Smart gun laws

[imuakahuku]

- 1966 University of Texas (17 dead) where hunting rifle was used.

An interesting thing about the Texas shooting was that had one of the other people there that day who had his rifle in his truck, had he not gone and gotten it and held the shooter at bay, more would have died. Many times, it takes a gun to stop a gun. We can add that to the SLC shooting that was stopped by an off duty cop who just happened to have his gun on him in a "gun free" zone.

How many more Utahans would have died that day had he not had his gun and been able to pin the guy down until help arrived?

[imuakahuku]

I don't know the answer, but there are lots of parts at play. I think discussing this subject is good, and contacting your local politicians is even better.

I have no problem with banning all Auto and semiauto weapons, because there seems to be no legitimate public need for them. But that may be the smallest thing at play here.

There is a legitimate public need for them. The grazing standoff as well as all the government corruption that we are just finding out about are the perfect examples. We the people are in charge of this nation. We send representatives to make laws and decisions on our behalf. When those people or in this case unelected bureaucrats usurp power and have the means to "wage war" on the citizenry, then it is in the interest of the country and every citizen that they be able to protect themselves and put down this sort of insurrection. If any guns should be confiscated it should be those currently held by most of the federal agencies. The FBI was established only for the purpose of investigating crimes and criminals and then letting local law enforcement execute those laws. And why does the DOE need their own SWAT style police force? They don't helicopter them in to school shootings. No they come for ordinary citizens.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-just ... -swat-team

[Mars]

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

The Constitution is much like the Bible- Good, but fallible. It allowed slavery, people. It's not 100% gospel. That being said, again, limiting is not the same as abolishing.

There are many steps that are not the same as each other. Illegal to buy, illegal to own, and government confiscation are all different. Confiscation will never work in America.

And for the record, trading government service for government services may be a better idea than mandating service. Kinda like Starship Troopers.

[imuakahuku]

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

The Constitution is much like the Bible- Good, but fallible. It allowed slavery, people. It's not 100% gospel. That being said, again, limiting is not the same as abolishing.

There are many steps that are not the same as each other. Illegal to buy, illegal to own, and government confiscation are all different. Confiscation will never work in America.

And for the record, trading government service for government services may be a better idea than mandating service. Kinda like Starship Troopers.

You don’t believe the people can stand up to a corrupt government agency? It’s been done in the past and is in fact the legacy of this country. A bunch of farmers and simpletons defeated the greatest army to that date. Courage and resolve can defeat greed and power ambitious drones.

[snoscythe]

I'd oppose your proposal as well on multiple levels. We don't need any more military. Our countrymen love war and worship the military enough as it is. I'd be for ending all of the programs you mentioned. None of them do a bit of good and none of them in any way are endorsed by the constitution. If the states want to pay for gun safety courses there isn't anything in the constitution that keeps them from taking more money from us for that purpose. If you want more graft in government by all means expand it beyond the monstrosity it already is. At least my kids will get more out of that than the government propaganda they hear every day in their schooling.

Also the kids in Sunday School yesterday went off on the compulsory "service hours" they are required to complete to graduate high school without my prompting one bit - I even had to rein it in a bit - so you'd have some argument from them too. Compulsory service doesn't teach you anything at all except to hate service.

More important than any of that though - why do gun control advocates always avoid the argument that individual gun ownership helps prevent violence. The violent crime rates in Mexico and throughout Latin America are much higher (with lower gun ownership) than the United States and Canada, yet no one seems willing to address this issue. Why?

We get it. You're the guy whose favorite word is "no".

Given the current state of affairs, what practical solution do you propose?

[BroncoBot]

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

You obviously never saw the movie "avatar"?

[BoiseBYU]

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

You obviously never saw the movie "avatar"?

LOL! Good one. But they were really fast arrows!

[Mars]

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

You obviously never saw the movie "avatar"?

I never said we should ban dinosaurs.

[SpiffCoug]

I'm surprised no one had any thoughts on my two posts on the topic. You guys hurt my feelings! It's like I don't even matter here anymore.

So here were my two posts:

We need individualized solutions not blanket restrictions on everyone.

One proposal I heard was a "gun violence restraining order" that could be requested by family (or people living with them or treating them) and quickly granted by a judge. This could prevent them from purchasing a gun and/or if the authorities are notified they have a weapon it can be confiscated. They could be set to expire after a period of time unless requested.

Most of the recent shooters were known to be "that guy" that everyone is afraid of. Then when they just "snap" no one is surprised. That needs to change. We need mechanisms to get these people help. They need coping skills. They need treatment. And honestly, if they won't seek or accept it, then they are removed from society. If they want to keep their freedom, they need to be contributing members of society that know how to live peacefully with others.

It's time for us to recognize and ACT on the warning signs and red flags that everyone just ignores.

While I do think mental health will go further to helping reduce mass shootings than gun laws, I would be willing to seek some form of compromise. A requirement to take and pass some sort of gun safety course would probably be ok. I don't like a license because that's basically a registry so the government knows who has what weaponry, but I would be willing to accept some form of licensing.

In the end, whatever gun laws are passed, they're only as good as those enforcing them. And many of the recent shootings have seen the ball dropped hugely by those law enforcement entities.

Here's also another practical step. Double or triple the number of teachers. This will greatly reduce the number of students for whom teachers are responsible. The students will greatly benefit from the smaller class sizes. They'll have a better chance of making friends. And students who struggle will benefit also from the closer mentorship and relationship with an adult who cares for them.

Thoughts?

[nuk13]

I did read your entries Spiff, I just didn't comment on them. So...I like your first 2 paragraphs. Blanket laws haven't worked.

Law enforcement has very much dropped the ball. For one organization, the FBI improvement is needed for sure.

There is a problem with hiring more teachers. Last year there was word they couldn't find enough teachers. Also hiring more will be very expensive and the tax payers are overburdened now.