|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 22, 2018 19:45:52 GMT
the point is, the ineffectiveness of the mythical "good guy with a gun" is such a tired talking point, it's a meme. If I was a student in a school shooter situation, you can be sure I'd rather be in a room with a teacher with a gun that knew how to use it rather than hiding in a closet with a defenseless teacher waiting for the gunman to pull open the door and start shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2018 19:57:27 GMT
the point is, the ineffectiveness of the mythical "good guy with a gun" is such a tired talking point, it's a meme. If I was a student in a school shooter situation, you can be sure I'd rather be in a room with a teacher with a gun that knew how to use it rather than hiding in a closet with a defenseless teacher waiting for the gunman to pull open the door and start shooting. in the umpqua community college shooting, there was an armed military reservist on campus. he correctly made the tactical decision that when police arrived, they would open fire on anyone they saw who had a gun. that is the standard rule of engagement for an active shooter situation. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 22, 2018 20:05:20 GMT
If I was a student in a school shooter situation, you can be sure I'd rather be in a room with a teacher with a gun that knew how to use it rather than hiding in a closet with a defenseless teacher waiting for the gunman to pull open the door and start shooting. in the umpqua community college shooting, there was an armed military reservist on campus. he correctly made the tactical decision that when police arrived, they would open fire on anyone they saw who had a gun. that is the standard rule of engagement for an active shooter situation. Like I said, what gets stale is the constant "that won't work" attitude. You're against armed teachers, You're against armed guards, you say metal detectors and checkpoints are ineffective. I would like to hear your ideas of what you think may work rather than the constant "that won't work." If I wanted to hear that, I'd turn on c-span. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2018 20:15:23 GMT
in the umpqua community college shooting, there was an armed military reservist on campus. he correctly made the tactical decision that when police arrived, they would open fire on anyone they saw who had a gun. that is the standard rule of engagement for an active shooter situation. Like I said, what gets stale is the constant "that won't work" attitude. You're against armed teachers, You're against armed guards, you say metal detectors and checkpoints are ineffective. I would like to hear your ideas of what you think may work rather than the constant "that won't work." If I wanted to hear that, I'd turn on c-span. well, start by making it harder for the shooters to get their hands on weapons optimized for mass shootings. then move on to figuring out how to catch people BEFORE they reach the point of becoming mass shooters - or at least in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2018 20:17:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 22, 2018 20:46:49 GMT
Like I said, what gets stale is the constant "that won't work" attitude. You're against armed teachers, You're against armed guards, you say metal detectors and checkpoints are ineffective. I would like to hear your ideas of what you think may work rather than the constant "that won't work." If I wanted to hear that, I'd turn on c-span. well, start by making it harder for the shooters to get their hands on weapons optimized for mass shootings. then move on to figuring out how to catch people BEFORE they reach the point of becoming mass shooters - or at least in the process. I agree, that makes good sense and at least they are talking about it. I think that what nope is trying to do is get everyone to put their ideas on the table. That doesn't mean they are all good ideas and that all need to be implemented, but you have to start someplace. As for teachers packing heat, I doubt it will actually ever happen, and it certainly would not stop school shootings in and by itself, but it is at least worth the discussion. What nope is doing is making everybody nervous. The Democrats don't like the idea of more guns even in the hands of trained individuals. The Republicans don't seem to like anything with the word "control" in it. Your fiscal nuts can't take anything that is going to cost money. Even the NRA, that strongly supported nope, is getting a little nervous of his talk. As far as I'm concerned, the more nervous people in Washington, the better. That just means we may get something done. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2018 20:58:23 GMT
well, start by making it harder for the shooters to get their hands on weapons optimized for mass shootings. then move on to figuring out how to catch people BEFORE they reach the point of becoming mass shooters - or at least in the process. I agree, that makes good sense and at least they are talking about it. I think that what nope is trying to do is get everyone to put their ideas on the table. That doesn't mean they are all good ideas and that all need to be implemented, but you have to start someplace. As for teachers packing heat, I doubt it will actually ever happen, and it certainly would not stop school shootings in and by itself, but it is at least worth the discussion. What nope is doing is making everybody nervous. The Democrats don't like the idea of more guns even in the hands of trained individuals. The Republicans don't seem to like anything with the word "control" in it. Your fiscal nuts can't take anything that is going to cost money. Even the NRA, that strongly supported nope, is getting a little nervous of his talk. As far as I'm concerned, the more nervous people in Washington, the better. That just means we may get something done. or everyone will fortify in place and we'll continue to get nothing done. at least local law enforcement are catching more BEFORE they open fire. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 22, 2018 21:16:38 GMT
at least local law enforcement are catching more BEFORE they open fire. And for stopping it before it happens, "local" is where the solution lies. We've just seen how well the FBI's centralized call center in West Virginia worked. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2018 21:22:08 GMT
at least local law enforcement are catching more BEFORE they open fire. And for stopping it before it happens, "local" is where the solution lies. We've just seen how well the FBI's centralized call center in West Virginia worked. "well, he's over 18, and mental illness is no bar to owning a gun, so there's nothing we can do." yeah, the ones that have been stopped lately, have all been stopped because somebody was able to find evidence of intent. and as soon as disgruntled kids learn not to leave their diaries lying about, that source of evidence will dry up. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 22, 2018 21:32:08 GMT
