# Bump fire stocks now illegal



## DallanC

Trump just gave the order to the BATF to classify bump stocks as illegal modifications to firearms.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/p...-stocks-used-in-las-vegas-massacre/ar-BBJnGfk

There is a push to limit rate of fire of weapons... so the question is, will it be illegal if you can shoot a gun as fast as what a bump stock allows?






*I dont own a bump stock... nor had plans to get one, I have however bump fired AR15s using belt loops and it works quite well.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter

Just another touchy feely type of law or regulation that really won't stop anything. 


I just watched some of a program on HLN where a person up in Boise turned in firearms and said that he doesn't know why anyone needs a firearm. This is also along the lines of what is it going to prevent by him turning in the firearms? 

Sad to say but it is going to get a lot worse down the road and I figure that it will be in about 3 years if the left takes over. I saw it in Colorado when the Dems took over both houses and the Governorship and ran wild with gun restrictions and requirements.


----------



## DallanC

AR15 with a 10 round mag puts 10, .223" chunks of lead down range with 10 pulls of the trigger. 

A 12GA duck gun with #4Buckshot puts 14, .30" pellets down range PER pull of the trigger, average gun holds 5. With a mag extension you can hold 13 shells.

13shells x 14pellets per shell = 182 chunks of lead down range. Its a helluva lot more dangerous than a semi-auto rifle.

Anyone who doesnt think semi-auto shotguns wont be on a ban list at the same time or shortly after a ar15 ban are fooling themselves.


-DallanC


----------



## Fowlmouth

This is just the start of things to come. (more restrictions) 
Senator Feinstein is pushing to raise the legal age to purchase any gun to 21 years old. 
I can't say that I disagree with this. I mean our youth today eat tide pods for hell sakes....


----------



## Critter

Fowlmouth said:


> This is just the start of things to come. (more restrictions)
> Senator Feinstein is pushing to raise the legal age to purchase any gun to 21 years old.
> I can't say that I disagree with this. I mean our youth today eat tide pods for hell sakes....


And these are the same ones that will be voting in the upcoming elections.


----------



## High Desert Elk

A politicians gun law is only as good as those who follow it...

History shows that the cost is too high to not be armed.


----------



## DallanC

I should clarify (as more details are coming out), that bump stocks are not actually illegal this moment. Trump has directed the BATF to include them in the banned items. Sooo they aren't today, but could be as soon as the BATF announces it.


-DallanC


----------



## APD

i just checked out slidefire.com

the website says to check back in 24-48 hours as they are currently experiencing high volume of traffic. 

people are predictable.


----------



## DallanC

Or you can go with a board and a nail... until those get outlawed. ROFL






-DallanC


----------



## JC HUNTER

Liberals call Trump "Hitler" and then ask him to take away their guns.


----------



## Airborne

Fowlmouth said:


> This is just the start of things to come. (more restrictions)
> Senator Feinstein is pushing to raise the legal age to purchase any gun to 21 years old.
> I can't say that I disagree with this. I mean our youth today eat tide pods for hell sakes....


When I was 18 years old Uncle Sam trusted me with an M16A2 Assault Rifle that had a 40mm M203 grenade launcher mounted to the bottom of it, not to mention the AT4 anti-tank bazooka strapped to my ruck. But hey, I couldn't order a beer at a bar so there's that...


----------



## BPturkeys

Is there any point in the regulation of the ownership of firearm by the class of the firearm, or the capabilities of that firearm, that would make you say "enough is enough". 
Is private ownership of tanks ok, how about a battleship, or how about an atomic bomb?. Sure I know all about "reductio ad absurdum", but IF you answer yes to this, then you can not logically say no to the regulation of bump stocks, or Ar-15's and their ilk, or for that matter any specific type of firearm or accessory that is part of, or alters that firearm making it effectively into another classification of firearm.
You can't have it both ways. Either we, the American people, can regulate the ownership of firearms or we can't. Which world do you choose to live in?


----------



## High Desert Elk

BPturkeys said:


> Is there any point in the regulation of the ownership of firearm by the class of the firearm, or the capabilities of that firearm, that would make you say "enough is enough".
> ...Either we, the American people, can regulate the ownership of firearms or we can't. Which world do you choose to live in?


My choice is to live in one where I know I don't have to worry about a gov't running amok and repeating the autrocities of the past.

But since the very nature of man is flawed, I will choose the next best thing and have as much fire power as I can afford to keep the misguided intentions of man at bay when it comes to me and my household's wellbeing.


----------



## Airborne

BPturkeys said:


> or Ar-15's and their ilk


Only pretentious people use the term 'ilk'

For fun let's assume all 'assault weapons' are banned and confiscated (good luck, 'Molon Labe')

The next day some a$$h0le walks into a school with a Glock 19 handgun and kills more people than the last A$$h0le did. Are we going to demand the banning and confiscation of all semi auto handguns next?

And down the rabbit hole we go with mass shooting after mass shooting until we get down to where all we can own is double barrel shotguns and bolt action firearms--but wait--another mass shooting with those weapons

So where do ya stop BP?

Think that's not possible:

Virginia tech massacre A$$h0le used a Glock 19 handgun and killed 32 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

England Cumbria massacre A$$h0le used a double barrel shotgun and .22 bolt rifle to kill 12 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

If folks think banning or more heavily regulating 'assault weapons' is going to do a thing to stop mass shooting I believe we have enough data to prove otherwise.


----------



## BPturkeys

The Constitution of the United States of America, the very document that is used by most anti government fanatics in their argument to justify their position, is in itself an attempt by people to regulate themselves and other members of society. To deny the right of a society to regulate it's self is to deny the legitimacy of the Constitution itself.
Wow, what a quandary we are in. Perhaps we should actually revert to "might makes right" mentality of the past, it certainly would satisfy the arguments of some.


----------



## Airborne

Nice straw man BP

No one said it's impossible to change the laws or the constitution. Constitution has a way to do that.

Question is what specifically are you proposing regarding gun control? And a better question...what will it accomplish?


