[pbaj12]

Oh and I forgot to add in there another thing to do.
Make schools safer by not letting anyone just walk on it, a closed campus. Have a plan and practice it as if there is a shooter. Have a dedicated law enforcement officer at the school while in session as a deterrent and someone that can react in time of need.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

Well that's not the definition, it's a mis-attributed quote by Einstein trying to give a simplified example of insanity.

I have nothing wrong with doing something. But doing something that is set up to fail and takes rights away from many to *help* stop a few from doing something is stupid.

Like I've said in previous posts..
Fund abortion clinics and promote people getting their tubes tied after they've had enough kids. Stop paying people to have more than 2 kids. If you can stop kids from being born that would be brought up in poverty with neglect and violence, you'll lessen the chance that the kids will be around to continue the trend.

Make it mandatory that people take shooting/gun safety/etc. classes to own a firearm and a refresher course/test every few years.
Have 30 day wait limits to pick up a gun after purchasing it.
Have a better check on people, like using references and what not. Standards need to be met for shall issue.
Teach kids what guns are about, don't shun guns. Kids may not understand the power guns and if they kill someone they don't respawn like in Call of Duty.
Have more buy backs, especially in poverty stricken areas.
Fund fall back things for healthcare, food, housing, etc. so people in bad situations don't need to use guns to get life essentials.
Let people know it's okay to feel depressed or abnormal and they can get professional help.

No, never mind it makes much more sense to just ban any new guns and hope the millions of them in the hands of dangerous people won't be used for anything bad.

* While it may not be a literal definition, it's analogous and it's point should be obvious, don't be obtuse. I never mentioned Einstein, you did.

* I'm glad YOU 'have nothing wrong with doing something', but I've asked the question here before and the overwhelming response was to make NO changes to gun laws, so you're apparently in the minority opinion, at least here on DR.

* I also never advocated a ban on assault style weapons and CERTAINLY not one on ALL weapons.

As for your 'suggestions'

Fund abortion clinics.?.., riiight, the ONLY thing the far-right wants to do more than defend the second amendment is overturn Roe v. Wade...While I agree that programs to encourage certain behaviors may be helpful, they haven't produced lasting results in the past and there's NO desire on the part of congress to fund anything these days, certainly not more social programs.

As for gun safety testing...this has no chance of passing congress, but I admire the idea.

I don't see the need for 30-day waiting periods if back-ground checks can be conducted quickly. I DO believe there should be limits as to the number of guns that can be purchased at one time, or in a month's time to discourage straw purchasing.

References? Please...an utter waste of time. What's that going to do? Is the referrer held liable if some one goes on a kill-crazy rampage? Who vouches for the voucher? Just more red tape...

Teaching kids is a fine idea IF you want your kids to be gun aware, especially if they're both in your home, but kids don't usually end up killing themselves with guns, it's an adult in the household who does, so this has marginal benefit at best. Guns safes would be far more sensible.

Buybacks? Please, talk about feel good legislation. The vast majority of guns that are turned in are shit rifles and crap like expended rocket-launcher tubes, not the guns that do most of the damage [handguns] or extended magazines.

Again, anything that requires MORE social welfare funding is not going to happen and even contradictory to what you said earlier, you wanna STOP 'paying people to have kids, but you want to have fall-back funding for food & housing? Make up your mind...

I do agree that mental health services should be increased, but this won't happen overnight and there's going to be issues over the stigma for years to come until people learn this is no different than any other illness. We don't look down on cancer patients, buy we deride the mentally ill constantly.

As for guns, no one is talking about a 100% ban, nor is there ever going to be a perfect solution, but there are some things that can be done.

* Universal background checks, NO gun-show or private transactions - period, even between families.

* Federalize all gun crime laws to create standard penalties & sentencing. Make gun crimes punishable by no parole sentencing.

* Require the ATF to name a director, fully fund and staff the organization, repeal any laws that restrict their oversight of gun dealers and require gun dealers to have written inventories of weapons and sales logs. Failure to do so or record falsification to be federal offenses resulting in lifetime revocation of dealer license, fines and stiff jail time.

