baker-'13
2nd String
Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
|
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (02-16-2018 01:49 PM)baker-13 Wrote: (02-16-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (02-16-2018 01:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote: (02-16-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:
My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.
The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.
The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.
Here is something interested and related:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz
Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.
In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.
I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.
I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.
the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?
The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.
For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).
Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.
I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).
My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.
Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?
I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.
It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.
I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.
While I'm not a fan of them, either, I think there needs to be a balance between desires. Yes, a 19-year-old might want an AR-15 and we shouldn't legislate just based on what they don't need, but 17 kids probably wanted to live, too.
There are countries that have a robust hunting culture and don't have a similar epidemic of mass shootings. I personally lean toward doing the things they've done to minimize things like this.
It won't prevent all of them. But it might get us closer to having less than 1 school shooting a week, when this year alone we're at about 2.5 a week.
|
|