Smart gun laws

I'm pro-gun, but I'm not a big gun guy myself. It seems that our nation has a strong political stance of never changing gun laws ever. It also seems to me that many of our current gun laws are broken.



Probably most homes should have a shotgun and a pistol locked away for self defense, and every Hunter needs a rifle. I'm not sure what the public is doing with AR-15s though.



Personally, I do like the idea of more teachers carrying weapons, but that's just me. I know that concealed carry is frowned upon in LDS buildings.



Curious if anyone has any better ideas. Though to be fair, any idea, no matter how rational, would be met with loud NEVERs from the NRA. Chicago may be a good example of going too far in the other direction. There needs to be a healthier medium somewhere in between.

Mars wrote:

Good ..... good gun laws aren't bad goals to strive for. America has a long way to go in both.

It's your post. You define what additional "good gun laws" we need. As I have posted, the U.S. has literally thousands of gun laws on the books. You tell us what additional gun laws we need.

Mars wrote:

I'm pro-gun, but I'm not a big gun guy myself. It seems that our nation has a strong political stance of never changing gun laws ever. It also seems to me that many of our current gun laws are broken.



Probably most homes should have a shotgun and a pistol locked away for self defense, and every Hunter needs a rifle. I'm not sure what the public is doing with AR-15s though.



Personally, I do like the idea of more teachers carrying weapons, but that's just me. I know that concealed carry is frowned upon in LDS buildings.



Curious if anyone has any better ideas. Though to be fair, any idea, no matter how rational, would be met with loud NEVERs from the NRA. Chicago may be a good example of going too far in the other direction. There needs to be a healthier medium somewhere in between.

I’m probably less pro gun than you, but I can read the Second Amendment as well as anyone else. I think we need to start a discussion on good gun laws by recognizing that no law will stop evil. But that should not be the standard in my book. My standards would be are there laws that can mitigate or reduce catastrophic events and harm. To that end, I think banning assault weapons like the AR-15 is a good place to start. I’d also ban the devices that easily turn these weapons into fully automatic weapons, like the ones used by the shooter in Vegas. I think we could legislatively proscribe mentally ill people from having guns. I fail to understand the reason for armor-piercing bullets. I am no expert and imagine there are better ideas out there than what I have put up. I again do so knowing this will not stop evil again from rearing its head. We are a gun-soaked society with evil people in it. And no gun law will compensate for the absence of fathers, the societal breakdown of morals, and the lawlessness we see today. Surely though there are some measures we could take to make things better.

Pro gun here.

I'm personally OK with getting rid of ar15, or maybe you have to be a member of the NRA to get one (since not a single attack has been carried out by a card carrying NRA member).

I think this issue is completely overblown. Kids have a 100% higher risk of being killed outside a school than in one. It's between 1 in 4 to 5 million odds of being killed at school in a shooting. Absolutely awful when it does happen, but it's sensationalized like airplane wrecks. We all know air travel is still much safer.

I do not know what you could do to eliminate the problem, or even decrease the the frequency of the shootings without severely stepping on millions of ppls rights as gun owners. Totally open to ideas though.

Protecting schools seems to be a start. No one goes into a govt building and shoots the place up. It's always public "no gun" zones and schools. As far as the Vegas shooting, until I find out more info, I'm writing it off as a evil person with an evil plan that could have been accomplished with a bomb. It wasn't like he suddenly had an impulse to shoot the place up. He had planned that out down to the last detail. (or so it seems, who knows what really happened).

Before we address guns, I think we need to address violence in media a little better.



Once we get to guns, I'd just like to see what exactly people are suggesting in an AR-15 or assault weapons ban. How exactly do you define what is being banned?

snoscythe wrote:

Before we address guns, I think we need to address violence in media a little better.



Once we get to guns, I'd just like to see what exactly people are suggesting in an AR-15 or assault weapons ban. How exactly do you define what is being banned?

Totally agree with you on violence in the media. And so there’s no misunderstanding, I’d include in that addressing video games. As for your Q, like I said, I am no expert, and my memory may be bad, but didn’t the US at one time ban assault sorts of weapons like the AR-15, but then a later Congress allowed that ban to lapse? Is there a problem with how Congress banned such weapons?

