BarsemaBone2
All American
Posts: 3,320
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 8
I Root For: NIU, White Sox
Location: Cambridge, MA |
RE: Another Terorrist Attack on US Soil
(10-02-2015 12:27 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: (10-02-2015 10:50 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote: (10-02-2015 09:47 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: (10-02-2015 07:45 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote: (10-01-2015 09:46 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: Define "certain kinds of firearms."
"Certain kinds" would include types that people would consider "military" or "police" grade, such as machine guns or other high-powered assault rifles. In theory, people would still be able to own said weapons, but they'd have to keep them at a licensed shooting range.
It would not include handguns, shotguns, or rifles, particularly those associated with hunting and sportsmen. These would continue to be permitted to be kept at the owner's place of residence.
I mean this with due respect. "Types that people would consider." What people? Consider in what way? That isn't specific.
By "machine gun," I assume you mean automatic weapons. Those have been regulated heavily since 1939, I believe. A person can still own one, but it requires a federal permit, and they are expensive, and therefore, uncommon. I think it would be difficult to find a recent crime which used an automatic weapon.
There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle, in practical terms. And, any essentially any firearm is powerful enough to kill, so "high-powered" is a meaningless term. My Remington model 70, a very (and old techology) common bolt action "deer" rifle can punch through just about any body armor with a hunting round.
The scary looking AR platform is used for hunting. My "hunting" shotgun, a Remington 870 Wingmaster is also carried in police cars very commonly.
One of my grade school friends was shot and killed by his step-father with a .22. A .22 is about the most mild caliber round you can get. It is still deadly.
My intent is not to bash you over the head with geeky technical specs. Its to show that many of the words, phrases and concepts tossed out by people want "common sense gun control" are useless other than in the context of severely restricting gun ownership, period, for everyone.
In all honesty, I appreciate all the geeky technical specs that you can give me because it means I can learn more about a topic that I'm not as well versed in as others.
Based on what you've said, going after the type of firearm won't solve the problem, and that makes sense.
I noticed you didn't respond to my suggestion about using references as part of a background check. Does that mean it would be something you would be okay with as a gun owner?
Also, in discussions I've had in other places on this topic, it has been suggested by some that arming the teachers in the schools is the solution. I don't think that's a viable solution, but something I do think would be at least a stopgap is having at least 2 police officers in the schools at all times. This way, you have people who have been trained in the use of firearms and in dangerous person situations present at all times and who can act right away. It would also allow the students and teachers to get to know the police officers in their hometown, which would work to build the relationships in the future between police and civilians.
Thoughts on this option?
Regarding the background check, I'm not sure we have the resources to make that happen. Right now, the background check is essentially a database check. To do what you propose requires more time (cost). Plus, it sounds a bit arbitrary and capricious. It is someone else's opinion of me. And, just like on job references, you likely aren't going to list a person who is going to say a bad thing about you.
We don't yet know how this person obtained his firearms. We don't know if he was mentally ill, as defined in the context of firearm laws.
I'm not a fan of arming teachers. I think we have to attack this as a culture problem, which is terribly difficult, but the real solution. I'm also not a believer that concealed carry is the answer. I'm not against it, but I don't think it is the magic bullet, pardon the pun.
There is no easy solution to this problem, no matter which side of the argument you fall on. Arming everybody isn't the answer, neither is disarming everyone. It's somewhere in the middle, like all solutions usually are.
The culture that breeds individuals like this needs to be better understood, that's obvious. As people learn more about it, it can be altered or changed to better prevent things from happening. People need to learn about what causes individuals to do these things and find ways to keep others from emulating them. Whether that includes devising measures that will prevent them from obtaining firearms or other weapons, or mandatory psychiatric evaluations for everyone so that mental issues can be better detected, or mandating that kids in school take psychology courses that explain how stuff like this happens and how they can help prevent it, I don't know.
What I have realized is that nothing will be fixed if this isn't talked about. Prior to this I've refrained from talking about what happened at NIU 7.5 years ago because it brings up bad memories for me. But, if this is going to be stopped it's because people keep talking about it and trying to find solutions to it, even if it means getting into arguments with people on the other side of the aisle. The important thing is, if you keep talking, people will keep thinking, and that's how solutions are found.
The prospect of me having a family in the near future and having to protect said family makes this hit closer to home for me. I have no desire to own a firearm primarily because I don't trust myself to be able to handle it with the care that such an object demands. At the same time, you better believe I want to do everything in my power to ensure my family is as safe as possible, wherever they go.
|
|
/
Another Terorrist Attack on US Soil