It's not really too amazing how much evidence you can't find when you don't look. With the exception of the Los Vegas shooter, most send up plenty of warning flars. The FBI would catch them too if they didn't keep tripping over the evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 23, 2018 6:54:56 GMT
But the fact remains, gun control is still always the first, and only thing we seem to talk about. How about we talk about how true gun control starts with the person holding the gun, not with the gun itself? There are over 5 million NRA members. Over 98% of them have never fired a gun at another person. And of those that have, most are also police officers. How's that for gun control. okay, so let's talk about what our budget is for identifying and caring for people with mental illnesses that lead to them being a hazard to themselves or to others. From experience, a LOT less than the budget for clearing up the mess when they go all frustrated and start smashing the place up. "Care in the community", one example comes to mind, people who should be in a care home being supervised living on their own in a community who dislike them playing loud music at 3am. Obviously there follows confrontation, "You cant do that", and the person with issues gets frustrated and mashes up their own home. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 23, 2018 6:57:01 GMT
the thing that really bothers me is that it's always too soon to talk about gun control. But the fact remains, gun control is still always the first, and only thing we seem to talk about. How about we talk about how true gun control starts with the person holding the gun, not with the gun itself? There are over 5 million NRA members. Over 98% of them have never fired a gun at another person. And of those that have, most are also police officers. How's that for gun control. Taking this as a starting point and "Running" with it... Family discussion here with the greater family, and my Brother. Him has some "smarts" on him now and again, [/sarcasm... he is quite able to out-think me on some things..]and he has this to suggest, NRA, Make them do something. Give them the power. Its no such a silly idea at that, because, if you have a gobmint department doing overwatch, the senate for instance, who they Must be accountable to to continue to exist, then they are under the right kind of pressure to come up with the "best plan"... They are unique in being the voice of the "intelligent" people who want to own guns, and as he says, "Sure as anything, they want some form of control top prevent the whackadoodles from arming themselves if it make them{NRA} look bad, it shows bad on them every time something like this happens...?..." SELF regulation, the NRA is forced to bring everyone inside the law, all of its own members, and then expand to involve evety single gun owner in the country. The laws in UK are completely different of course, so I wont go to what we got that may be used, so the below is based on what we thought through. NO PERSON under the age of 21 [for discussion?. is that too young?.. adjustable as needed]should be able to own a gun outright. In that they may borrow and use their family guns if needs must and they need to go hunting, so they may have a "special gun" that owned by for instance their father [other member as necessary] that has bought one for the kid to use, but, the "legal guardian or parent" MUST be there at all times to supervise the kid. The parent AND the kid must both be licensed, background checks required, etc yada-yada-yada, check if they have any "Issues" and shouldnt be allowed a sharp pencil and an elastic band on the same day. [What you never used an elastic band between your fingers to make a crude crossbow and fired a pencil at your classmates in school?...]Upon registration, there is a graduated limit of type and number of guns you are allowed to keep. You just got a licence and you have in six month collected more guns than the local gunsmith has in his own shop, then excuse me for being concerned that that might indicate a problem?. So make it a year by year graduation from one rifle, max 5 rounds per cartridge, manual bolt load, and one pistol, max .22 calibre for target practise, upwards, and then allow larger bore mo-power each year that they continue membership "Prove" they have the ability to control, and have no reports from other members of bad behaviour etc. There be a lower limit of say 6yrs old [again adjustable] that under that age no Kid should have access to guns, either their own or family. Make it law, you got a new baby, you lock your medicine cabinet or put your medicines in the high cupboard that the kid cant reach, well put your [duck] gun up there and lock it away at all times as well. Make it that the NRA are responsible for Home checks, not as police in the first instance, but as Advisory, even if it is to put that above point across, keep the gun away from the kid, if they spot at that time that the kid is at risk, then they report onwards to necessary authority. Make the licence a "Needs a practical test" type, in that the user can show the dangerous end from the blunt end, can keep the dangerous end pointed down range at all times, can fire maybe three 5 round cartridges with ease showing they know how to swap cartridges, and have a dud in there at some point to show that they can respond to a miss-fire and deal with that without peering down the barrel. Each time that graduated licence allows an upgrade, the owner Must attend a licence upgrade test to show they have control. This is the same as a driving licence, if you need to drive a heavy goods, you need to take the licence that allows you to drive heavy goods. And also is your going to collect a small armoury, then its an armoury, and you must demonstrate that you have a locked safe to keep all them in if you have registered more than a dozen [again adjustable as agreed upon eventually] from a lock box to a full walk in safe as needed, and that they are not all on show "Look what I got" temptation to gangs and thieves. Make the licence a full akin to driving licence you have to take lessons requirement, in that you dont get one until you have shown responsibility. Yes you have the right to bear arms, as soon as you show you are responsible enough to own one that is?. Hows this for starters?.. in that all points are for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 23, 2018 7:04:44 GMT
Just a point on Video games that I heard used against the idea that video games of violence cause violence...
