[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You don't do the check at the point of sale. You do the check at the point of issuing gun licenses. 2 licensed gun owners should be able to exchange with very little difficulty. But that would require a license based system for ownership.

Assuming that the jurisdiction in question has licensing. Most don't. In practice, gun ownership licensing has proven subject to significant manipulation and abuse (friends of the regime in charge get licenses, enemies do not), whether on a national level or a municipal level. Doing a background check on a buyer of a firearm is further predicated on the prohibition on "straw buyers" in federal laws. Take a look at the whole "Operation Fast and Furious" thing to see how well that works to prevent prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms through legitimate channels (which is a completely different can of worms...).

The basic assumptions behind background checks are flawed in a number of ways, including the lack of standardization and vetting of the database's contents (different states provide and withhold different bits of information, and it is a Major Hassle to get erroneous information expunged or corrected), and the expectation that the person "buying" the firearm is actually the legitimate buyer. Which all still comes down to the fact that law-abiding persons are the only ones who would be impacted by a legal requirement to submit all firearms purchases for background checking, and it would have little impact on the black market in firearms, which appears to be where most guns used in crimes come from.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

And Goodwin's Law is fulfilled!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Sorry I forgot. I usually put;

GODWIN'S LAW ALERT

[Tiresias]

Needs more swastika.

[Face Ache]

The Nazis without guns would have just been well dressed assholes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

*slow clap*

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Assuming that the jurisdiction in question has licensing. Most don't. In practice, gun ownership licensing has proven subject to significant manipulation and abuse (friends of the regime in charge get licenses, enemies do not), whether on a national level or a municipal level. Doing a background check on a buyer of a firearm is further predicated on the prohibition on "straw buyers" in federal laws. Take a look at the whole "Operation Fast and Furious" thing to see how well that works to prevent prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms through legitimate channels (which is a completely different can of worms...).
The basic assumptions behind background checks are flawed in a number of ways, including the lack of standardization and vetting of the database's contents (different states provide and withhold different bits of information, and it is a Major Hassle to get erroneous information expunged or corrected), and the expectation that the person "buying" the firearm is actually the legitimate buyer. Which all still comes down to the fact that law-abiding persons are the only ones who would be impacted by a legal requirement to submit all firearms purchases for background checking, and it would have little impact on the black market in firearms, which appears to be where most guns used in crimes come from.

That is mostly a problem with fragmented laws and the current law on top of law on top of law build up that has gone on for the last 100 years and multiple jurisdictional issues.

All of it should be tossed out.

One federal law with states having the ability to add to it but not change the fundamentals of the federal law. IE Federal law says 2 week cool off period nationally. A state can add a third week to that but cant make it 1 week.

What I propose and this is based on the parts of Canadian gun laws that work, ignoring a ton of crap we deal with that make no sense.

Basic Premise

One fire arm organization with state branches in every state.

Licenses Types

PL1 - Personal License non restricted (Hunting rifles, shotguns, semi Automatics)
PL2 - Personal License restricted (Hand Guns and Full Automatics)
PL3 - Personal License Prohibited (Any class of gun deemed to dangerous for the common person to own)
PL4 - Personal Licence Open Carry (Carry on person not concealed, must be visible at all times)

BL1 - Business/Special Licence (For cops, security, and other jobs that require being armed)

Rules to acquire a PL1, PL2, PL3

Registered and approved Safety Usage Course for PL1 (PL2 and PL3 if appling for all 3) 80% passing Grade
Registered and approved Safety Storage Course for PL1 (PL2 and PL3 if appling for all 3) 80% passing Grade
Criminal Record Background Check (Very hard to do in the US because of how fragmented it is from federal and state sources. Should be something to fix independent of firearm rules to actually make it useful for firearms)
1 Family Member, 1 Co-Worker interview on if the person appears mentally sound to own a license
All former wives, partners of the last 5 years given a opportunity to object.
4 Week waiting period starting from date of application.
Fee to cover the costs.

For a PL4 the same above but with a PL4 version of the safety usage course and in addition at least 200 hours of registered range time in usage and practice with a handgun to get a PL4 carry license. Last thing you want is any joe blow who owns a handgun that has fired it off maybe half a dozen times trying to be a hero in a bank being robbed.


Storage Rules

Weapon either locked in special safe, room or disabled with trigger lock when not in use.
Ammunition stored in a locked container or safe.
Weapon must always being under the direct supervision or control of the owner at all times when not in a disabled or locked state.

Transport Rules

Weapon must be transported in a locked case for PL2 weapons. All weapons must me transported in the trunk if there is a trunk. SUVs and pickups in the cab but locked in a case.
Ammunition transported in a locked case no exceptions
Weapons not allowed to be transported loaded unless a PL4 licence is owned.

At Time of sale all a person or business has to do is check Picture ID matches the Photo ID of the license and call a automated phone number service to verify current status of license and there is no restrictions. A 5 min process on the sale of weapons private or business.

That is the base rules and requirements I would put in place. Toss out everything there is now and make it very simple.

Safety usage course and Safety storage/transportation course is not really to much to ask for. The Criminal Record check is problematic currently and it will not catch every one until that system of keeping information is fixed. But no reason not to start doing it right away because it will still catch people.
The 1 Family member and Co-worker sponsor will help prevent mentally unsound people from obtaining a license. Its not going to be full proof either and of course there is ways to fraud it. But it will work most of the time. If some one is acting funny, out of the norm, they can be flagged at this point. Former wife in fear of a husband can stop the process cold too. And yes this can be abused by vengeful wives. 4 Week cool off period on getting a license allows for the background checks to be complete, the phone interviews, informing previous and current partners of the application.


NOW as for criminals, criminals DON'T follow laws and none of this applies to criminals. The point in forcing a safety course, storage course, limiting how its stored and how its transported to law abiding citizens is to protect children and law abiding citizens from stupid mistakes, and ignorance. And that 99% that will follow those rules will make for a massive reduction in accidental shootings of kids, self inflicted injury and accidents in general of law abiding citizens. Every one that should, could own a gun or guns will still be able to. Some will get screwed over and end up having to take more time or go through a process extra and above the rest of the people like the dude with a hateful wife. Most mentally unsound people or angry people looking to get a gun right away during a heated dispute wont get a gun or get one while hot tempered. Most..... With the proper storage rules it should reduce shootings that are heating arguments between family members and friends because of the extra amount of time, effort to unlock both the gun, the ammo and to load it up. Most shootings between family and friends are in the middle of a heated argument and it was because the gun was there and loaded and ready to fire it got used. What would normally have been a fist fight, maybe a stabbing turns into a shooting. Of course the rules wont prevent it 100% either. But will reduce it a lot.

Finally having a requirement of 200+ hours of shooting time for some one allowed to carry in public just means that person will be better off in a public usage of not being killed or killing some one accidently. That is something I WOULD ABSOLUTELY love to see here in Canada. We cant carry period.

That's just my opinion. IT's what I would like to see change here too. That's modeled partially on what we have here in Canada. The part that I think works and does the most good. And isn't to limiting. Because its a constitutional right those that are poor and cant afford the license or safety training should have it covered by the state (the fees should be high enough to cover those costs) so money does not prevent ownership. But that's prob to socialistic for some.

[ghporter]

Most U.S. states make it a felony to not prevent children from having access to firearms. A couple of months ago, a police officer (we expect them to both know and follow rules AND to be smart about guns, right?) left a loaded pistol in his car with his kids, and his 3-year old found it, accidentally shooting his 7-year old sister, killing her. So much for strict laws preventing kids' access to guns.

Laws depend on attention to details which could be stressed through education without a need for more laws. I'll also point out that federal law requires that compounding pharmacies comply with a number of very strict standards for sanitation and cleanliness, and that only those properly licensed are supposed to distribute medications as wholesalers rather than to individuals with prescriptions. That didn't stop a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts from being sloppy, (for years, apparently) and from shipping wholesale medications all over the U.S. when it was only licensed as a local (in person) pharmacy.

Again, more, stricter laws are not the answer. The answer is more attention by everyone to details like securing firearms for safety, like noticing and having some way of impacting aberrant behavior in people with histories of mental illness, and generally educating everyone to demystify firearms. None of this requires restrictive laws that lessen the freedoms of the overwhelming majority of firearms owners who are safe and responsible. And finally, it's an important thing to NOT run screaming into a legislature demanding tons of laws that could turn out to be the wrong thing while in the grips of the emotional response to a tragedy. That happened after 9/11, and the whole Patriot Act thing turned out to be a not-so-good thing for America... Let's not suggest that emotionally reacting to an isolated (yet very tragic) incident by significantly altering the rights of the entire U.S. population.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Most U.S. states make it a felony to not prevent children from having access to firearms. A couple of months ago, a police officer (we expect them to both know and follow rules AND to be smart about guns, right?) left a loaded pistol in his car with his kids, and his 3-year old found it, accidentally shooting his 7-year old sister, killing her. So much for strict laws preventing kids' access to guns.

And was this police office punished in any way by the law? Such laws will not work unless people are seen to incur severe penalties in cases where things do not go wrong.

This anecdote is another great argument against people owning and carrying handguns. If that can happen to someone with considerable training, what hope does the average barely trained action movie enthusiast have of not getting someone killed?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Most U.S. states make it a felony to not prevent children from having access to firearms. A couple of months ago, a police officer (we expect them to both know and follow rules AND to be smart about guns, right?) left a loaded pistol in his car with his kids, and his 3-year old found it, accidentally shooting his 7-year old sister, killing her. So much for strict laws preventing kids' access to guns.
Laws depend on attention to details which could be stressed through education without a need for more laws. I'll also point out that federal law requires that compounding pharmacies comply with a number of very strict standards for sanitation and cleanliness, and that only those properly licensed are supposed to distribute medications as wholesalers rather than to individuals with prescriptions. That didn't stop a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts from being sloppy, (for years, apparently) and from shipping wholesale medications all over the U.S. when it was only licensed as a local (in person) pharmacy.
Again, more, stricter laws are not the answer. The answer is more attention by everyone to details like securing firearms for safety, like noticing and having some way of impacting aberrant behavior in people with histories of mental illness, and generally educating everyone to demystify firearms. None of this requires restrictive laws that lessen the freedoms of the overwhelming majority of firearms owners who are safe and responsible. And finally, it's an important thing to NOT run screaming into a legislature demanding tons of laws that could turn out to be the wrong thing while in the grips of the emotional response to a tragedy. That happened after 9/11, and the whole Patriot Act thing turned out to be a not-so-good thing for America... Let's not suggest that emotionally reacting to an isolated (yet very tragic) incident by significantly altering the rights of the entire U.S. population.

So what I proposed is to strict? Perhaps you could point out which areas you had issues with.

[ghporter]

Your proposal supposes that additional rules will make a difference when existing rules have not. The Washington police officer was tried and the trial ended in a hung jury. The DA dropped charges, as the jury indicated that they did not see a way for any other jury to come to a unanimous conclusion (he was charged with manslaughter). However, there have been plenty of people who have been tried and convicted of failing to protect their children by securing firearms; my example was about the fact that a police officer (I pointed out we both expect them to follow rules and know something about guns) was negligent.

I firmly advocate educating EVERYONE about firearms. Instead of keeping them secret and mysterious. Start by teaching children from an early age that guns are to be handled ONLY by adults, and if a child encounters a gun he or she should tell an adult immediately. This approach has a good track record, whether in a formalized program (like "Eddie Eagle") or informally, as in the way my wife and her siblings were taught. If people don't dork around with things they shouldn't, it's harder for them to get into trouble, and teaching a child from an early age that he shouldn't touch a firearm is an excellent way to stop the sort of tragedy in my example.

Your "barely trained action movie enthusiast" is an excellent example of someone who desperately needs training for safety, if nothing else. But let's also look at the way Western society looks at action movies versus real life. If that enthusiast's only exposure to "action," be it with or without firearms, is in movies, then he's probably got a significantly skewed idea of social interactions and how to handle conflict, as well as a completely incorrect idea of what firearms do, how they work, their sounds, etc. Society seems to push the combination of ignorance and fantasy that goes into the public's enjoyment of action movies, while attempting to ensure that the public has no actual data about such things as weapons, conflict management, etc. A "barely trained action movie enthusiast" (or Gears of War "expert") is likely to be socially inept, and either lashes out in response to conflict (very dysfunctionally), or withdraws (and goes home to his Mom's basement). The point is that movies like this are not like life, and if someone gets his ideas about life from these films, he has bigger problems. Note still that I am advocating education for EVERYONE, not just "kids, don't touch this!", so Action Movie Bob should be educated as well. What is still a problem is the question of what training, by whom, to what standards (not just passing score, but mastery of what specific, key points and knowledges)? I spent well over a decade developing training programs on very complex systems, administering and teaching those programs, validating them (ensuring they do what they are supposed to) and confirming that graduates had the specific skills and knowledge needed to perform their jobs. The job itself was the "standard" the students needed to meet, so there was little chance for someone to influence the course content for political purposes. Establishing a "minimum educational requirement" for gun ownership is about as politically devisive as you can get, and there are so many ways to make the content of such programs skewed to favor a few individuals, or to deny gun ownership to almost everyone, that this is a major flaw in a "license program that requires a specific course."

[Waragainstsleep]

Well if what you are saying is that every single citizen should be educated to a certain level on handling, storage, maintenance and use of firearms regardless of whether they want to own or use them or not, then I guess I'm in favour of that in a way. Education is always a good thing. I would hope that it didn't encourage more people to own guns tbh, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.

The other issue with such a policy is that you are now forcing everyone to attend (pass?) a course just so that some people can have something they want. This obviously raises more rights issues.

As for the police officer, I suppose thats the problem with juries. Even if it was clear that he broke some kind of law, unless a judge directs them to pass a certain verdict, they are unlikely to get agreement to convict a public servant who has already been punished with the loss of a child. Doesn't help to deter others though does it?

[ghporter]

I don't expect everyone to attend some in-depth course. However, I would hope that every parent would provide enough education to their kids to keep the kids from getting fascinated in what our current culture invests guns with: some sort of mysticality that makes them very attractive to people who know nothing about them. With just that much exposure, I would expect most people would simply go with what they are interested in, and this would not "push" anyone to handle guns when they didn't want to, but would give them the basics of how to safely deal with them if they encounter them.

Until action movies stop making it look like the good guy can effectively point a rubber band at the bad guy and make the bad guy fly through the air and disintegrate, there will still be people who just don't pick up that such displays are "over the top" cartoons, not reality. (It would also help if a few more people in the world got some idea of basic physics...)

Yes, the cop broke the law, but how much more can you punish someone than they've punished themselves already, knowing that their negligence caused the death of their own daughter? Getting plenty of press does help remind others that this sort of thing happens, and I seriously doubt that Joe Citizen would think, "well that guy got off the hook, so I'm not going to worry about whether my kids can find my (guns/knives/chemicals/etc.)." Keeping such things in the public eye enough to remind people to take basic precautions would be emotionally exhausting to most people, and frankly I think that being reminded to wear your wellies, button your jacket and wear clean undies is not the job of the state. But making sure we address a risk that goes with poorly/un-educated people dealing with machinery that has the potential to do great damage helps us as a society. Don't drink and drive, wear your seat belt or helmet, remember that knives don't care where they cut, and that guns should not be handled by or available to anyone that isn't an adult; those all sound like good rules to live by. Since laws about drunk driving are apparently only truly effective after the fact (putting the drunks that get caught behind bars), I think they serve as a lesson on how regulating things in this way work as a whole - not terribly well as a deterrent.

[Waragainstsleep]

You're probably right about the cop. Its only going to act as a deterrent to those who hear about it and losing a kid is going to suffice for that. They should probably make a point of advertising it to the public regularly.
What might also act as a deterrent, would be to punish someone who endangered their kid without killing them.

As for drunk driving, my personal feeling is that if you are caught once without hurting people or property, you get a fine and a warning. Second time, whichever vehicle you are driving is taken, fines may be added if its a POS, and if it wasn't yours, you are liable for the value to the owner.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Most U.S. states make it a felony to not prevent children from having access to firearms.

In Michigan it is, as it should be everywhere.

Again, more, stricter laws are not the answer. The answer is more attention by everyone to details like securing firearms for safety, like noticing and having some way of impacting aberrant behavior in people with histories of mental illness, and generally educating everyone to demystify firearms. None of this requires restrictive laws that lessen the freedoms of the overwhelming majority of firearms owners who are safe and responsible.

Amen!

And finally, it's an important thing to NOT run screaming into a legislature demanding tons of laws that could turn out to be the wrong thing while in the grips of the emotional response to a tragedy. That happened after 9/11, and the whole Patriot Act thing turned out to be a not-so-good thing for America... Let's not suggest that emotionally reacting to an isolated (yet very tragic) incident by significantly altering the rights of the entire U.S. population.

Amen again!

[Phileas]

Except, it is not an isolated incident.

[ghporter]

Not isolated incidents?. Quantify how frequent an incident this was, as compared to other fatal incidents. It would be more effective in saving lives to stop drunk driving and "automobile abuse" (32,885 motor vehicle deaths in 2010*, with over 10,000** of those due to intoxicated drivers), and of course do something serious about accidental poisonings (over 33,000 in 2010***). Get those two things taken care of, saving almost 67,000 lives every year, then maybe the idea that this is about saving lives rather than something more like abridging the Constitutional rights of over 308 million people because some several score of people did some horrible things.

*Wiki article on MVAs, **Century Club data on drunk driving fatalities, ***CDC data on unintentional death causes, 2010.

[Shaddim]

They are pretty isolated, there's no reason to screw with the facts in this. It all boils down to; guns scare people, and when humans are scared they hide. Airline terror attacks led to a loss of liberty and now we have to live with the TSA and draconian travel laws. Recent firearm-related terror attacks will likely lead to a loss of liberty, with more stringent gun control laws (which probably won't be enforced any better than old laws). It's all a case of, "the stove eye is hot, let's get rid of the stove!" It's overreaction, knee-jerk responses, and a misunderstanding of why these freedoms were recognized in the first place. While it's easier to just shun what you don't understand, it doesn't fix the root problem, which will always rear its head in other ways down the line.

[Waragainstsleep]

They are isolated, but they aren't like car accidents of any kind. In fact, can we all stop comparing guns to cars now please? Motor vehicles are designed to transport people and goods more quickly and efficiently than walking or cycling, more precisely and conveniently than trains.

People drive, so people will crash and people will die. People drink, which means some will drink and drive and crash and kill. They should be punished when that happens but it is easy and obvious to see ways that motor vehicles have saved lives, have improved lives and that they continue to do so.

These isolated shootings hit the public hard not just because the death toll is high and in one place. Not just because of the children who die. Its also because someone went out of their way to do it. Some of them are planned for a long time, some of them are spur of the moment, but you don't trip over and accidentally shoot 20 people on your way down. You don't stagger home from the bar and think, I'd better empty my gun in case I accidentally kill someone, and then shoot a bunch of people by mistake in your drunken attempt to empty it. Even if it only just occurred to you, you pick the gun up, maybe you have to go and remove it from a locked cupboard or something first, but you pick it up and you decide that you are going to kill as many people as you can before someone gets you or you decide you've had enough and get yourself. These events hit people hard because they look preventable.

Calling the reaction 'knee-jerk' does a disservice to the victims and their families. Its just politics. Maybe after Columbine it was knee-jerk when people talked about gun control, but here we are 20 years and how many school shootings later? Its not knee-jerk any more. It hasn't been for a long time.

[Waragainstsleep]

Maybe some of you should be telling your leaders that if they want to be trusted to reduce gun rights, they should return some of the rights they took after 9/11 first.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Maybe some of you should be telling your leaders that if they want to be trusted to reduce gun rights, they should return some of the rights they took after 9/11 first.

Ask Obama, he sealed it under executive order.

Calling the reaction 'knee-jerk' does a disservice to the victims and their families. Its just politics. Maybe after Columbine it was knee-jerk when people talked about gun control, but here we are 20 years and how many school shootings later? Its not knee-jerk any more. It hasn't been for a long time.

No, it isn't "just politics", it's a part of our basic rights as Americans.

None of these shootings have occurred in schools with armed officers, that appears to be a solution.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

None of these shootings have occurred in schools with armed officers, that appears to be a solution.

I await your response to the first rampage by an armed protector with interest.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Ask Obama, he sealed it under executive order.

And yet he was voted back in anyway. Democracy is great until you don't get your way huh?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, it isn't "just politics", it's a part of our basic rights as Americans.

Rights generally fall under politics anyway, but the reactions are people's right too. Calling it knee-jerk is just a dismissive political tactic.

[Chongo]

snip

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I await your response to the first rampage by an armed protector with interest.

I have no doubt you would be.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And yet he was voted back in anyway. Democracy is great until you don't get your way huh?

That sounds more like you, actually. The majority of Americans want to own guns, but you're still crying about it. You live in the UK, don't you think your time would be best spent trying to find a resolution to your citizens hacking each other to pieces with machetes? Hint: it's the same problem, only with different tools. We'll all finally be safe when the most deadly thing we can own is a spatula, right? By then life will be meaningless, of course, and people will just file into Ethical Suicide Parlors by the millions. I suppose Vonnegut was right.

Rights generally fall under politics anyway, but the reactions are people's right too. Calling it knee-jerk is just a dismissive political tactic.

Then so is the comment you just made. If the proposal someone makes is simply emotional rhetoric, then it isn't a solution at all. It's what I call "paintball legislation", you figure if you shoot enough of them you can cover-up the problem, but in reality it only causes a bigger mess.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

None of these shootings have occurred in schools with armed officers, that appears to be a solution.

Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999

[Spheric Harlot]

Oops.

[Shaddim]

Reading the report, I know that's weird, it appears the guard wasn't actually ever in the school.

Oops?

[Uncle Skeleton]

"Ever?" Do you mean that day or normal days? It says: "Gardner, a 15-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office, normally ate his lunch with the students in the cafeteria during first lunch period."

To me that reads like he was actually inside the school most days, and suggestive that he was inside the school on the same day, just not at the moment of the attack. What am I missing?

[Doc HM]

Sorry I'm reading
"Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.
After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."

That sounds very much like an armed guard on the premises failing to stop an armed attacker. Or am I being super dense?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

That sounds very much like an armed guard on the premises failing to stop an armed attacker. Or am I being super dense?

I think in this case the shooters had taken his schedule into account. They may or may not have known the SOP for active shooter for that particular school district, but I can tell you that it's changed since then around the country based on Columbine and VA Tech. Now police are more likely to move in sooner instead of "securing a perimeter" (or at least that's how they drill here locally).

[lpkmckenna]

All this talk about armed guards is stupid. Unless every school has a secure perimeter and metal detectors, the entire exercise will be pointless.

For instance: high school student decides to kill his classmates. He brings some guns to school, walks up to the guard to say hi, just like every other day, and shoots him first.

Suddenly, the school has no armed guard any more. School massacre proceeds as expected.

So unless the United States plans to fortify every school and flush billions down the toilet to do it, armed guards is a waste of time and money.

And these guards will just be rent-a-cops anyway, with all the motivation and skill of a TSA worker.

And even if every school is turned into Fort Knox, crazed gunmen will just target public libraries, or playgrounds, or whatever. Will you fortify those too?

You have to take the "gun" out of "crazed gunman." There are reasonable steps that can be taken to do this. Or you can take the unreasonable steps, and flush the treasure of the entire United States down the toilet.

[Shaddim]

"The fix" is for lawful citizens to understand that protecting their community is a part of their civic responsibility and they should be armed.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"The fix" is for lawful citizens to understand that protecting their community is a part of their civic responsibility and they should be armed.

Sure, let's arm every teacher, and replace the occasional school gunman with regular, predictable events of a teacher killing some students because he or she has a long string of bad days.

Sure, let's arm every factory worker, and replace the occasional "going postal" event with regular, predictable events of dead supervisors and co-workers because Gomer's recent car accident has triggered PTSD and no one noticed.

Sure, let's arm every person standing in line waiting at Wal-Mart for the latest console or Xmas sale, and replace occasional stampedes with regular shootings as hockey moms gun each other down because the store ran out of Furbys.

Armed populace = more violent populace. Gun fights will replace fist fights. Two men will have an argument, one guy will cock a fist, the other will pull a gun. Because "he was defending himself" or something.

You will replace America's currently ridiculous level of gun violence with an astronomical level of gun violence. :golfclap:

[Shaddim]

Still awaiting an intelligible response (preferably from a US citizen).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sure, let's arm every teacher

You're thinking like a statist. Every solution with you is for the state to build a new process that only works if the state maintains total control over it from start to end. Then you poke holes in this plan by finding where it's impossible for the state to maintain complete enough control. It should come as no surprise that that is precisely the objection people have to statism in the first place.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're thinking like a statist. Every solution with you is for the state to build a new process that only works if the state maintains total control over it from start to end. Then you poke holes in this plan by finding where it's impossible for the state to maintain complete enough control. It should come as no surprise that that is precisely the objection people have to statism in the first place.

Yet again, another gun nut shoving words in people's mouths. I never said any of this.

BTW, the word "statist" is utterly meaningless. Anarchists, libertarians and conservatives have attempt to use the word, but it just means "not an anarchist," "not a conservative" or "not a libertarian" in their mouths. Since it has no mutually-agreed upon definition, it is worthless.

For instance, Thomas Jefferson advocated public libraries and public schools, ergo he is a "statist."

Another instance, some ultraconservative thinks it's constitutional for state governments to imprison gays for sodomy. He doesn't advocate it, but he thinks it's constitutional. Clearly then, he's a statist for tolerating state control of private behaviour.

See how pointless this word is? It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. There's a reason only weirdoes like Ayn Rand use it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Still awaiting an intelligible response (preferably from a US citizen).

You got one, you just can't refute it, so you refuse to engage and choose to sulk instead.

[Shaddim]

Nothing? Okay then. We need:

1. to encourage citizens to be more proactive in their communities, asserting their right to bear arms.
2. a better understanding of firearms and their place in American society, along with comprehensive firearm education.
3. schools with armed officers or deputies in the school at all times, with metal detectors and limited points of entry. (This is already standard practice in my area.)
4. the launch of a mental health registry. Tracking individuals who are determined to be disturbed and have violent tendencies, while providing a support structure for them.

I really like this, I'm going to work on a draft and send it to my reps and senators and see about fleshing it out. All but one would be within the domain of the states, the registry would have to be national to lessen the likelihood of people slipping through the cracks.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

1. to encourage citizens to be more proactive in their communities, asserting their right to bear arms.

Almost no one is attacking your right to bear arms, just like no one is attacking your right to consume alcohol. But alcohol is still regulated, just as guns must be. And when that regulation is proved to be lacking, as it is, it must be strengthened.

2. a better understanding of firearms and their place in American society, along with comprehensive firearm education.

Sounds good, though "their place in American society" sounds pretty ideological and propagandistic. And the gun owners must pay for it. Every penny. A tax on every weapon to pay for this sounds fair.

3. schools with armed officers or deputies in the school at all times, with metal detectors and limited points of entry. (This is already standard practice in my area.)

So you're advocating a massive increases in taxes to pay for this? Because this will be a massive expense. Will teachers and principals be permitted weapons?

4. the launch of a mental health registry. Tracking individuals who are determined to be disturbed and have violent tendencies, while providing a support structure for them.

Time for the crazy, no-benefit recommendations, I guess?

Let's start with my knee-jerk reaction: we can require the registration of PEOPLE, but not GUNS? Have you lost your bloody mind?

Ok, now that I've calmed down, let's talk about the implications of what you seem to be recommending.

First, there is no good system for identifying sociopaths prior to violent outbreaks. That's right: crazed gunmen tend not to be autistic, depressed, anxious, or schizophrenic. They're sociopaths, which is pretty much impossible to diagnose without *bing* a long history of antisocial behaviour, like violent crimes.

Second, diagnosis almost always follows the commission of crimes. As far as we can tell, the mass shootings by these crazed gunmen is usually the first expression of "violent tendencies" by these people. As far as I know, Adam Lanza, Marc Lépine, Kimveer Gill, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes, and Jared Loughner never hurt a fly before their rampages. And even if they threatened someone, would it really 1) find it's way into a national database in time to have any effect, and 2) prevent these people from stealing completely unsecured weapons from parents?

And remember, even if Adam Lanza had been diagnosed as "disturbed with violent tendencies," does that mean we take his mother's weapons away from her?

And then there's the problem of "disturbed with violent tendencies." Would you suggest we somehow remove the guns from the homes of every person who suffers from mental illness following a tragic event like a car accident or a rape, and is now very angry about it? Or perhaps enacting laws preventing gun purchases by recent victims of crime who then sought mental health assistance? I'm trying to imagine this awkward conversation at a gun show: "Sorry ma'am, but this national database says you once had PTSD after a crime, and are very angry about it, ergo, I'm not legally allowed to sell you a gun." Disturbed with violent tendencies is a pretty vague, virtually meaningless category.

And frankly, I find it pretty bizarre that anyone would suggest spending money to create federal bureaucracy for a "national database of disturbed individuals" instead of, say, spending that money on accessible mental healthcare for everyone. You know, addressing the problem before it becomes a problem?

Really, this "national database" sounds like a "solution" just like the TSA was a "solution."

I really like this, I'm going to work on a draft and send it to my reps and senators and see about fleshing it out. All but one would be within the domain of the states, the registry would have to be national to lessen the likelihood of people slipping through the cracks.

Do you know what would be a lot cheaper that a national database on "disturbed individuals," the fortification of schools, and "comprehensive firearms education?" Some limited, common sense restrictions on magazines and weapon storage.

Wouldn't the world be awesome if conservatives at least considered being "fiscally responsible" about how to address this issue, instead of advocating vast, expensive plans that won't work anyways?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yet again, another gun nut shoving words in people's mouths. I never said any of this.

You don't have to say it, it's clear from what you did say. If you can demonstrate even one post or issue where you suggested a solution other than top-down control, I will apologize for misrepresenting your outlook.

For instance, Thomas Jefferson advocated public libraries and public schools, ergo he is a "statist."

If it was his answer to everything, then yes. Good thing it wasn't.

Another instance, some ultraconservative thinks it's constitutional for state governments to imprison gays for sodomy. He doesn't advocate it, but he thinks it's constitutional. Clearly then, he's a statist for tolerating state control of private behaviour.

I said "thinking like" a statist, and yes he would be.

[olePigeon]

I don't think giving people more guns is the solution to preventing gun violence. The 2nd Amendment was drafted at a time when we didn't have a standing military. We needed militias. Also, the gun was an invaluable tool needed for everyday life. Hunting for food and protection from wild animals and justly pissed off natives. None of that is relevant anymore. The law also had in mind people were using muzzle loading guns, not fully automatic assault rifles.

I think we need a Federal ban on assault rifles and automatic pistols. They're built for one thing: killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount time. They have zero reasonable uses in civilian life, and should be restricted to military only.

I'm cool with hunting rifles for sport, same with pistols. However, I think that fines for violations should be 10x higher. I can't believe how laxed people are on gun safety. Fines should be thousands of dollars, not hundreds. Force people to be responsible gun owners. Screw the 80% for tests. It should be 100% before you get a license. You should know gun safety forward and backward. It's not a god damn toy.

I have the same reaction to driver's license as well. It is unbelievable to me how little you have to know or demonstrate to get behind several tons of metal at high speeds. But that's a different subject.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't think giving people more guns is the solution to preventing gun violence.

That's like saying you don't think the solution to malicious computer code is more computer code. It sounds smart until you start thinking about it.

The 2nd Amendment was drafted at a time when we didn't have a standing military. We needed militias. Also, the gun was an invaluable tool needed for everyday life. Hunting for food and protection from wild animals and justly pissed off natives. None of that is relevant anymore. The law also had in mind people were using muzzle loading guns, not fully automatic assault rifles.

The Bill of Rights is not obsolete. The separation of powers is not obsolete. The amendment process is not obsolete. These are the things we use to manage our rights, which sometimes are obsolete. If you're not interested in going that route, then none of your plans for gun bans are relevant.

I can't believe how laxed people are on gun safety. Fines should be thousands of dollars, not hundreds. Force people to be responsible gun owners. Screw the 80% for tests. It should be 100% before you get a license. You should know gun safety forward and backward. It's not a god damn toy.

I have the same reaction to driver's license as well. It is unbelievable to me how little you have to know or demonstrate to get behind several tons of metal at high speeds. But that's a different subject.

I'm with you on cars. But the only thing making it a different subject is that bearing arms is a right and driving is not. If we allow people to side-step the bill of rights out of convenience, when there's a perfectly legitimate route to amending it that we're not even discussing, then we have much bigger problems than a few school shootings every year.

[Chongo]

this is interesting. Teachers are flocking to take advantage of firearms training
Teachers In Ohio, Texas Flock To Free Gun Training Classes - Courant.com

School teachers in Texas and Ohio are flocking to free firearms classes in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, some vowing to protect their students with guns even at the risk of losing their jobs.

In Ohio, more than 900 teachers, administrators and school employees asked to take part in the Buckeye Firearms Association's newly created, three-day gun training program, the association said.

In Texas, an $85 Concealed Handgun License (CHL) course offered at no cost to teachers filled 400 spots immediately, forcing the school to offer another class, one instructor said.

[ghporter]

When the Bill of Rights was written, "the militia" consisted of citizens who were not formally organized and who brought their own weapons to defend their and their neighbors' homes. At that time, the term "regulated" was still used to mean "trained and practiced," much the way a precision watch is still referred to as being "regulated" when it is calibrated by a watchmaker. We DID have an organized military; the Army, Navy, and Marines all existed at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

People are lax with gun safety because a lot of them need education, and plenty of it. Without a simple introduction to what a gun will and will not do, and to the basic rules of firearms safety, anyone could be seen as lax. But it isn't "lax" if you've never been trained...it's a lack of training. Instead of making guns all mysterious and magical, we should just teach everyone "this is a gun; if you are not interested in putting in some time to learn about it, just move along and never touch it," the perceived laxity in safety would pretty much disappear.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Maybe some of you should be telling your leaders that if they want to be trusted to reduce gun rights, they should return some of the rights they took after 9/11 first.

Isn't it interesting how well all those guns protected us from the PATRIOT Act? Where are they now, while there's no sign that those rights will ever return?

At present, we may be arrested without a warrant, denied representation, held indefinitely and without charge, searched without warrant, denied habeas corpus, and others- and where were all those gun-toting patriots when the Act was being passed?

Or is the right to have a gun the only right worth fighting for?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I firmly advocate educating EVERYONE about firearms. Instead of keeping them secret and mysterious. Start by teaching children from an early age that guns are to be handled ONLY by adults, and if a child encounters a gun he or she should tell an adult immediately. This approach has a good track record, whether in a formalized program (like "Eddie Eagle") or informally, as in the way my wife and her siblings were taught. If people don't dork around with things they shouldn't, it's harder for them to get into trouble, and teaching a child from an early age that he shouldn't touch a firearm is an excellent way to stop the sort of tragedy in my example.

Very well put.

Long before my father gave me my first gun, he, and other family members, taught me just how serious even holding a gun was- I still remember the knock on the head I got when I carelessly turned around, which left the gun pointed at another hunter. It was unloaded, but the lesson was learned: when you hold a gun, even a moment of carelessness can take a life.

It's an immense responsibility, but far too many people prefer to say it belongs to someone else.

[BadKosh]

We can always trust the Biden commission....

� Member of Biden’s Gun Control Task Force Has a Son Convicted of Planning School Mass Murder Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[raleur]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We DID have an organized military; the Army, Navy, and Marines all existed at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

Although the Army, Navy, and Marines take the revolution as their founding dates, all were disbanded after the revolutionary war.

I'm not trying to nitpick, but the point is that until several years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the nation's defense rested solely on "well-regulated militias."

The Militia Acts of 1792 were passed precisely for this reason, and in 1794, Washington himself led a force comprised of militia from several states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We can always trust the Biden commission....

� Member of Biden’s Gun Control Task Force Has a Son Convicted of Planning School Mass Murder

I'd say having been in that sad situation makes one qualified to serve.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'd say having been in that sad situation makes one qualified to serve.

Or that creating that situation at home makes one utterly incompetent to serve on that board. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's worth looking into.