----------



## Clarq

Did anyone on here say that there isn't a need for society to regulate itself, BP? I don't see that comment anywhere. I think the discussion here is simply focused on the details and efficacy of certain regulations.

It wouldn't affect my life at all if AR-15s were banned - I don't own one and don't plan to own one. But... I don't think banning them would do anything to stop mass violence, either.


----------



## caddis8

Boy this one has me torn. I've thought a lot about this issue. I don't think there are easy answers. 

We're focusing on school kids, because that's the heart strings argument. But we should make school kids safe. Court houses are safe. Schools should be safe. I saw one suggestion to recall some military personnel and post them at schools. I don't mind that idea. I'm not sure I'm for arming teachers. Cops go into a building looking for someone with a gun. I've seen first hand what people do in a traumatic situation with mass casualties. Not pretty. Not everyone can keep a cool head. 

We have people who say "no" to any measure of "gun control" and dismiss it immediately. We have people who hate all guns. There are people who don't understand firearms at all and can't comprehend hunting or recreational shooting. There are people who frankly scare the crap out of me with their mentality about their guns and other people. I don't think we're going to be in a civil war where we're fighting our own government. Heaven help us if we are.

I think there are some things that can be done. Gun shows should have to submit to background checks. There should be a NICS counter at any gun show. I think it would be great if NICS upgraded technology and allowed for NICS background checks payed by the buyer of the gun to have a background check via an app or something on any private sale of a firearm. There should be coordination between mental health officials and law enforcement. That is touchy because the medical profession could arbitrarily have say for someone to not get a firearm if a person was incorrectly flagged. That also raises due process issues. 

I wonder if firearms could be re-classed and have levels of classes of firearms that required more testing and/or additional requirements to own one. It is not illegal to own a fully automatic weapon. One must simply fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, and wait. There could be various tiers of firearm classes and various proficiency tests required to purchase one. 

It is kind of crazy to me that a supressor is more difficult to get than a firearm. That doesn't make much sense. I digress. 

I have no use for an AR. I don't want one. I don't own one. But just because I don't care for them doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to own one. Does the right to own a gun also mean an inherent right to own all accessories ie bump fire stocks, etc? 

I'm not anti gun control and I'm not anti gun. I am very PRO CONSTITUTION, but I also believe that the founding fathers couldn't imagine technology available. The AR platform is the most popular firearm in the US, by a long margin. The numbers purchases in the last 8 years is staggering. Most use them appropriately. There are bad actors that do bad things. Always have, always will. But I also don't buy the dig in and do nothing mentality either. We can all improve. I'm not sure new legislation is the answer, but I'm not sure it's not either. 

There is a lot of logical fallacies going on (on both sides) and some mental and logical gymnastics being done. Both sides feel they have moral high ground and aren't budging an inch. This is tough. 

it's heart breaking to see any kid lose a life. Suicide, car accident, drugs, violence, cancer anything. A parent shouldn't have to bury their kid. My family has been down that road. Tough stuff for sure.


----------



## BPturkeys

Society does not need a reason or a "what will that accomplish" to pass laws or regulations. Society(US society) only needs to satisfy the constitutionality test. Regulation of firearms and related accessories have passed that test. The only test used by many, and not just to justify their position on gun control regulation is the "does it gore my ox" test. 
I certainly have many more questions than answers. But, IMHO, to set my jaw and advocate no research into gun laws as they pertain to mass shootings will certainly lead to that dreaded total confiscation that is always being thrown around by some.

Just for fun, what if YOU where charged with finding answers to the mass shooting problems...any suggestions?


----------



## DallanC

BPturkeys said:


> Is there any point in the regulation of the ownership of firearm by the class of the firearm, or the capabilities of that firearm, that would make you say "enough is enough".
> 
> Is private ownership of tanks ok, how about a battleship, or how about an atomic bomb?


Yes its ok, and legal! Lots of people own tanks currently. You can buy a tank any day of the week you want. Whole websites are dedicated to buying, selling and shipping tanks to private citizens.

https://tanks-alot.co.uk/military-vehicles-for-sale/

Arnold Schwarzenegger even owns the exact tank he drove when he was in the army in Austria. He pulls it out from time to time and crushes some cars. He had it shipped to Los Angeles.






Most tanks, howitzers, machine guns, rocket launchers, rocket propelled grenades etc etc used in movies are PRIVATELY OWNED.






IDK about actual battle ships, but alot of navy ships were bought at the end of the war by commercial and private entities for non-war use.

Atomic bombs, that one gets tricky... IDK about an actual bomb being constructed but privately owned nuclear reactors certainly exist, in fact here's a story on a 14 year old who built one:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150726-nuclear-reactor-fusion-science-kid-ngbooktalk/

When I took nuclear physics in college, we went over how a atomic bomb could be constructed, and it really was stupidly simple. The only hard part is getting enriched uranium which you would need a reactor for... ie: see my previous link lol.

Are you really not aware of this? Did you really think machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction are illegal to own? Just fill out the paperwork and plunk down your $$$.

-DallanC


----------



## caddis8

BPturkeys said:


> Just for fun, what if YOU where charged with finding answers to the mass shooting problems...any suggestions?


1- Start with the family. Families are broken which science has shown affects mental health.

2- Give appropriate mental health access and care. Mental health coverage from insurance is a joke. Hoops, more hoops. A pill isn't always the answer. Counseling with medication is very effective. I actually believe this is where the federal government should step in and provide more resources via Medicaid/Medicare for serious mental issues. Private insurance has failed too many people with inadequate treatment.

3- Glorification of violence in all forms has have an affect. For reference, the two youth in Cache Valley who shot Desirae Turner spent a lot of time playing violent video games and viewing violent porn. This skews reality and reduces moral sensitivity. When people no longer look at people as people, but as objects, problems happen.

Just a few. There are lots more.


----------



## DallanC

Oh yea, here is a step by step guide from one of my favorite youtuber's that lives here in Utah, showing how to refine uranium.