BoiseBYU wrote:

Before we address guns, I think we need to address violence in media a little better.



Once we get to guns, I'd just like to see what exactly people are suggesting in an AR-15 or assault weapons ban. How exactly do you define what is being banned?

Totally agree with you on violence in the media. And so there’s no misunderstanding, I’d include in that addressing video games. As for your Q, like I said, I am no expert, and my memory may be bad, but didn’t the US at one time ban assault sorts of weapons like the AR-15, but then a later Congress allowed that ban to lapse? Is there a problem with how Congress banned such weapons?

Other than most likely being unconstitutional, no.

Also, what gun is not an "assault weapon"?



Current generation craves attention. Is that adults fault? Possibly. Is it part of the social and media construct that they consume daily? Also a possibility. I think the media could do a much better job of downplaying the shooting events (removing sensational buzzwords and putting the story on page 3 or 4 instead of page 1). Instead they can't help but let their emotions get the best of them and in turn try to guide the "gun control" aspect of the shooting. This makes the victims fodder for their political goals.

BoiseBYU wrote:

I think banning assault weapons like the AR-15 is a good place to start.

Ok. Ban the AR-15. It's a semi-auto rifle with black plastic on it. What happens after you ban the AR-15 semi-auto and the mass murderers switch to Ruger mini-14. It's semi-auto too. Shoots the exact same ammo as the AR-15. Now what?



Here's the Ruger -

https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html



Are you going to ban all semi-auto rifles? Then they switch to semi-auto pistols. Ban those too? Then the maniacs switch to revolvers. Ban all revolvers? Then they switch to driving a car down the sidewalk through crowds of people like the terrorists do in Europe? Then what - ban cars? See? There are answers. No one wants to address it.

As mentioned if you ban the assault rifle then the next thing you will have to ban is the assault knife. Then the assault bat and the assault ax handle. This is not a gun issue. The ar-15 is not much different from other hunting rifles. It’s just made to look like a weapon of war. And kids used to take rifles to school so they could leave from there to go hunting.

As for guns, the second amendment is not about the right to go hunting. It is about a well regulated militia which was further defined by the founders to mean the militia is “the whole of the people”. In other words it is the last protection and a reset button against a corrupt government. It seems unlikely that that should ever occur but the way the leaders of the last administration sure ran it close. We almost had a silent coup perpetuated by leaders of the FBI, State Dept, White House, Justice Dept and others. And bear in mind the Constitution was inspired by God.

One last point, the deadliest single act of terror was done using assault box cutters and assault commercial airplanes. Those are still legal.

Ddawg wrote:

I think banning assault weapons like the AR-15 is a good place to start.

Ok. Ban the AR-15. It's a semi-auto rifle with black plastic on it. What happens after you ban the AR-15 semi-auto and the mass murderers switch to Ruger mini-14. It's semi-auto too. Shoots the exact same ammo as the AR-15. Now what?



Here's the Ruger -

https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html



Are you going to ban all semi-auto rifles? Then they switch to semi-auto pistols. Ban those too? Then the maniacs switch to revolvers. Ban all revolvers? Then they switch to driving a car down the sidewalk through crowds of people like the terrorists do in Europe? Then what - ban cars? See? There are answers. No one wants to address it.

Those strike me as reasonable points and questions. And they highlight that the devil is always in the details, don’t they? For me, I’d consider banning any semi automatic weapon. The risk of mayhem being caused is worth it in my book. The fact that evil people will do evil things with vehicles or other weapons of harm is not for me an argument to do nothing. For example, the fact that a ban on some abortions will cause some women to resort to getting illegal and possibly unsafe abortions is not a reason in my book to do nothing. If that were the standard, we’d never do anything. We can always imagine possible problems. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good. I also do not think that the difficulty in drawing a line of what guns to ban and what to allow is an argument to do nothing. We do that all the time in our various legislative decisions. Finally, I do not think that the argument that once you ban, for example, armor piercing bullets, the door is open to a complete ban on everything is persuasive. Such all or nothing arguments find no support in our constitutional jurisprudence, at least as far as I can tell. And if you think about it, It is exactly the same argument abortionists make—we cannot support banning late term abortions, because then we will be opening the door to more incremental restrictions. I say hogwash on that. So that is where I stand. I think those thinks would have a good chance of 8mproving things in our country. I am sure there are other better ideas out there that I’d be willing to consider. The status quo for me is unacceptable.