There was a period in living history, where masses of men were in ACTUAL combat, WW2, was there an increase in domestic violence when they returned home from whatever hell hole they had been in?.
Discount the usual expected return home to find there is no home to return to cases, I am on about the average joe.
What about Vietnam vets on your side?. Are they more likely or less or about the same as everyone else to have a tendency to violence?.
Those who didnt get detained under the mental health act that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 23, 2018 7:16:46 GMT
And for stopping it before it happens, "local" is where the solution lies. We've just seen how well the FBI's centralized call center in West Virginia worked. "well, he's over 18, and mental illness is no bar to owning a gun, so there's nothing we can do." yeah, the ones that have been stopped lately, have all been stopped because somebody was able to find evidence of intent. and as soon as disgruntled kids learn not to leave their diaries lying about, that source of evidence will dry up. It's not really too amazing how much evidence you can't find when you don't look. With the exception of the Los Vegas shooter, most send up plenty of warning flars. The FBI would catch them too if they didn't keep tripping over the evidence. See above post about making the NRA responsible, and have ALL, ALL cases of suspect mandatory passed over their desk with a mandate that they WILL investigate and report back on the subject. Make them independent of the FBI but part of them in that they MUST swap all related intelligence, and that way, not "too busy" to go investigate. The NRA to be funded by licence costs. If the people WANT better control, then they wont mind paying to get a licence to fund the scheme. If the people WANT to keep owning guns, but dont want the whackadoodles in their club, then they wont mind that cost of getting a licence being the same as getting a driving licence. If there is evidence that there are many more boots needed on the ground to deal with the problem, the budget has to be met by those who want to own a gun. Otherwise, you are at risk of loosing the 2nd amendment. And it IS an amendment. A Change to the original. So changing that is not impossible is it?. To be honest, there is no amendment that prohibits or enables people to own their own car, but you have laws on that, so why is their NOT laws on who can and cant own a gun, and why cant they be tightened to prohibit anyone who has been reported as "May have problems".... And why do they not follow up all of the reports that the public put in?. Those who live next door to the problem are just as qualified to state there is a problem than any medical person who has some qualification, because those who know you best, know you best. If someone is voted "Most likely to be arrested owning an illegal firearm" in their year book, isnt their a duty that "Someone" should be asking why that has been put in there?. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 23, 2018 7:20:03 GMT
I know that all above looks like I have a lot to say, but, I missed the live discussion because of time difference, so I am on catchup, I am just voicing my own opinion and trying to start with the plan.
Alongside any other good ideas mentioned by other people.
It is not in any way perfect.
Its just the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 23, 2018 10:41:03 GMT
Just a point on Video games that I heard used against the idea that video games of violence cause violence... There was a period in living history, where masses of men were in ACTUAL combat, WW2, was there an increase in domestic violence when they returned home from whatever hell hole they had been in?. Discount the usual expected return home to find there is no home to return to cases, I am on about the average joe. What about Vietnam vets on your side?. Are they more likely or less or about the same as everyone else to have a tendency to violence?. Those who didnt get detained under the mental health act that is. I suspect would be difficult to tell exactly what happened in terms of domestic violence after WW2 compare to today, back then people often did not report things that happened between a husband and wife, unless it was really serious. Police officers would often not get involved if it was "just a domestic". |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 23, 2018 13:42:16 GMT
It seems like almost a half our vets return from combat today suffer from PTSD. I'm sure the vets returning from WWII also suffered at the same rate but it wasn't recognized. Back then the treatment was "get get over it".