-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk

I know a guy who has an AR. Asked him why one day and he said because he can. Then asked how often he shoots it to which he replied rarely, in fact the last time was over 2 years ago.

So then why did you get it? Because I can he said, and hopefully never for the reason I got it. What does that mean I asked. His reply was the recorded history of man is some 7,000 yrs old. In all that time empires have risen and fallen always by one conquering the other and each empire was at the peak of enlightenment, technology, religion, gov't and society as a whole. Each fell in time to someone else and sometimes because of the empires own gov't.

He continued if you go through life today thinking it cannot happen, you are a fool. The founders crafted the Constitution because they were learned men and knew what history was and the pattern it held. Why would their time in over throwing an oppressive gov't be any different, or generations from now? I didn't get it to target shoot or kill. I got it to live.


----------



## Fowlmouth

caddis8 said:


> Boy this one has me torn. I've thought a lot about this issue. I don't think there are easy answers.
> 
> We're focusing on school kids, because that's the heart strings argument. But we should make school kids safe. Court houses are safe. Schools should be safe. I saw one suggestion to recall some military personnel and post them at schools. I don't mind that idea. I'm not sure I'm for arming teachers. Cops go into a building looking for someone with a gun. I've seen first hand what people do in a traumatic situation with mass casualties. Not pretty. Not everyone can keep a cool head.
> 
> We have people who say "no" to any measure of "gun control" and dismiss it immediately. We have people who hate all guns. There are people who don't understand firearms at all and can't comprehend hunting or recreational shooting. There are people who frankly scare the crap out of me with their mentality about their guns and other people. I don't think we're going to be in a civil war where we're fighting our own government. Heaven help us if we are.
> 
> I think there are some things that can be done. Gun shows should have to submit to background checks. There should be a NICS counter at any gun show. I think it would be great if NICS upgraded technology and allowed for NICS background checks payed by the buyer of the gun to have a background check via an app or something on any private sale of a firearm. There should be coordination between mental health officials and law enforcement. That is touchy because the medical profession could arbitrarily have say for someone to not get a firearm if a person was incorrectly flagged. That also raises due process issues.
> 
> I wonder if firearms could be re-classed and have levels of classes of firearms that required more testing and/or additional requirements to own one. It is not illegal to own a fully automatic weapon. One must simply fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, and wait. There could be various tiers of firearm classes and various proficiency tests required to purchase one.
> 
> It is kind of crazy to me that a supressor is more difficult to get than a firearm. That doesn't make much sense. I digress.
> 
> I have no use for an AR. I don't want one. I don't own one. But just because I don't care for them doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to own one. Does the right to own a gun also mean an inherent right to own all accessories ie bump fire stocks, etc?
> 
> I'm not anti gun control and I'm not anti gun. I am very PRO CONSTITUTION, but I also believe that the founding fathers couldn't imagine technology available. The AR platform is the most popular firearm in the US, by a long margin. The numbers purchases in the last 8 years is staggering. Most use them appropriately. There are bad actors that do bad things. Always have, always will. But I also don't buy the dig in and do nothing mentality either. We can all improve. I'm not sure new legislation is the answer, but I'm not sure it's not either.
> 
> There is a lot of logical fallacies going on (on both sides) and some mental and logical gymnastics being done. Both sides feel they have moral high ground and aren't budging an inch. This is tough.
> 
> it's heart breaking to see any kid lose a life. Suicide, car accident, drugs, violence, cancer anything. A parent shouldn't have to bury their kid. My family has been down that road. Tough stuff for sure.


Well said caddis8. My thoughts are very aligned to what you wrote here.

I have one daughter that is still in school. She was born in 2000, shortly after the Columbine shooting. She along with my other 2 daughters have certainly had a different school experience than my wife or myself had. We had the basic fire drill and earthquake drill, but never an active shooter drill or school lockdown drills.

I don't think banning guns is the answer, but I don't think sitting idle and doing nothing at all will resolve this matter either. Until the left and right can work together, and there is some give and take on both sides, nothing will be resolved.


----------



## BPturkeys

Fowlmouth said:


> Well said caddis8. My thoughts are very aligned to what you wrote here.
> 
> I have one daughter that is still in school. She was born in 2000, shortly after the Columbine shooting. She along with my other 2 daughters have certainly had a different school experience than my wife or myself had. We had the basic fire drill and earthquake drill, but never an active shooter drill or school lockdown drills.
> 
> I don't think banning guns is the answer, but I don't think sitting idle and doing nothing at all will resolve this matter either. Until the left and right can work together, and there is some give and take on both sides, nothing will be resolved.


There is so much common sense here from caddis8 and others.

Clearly the "over my cold dead hands" stance is not good. I believe it will eventually lead to total exact opposite...total confiscation. If the only two arguments are Yes or No, solutions will never come forth.


----------



## DallanC

caddis8 said:


> Boy this one has me torn. I've thought a lot about this issue. I don't think there are easy answers.


Yep, I am in full agreement.



> I wonder if firearms could be re-classed and have levels of classes of firearms that required more testing and/or additional requirements to own one. It is not illegal to own a fully automatic weapon. One must simply fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, and wait. There could be various tiers of firearm classes and various proficiency tests required to purchase one.


If the overall cost remains low. Making it expensive to get the permit is discriminatory toward poor folk, and is viewed as a form of gun control.



> I have no use for an AR. I don't want one. I don't own one. But just because I don't care for them doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to own one.


I thought that too... then I got to shoot one. My immediate reaction was regret, regret that I hadnt got one sooner. The gun in question was a very heavy barrel target rifle, and it was simply amazing to shoot ground squirrels without lifting your head, working a bolt, reloading etc.



> I'm not anti gun control and I'm not anti gun. I am very PRO CONSTITUTION, but I also believe that the founding fathers couldn't imagine technology available.


Thats a great point, lemme ask this... they couldn't imagine the internet, cell phones, computers etc etc either. Do you feel this invalidates the first amendment because technology has evolved to an unimaginable extent? Look at the whole russian involvement through social media. Should we limit social media posting in some way?

********************************************************

I'll make this really simple, I am a constitutionalist more than anything else. Its a beautifully written document.