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.



Thoughts?

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004.



The ban was in place at the time of



- 1998 Westside Middle School (5 dead) where they used handguns and three hunting rifles

- 1998 Thurston High School (4 dead) where he used a 10/22 and two handguns

- 2000 Columbine (12 dead) where they used handguns, shotguns, and a Hi-point carbine.



The ban did not stop the shootings as each of the weapons used was not subject to the ban.



An assault weapon ban also would not have stopped, just as a short list:



- 1764 Enoch Brown school (10 dead) where tomahawks were used.

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

- 2005 Red Lake High School (10 dead) where he used handguns and a shotgun.

- 2006 West Nickel Mines Amish School (6 dead) where he used a handgun.

- 2007 Virginia Tech massacre (33 dead) where he used two handguns.

- 2008 Northern Illinois University (6 dead) where he used three handguns and a shotgun.

- 2012 Oikos University shooting (7 dead) where he used a handgun.

- 2014 Marysvill Pilchuk High School (5 dead) where he used a handgun.

- 2015 Umpqua Community College (10 dead) where he used two handguns.



In fact, I can only find three school shootings where "assault rifles" were used:



- 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School (28 deaths)

- 2017 Rancho Tehama Reserve (6 dead)

- 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High (17 dead)



So, what exactly are we thinking an "assault weapon" ban will do? The concept of a school shooting as we know it was conceived during the ban using weapons that were not subject to it. Most shooters do not use "assault weapons", and in fact 2 of the top 3 deadliest (and 6 of the 8 deadliest) shootings did not involve assault weapons.



What concerns me is the acceleration in the occurrence of these shootings--the Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and Denver theater shooters all expressed some sentiment of wanted to set a high score in their shooting. The most recent shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas posted online that he wanted to be a "professional school shooter."



It is my belief that, beginning with Columbine, the way the media reacts to these horrific stories creates our future shooters by thrusting these troubled young men into the spotlight and giving them fame and a platform to air their troubles. My question is how do we dial the attention back?

There has been some very good points here. I don't see where Ddawg was suggesting we do nothing. Looking at the gun being the problem, as Snoscythe and Ddawg adeptly point out, will not solve the problem. A gun is a tube with a charge and a projectile in it. The Chinese have taught us that anything can be used as a weapon. I know people who need no weapon at all to take someone out. Happily they are of impeccable character. Media isn't helping. Neither is the violent games that are readily available. To be frank about it, like it or not, it isn't going to stop no matter what kind of gun bans or other laws are passed. Only the the Messiah coming will end it. Until then I believe more attention needs to be payed to the problems of these people rather than on objects.

The ultimate goal of the knee jerk liberal MSM is not really to stop future mass shootings. Their cries to ban "assault rifles" (remember, they are just semi-auto rifles) tug at our heart strings and superficially seem to be a quick band-aid remedy to the school violence problem. Bear in mind, these knee jerk emotional pleas come from the left. Ultimately, they want to confiscate all weapons eliminate the 2nd Amendment. That is a fact.



You do not protect school children by taking away a constitutional right away from millions of law abiding citizens (no one really knows how many gun owners there are in the U.S., as many guns are unregistered Some estimates say up to 42% of Americans own guns. 42% of 320 million folks is a lot. Higher? Lower? No one knows). The wisdom of the Founding Fathers ensured the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for a reason. The liberal left wants to strip that right away.



Let's look at Switzerland. There has never been a school shooting in Switzerland. Yet Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership ratios in the world. Only Yemen and the U.S. have higher gun ownership ratios than Switzerland. Yet Switzerland has never had a school shooting, and the U.S. has had 6 in 2018 (that 6 in 45 days). Switzerland has a different culture than the U.S. Culture is very important. Ours is deteriorating and school shootings are on the rise. Coincidence?



