FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND DUMB GUN LAWS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Date sort Score sort
MamaRoo said:
The assumption that a teacher is qualified (or would want) to carry a weapon is also a stretch for me. They are just people, as flawed as anyone, with bad days and hangovers and breakups and all the crazy things that happen in a person's life that might lead them to choose to take a firearm (if it's available) and do harm to themselves or others.

You're thinking that the people carrying the weapons will have your mindset, I'm thinking that these people have a lot of crap to deal with already, and may not be the best choice to deliberately arm.
Click to expand...
Who do you think the police are that we arm ? Do you think they're people that never have any problems ? Do you think the police should be unarmed because they may have a bad day at sometime ?
mom'sfolly said:
I don't have the answers, but I am pretty sure they don't involve arming everyone. This isn't an easy issue. I get kind of tired of the knee jerk reaction that any regulation is unconstitutional (the courts have ruled repeatedly on this), and that more guns are the only answer. What seems to be missing here is a middle ground of understanding.
Click to expand...
You don't have to arm everyone. You only need to put the fear of someone being armed to slow down a person looking to do harm. A soft target is a place that you know all the good people are unarmed.
I couldn't find any cases that the supreme court has ruled in favor of any laws regulating guns. But they have struck down laws that regulated guns. So it would seem the courts haven't ruled in your favor.
 
mom'sfolly,

I am certainly not having "knee jerk" reactions. Did you even read my whole reply? I will copy and paste: If there is a solution that does not threaten that then you've got a winner. But that's the whole problem. There doesn't seem to be one...... Not meant to be taken as ANY regulation is unconstitutional ... just that I don't see one that is ... but I would like to..... I would love to reach the middle ground in the form of a solution and I do not misunderstand yours or anyones feeling that something must be done.

I will defend the Constitution with vigor, yes this is true, but it does not mean that I'm unaware that most people do not live in the woods. I understand your points perfectly well, some of them are very good points. That is why I'm taking the time to reply to them. But if I am going to be involved in a debate, the arguments and points need to be facts that have easily referenced credible sources. Anything less is just a rhetorical discussion based on our assumptions or what seems to be fact, and basically pointless except for to spout and let out some frustration.

For instance the line about where most people live (urban vs. rural). Off the top of my head I'd say you have a fact there. But is it? I don't know for sure.

I never said more guns are the only answer, but I do think it is a good start. Any solution would have to be a multipronged one, to this I agree, there is no single solution.
So yes, what to do ......

I don't see the harm in having armed teachers and staff, non mandatory of course, they need raises anyway, the incentive would be more training and responsibility would equal more compensation (that is a lovely start Q9) what else?

1. More stringent screening? Maybe ....... a great thing to think about and discuss.......

2. Flagging of Internet orders of firearms? Some states you have to have it shipped to a licensed retail facility so they can do the proper checks etc. I'm not sure if some allow firearms to be shipped directly to a residence or not...... I doubt it, but maybe a few do.

3. 30 round clips ? That's not really an issue here is it? Truly?

4. Firearms in public places ? I don't see a problem with that. I'm not being a smart butt either. I just really don't. Maybe a good subject of debate when we get to it.

5. Mental Health-care, Diagnosis, & Treatment ? Mmm, this is a huge topic on it's own. Definite changes needed here, yes.
 
Last edited:
mom'sfolly said:
So far the solutions I've heard are: arm the teachers, and have armed cops at schools.

Others have said we need better regulations on the mentally ill owning guns. How? Most of the recent shooters had legal access to guns. What laws would have prevented their brand of crazy from getting the guns? On the Fort Hood shooter, the fault for allowing him weapons lies with the superiors who ignored his radicalization and well documented mental lapses. In a civilian situation it is much harder to control. You can't even get a commitment order, in most cases, without an immediate threat, which most courts consider weapon brandishing or suicide attempts. Aspberger's syndrome certainly wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) disqualify people from buying a gun.

In the case of the Aurora shooter, flagging internet purchases, and investigating may have stopped the shooter. Considering the Patriot Act (not something I like), this is probably perfectly legal.