* Mandate state participation in and updates of nationwide databases for background checks and legislate changes to healthcare privacy laws to add mental health disqualifiers to the database.

* Give serious consideration to limiting clip & magazine capacities. Make intrastate gun sales illegal if the product violate specific state gun laws.

Are these perfect solutions? Hell no. Nothing will be. Do they have holes in 'em, Yes, a mile wide I'm sure. But as you can see, I've only suggested ONE change that directly impacts weapons and that's ammo capacity, not weapons themselves.

And one more thing, rather than spend money on more guards and guns at schools, perhaps we should consider safe rooms, or better yet, bullet proof windows and doors. If these had been at Sandy Hook, the shooter would have gotten in the first door, or at least would have been delayed long enough for cops to arrive on scene.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

Oh and I forgot to add in there another thing to do.
Make schools safer by not letting anyone just walk on it, a closed campus. Have a plan and practice it as if there is a shooter. Have a dedicated law enforcement officer at the school while in session as a deterrent and someone that can react in time of need.

A 'closed' campus won't do shit unless the school itself is totally enclosed and in most western states, they just weren't built that way. There's hardly an elementary school, high-school or college campus that a person can't drive ride onto under the guise of having business to conduct or being a parent, a student, etc.

As for school guards, one guard can't be everywhere. Columbine had a school resource officer, fat lotta good that did. Safer rooms or individual classrooms with bullet proof glass and doors would be more effective...

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

* While it may not be a literal definition, it's analogous and it's point should be obvious, don't be obtuse. I never mentioned Einstein, you did.

* I'm glad YOU 'have nothing wrong with doing something', but I've asked the question here before and the overwhelming response was to make NO changes to gun laws, so you're apparently in the minority opinion, at least here on DR.

I think the problem lies with what changes have been tried. If there were reasonable things I don't see why people would care. I know I don't like seeing gun laws because it seems like they are just chipping away at the stone, little by little until everything is banned.

* I also never advocated a ban on assault style weapons and CERTAINLY not one on ALL weapons.

As for your 'suggestions'

Fund abortion clinics.?.., riiight, the ONLY thing the far-right wants to do more than defend the second amendment is overturn Roe v. Wade...While I agree that programs to encourage certain behaviors may be helpful, they haven't produced lasting results in the past and there's NO desire on the part of congress to fund anything these days, certainly not more social programs.

I'm not saying they will do it, it's just something I would do if I had the choice.

As for gun safety testing...this has no chance of passing congress, but I admire the idea.

I agree, just another suggestion I don't see happening ha.

I don't see the need for 30-day waiting periods if back-ground checks can be conducted quickly. I DO believe there should be limits as to the number of guns that can be purchased at one time, or in a month's time to discourage straw purchasing.

I'm sure there's been people that have been perfect their entire life but then there's a day where they can't take their neighbor, boss, etc. anymore and decide to get a gun. If they can walk out the same day with a weapon they would be more likely to use it than someone that had a month to cool down. And a month isn't an inconvenience for anyone.

References? Please...an utter waste of time. What's that going to do? Is the referrer held liable if some one goes on a kill-crazy rampage? Who vouches for the voucher? Just more red tape...

I'm not saying you can trust someone completely based on references. But you may encounter a reference that has a good reason why the person shouldn't get a gun or require a more in depth check.

Teaching kids is a fine idea IF you want your kids to be gun aware, especially if they're both in your home, but kids don't usually end up killing themselves with guns, it's an adult in the household who does, so this has marginal benefit at best. Guns safes would be far more sensible.

I would like kids to be gun aware, once a year have a demonstration at their school where they talk about guns and safety. I've seen plenty of news stories where a kid gets a gun and brings it to school to deal with a bully, you may save some if they fully understood what they were doing. Gun safes would help, I'm not advocating for one or the other but both would be best.

Buybacks? Please, talk about feel good legislation. The vast majority of guns that are turned in are shit rifles and crap like expended rocket-launcher tubes, not the guns that do most of the damage [handguns] or extended magazines.

A shitty weapon that still functions can still kill someone. If you can get some off the street that's more than doing nothing about the problem. I'm not saying this is the sole solution, just a tool to use.