I firmly... FIRMLY believe if you open the door to modifying or removing the 2nd Amendment, then it opens the door to altering others. How soon after would we see the 4th fall? Its very nearly broken now, with all the NSA wiretapping and tracking of people, confiscation of items, being searched by the TSA etc. What about the altering the 1st? Other countries, even our neighbor Canada has enacted laws limiting speech in the name of "hate speech" and mis-gendering. People are advocating for limiting the 1st amendment NOW.

It wont stop after opening that door. It just wont.

The world is entirely depressing, more and more I love to get out in the hills or out on the water to just unplug. Life is simpler there.

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

> The Constitution of the United States of America, the very document that is used by most anti government fanatics in their argument to justify their position, is in itself an attempt by people to regulate themselves and other members of society. To deny the right of a society to regulate it's self is to deny the legitimacy of the Constitution itself.
> Wow, what a quandary we are in. Perhaps we should actually revert to "might makes right" mentality of the past, it certainly would satisfy the arguments of some.....
> 
> Society does not need a reason or a "what will that accomplish" to pass laws or regulations. Society(US society) only needs to satisfy the constitutionality test. Regulation of firearms and related accessories have passed that test. The only test used by many, and not just to justify their position on gun control regulation is the "does it gore my ox" test.
> I certainly have many more questions than answers. But, IMHO, to set my jaw and advocate no research into gun laws as they pertain to mass shootings will certainly lead to that dreaded total confiscation that is always being thrown around by some.


I'm a centrist with a background that use to lean more left (governance wise). But I can't agree with the framing above. It would be convenient for gun control, which I am not fundamentally against or for, but its not the case. Instead, the Constitution is as much about defining how to govern our democratic republic as is about ratifying the individual inalienable rights that our government cannot encroach on.

Also, District of Columbia v Heller, via a reinforcement of US v Miller, changed the playing field in a noticeable way when it comes to bans and gun control. The last "assault weapons ban" expired before the 2008 ruling. As such, I'm not sure we could even constitutionally ban platforms like the AR-15 given the primary threshold is whether or not the weapon in question is "in common use for lawful purposes" Its hard to deny that the millions of AR-15s in circulation right now are in "common use" and for "lawful purpose", ie the legal precedent of home defense.

Beyond that I do think we have a civic duty to create laws that are solution oriented and as nuanced as possible. Its my belief that are legislative process is inherently slow and cumbersome for this very reason.

With that said, would a ban on "assault weapons" even be effective?

I think its a fair question. One way to know is to end the ban on government or government-funded studies of such issues. We have alot of conjecture but not alot of true empirical studies.

I don't think we can deny the increasing prevalence of these weapons in mass shootings. I also don't think its fair to compare a layman's usage of these, ie most mass shooters, with experts who can achieve similar outcomes without assault weapons. That's not the question. The question should be whether or not an assault weapons ban would effectively alter or diminish the rate of mass shootings or the number of innocent civilians killed? My fear, based on the best data I can find, is that it would only reduce the number of mass shootings done with assault weapons not the actual number of mass shootings. As has been pointed out, either people find other weapons to accomplish similar outcomes or,less talked about, manufacturers inevitably find a legal way around the letter of the law even when the "spirit" of the law is obvious.

I'll honestly admit I don't know of a solution even though I think we should be looking for one. We just can't ignore the complexities that exist, and there are a plethora of them right now that are often ignored:

1) Constitutional barriers and the mounting legal precedents
2) The growing demand to start putting a dent in the issue
3) That the individual(s) who are committing mass shootings now have almost two decades of events to draw from, ie more knowledge and efficiency to succeed and increase carnage
4) The myriad social factors at play, even though that includes empirical analysis from the past, ie no support for violent video games or movies being a "significant" factor. Or the fact that those suffering from mental health problems are actually more likely to be the victims of violence rather than perpetuate it. 
5) There is ineffective use of existing laws and resources, ie the previous reporting of Cruz.
6) Active shooter plans and drills are already a requirement for accreditation in many districts.

Not working on comprehensive solutions is clearly not an option if we care about civilian life. And with all of the details of above I actually think a ban on "bump fire stocks" is inevitably coming and will likely succeed as I am not sure how it passes the "lawful purpose" threshold listed above.

Sorry for length but there are alot of details at play. My wife works in education and I can attest to the broad impacts this has had on her students/school, her personally and us in general.


----------



## Airborne

If the left wants to talk gun control I would be willing to look at a couple of things--in the spirit of 'compromise'

Regarding magazine bans:

I would agree to a possession ban on any magazine over 20 rounds (class B misdemeanor if caught) *IF* the left agreed to normalize the possession of sound suppressors (silencers). Meaning no more $200 tax stamp and registration, just a normal background check and away ya go. Have a program to trade in prohibited mags for 20 rounders so you're not out the money.

Regarding Universal background checks:

I would agree to universal background checks on sales (exclude family members) *IF* the left agreed to universal concealed carry reciprocity between the states.

There are a couple of ideas that I think could work and 'get something done'. Would they stop mass shootings?---nope, but hey, everybody would feel better about themselves and that's what matters...right...


----------



## caddis8

In my heart of hearts, I don't believe that confiscation of firearms will happen. There are too many law abiding citizens that won't let that happen on any side of the aisle. 

Politics is an ugly game. Very few winners. Unfortunately, a lot of that is from lobbyists that have personal gain in mind- which then gives incentive to legislators to listen to lobbyists who then become bought and paid for by NOT the citizens. When they stop acting in the interest of the citizens they represent (I don't care if you are liberal or conservative- notice I didn't mention a party) then there are issues for those represented.


----------



## DallanC

We live in the world of cheap 3D printers, they are evolving quickly, increasing quality of items produced. We are on the cusp of not needing to "shop" for items, you will soon just download a STL file containing the instructions for the printer to print out whatever you need and create it in your home.

