Not in a Weapon Free Zone

[Basementdweller 608]

Odd, I thought I responded to this thread last night.

 

I asked for american hunter

 

 

Far as the glock goes, I will give it to the government when asked, but till then I view myself as a better owner than a nutter.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>but till then I view myself as a better owner than a nutter.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>I confess I was a bit embarrassed by the string of accidental shootings across da nation that coincided with "Gun Appreciation Day". Really? How hard is it to unload your firearm and secure it properly before puttin' it in a case for transport?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I guess I am a fellow who believes in personal accountability, not just blowin' things off as statistics. I wouldn't dismiss an injured or dead kid on a scout outing as "well, them's the statistical breaks" . Nor would I for light plane accidents or any other thing.

 

In fact, I would read da accident reports in order to learn from 'em, and make judgments, so as not to make da same mistakes myself. And if I felt da scouter or pilot had failed in their responsibility or duty of care, I'd say so, and as a member of both communities, I'd be embarrassed and ashamed for them.

 

Why should it be any different here? Unload your gun for transport rather than be a dumb-ass. It's da law most places, and it's da proper thing to do regardless.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

 

 

[Basementdweller 608]

So beavah, all those paranoid types gonna stand in a dark parking lot and unload their carry weapon before getting in the car....

 

 

Eagledad I am a heck of a lot less paranoid than a number of our gun supporting forum members. Heck I can sleep at home and in the woods without a fire arm under my pillow. I think that makes me infinitely more stable than those who cannot and a better candidate for responsible gun ownership.

[Brewmeister 132]

Far as the glock goes, I will give it to the government when asked,

 

-sigh-

[Brewmeister 132]

the ONLY way for you to avoid losing much more than is probably warranted (witness the NY kneejerk reaction) is for YOU to bring a better, more-reasonable solution for people to consider. You haven't.

 

Yes I have. Not my fault if you didn't read them or don't agree with them.

 

I have made my position against bans on scary-looking guns and 10+ capacity magazines well known because they are a feel good solution, not a common sense solution. They don't work. Columbine proves that. Someone with a regular ol' 5-capacity shot gun loaded with double-aught and a pocket full of shells can kill a heckuva lot of people in a crowded room.

 

I'm not a mental health expert. I'm not going to make proposals about mental health or claim to be able to fix the motivation of those who would do evil.

 

I already said I approve of "universal" background checks, but that doesn't stop legally owned firearms from getting in the hands of criminals. And let's call them for what they are, shall we? Criminals. Not the "mentally ill."

 

Since we can't stop them we must deter them. Deterrent comes in the form of punishment (post event) and it must be swift and definitive. However we have no stomach for that as a culture.

 

Deterrent also comes in the form of stopping attackers. That means more armed "militia" members. It means encouraging teachers to take firearms training and paying them more for having certification just like we do for other proficiency. It may mean more armed guards in schools. However we appear to have no stomach for that either.

 

So, what we will likely do is go down the road of prohibition and confiscation, emboldened by a citizenry that will sacrifice liberty for the perception of comfort and security, people who will give up their firearms simply because "the government" asks, while the culture continues to rot and people who are prone to commit violence simply ignore the law as they always have.

[packsaddle 753]

OK Brewmeister,

Correct me if I miss something but here's your list of proposals:

1. Universal background checks

2. Greater, more certain, and swifter punishment

3. Some kind of greater armed protection in schools (perhaps guards or perhaps teachers)

 

I think you're right along side nearly everyone on number 1. The second approach hasn't exactly worked for drugs, has it? And someone who's emotionally over the edge isn't going to care much about consequences, will they? Plus, Beavah is going to demand that you show how to pay for prison space and increased executions.

 

As an actual educator (who happens to hold a CCP - but I don't carry on campus) I tend to oppose the third proposal. Perhaps that is where we need to focus our dialogue and perhaps 'flesh out' the proposal with more detail. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if you can give me a reason to agree with you.

[Beavah 205]

I already said I approve of "universal" background checks, but that doesn't stop legally owned firearms from getting in the hands of criminals.

 

How would yeh know, without any research and without first tryin' it? Da regular background check system rejects tens of thousands of sales per year. Since we have had no research, we honestly don't know how criminals get guns, other than da kids that take unsecured guns from relatives to shoot up schools.

 

Deterrent comes in the form of punishment (post event) and it must be swift and definitive. However we have no stomach for that as a culture.

 

That's a wish, not a proposal. What do yeh actually propose to make punishment "swift and definitive"? Generally, yeh have to sacrifice rights during trial or appeal to improve "swiftness". So which rights would yeh curtail? Or which rules of evidence would yeh change?

 

It means encouraging teachers to take firearms training and paying them more for having certification just like we do for other proficiency. It may mean more armed guards in schools. However we appear to have no stomach for that either.

 

Yah, OK, so that's half a proposal. Da second half is how would you pay for it? What taxes would yeh propose to generate da revenue to train and arm teachers, and pay the added insurance required? Puttin' one armed guard in every school is a $10 billion endeavor, per year. Multiple armed guards or lots of trained and armed teachers and we're talkin' tens of billions more. At 300 million guns in da U.S., that's $100 tax per year per gun. Or we can do it by taxing ammo, which would be more expensive per gun user (since I reckon a lot of those 300 million guns are not fired and are just sittin' around).

 

I'm doubtin' the school's regular liability carrier is goin' to be willing to cover this, so what would yeh do to create a federal insurance pool to cover da liability risk?

 

Beavah

 

[Basementdweller 608]

first off

 

You will never make a person secure who is insecure by nature.

 

I want the background checks and psych evaluations to be on going. annual might be to much, but every couple of years...... but we need more than,"Well, he wasn't crazy when he bought it". Just as our body deteriorates so can our minds.......

 

So unless it is an ongoing eval it is completely worthless. If you fail you will surrender your firearms immediately.

 

How about taking family history of mental illness into account? My experience has been that if mom and dad aren't wound quite right the kids aren't either.

 

Taxing or trying to force insurance is worthless with out a National registry.