School/Mass shootings what's the answer?
- Thread starter Lawnboy
- Start date
Ttannahill14
Active member
I'm not saying she needs a gun. I'm saying someone needs a gun. Most school officers are only at the high schools. Schools are a soft target and crazy guys know it.
I do worry about my generation. Most my friends are republicans at heart, yet VERY moderate(sometimes liberal) when it comes to guns because most of them have never even shot one. We will only see the connection get further and further as less and less people live in rural areas/hunt. Another important reason for hunter recruitment.
Good conversation.
I'm pretty much fed up as a retired LEO & Vet. I can pass a background check & fairly stable individual.
That said combat weapons for general public was not the intent of the 2nd. IMHO
It is not a video game. If you need an assault rifle,your screwed.
Then again I do not trust maybe a 1/4 of the folks I know have weapons,let alone Combat weapons.
I hunt alone & have for many years for this very reason. I don't trust people with weapons.For the most part.
I guess I am not as trusting to what most folks believe to be human nature & good. Not a believer either. Nor NRA member.
I'm pretty much fed up as a retired LEO & Vet. I can pass a background check & fairly stable individual.
That said combat weapons for general public was not the intent of the 2nd. IMHO
It is not a video game. If you need an assault rifle,your screwed.
Then again I do not trust maybe a 1/4 of the folks I know have weapons,let alone Combat weapons.
I hunt alone & have for many years for this very reason. I don't trust people with weapons.For the most part.
I guess I am not as trusting to what most folks believe to be human nature & good. Not a believer either. Nor NRA member.
Ttannahill14
Active member
When i took my concealed carry class... I looked around at the people in there... and thought to myself, if these people have a gun, I FOR SURE need a gun. And the training was a joke.
ovis2
Active member
These all too frequent tragedies have caused a lot of anguish and deep reflection in a lot of people. As stated from people on all sides of the spectrum on gun control, 2nd amendment rights, mental health advocates, and so on, I believe this has been a complicated and a long-evolved process to get to where school and pubic place mass shootings have become sickeningly common place. It seems obvious to me that it is fueled by a lot of the hate and disconnect that has infested this country. But where has all this come from? It's like a thousand, not one or two or three, springs have flowed into creeks, which flowed into streams, which flowed into rivers, and is now a raging, flood swollen Amazon. We, as a country and society, can't keep adding more water to the flood. There is no one, no simple solution. We need to start slowing down the flow, turn off a few valves at a time. Or as an Uncle of mine used to say, stop digging the hole deeper. My heart is really aching today.
Handlebar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 296
[QUOTE=hank4elk;268750
That said combat weapons for general public was not the intent of the 2nd. IMHO
Not trying to be argumentative, but what was the intent of the 2nd?
That said combat weapons for general public was not the intent of the 2nd. IMHO
Not trying to be argumentative, but what was the intent of the 2nd?
2nd Amendment argument is such a cop out, THINK a little. "Because it says I can have whatever guns I want, I will." On the other hand, a total gun ban is also a cop out. "No guns, no more mass killings."
Money, money, money is my answer.
Tax the $hit out of AR style weapons. Much in the same way suppressors are taxed with a lengthy (relatively speaking) process involved in acquisition.
You want to buy an AR? Perfect, you wouldn't mind paying for a sit down with a mental health specialist (you'll be paying for that, too). Oh no you aren't restricted in buying them, they'll just cost a hell of a lot more.
A weekend at the range with an AR is a lot less appealing when you've got to drop a few grand just to get one.
Not fair for just AR's? Make it applicable to all weapons. Those who really want to use them will pay. I'd pay $2K for a bolt action so I could still hunt. Might not have many others in the safe, but it'd be worth it IMO.
You won't see many people come up with that kind of coin for a weapon. Sure there's always going to be that "perfect storm" where someone slips through and does something horrible, but it'd be a start.
Butttt none of this would be done because guns are just too lucrative of a business.