I don't have the answers, but I am pretty sure they don't involve arming everyone. This isn't an easy issue. I get kind of tired of the knee jerk reaction that any regulation is unconstitutional (the courts have ruled repeatedly on this), and that more guns are the only answer. What seems to be missing here is a middle ground of understanding.

Most Americans live in urban areas. Most Americans, today, do not hunt. Most Americans do not believe that they or anyone else here needs to fight off the government or foreign invaders. Most people cannot fire off hundreds of rounds on their own property. No one who hunts needs a 30 round magazine, the wildlife threat simply isn't that great.

So what are the solutions? How do we keep guns from those who shouldn't have them? Do we profile? No young, white male should have a gun? Do we regulate? Do we arm? Do we jail the mentally ill? What illnesses qualify?

My gut says a multi-pronged approach is needed; one that addresses both access to weapons, weapons in public places, how access to schools and other places is handled and better mental health care, treatment and diagnosis.

A background search is only as good as the database it is using. It won't weed out the undiagnosed, the ones with evil intent who haven't yet committed a crime, or impulse killers.
Click to expand...
I suggest researching the unsuccessful shootings and draw from those experiences as well. Most have been averted by simply brandishing a weapon. The evil NRA has many such stories that they used to reprint from local papers.
 
mom'sfolly said:
So far the solutions I've heard are: arm the teachers, and have armed cops at schools.

Others have said we need better regulations on the mentally ill owning guns. How? Most of the recent shooters had legal access to guns. What laws would have prevented their brand of crazy from getting the guns? On the Fort Hood shooter, the fault for allowing him weapons lies with the superiors who ignored his radicalization and well documented mental lapses. In a civilian situation it is much harder to control. You can't even get a commitment order, in most cases, without an immediate threat, which most courts consider weapon brandishing or suicide attempts. Aspberger's syndrome certainly wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) disqualify people from buying a gun.

In the case of the Aurora shooter, flagging internet purchases, and investigating may have stopped the shooter. Considering the Patriot Act (not something I like), this is probably perfectly legal.

I don't have the answers, but I am pretty sure they don't involve arming everyone. This isn't an easy issue. I get kind of tired of the knee jerk reaction that any regulation is unconstitutional (the courts have ruled repeatedly on this), and that more guns are the only answer. What seems to be missing here is a middle ground of understanding.

Most Americans live in urban areas. Most Americans, today, do not hunt. Most Americans do not believe that they or anyone else here needs to fight off the government or foreign invaders. Most people cannot fire off hundreds of rounds on their own property. No one who hunts needs a 30 round magazine, the wildlife threat simply isn't that great.

So what are the solutions? How do we keep guns from those who shouldn't have them? Do we profile? No young, white male should have a gun? Do we regulate? Do we arm? Do we jail the mentally ill? What illnesses qualify?

My gut says a multi-pronged approach is needed; one that addresses both access to weapons, weapons in public places, how access to schools and other places is handled and better mental health care, treatment and diagnosis.

A background search is only as good as the database it is using. It won't weed out the undiagnosed, the ones with evil intent who haven't yet committed a crime, or impulse killers.
Click to expand...
thumbsup.gif
goodpost.gif
bun.gif
 
Manic J said:
2. Flagging of Internet orders of firearms? Some states you have to have it shipped to a licensed retail facility so they can do the proper checks etc. I'm not sure if some allow firearms to be shipped directly to a residence or not...... I doubt it, but maybe a few do.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify. All online firearms sales have to process through an FFL. For instance, I can't go to gunbroker.com, order a rifle and have it sent directly to me. The exception are curio and relic firearms which can be shipped to a C&R FFL holder.
 
bakerjw said:
Just to clarify. All online firearms sales have to process through an FFL. For instance, I can't go to gunbroker.com, order a rifle and have it sent directly to me. The exception are curio and relic firearms which can be shipped to a C&R FFL holder.
Click to expand...

Thought so but wasn't entirely sure ..... Thank You
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Right On Reds
For New York City Chicken Folk/Animal Folk Important!!!!!
Replies
6
Views
2K
Right On Reds
Right On Reds

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom