Quote:The rush to “do something” in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, NY, and Uvalde, TX, has led to a bipartisan group of senators pursuing so-called “gun safety” legislation over the last several weeks. When the effort was announced, I penned a critique of the Republicans involved, noting that any compromise is simply giving Democrats the leverage to keep demanding more.

Now, we’ve got our first preview of what’s going to be in the bill in question. According to EWTN, it’s going to include a range of measures, from funding for “red flag” laws to increased background checks to funding for mental health and schools.

I want to be fair here because, in a vacuum, most of those measures are not objectionable. I believe there’s ample evidence that red flag laws are largely useless and exist to make people feel better, not actually prevent mass casualty events. We’d also need a lot more details on what “deeper checks” means.

Overall, though, if this bill truly doesn’t include any actual anti-gun policies (i.e. bans and confiscation), that makes it far more palatable, even if I think a few of the measures are ineffective. The red flag laws will apparently remain at the state level, and they can be challenged in court if necessary. I don’t really have a problem with deeper background checks either, as long as that doesn’t translate to “universal background checks” being used as a national gun registry. Gun dealers do actually need more information, including juvenile and mental health records, when selling guns.

Further, I doubt anyone is against funding for mental health and school security, since those have been the two chief alternatives to gun control offered by conservatives, with me among that number.

Given all that, why do I still say Republicans are being suckers here? To clarify, it’s not because of anything specifically in this bill, assuming the reporting on what’s in it is accurate. Rather, I think the GOP is walking into a trap because they have done nothing to assert that this bill is the end of the road.

Here’s the thing. There is going to be another mass shooting. No matter how many laws we pass, evil people will get their hands on the tools necessary to commit evil acts. When that mass shooting occurs, Democrats are going to scream about how the last “gun safety” bill wasn’t enough and how we must “do something.” That “do something” will include confiscation and outright bans on common weaponry. By compromising now without laying a marker down they are willing to stand by, they are simply handing Democrats the leverage to take the whole pie the next time around.

The left-wing push to ban semiautomatic weapons is not going to end here. Republicans that don’t recognize that are being suckers.

(06-12-2022 12:36 PM)BlazinBham Wrote:  All the talk is about guns and ZERO about the children.

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

(06-12-2022 12:41 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:36 PM)BlazinBham Wrote:  All the talk is about guns and ZERO about the children.

That's because we don't have a children problem, we have a gun violence problem.

(06-12-2022 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

Lets just protect our children the way we protect a courthouse or a Congressional building. The sad thing is---the people in charge know fully well exactly how to secure a "gun free zone"---as they are willing to provide a robust security budget annually to make darn sure the key buildings government officials roam are safe from danger----But these same elite government officials have never been very interested in spending the money to do to the same thing "for the children" (which is odd because Democrats babble endlessly about "doing things for our children" every time they come near a microphone).

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

Lets just protect our children the way we protect a courthouse or a Congressional building. The sad thing is---the people in charge know fully well exactly how to secure a "gun free zone"---as they are willing to provide a robust security budget annually to make darn sure the key buildings government officials roam are safe from danger----But these same elite government officials have never been very interested in spending the money to do to the same thing "for the children" (which is odd because Democrats babble endlessly about "doing things for our children" every time they come near a microphone).

Certainly protecting schools like courthouses or Congressional buildings would be helpful, but there's no way we could afford to do that even with massive tax increases, let alone filling all those new school security jobs. According to Google there are 687 courthouses in the US, add 50 state capitols, Congressional buildings, etc. and you're probably looking at less than 2,000 buildings that need to be protected the way those buildings are.

There are 130,930 K-12 schools in the US. Even IF we hardened the schools, madmen will just shift their attacks to the remaining soft targets like churches (estimated 350,000) and retail stores (over 1 million).

I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

Lets just protect our children the way we protect a courthouse or a Congressional building. The sad thing is---the people in charge know fully well exactly how to secure a "gun free zone"---as they are willing to provide a robust security budget annually to make darn sure the key buildings government officials roam are safe from danger----But these same elite government officials have never been very interested in spending the money to do to the same thing "for the children" (which is odd because Democrats babble endlessly about "doing things for our children" every time they come near a microphone).

Certainly protecting schools like courthouses or Congressional buildings would be helpful, but there's no way we could afford to do that even with massive tax increases, let alone filling all those new school security jobs. According to Google there are 687 courthouses in the US, add 50 state capitols, Congressional buildings, etc. and you're probably looking at less than 2,000 buildings that need to be protected the way those buildings are.