Magazines are no brainers to create today: https://grabcad.com/library/ar15-10-15-20-and-30-round-223-5-56-magazine-stl-s

3D printed AR15 lowers also can currently be printed at home. They are not durable enough when made with most cheap home printers, but the more expensive printers turn out metal fully functional receivers easily. As poly material for 3d objects increases in strength, they should be as durable as metal receivers.






Finally... and this is interesting in light of an assault weapons ban, it is currently 100% legal to build a firearm in your home for your own use. Raising the age to buy a gun means what again when a kid can legally build a gun at home?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use

We live in the land of slippery slopes.

-DallanC


----------



## caddis8

Dallan-

You bring up a lot of great points, many of which I have long considered and pondered. 

I agree 100% with you in most of what you mention. That's exactly why I'm torn. If some room is given, then more will be taken- that is the nature of the beast. 

If one right is infringed, then it is easily infringed in others that another political side doesn't like. On a side note- the FISA court really concerns me. Why was this extended when information was available on the methods of spying done. If one side can do it, so can the other for political purposes. 

In regards to changing one ammendment, then others will follow. My response is this: As absolutely despicable as the Charlotte demonstrations were last year, by absolutely horrible people with whom I have zero common ground nor want some. They were exercising their right to assemble and right to free speech. I hated that speech, but it is their right. 

As far as AR's go. I've shot lots of them. In the words of Matthew Quigley, "I never said I didn't know how to shoot one, just said I didn't have much use for one." But just because I don't want one, doesn't mean you can't own one. 

I wish there were more statesmen than politicians.

This is being said by an employee of an organization who has probably sold more ARs than any other singular orzanization as context.


----------



## Huntoholic

This has been a interesting topic.

As has been shown, to make a "Bump Stock" is not hard. Can be made of simple, readily available material. Therefore there is really very little value in trying to outlaw their manufacture. Common sense says this is similar to prohibition. People will just make there own.

The simple fact is guns have been around for a very long time. Kids have had guns at an early age in those times. But what has changed in the last 15 to 20 has been the total lack of respect for human life. We have lost (heaven forbid I say it) our moral compass. 

I have read some things online that one life is to many to loose. But yet these same kids will watch their friend OD. Will let their friend drive drunk. Both of which kill more of there peers. Where is their out rage on these? 

Till some of these issues are addressed I have a hard time someone telling me I need to give up something I enjoy because they think it is not needed


----------



## Clarq

BPturkeys said:


> Just for fun, what if YOU where charged with finding answers to the mass shooting problems...any suggestions?


Well if it's answers to the mass *shooting* problem you're after, then yeah, let's go ahead and restrict/ban/confiscate/etc guns. If we really want to solve the mass *killing* problem, though, we need to think a lot bigger. We're going to have a problem on our hands as long as there are people out there who want to harm others.

That's about all the response I have time for right now, but I might check in later with ideas/suggestions later if I don't find something better to waste my time on.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

"Two cents" I think MAYBE that kid wouldn't have had one if the age to buy was 21.


----------



## Critter

7MM RELOADED said:


> "Two cents" I think MAYBE that kid wouldn't have had one if the age to buy was 21.


But how many parents will purchase one and then give it to their kid? Didn't the Sandy Hook mom buy the rifle for her son?

Also as Dallan mentioned quite a few post ago, how about the damage that could be caused by a shotgun firing 00 buck? He mentioned a semi automatic one but what about a pump with a extended magazine?


----------



## bowgy

Critter said:


> But how many parents will purchase one and then give it to their kid? Didn't the Sandy Hook mom buy the rifle for her son?
> 
> Also as Dallan mentioned quite a few post ago, how about the damage that could be caused by a shotgun firing 00 buck? He mentioned a semi automatic one but what about a pump with a extended magazine?


I had the same thoughts.

Also I am sure that if he didn't have an AR he would have opened his safe and maybe saw a semi auto .22 lr or mossberg 12 ga but no AR and said to himself: "OH..... I guess I can't go shoot up the school" (sarc on)

Some are sure stupid to think that he wouldn't use the tool that he had, whether it be an AR, shot gun or even a pump 22 lr.


----------



## RandomElk16

The most violent one as of late was Vegas. Neither of these laws would stop that.

They won't address the real issues that we keep dancing around. It is illegal to murder, it is illegal to have a weapon in a school, it's illegal to discharge a weapon in public, it's illegal to shoot out of a hotel window, it's illegal to build and use bombs in Boston, and on and on....


If only criminals obeyed laws. 

Education is proven time and time again to be about 10x as effective as force. Not only do we not educate on weapons (just watch news anchors holding a shotgun talk about it being an AR, or Trump say a bumb stock turns a semi-auto into a machine gun), we also don't educate on mental health.

Add into the fact this guys extensive criminal/troubled youth issues, the 30+ calls to police about him, and the 2 flaggings to the FBI.... We failed in a lot of ways and it wasn't a LAW that was going to prevent it.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Looks like Florida is going to lead the way on the age restriction and other things.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...tt-moves-bar-people-under-21-mentally-n850606


----------



## DallanC

I watched the Governor speak, he clearly said he recommends anyone under 21 cannot even carry a rifle of any kind, if they own it or not. 

So yea, there goes deer hunting in Florida for anyone under the age of 21... possibly even rabbit hunting with a 22LR depending on how the statute gets worded.


-DallanC


----------



## bowgy

Wow, and to think that they let us 17 and 18 year old kids run around with fully automatic M16's:shock: That crazy US military anyway.


----------



## Fowlmouth

bowgy said:


> Wow, and to think that they let us 17 and 18 year old kids run around with fully automatic M16's:shock: That crazy US military anyway.


It sounds like there will be exemptions to the 21 rule if you are military.

Here's the written speech.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/r...ll-speech-about-his-new-school-safety-program

A whole new can of worms will be opened with the mental health part. It will probably keep some people from seeking professional help because they don't want to be black listed.

Back to the bump stock thing, do you think hell fire triggers will be part of that as well? Nobody mentions those and they do the same thing.


----------



## DallanC

Fowlmouth said:


> Back to the bump stock thing, do you think hell fire triggers will be part of that as well? Nobody mentions those and they do the same thing.