Seeing how being exposed to violent combat negatively affects so many people, what makes you think that simulated violent combat in video games doesn't? Have we ever detected PTSD from playing violent video games? Have we ever looked for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 23, 2018 15:19:02 GMT
But the fact remains, gun control is still always the first, and only thing we seem to talk about. How about we talk about how true gun control starts with the person holding the gun, not with the gun itself? There are over 5 million NRA members. Over 98% of them have never fired a gun at another person. And of those that have, most are also police officers. How's that for gun control. Taking this as a starting point and "Running" with it... Family discussion here with the greater family, and my Brother. Him has some "smarts" on him now and again, [/sarcasm... he is quite able to out-think me on some things..]and he has this to suggest, NRA, Make them do something. Give them the power. Its no such a silly idea at that, because, if you have a gobmint department doing overwatch, the senate for instance, who they Must be accountable to to continue to exist, then they are under the right kind of pressure to come up with the "best plan"... They are unique in being the voice of the "intelligent" people who want to own guns, and as he says, "Sure as anything, they want some form of control top prevent the whackadoodles from arming themselves if it make them{NRA} look bad, it shows bad on them every time something like this happens...?..." SELF regulation, the NRA is forced to bring everyone inside the law, all of its own members, and then expand to involve evety single gun owner in the country. The laws in UK are completely different of course, so I wont go to what we got that may be used, so the below is based on what we thought through. NO PERSON under the age of 21 [for discussion?. is that too young?.. adjustable as needed]should be able to own a gun outright. In that they may borrow and use their family guns if needs must and they need to go hunting, so they may have a "special gun" that owned by for instance their father [other member as necessary] that has bought one for the kid to use, but, the "legal guardian or parent" MUST be there at all times to supervise the kid. The parent AND the kid must both be licensed, background checks required, etc yada-yada-yada, check if they have any "Issues" and shouldnt be allowed a sharp pencil and an elastic band on the same day. [What you never used an elastic band between your fingers to make a crude crossbow and fired a pencil at your classmates in school?...]Upon registration, there is a graduated limit of type and number of guns you are allowed to keep. You just got a licence and you have in six month collected more guns than the local gunsmith has in his own shop, then excuse me for being concerned that that might indicate a problem?. So make it a year by year graduation from one rifle, max 5 rounds per cartridge, manual bolt load, and one pistol, max .22 calibre for target practise, upwards, and then allow larger bore mo-power each year that they continue membership "Prove" they have the ability to control, and have no reports from other members of bad behaviour etc. There be a lower limit of say 6yrs old [again adjustable] that under that age no Kid should have access to guns, either their own or family. Make it law, you got a new baby, you lock your medicine cabinet or put your medicines in the high cupboard that the kid cant reach, well put your [duck] gun up there and lock it away at all times as well. Make it that the NRA are responsible for Home checks, not as police in the first instance, but as Advisory, even if it is to put that above point across, keep the gun away from the kid, if they spot at that time that the kid is at risk, then they report onwards to necessary authority. Make the licence a "Needs a practical test" type, in that the user can show the dangerous end from the blunt end, can keep the dangerous end pointed down range at all times, can fire maybe three 5 round cartridges with ease showing they know how to swap cartridges, and have a dud in there at some point to show that they can respond to a miss-fire and deal with that without peering down the barrel. Each time that graduated licence allows an upgrade, the owner Must attend a licence upgrade test to show they have control. This is the same as a driving licence, if you need to drive a heavy goods, you need to take the licence that allows you to drive heavy goods. And also is your going to collect a small armoury, then its an armoury, and you must demonstrate that you have a locked safe to keep all them in if you have registered more than a dozen [again adjustable as agreed upon eventually] from a lock box to a full walk in safe as needed, and that they are not all on show "Look what I got" temptation to gangs and thieves. Make the licence a full akin to driving licence you have to take lessons requirement, in that you dont get one until you have shown responsibility. Yes you have the right to bear arms, as soon as you show you are responsible enough to own one that is?. Hows this for starters?.. in that all points are for discussion.
keep in mind the last of ANY sort of restriction on gun ownership the NRA signed off on was when they agreed that not just anybody should be allowed to have a machine gun. they are showing every signs of showing a last minute balk on a rule that you can no longer buy hardware that makes your self loading rifle act like a machine gun, and they have already pushed for a full stop on any suggestion that 100 round magazines aren't necessary for sporting use. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 23, 2018 16:11:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 23, 2018 17:03:24 GMT
and a lot more people are wondering how people can still believe in the myth of the "good guy with a gun" |
|