Money, money, money is my answer.
Tax the $hit out of AR style weapons. Much in the same way suppressors are taxed with a lengthy (relatively speaking) process involved in acquisition.
You want to buy an AR? Perfect, you wouldn't mind paying for a sit down with a mental health specialist (you'll be paying for that, too). Oh no you aren't restricted in buying them, they'll just cost a hell of a lot more.
A weekend at the range with an AR is a lot less appealing when you've got to drop a few grand just to get one.
Not fair for just AR's? Make it applicable to all weapons. Those who really want to use them will pay. I'd pay $2K for a bolt action so I could still hunt. Might not have many others in the safe, but it'd be worth it IMO.
You won't see many people come up with that kind of coin for a weapon. Sure there's always going to be that "perfect storm" where someone slips through and does something horrible, but it'd be a start.
Butttt none of this would be done because guns are just too lucrative of a business.
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
Agree 100%, one in my class asked if he could hold the gun sideways for the qualifying.
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
One could also make this argument for cars. They kill many more people yearly than ARs. Or even all guns combined in the US.
Thanks Randy.
Last edited:
Addicting
Well-known member
Taxing the heck out of weapons won’t help new hunter recruitment. Which will only hurt us in the future as more and more new people avoid it because of access and now cost.
Riding in a car is inherently dangerous. Does that mean a kindergarten classroom should be, too?
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
Waking up on a daily basis is inherently dangerous. Mountain climing, hiking, hunting, eating poorly, etc. are all dangerous things to do. I by no means are taking away from the tragedy of what happened! But before we jump to a knee jerk reaction of having an item making things dangerous, we should probably turn to the people that use those items; both for good and for evil. That man killed those kids. That man murdered. That man shot people.
elkduds
Well-known member
This is my issue w NRA. It belongs to firearms and ammunition manufacturers, many of which are foreign. It purports to defend 2A, but its absolutist stance and heavy $ influence in our politics via the Republican party block meaningful progress on solving this hugely complex issue. To me the NRA has the blood of innocents and children on its hands because of its advocacy against limiting access to mass killing technology.
IMO (as a 30 year mental health professional) it is more humane, more effective and cheaper to identify and treat homicidal people, than what we do now. Access to mental health care is slim to none for uninsured Americans. But they can get by with drugs and alcohol, right?
Sounds great if all the bad guys will have to jump through the same hoops to get their guns. But I have a hunch they won't play by the same rules....and the bad guys are the ones that do the murdering. If they are going to break the law to murder, they would surely break the law to buy a gun on the black market.
dcopas78
Well-known member
Here are some of the original "versions" of a 2nd Amendment as proposed by individual states prior to ratification of the constitution, and what those states intended it to mean;
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
Which of these shootings was done with an illegally acquired gun ... and GO!
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
This is a very good point. I think a lot of conversation can be had around the mental health issue and gun availability.
I do think that people that are going to kill people, will do it. But there is something to be said about availability. The problem is implementing something that doesn't affect the common person who owns a gun to defend his country and family.
Handlebar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 296
,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
I generally stay out of these discussions but this one has been civil. I hope that it stays that way.
Given the fact that at the time the 2nd was crafted the weapon that an individual had was virtually identical to that which was issued by the King. I would say that individual combat weapons was what was understood. The 2nd at its heart is for the security of a free state from enemies both from within and out. When you say something like the immediate reaction from some is that you think that you are going to take the feds, no doubt there are those that harbor some sort of fantasy insurrection.
I do not share that fantasy.
I do believe that the Bill of Rights was written as statement of rights that were endowed by God to men and as such were reserved from government interference. Much in the same vein as I can publicly express an opinion and worship the God of my own choosing in the manner that I see fit.
Many believe that I have no need for these types of weapons or that level of capacity. I believe that the slippery slope argument is relevant here because I can make the argument that you can hunt with a single shot or defend your home with a single shot shotgun. The other argument is that every right comes with responsibility; you can't yell fire in a theater. That is true, there are limitations on my 2nd right. I cannot unlawfully shoot someone.