They are going to write it as "any alteration, modification or enhancement that increases rate of fire". Would that mean you cant use a titanium BCG or other lightened BCG as it cycles faster? Probably. They would have to define what the standard rate of fire even is.

I've seen people worried that this technically means it could be illegal to grease / oil your firearm (I disagree of course, but we'll have to see how the BATF implements this and the actual wording).

-DallanC


----------



## Clarq

I've decided I'm not in favor of a 21 year minimum age limit to purchase guns. 

Lots of kids leave home at 18 for one reason or another to live on their own. I think if the law considers you old enough to live and function independently, you ought to have the right to protect yourself in your home. This law would prevent some people from having a useful self-defense measure in their homes for up to 3 years.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Clarq said:


> I've decided I'm not in favor of a 21 year minimum age limit to purchase guns.
> 
> Lots of kids leave home at 18 for one reason or another to live on their own. I think if the law considers you old enough to live and function independently, you ought to have the right to protect yourself in your home. This law would prevent some people from having a useful self-defense measure in their homes for up to 3 years.


This brings up another good point. 18 year olds can obtain a conceal carry permit in Utah. How's that going to work? Will that go bye bye?


----------



## Critter

Clarq said:


> I've decided I'm not in favor of a 21 year minimum age limit to purchase guns.
> 
> Lots of kids leave home at 18 for one reason or another to live on their own. I think if the law considers you old enough to live and function independently, you ought to have the right to protect yourself in your home. This law would prevent some people from having a useful self-defense measure in their homes for up to 3 years.


What I have heard is that you will need to be 21 to purchase AR or semi automatic rifles. I haven't heard of them talking about all rifles.



Fowlmouth said:


> This brings up another good point. 18 year olds can obtain a conceal carry permit in Utah. How's that going to work? Will that go bye bye?


They already have to be 21 to purchase a handgun


----------



## RandomElk16

Fowlmouth said:


> A whole new can of worms will be opened with the mental health part. It will probably keep some people from seeking professional help because they don't want to be black listed.


This.

Mental health is one of the big issues, yet we are now going to actually DETER people from being helped.


----------



## wyogoob

3 things:

1) Tide pods taste terrible, let me tell ya.

2) Start spanking kids again. Then the gun stuff won't matter. It will take a generation to stop the stupid mass killings though.

3) Get rid of the internet or at least Facebook and all the outdoor forums.

.


----------



## Huntoholic

So I wonder if they are going to increase the age of drivers to 21 as well. I mean since automobile deaths are the number one killer of 15 to 24 year olds?
Maybe ban them from being in a car till 25. Since one life lost is to much and all.


----------



## BPturkeys

I find it crazy that this thread has gone on for what, now, 5 pages. Now I admit, I haven't read all the postings, but I can't imagine any response when ask if bump stocks should be illegal other than "yup!"
If those 58 dead people could come back to life and were ask, do you think bump stocks are OK, do you think they'd use up 5 pages of valuable forum space to answer the question?
There are no "Yeah, but what abouts" that can justify the existence of these things. They aren't firearms covered under the 2nd amendment. 
They aren't useful for the gathering of food, or sport hunting.
Their only use is the conversion of a legal weapon into an illegal weapon.
Making them illegal in no way will effect gun ownership.
Even the slightest or light hearted support for bump stock ownership by any gun owner or gun owner organization just adds fuel to the anti gun people and frankly makes us look like "wack job gun owners".
Being anti bump stock does NOT make you anti gun, or anti gun ownership, or anti hunting or any of that sort of stuff.
There is no "right" to own a bump stock and arguing for the legitimacy only dilutes our position for gun ownership as a "right".

In short, yes, I'd legislate them off the face of the earth and never look back.


----------



## .45

BPturkeys said:


> Their only use is the conversion of a legal weapon into an illegal weapon.


Your up in the night BP. The ATF has deemed the bumpstock to be perfectly legal. Adding a bumpstock does_ *NOT*_ make an AR illegal.


----------



## BPturkeys

So .45, I assume you are completely supporting bump stocks on the grounds that the ATF determined that they are legal? 
Would you support any regulation of bump stocks, up to and including making them totally illegal?
Would you accept a ruling by the ATF(notice I did not say a law, cause the ATF can't pass laws) that AR's are illegal?


----------



## grizzly

DallanC said:


> I watched the Governor speak, he clearly said he recommends anyone under 21 cannot even carry a rifle of any kind, if they own it or not.


Where? Here's the link to the full speech, maybe I missed that but I can't find it in there.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/r...ll-speech-about-his-new-school-safety-program


----------



## DallanC

And lets not forget "bump firing" is a technique not a "thing". Anyone can bumpfire virtually any semi-auto that has reasonable recoil and crisp trigger, just using a finger. That includes shotguns and pistols.

Go back and watch the first video I posted... manually shooting an AR just as fast as a bumpfire stock gun. Virtually no difference. The special stock makes it a little easier, but with a little practice, its very easy to bumpfire a semi auto using just a rigid trigger finger and pulling the gun into it from the front stock.

-DallanC


----------



## .45

The bumpstock is classified as an *accessory*. Not a conversion as some people seem to think. An accessory, meaning no more than a scope, a sling, a sight, stabilizer brace, stock extender, etc. etc.

No BP, I wouldn't back a ban by the ATF or anybody else.


----------



## Springville Shooter

wyogoob said:


> 3 things:
> 
> 1) Tide pods taste terrible, let me tell ya.
> 
> 2) Start spanking kids again. Then the gun stuff won't matter. It will take a generation to stop the stupid mass killings though.
> 
> 3) Get rid of the internet or at least Facebook and all the outdoor forums.
> 
> .


THIS is my favorite post and I think that the solution lies largely in #2. Why could my generation carry our shotguns across campus from the bus to the AG shop for use after school on the trap club without ever having the thought of shooting someone? It certainly wasn't because of any laws. And don't tell me it was because there was no bullying or mental illness.----SS


----------



## DallanC

grizzly said:


> Where? Here's the link to the full speech, maybe I missed that but I can't find it in there.