The 2 most important items that can reimplemented to stop school shootings are going to cost a lost of money and effort. Both are important.



1. Invest lots of money into mental health. Have a psychologist on each campus that is accessible to students that want help. And, these psychologists also call in students interview those that they receive word about because of red flag signals. If necessary, intervention teams are alerted. All Teachers need to be educated and trained in how to spot potential troubled students and possible attackers. Teachers would then report concerns to the school psychologists.



2. Schools are a soft and easy target. Schools need to be hardened. This is done by ending the traditional open campuses. Ingress and egress are severely limited and campus access only through control points. How many control points depends on the school population. There must be armed guards on campus and and they man the control points and supervise the screening and searching of students entering school. Sorry, schools need to be given the lawful right to screen, search, and confiscate weapons and drugs without the students consent.



It will be expensive. It will work. The kids are worth it.

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.

I think the suggestions about mental health focus and giving much greater attention to school security are good ideas. And looking at quick gun prohibition or gun removal hearings are worthy of attention. I don’t think these ideas are mutually exclusive. I think they all need to be explored. I also don’t think that banning semi assault weapons is THE solution. I do think it is part of a better way forward. In one day I’ve seen multiple ideas worthy of consideration. I have been given many ideas to ponder. I am without hope that our Congress or my state legislature will do anything though.

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.



The American news is the worst media in the world, in my opinion. They glorify violence and crime nightly, and even more so in these cases. I have no idea how to stop that. If it bleeds, it leads in the U.S. That seems to be a major difference between us and Canada, where many people still don't feel the need to lock their front doors at night.



Families have broken down. Again, hard to legislate. Maybe getting out of foreign wars and not imprisoning non-violent drug users would help there be more fathers in homes. Our jails are overpopulated. Improving the economy might be the best answer, as low economic background is the biggest factor in criminality, which helps contribute to broken families.



The best way I see to improve the economy is to put increased funding into education. The two are closely tied together. Of course, that would require cuts elsewhere (military spending and prisons are what came to mind first for me, right or wrong, but everything in the gov can always use a trim).



Mental health is another large factor, and applies to any discussion on violence, jails, or criminality heavily. People need to be able to be prescribed and given the necessary meds. Dawg's suggestion #1 is a smaller and easier piece of that, and makes a lot of sense to me. Much easier to implement that idea than to create and pay for a common healthcare system.



And I still think the U.S. should mandate military service for every citizen, but that will never happen.

P.S. A friend of ours was the young women's teacher for 2 of the LDS girls that were shot in Florida. One was killed, one is still in the hospital with massive injuries. That's why I brought the topic up.



If we could lower school shootings by even 1% with some simple changes (affecting less than 1% of gun owners), I don't see why we wouldn't. Limits, registries, waiting periods, whatever. Some ideas may stink, but others must have some merit. I listen to the teenage survivors in Florida, and I feel that they have the right to be heard, and to feel that politicians are listening.

I will say that the idea that many people in Canada do not lock their doors at night is untrue. I served my mission in Canada and crime while maybe less than the United States is still a serious issue and no one in the areas I served in would ever risk not locking their doors. Far more people in Utah don't lock their doors than people in Canada in my experience.

Mars wrote:

If we could lower school shootings by even 1% with some simple changes (affecting less than 1% of gun owners), I don't see why we wouldn't. Limits, registries, waiting periods, whatever.

Are you taking about outlawing AR-15's? Again, your are talking in generic circles with no specifics. Get specific. Outlawing AR-15's would have NO effect. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Look at Chicago, you cannot own an AR-15 in Chicago, yet it's a bloody slaughterhouse.

Chicago 2017 there were:

625 shot and killed.

2,936 shot and wounded.

3,561 total shot.



How are all these shootings happening in Chicago without AR-15's? Instead of knee-jerk feel good reactions, we have to implement real changes. It's going to be expensive and require focused effort, will genuinely protect people, and keeps our kids safe.