We can debate the causes of these types of events but the truth in my opinion is a combination of factors, social structure, family break down, video games there is I am sure a multitude that play a part. The availability of firearms is also there, but with 300 million+ firearms in the country that horse is out of the barn.
I don't understand nor am I sure where it comes from but there is without a doubt a callousness or if you will a lack of empathy towards others in many people. I don't know how you fix that.
I have guns in my home and they have never shot anyone. I say that not to be flippant. But every animal I have ever killed from elk to coyote there is a wave of remorse that goes through me. I consider the moment to be scared and important. I hope I can ingrain that in my son.
I can not fathom how someone could carry this out much less just envision it.
I love my son as I am sure that those in Florida loved theirs but I am not willing to trade my rights for a security that cannot be guaranteed.
Great discussion. I think some of the self-proclaimed pundits on the cable news stations should come visit this thread to learn how to discuss this issue.
I don't know what the answer is but I do know that something needs to be done. It is most likely a combination of several things (i.e arming some teachers, building new schools or retrofitting schools with enhanced safety features, providing more security when kids are not inside the buildings, revisiting gun access, revisiting the social cognitive theory and the lack moral conduct...). The options are many and each have flaws.
A few questions I struggle with.
Do we really think a few teachers with handguns will stop a person with an AR-15? In most instances not, but it is better than nothing
Will banning AR's solve anything? What about the millions of AR's already in existence?
Will reducing magazine capacity reduce the lethality of an AR? most likely not, as changing a magazine takes seconds
Will addressing mental health reduce school shootings? Possibly, if done right
If a teacher with a handgun isn't the answer, do we need "front line" security with AR's? This is a scary thought and I know my wife doesn't like the idea and I would guess most people wouldn't.
So, what is the answer? I don't know but what I do know is that no singular action will solve the problem, as the ones suggested by the cable news pundits.
I also know that if the gov’t becomes tyrannical, an AR ain’t going to save you. The days of fighting the Gov’t are over. This ain’t the movies. No quantity of types of guns or ammo will win a fight with an Apache Helicopter. Just look at what our Army does to nations we are at war with. Does this mean we should give up AR's? No, but I cringe whenever a pro-second amendment expert uses this argument to try and explain why we need military style rifles. I can see the anti-gun crowd going oh boy here we go with these gun nuts thinking they are going to fight the gov't.
I don't know what the answer is but I do know that something needs to be done. It is most likely a combination of several things (i.e arming some teachers, building new schools or retrofitting schools with enhanced safety features, providing more security when kids are not inside the buildings, revisiting gun access, revisiting the social cognitive theory and the lack moral conduct...). The options are many and each have flaws.
A few questions I struggle with.
Do we really think a few teachers with handguns will stop a person with an AR-15? In most instances not, but it is better than nothing
Will banning AR's solve anything? What about the millions of AR's already in existence?
Will reducing magazine capacity reduce the lethality of an AR? most likely not, as changing a magazine takes seconds
Will addressing mental health reduce school shootings? Possibly, if done right
If a teacher with a handgun isn't the answer, do we need "front line" security with AR's? This is a scary thought and I know my wife doesn't like the idea and I would guess most people wouldn't.
So, what is the answer? I don't know but what I do know is that no singular action will solve the problem, as the ones suggested by the cable news pundits.
I also know that if the gov’t becomes tyrannical, an AR ain’t going to save you. The days of fighting the Gov’t are over. This ain’t the movies. No quantity of types of guns or ammo will win a fight with an Apache Helicopter. Just look at what our Army does to nations we are at war with. Does this mean we should give up AR's? No, but I cringe whenever a pro-second amendment expert uses this argument to try and explain why we need military style rifles. I can see the anti-gun crowd going oh boy here we go with these gun nuts thinking they are going to fight the gov't.
Similar threads