It was in the Q&A at the end.

-DallanC


----------



## grizzly

DallanC said:


> It was in the Q&A at the end.


Thx. I didn't see that part. To me, this is exactly why the hunting/public lands debate is so crucial to the 2nd Amendment debate... because without lawful use of firearms (like hunting) it becomes much harder to defend against ill-advised gun control proposals.


----------



## Fowlmouth

18 to legally conceal carry in Utah, but 21 to purchase a hand gun. I just don't get it. The 18 year old is allowed to carry a handgun that he cannot legally purchase. Am I missing something here? And yes I understand mommy or daddy could buy it for them, but this is as dumb as 19 year olds can buy cigarettes, but 18 you can smoke them.


----------



## Springville Shooter

grizzly said:


> Thx. I didn't see that part. To me, this is exactly why the hunting/public lands debate is so crucial to the 2nd Amendment debate... because without lawful use of firearms (like hunting) it becomes much harder to defend against ill-advised gun control proposals.


It's too bad since the Constitution should really nullify any need for additional justification. ---SS


----------



## middlefork

Fowlmouth said:


> 18 to legally conceal carry in Utah, but 21 to purchase a hand gun. I just don't get it. The 18 year old is allowed to carry a handgun that he cannot legally purchase. Am I missing something here? And yes I understand mommy or daddy could buy it for them, but this is as dumb as 19 year olds can buy cigarettes, but 18 you can smoke them.


Another example of our all protecting government and political leaders.
They thought it up and convinced a few other people so they must be all knowing.

They had it right when they passed constitutional carry. Too bad the Gov didn't see it that way.


----------



## grizzly

grizzly said:


> To me, this is exactly why the hunting/public lands debate is so crucial to the 2nd Amendment debate... because without lawful use of firearms (like hunting) it becomes much harder to defend against ill-advised gun control proposals.


Shortly after posting this, Herbert proved my point by calling for an increase in age to purchasae certain guns and limits on magazine capacity, "I don't know that there's any reason to have anything more than a seven- or nine-shot magazine. Once you get past a typical size when you go out hunting, you're probably having excess baggage you don't need."

He's using the standard of hunting as to what firearms are reasonable to own. Should we lose public land & hunting, it becomes much harder to defend against gun control.


----------



## backcountry

grizzly said:


> Shortly after posting this, Herbert proved my point by calling for an increase in age to purchasae certain guns and limits on magazine capacity, "I don't know that there's any reason to have anything more than a seven- or nine-shot magazine. Once you get past a typical size when you go out hunting, you're probably having excess baggage you don't need."
> 
> He's using the standard of hunting as to what firearms are reasonable to own. Should we lose public land & hunting, it becomes much harder to defend against gun control.


From what I understand, hunting has little bearing on the 2nd Amendment and legal precedent. From readings of DC v Heller and US v Miller, the Constitutional hurdle has been mostly justified and discussed as self-defense and militia, ie the common use.

I personally don't buy into the notion that 1) public land hunting will be eroded substantially in my life or 2) that our current constitutional rights swing on that variable. That doesn't mean people won't still use hunting as rhetorical justification but political rhetoric is not law. But, take Heller, in which "self-defense" is mentioned 20 times while "hunting" is only mentioned once in the summary (appears to have similar numbers in majority opinion and dissenting ones). This is the landmark gun law case of our time and it clearly lays out plenty of non-hunting rational for 2nd Amendment protections and appears to consider them the "core" ones.

I actually think a reading of case law concludes the opposite, ie that the justification for hunting protections, in regards to 2nd Amendment, is tenuous and is sustained largely through the ancillary supports in case law regarding "common use" and/or "self-defense". More succinctly, hunting protections are secondary to the other legal justifications and requires them to survive.

I'm guessing Heller will be the first in many cases that hash out the exact range of an individual's right to bear arms and it will be interesting to see what they tease out explicitly about hunting. Until then, rhetorical justification of hunting can't hurt but I think there are other variables that are the primary bulwarks "against gun control".

In relation to this thread, the question will be if "bump fire stocks" or extended magazines are banned will someone appeal. And if so, will these accessories be afforded the same protections under the 2nd Amendment and will they pass the "core" benchmarks of Heller. Those questions are above my pay grade. And to be honest, they have little bearing on me at the moment as I don't need either for big game hunting or the shotgun I have multi-tasked to self defense.


----------



## grizzly

My point isn't about the judicial branch. Every case that goes to the Supreme Court (which according to precedent is unlikely to even take a 2nd Amendment case so soon after Heller, et al) starts in the legislative branch.

As long as the court of public opinion believes firearms should be protected for sporting purposes such as hunting, the legislative branch is less likely to institute gun control laws that even need to go to the Supreme Court. Not to mention, nothing any of us are going to do will have any affect on the interpretation of a future Supreme Court. This needs to be won with the public first and foremost.

That's why I referenced Herbert... because his justification was based on usefulness for hunting, not self-defense or what is protected under purview of the Constitution.

Once hunting numbers dwindle to a very small number, there's nobody left to protect firearms for lawful sporting purposes.


----------



## Critter

I have found that a lot of hunters lean towards the liberal side of gun control. They look at AR style weapons and then look at their bolt or pump action rifles and figure why should anyone have a AR type weapon. They don't see them as a "hunting" firearm even if a person is actually hunting with one of them. 

It would also be interesting to see just how many "hunters" out there are actually members of the NRA. But on the other hand I would say that the members of the NRA that are hunters is in the high 95%.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

The age to buy a rifle in the 80s was 19. I guess they wanted to make sure you were OUT of high school. yes I know he was 19. Also note 223 will go through Kevlar most shotguns and handguns will not. The officer that didn't go in maybe he didn't want to confront a AR with a Beretta . who the hell knows.


----------



## middlefork

Found this response on another forum. Thought it might fit in here.

what possible argument is there to legally allow any gun to have a magazine and/or intrinsic capability for larger than 6-10 bullets outside of a "well-regulated militia" [ie. outside of a swiss style regulated oversight of a well-armed civilian "military"]?