There are 130,930 K-12 schools in the US. Even IF we hardened the schools, madmen will just shift their attacks to the remaining soft targets like churches (estimated 350,000) and retail stores (over 1 million).

I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

(06-12-2022 03:30 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

Lets just protect our children the way we protect a courthouse or a Congressional building. The sad thing is---the people in charge know fully well exactly how to secure a "gun free zone"---as they are willing to provide a robust security budget annually to make darn sure the key buildings government officials roam are safe from danger----But these same elite government officials have never been very interested in spending the money to do to the same thing "for the children" (which is odd because Democrats babble endlessly about "doing things for our children" every time they come near a microphone).

Certainly protecting schools like courthouses or Congressional buildings would be helpful, but there's no way we could afford to do that even with massive tax increases, let alone filling all those new school security jobs. According to Google there are 687 courthouses in the US, add 50 state capitols, Congressional buildings, etc. and you're probably looking at less than 2,000 buildings that need to be protected the way those buildings are.

There are 130,930 K-12 schools in the US. Even IF we hardened the schools, madmen will just shift their attacks to the remaining soft targets like churches (estimated 350,000) and retail stores (over 1 million).

I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Shall not be infringed. It's hard because it isn't supposed to be easy to change the Constitution. We already know you leftists hate the Constitution so you just try to circumvent it.

It's particularly telling that you celebrate "doing something". That's the standard mantra of the left. Just do something regardless of whether it will have any effect on the problem you are supposedly addressing.

(06-12-2022 05:21 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:15 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:30 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

Lets just protect our children the way we protect a courthouse or a Congressional building. The sad thing is---the people in charge know fully well exactly how to secure a "gun free zone"---as they are willing to provide a robust security budget annually to make darn sure the key buildings government officials roam are safe from danger----But these same elite government officials have never been very interested in spending the money to do to the same thing "for the children" (which is odd because Democrats babble endlessly about "doing things for our children" every time they come near a microphone).

Certainly protecting schools like courthouses or Congressional buildings would be helpful, but there's no way we could afford to do that even with massive tax increases, let alone filling all those new school security jobs. According to Google there are 687 courthouses in the US, add 50 state capitols, Congressional buildings, etc. and you're probably looking at less than 2,000 buildings that need to be protected the way those buildings are.

There are 130,930 K-12 schools in the US. Even IF we hardened the schools, madmen will just shift their attacks to the remaining soft targets like churches (estimated 350,000) and retail stores (over 1 million).

I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Shall not be infringed. It's hard because it isn't supposed to be easy to change the Constitution. We already know you leftists hate the Constitution so you just try to circumvent it.

It's particularly telling that you celebrate "doing something". That's the standard mantra of the left. Just do something regardless of whether it will have any effect on the problem you are supposedly addressing.

You mean like when the militias stopped getting funded by the federal and state governments?

(06-12-2022 05:38 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:15 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:30 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lets just protect our children the way we protect a courthouse or a Congressional building. The sad thing is---the people in charge know fully well exactly how to secure a "gun free zone"---as they are willing to provide a robust security budget annually to make darn sure the key buildings government officials roam are safe from danger----But these same elite government officials have never been very interested in spending the money to do to the same thing "for the children" (which is odd because Democrats babble endlessly about "doing things for our children" every time they come near a microphone).

Certainly protecting schools like courthouses or Congressional buildings would be helpful, but there's no way we could afford to do that even with massive tax increases, let alone filling all those new school security jobs. According to Google there are 687 courthouses in the US, add 50 state capitols, Congressional buildings, etc. and you're probably looking at less than 2,000 buildings that need to be protected the way those buildings are.

There are 130,930 K-12 schools in the US. Even IF we hardened the schools, madmen will just shift their attacks to the remaining soft targets like churches (estimated 350,000) and retail stores (over 1 million).

I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Shall not be infringed. It's hard because it isn't supposed to be easy to change the Constitution. We already know you leftists hate the Constitution so you just try to circumvent it.

It's particularly telling that you celebrate "doing something". That's the standard mantra of the left. Just do something regardless of whether it will have any effect on the problem you are supposedly addressing.

You mean like when the militias stopped getting funded by the federal and state governments?

No, that's not what I mean. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?