Again, anything that requires MORE social welfare funding is not going to happen and even contradictory to what you said earlier, you wanna STOP 'paying people to have kids, but you want to have fall-back funding for food & housing? Make up your mind...

Like I said, it's just something I would do if I had the chance. By paying people to have kids I mean like:
I know someone who gets paid in cash and has 5 kids. He claims he makes $22,XXX a year. Pays no taxes. He gets $1,000 for each kid for a total of $5,000. If he has another kid that's another $1,000. Then you have food stamps and each head nets them more money. I know most people think it's ludicrous to have a kid to make money but some people think like that.. I don't have a problem with giving them the money up to two kids because that's reasonable.

The fallbacks wouldn't be a handout. I would want people to work for it in some way or another.

I do agree that mental health services should be increased, but this won't happen overnight and there's going to be issues over the stigma for years to come until people learn this is no different than any other illness. We don't look down on cancer patients, buy we deride the mentally ill constantly.

Yes.

As for guns, no one is talking about a 100% ban, nor is there ever going to be a perfect solution, but there are some things that can be done.

* Universal background checks, NO gun-show or private transactions - period, even between families.

* Federalize all gun crime laws to create standard penalties & sentencing. Make gun crimes punishable by no parole sentencing.

* Require the ATF to name a director, fully fund and staff the organization, repeal any laws that restrict their oversight of gun dealers and require gun dealers to have written inventories of weapons and sales logs. Failure to do so or record falsification to be federal offenses resulting in lifetime revocation of dealer license, fines and stiff jail time.

* Mandate state participation in and updates of nationwide databases for background checks and legislate changes to healthcare privacy laws to add mental health disqualifiers to the database.

* Give serious consideration to limiting clip & magazine capacities. Make intrastate gun sales illegal if the product violate specific state gun laws.

This sounds good but you have to remember there are millions of "high" capacity magazines on the market already.

Are these perfect solutions? Hell no. Nothing will be. Do they have holes in 'em, Yes, a mile wide I'm sure. But as you can see, I've only suggested ONE change that directly impacts weapons and that's ammo capacity, not weapons themselves.

I'm not saying mine are perfect either but it's a step closer in the right direction.

And one more thing, rather than spend money on more guards and guns at schools, perhaps we should consider safe rooms, or better yet, bullet proof windows and doors. If these had been at Sandy Hook, the shooter would have gotten in the first door, or at least would have been delayed long enough for cops to arrive on scene.

I don't believe there should be armed guards/teachers at schools like the NRA suggested. Police are one thing but I don't want some guard thinking he's superman. I agree about the bullet proof things and I think I've mentioned that somewhere.

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

A 'closed' campus won't do shit unless the school itself is totally enclosed and in most western states, they just weren't built that way. There's hardly an elementary school, high-school or college campus that a person can't drive ride onto under the guise of having business to conduct or being a parent, a student, etc.

As for school guards, one guard can't be everywhere. Columbine had a school resource officer, fat lotta good that did. Safer rooms or individual classrooms with bullet proof glass and doors would be more effective...

This isn't one of those things to be done overnight. They can be done when remodeling or building a new school. Like you said above, if there are layers of security to at least slow someone down then that gives more time for the proper people to respond and take care of the matter.

A police officer wouldn't have to be there just to stop a shooter. They would be making a presence, someone intending to do harm might choose a different place just because they know someone is armed and trained on campus.

Safer rooms + police officer is more effective.

[AmericanIllusions]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 will be at the federal level, not just CA. That's why it's next to impossible to find ammo, magazines or gun parts for good prices or at all at the moment.

CA laws aren't that strict, they are just useless and won't prevent gun violence. For an AR it needs to have a bullet button (being able to remove the magazine without a tool is illegal) so that you need a tool (no definition, something other than a finger such as a bullet) to detach the magazine. And you can't have more than a 10 round magazine if you have "evil features" (flash supressor, pistol grip, etc.).
It's perfectly legal to posses/buy a regular magazine release and all of the parts to build a normal ("high") capacity magazine aka a rebuild kit. BUT it's illegal to assemble them to the gun..so if someone is going to go on a rampage are they going to care about a couple laws?

