns back too if a total ban was ever passed. You are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of not into the trillions.

Does massive gun control work at reducing gun deaths? Yep.... it did work in Australia and Great Britain. Is that level of gun control possible in our country with our government and judicial precedent without a Constitutional Amendment? No way.. and guess what... Pro-gun politicians are closer to being able to pass an amendment than gun control advocates are....

I understand the emotion. It is disgusting that kids are being murdered while in school. I just wish the gun control advocates would stop twisting the argument anytime good ole facts like statistics get in the way. Instead, we get people like Joy Reid going to the NRA members have blood on their hands stuff. You think that makes people want to sit down and have a productive conversation with you? NO, you get the F U response and both sides lose their minds and do nothing.

 

I never equated accidents by happenstance with murders, that is what you are trying to do by talking about someone using a pool to drown someone. I am saying swimming pools have proven more dangerous to the public than guns have to schoolchildren, because more people are killed by swimming pools than schoolchildren are killed by firearms.

That is absolutely irrelevant. The firearm itself cannot have a criminal intent. It has no agency. The user can have criminal intent, and that is already punished regardless of the type of weapon used.

And yet, despite the ability to protect more easily against pools, they are still more dangerous.

That is the whole point. It doesn't require a nut taking the pool to a school to intentionally drown children. Swimming pools sitting quietly in backyards and public spaces are already killing more people than all the nuts taking any kind of guns to schools, regardless of how dangerous or efficient their gun of choice is. It is illustrative of how insignificant the issue of school shootings is. It is less of a danger than swimming pools. You would save more lives mandating water wings than you would by completely eliminating school shootings, certainly more than you would by eliminating only those school shootings done with "assault weapons".

You can talk about whatever you want, as can I. Apparently you are no more a fan of the first amendment than you are of the second.

Correct. I don't have any issue with those weapons being legalized. In fact, some of the purpose of the second amendment would be far better served if they were.

The government does all kinds of things I don't agree with.

Yes, they want you to pay the tax.

I don't think there are a ton of environmental and safety regulations you could apply to firearms. They generally speaking work pretty much as designed the vast majority of the time. Their environmental impact is pretty much completely based on the ammunition, and is minimal. Regardless, you have a constitutional right to firearms, not to cars.

Some of them would and they would have been wrong. I would much prefer easier and more convenient travel against the risk that someone is going to try to set off a shoe bomb that didn't even work the first time.

I wouldn't get rid of all gun control. I have no issue with felons being disqualified from firearm possession. My issues are with taking rights away from law abiding citizens in the hope that maybe it will reduce a problem that isn't that pressing to begin with.