The 2013 AWB won't change anything, it's just another one of those laws to make people *feel* safer. People that agree with it don't know the full story. They don't know what an assault rifle is or they think everyone possesses fully automatic weapons. Politicians are great at exploiting tragedies to get nonsensical laws passed.

If people want to live where guns are banned tell them to move to Chicago.

If it does pass, no one I know is registering their firearms and I'm sure lots of other people won't either. It seems when there has been firearm registration in a country, the population gets their weapons confiscated and there's genocide.

The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Yea I already know the ban will be everywhere. I said take a look at CA first because they already have something in place like the 2013 Ban. It hasn't prevented a damn thing either.

There are differences with this bill and Clintons ban. The new bill won't sunset on its own which is fucked up. Contrary to what the idiot box says, most folks, even those that never owned a weapon object this ban because its just simple sense that crazies and criminals won't abide by it, which makes it a waste of time. It only turns good folks into criminals. If it passes it will be interesting to see what happens when folks that never had a problem with the law are sent to prison for violations.

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by AmericanIllusions ↗

Yea I already know the ban will be everywhere. I said take a look at CA first because they already have something in place like the 2013 Ban. It hasn't prevented a damn thing either.

There are differences with this bill and Clintons ban. The new bill won't sunset on its own which is fucked up. Contrary to what the idiot box says, most folks, even those that never owned a weapon object this ban because its just simple sense that crazies and criminals won't abide by it, which makes it a waste of time. It only turns good folks into criminals. If it passes it will be interesting to see what happens when folks that never had a problem with the law are sent to prison for violations.

Oh ok, I misunderstood what you wrote. Yeah the laws here I mentioned only restrict the people that wouldn't break them.

I don't think it will pass but I've said that about things before so who knows. I just hope it doesn't so all this panic buying everything will stop and prices/supply will be normal again. I went to go buy some ammo, 5 stores had nothing but odd calibers and only a few left of those even.

[Broadjumper]

For the sake of clarity...

"I think the problem lies with what changes have been tried."

Which ones? Again, I'm not advocating a Feinstein ban, but this NRA plan of 'let's fight every suggestion is bullshit'

"If there were reasonable things I don't see why people would care."

Reasonable of course, is in the eyes of the beholder, but again, the NRA is fighting ANY changes to our current laws, saying, just enforce what we have. Problem is they've blocked enforcement of many laws, they just won't tell you that.

"I know I don't like seeing gun laws because it seems like they are just chipping away at the stone, little by little until everything is banned."

Sorry, I'm not buying into the slippery slope argument, it's an utter cop out.

"I'm not saying they will do it, it's just something I would do if I had the choice."

Understood, but I'm trying to stay within the realm of possibilities.

"I'm sure there's been people that have been perfect their entire life but then there's a day where they can't take their neighbor, boss, etc. anymore and decide to get a gun. If they can walk out the same day with a weapon they would be more likely to use it than someone that had a month to cool down. And a month isn't an inconvenience for anyone."

I see your point, but if someone can't cool down in a week, I don't think a month will have that much more of a dramatic effect. Besides, I'd be willing to bet anyone unhinged enough to seriously consider blasting co-workers already has guns at his/her disposal.

"I'm not saying you can trust someone completely based on references. But you may encounter a reference that has a good reason why the person shouldn't get a gun or require a more in depth check."

You're kidding right? Tell me, have you ever given references for a job? How many do you think fucked you over? References would be almost pointless. All background checks should be as in-depth as possible.

"I would like kids to be gun aware, once a year have a demonstration at their school where they talk about guns and safety. I've seen plenty of news stories where a kid gets a gun and brings it to school to deal with a bully, you may save some if they fully understood what they were doing. Gun safes would help, I'm not advocating for one or the other but both would be best."

Again, this should be up to the parents. If a school decided to teach my kid, if I had one, about guns without my permission, i'd be pissed. Kids bringing guns to school is an entirely different issue and all the training in the world won't fix the underlying reason kids do that. Schools need to implement zero tolerance for bullying and consider anger management if possible, but if a kid gets a hold of a firearm, the adult owner should be 100% liable for it. There's simply no excuse for it.

"A shitty weapon that still functions can still kill someone. If you can get some off the street that's more than doing nothing about the problem. I'm not saying this is the sole solution, just a tool to use."

Hey, if they have the money, fine. All I'm saying is it's not that effective and many of the weapons turned in aren't even operational.

"Like I said, it's just something I would do if I had the chance. By paying people to have kids I mean like:
I know someone who gets paid in cash and has 5 kids. He claims he makes $22,XXX a year. Pays no taxes. He gets $1,000 for each kid for a total of $5,000. If he has another kid that's another $1,000. Then you have food stamps and each head nets them more money. I know most people think it's ludicrous to have a kid to make money but some people think like that.. I don't have a problem with giving them the money up to two kids because that's reasonable.

The fallbacks wouldn't be a handout. I would want people to work for it in some way or another."

Far too expensive and cumbersome a plan to operate and it's unrealistic as I mentioned previously. Work for it? Many have to now as part of their welfare and almost every state has lifetime limits on how long one can be on welfare. And while there are obvious abuses to the system, the number isn't close to what many people think it is. But none of this does a damn thing to address gun crime or killings.

"I'm not saying mine are perfect either but it's a step closer in the right direction."

IMO, some would be needless as offered and others would only add to the bureaucratic mess we already have. They would be far too expensive and nearly impossible to determine their effectiveness.

"I don't believe there should be armed guards/teachers at schools like the NRA suggested. Police are one thing but I don't want some guard thinking he's superman. I agree about the bullet proof things and I think I've mentioned that somewhere."

The NRA is laughable. Armed teachers? Riiiight, we have people who already believe teachers are lazy, but now the NRA wants 'em to be armed guards as well as baby-sitter, psychologist, social worker not to mention educator...oh, and by the way, you're paid too much and don't deserve tenure or a pension. I don't mind the idea of cops/or HIGHLY trained & certified guards, but people will want to do this on the cheap and that blows the whole idea. I believe the secured classroom is a far better, and in the long run cheaper, idea.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

This isn't one of those things to be done overnight. They can be done when remodeling or building a new school. Like you said above, if there are layers of security to at least slow someone down then that gives more time for the proper people to respond and take care of the matter.

A police officer wouldn't have to be there just to stop a shooter. They would be making a presence, someone intending to do harm might choose a different place just because they know someone is armed and trained on campus.

Safer rooms + police officer is more effective.

The problem with the remodel or even the new school idea is MONEY. No one wants to spend anything and the right wingnuts believe the gub'mint wants their guns outta the cold, dead hands.

So we're at a stalemate. People continue to die everyday. we can ever get congress to approve money to reinforce thousands of bridges in danger of collapse, but we're gonna get the money to retrofit schools?

Uh-huh, tell me again how we're doing 'something'

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by AmericanIllusions ↗

Contrary to what the idiot box says, most folks, even those that never owned a weapon object this ban because its just simple sense that crazies and criminals won't abide by it, which makes it a waste of time..

I always have to laugh when I see this comment: 'criminals don't obey laws'

No shit...that's why they're called criminals. Yes, I get the whole innocent citizen argument, but WHEN has a hardened criminal ever obeyed laws?
So because they don't we shouldn't enact ANY?

Laws aren't written solely for the sake of deterrence, they're also written to establish norms of behavior, create a framework for legal judgement & punishments, regulate trade, products, safety, etc, etc. Some are good, some are bad, but this 'criminals don't obey' excuse has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

You say criminals don't follow laws? Well, it seems that neither do some so-called 'law-abiding citizens', because none of recent massacres from Columbine, to Aurora, to Sandy Hook was carried out by a quote-criminal-unquote and many of the other reported shootings have been committed by the merely disgruntled (Chris Dorner anyone?), but still most of these people weren't hardened criminals when they committed these acts.

The point is this, there's no single solution to be had, if going to take give & take in each area, including in the types of guns or at least in magazine capacities.