I'll attempt to answer in all honesty.

I believe that the question should go the other way, as I'll explain after "the argument" you asked for. But, let's start with this.

1) You can't ensure (or even suggest) by any laws that threats against individual persons don't take the form of multiple assailants, each armed with weapons containing more rounds than whatever arbitrary legal limit you set.

2) The right of self-defense implies the right to such armaments as can give an individual "a fighting chance" against putative threats against him/her as an individual (or such scenarios as the individual might be "caught up in," such as a mob attack, store/bank robbery, etc.).

3) Any line drawn to minimize the intuitive impact of 1 and 2 above (such as, 6-10 bullets 'should' be enough for 'most' situations) will necessarily be an arbitrary line.

4) Per 3, any such line is an arbitrary limitation of an individual's right to defend him/herself against putative individual threats.

5) No government can legitimately put arbitrary limits on an individual's right to defend him/herself against putative individual threats.

-------------
6) Therefore, no government can legitimately limit the ammo an individual can carry to 6-10 bullets.

Various versions of the above argument can be framed, and the core issue isn't what "most people that carry would 'feel' 'should' be enough." The issue is that EVERY individual has the right to carry what THEY feel "should be enough" (within PRINCIPLED limitations that are framed in the context of INDIVIDUAL threats). That's going to vary according to background, training, past experiences, reading/knowledge of scenarios, and so forth. And, because we are talking about threats against INDIVIDUALS, we stop well back from the supposed "slippery slope to nukes" and other mass-carnage options.

But as long as assailants can carry multiple weapons, carry large-cap mags, join up with others like them, and so forth, individuals WILL be faced by threats that give them effectively no "fighting chance" with only six bullets.

So, now, to turn the question around, as I think it should be: What argument could be offered to suggest that such arbitrariness is legitimate? I mean, there is no PRINCIPLED difference between 6 and 10 bullets, as there is between, say, a 15-round handgun and a bazooka.

Why not limit caliber? Why not limit FPS? Why not allow 300 rounds but limit the FPS to, say, 450 FPS, you know, like an airsoft gun (they HURT, btw!)?

The point is that the 6-10 bullet idea is just setting arbitrary, unprincipled limitations that will NOT be followed by those that, well, don't follow the rules (criminals). ALL such a limitation accomplishes is to make legitimate, law-abiding citizens "less competitive" in those scenarios in which the fight is life or death.

So, the "burden of proof" is really on the advocate of such a policy rather than on a victim being told, in effect, "Well, in most cases, 3 rounds (or 6 or 10) SHOULD have been enough. So sorry that you ran out of the ability to fight back after 3 (or 6 or 10) shots."

That's just one response, and there are multiple others. But, lest I be accused of the dreaded WoT, I'll end with just the one.

The final point I'll make is that, unlike a bazooka or grenade or some such mass-carnage weapon, ANY semi-auto weapon, regardless of mag-cap, IS a single-shot, single-target weapon! It's virtually impossible to target an INDIVIDUAL with a bazooka or grenade. THEIR purpose just is to take out multiple targets at once, and nobody can really be "discriminate" with such a weapon. So, these are not suited to individual self-defense.

By contrast, even an AR-15 with a 30-round mag is designed for INDIVIDUAL targets. You CAN be precise in your target-selection, which is the point of all bullet-firing guns. You don't HAVE to risk multiple people in the act of targeting one. Thus, there's a principled difference between weapons designed to target individuals and weapons designed to engage multiple targets with one throw or trigger-press.

Full-auto weapons are already illegal for civilians without "special permission." So, the only remaining issue concerns drawing entirely arbitrary lines regarding how often a civilian should have to reload during a fight. And such arbitrary lines will have no palpable effect on the weaponry that criminals use, nor on their ingenuity regarding avoiding the reloads that law-abiding citizens are relegated to.


----------



## caddis8

Very good summation middlefork.

It seems political tides have turned somehow with more pressure being exerted to do _something_.

What does _something_ look like is my struggle?

There are too many tragedies all over the place. I don't think reasonable people could argue with that. More kids are lost to suicides (by multiple means) and car accidents than gun violence. Lest one would think I am offering a red herring argument. Point is, why don't we address societal issues, which are far less sexy than pet causes.

Why don't we fix people, families, and gasp, accountability with various means and methods so we don't get to shootings and suicides? Both types are mentally tormented. Both, unfortunately, are in a spot that most of us will never comprehend.

25% of people suffer from some sort of mental illness. Yet, the majority of those don't have access to adequate resources and care. Mental illness isn't a crutch. Mental illness is as real as cancer, and just as dangerous and deadly. We just tell people to "get tough," "suck it up", and/or "it's in your head." Broken leg? Toughen up. Cancer? It's in your head.

So, point is, things need fixing and have needed fixing for a while. We can't legislate a moral compass. We can't mandate conscience.

Constitution promises the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't promise happiness, quite the opposite. But we have the right to try. Too many lives are snuffed out without that choice to pursue life, liberty, or happiness.

Tough stuff. I see political winds changing. People will pursue power and popularity, and the powerful and popular thing to do will be to enact some sort of legislation to make ourselves feel better.


----------



## Fowlmouth

caddis8 said:


> Why don't we fix people, families, and gasp, accountability with various means and methods so we don't get to shootings and suicides? Because it's easier to blame an object such as a gun.
> 
> Tough stuff. I see political winds changing. People will pursue power and popularity, and the powerful and popular thing to do will be to enact some sort of legislation to make ourselves feel better.


Yep, this is the scary part. People will start giving up their rights for the sake of safety and security that they are still not guaranteed.


----------



## GaryFish

My thoughts on the subject:

- Pro Gun people (like me) need to be willing to admit that guns are created for a single purpose - to kill. We go on and on splitting hairs on ballistic coefficients and bullet density structure to point out how the latest cartridge has 2.3 mm less drop at 500 yards than the last round de' jour, and therefore will "knock an elk on its a$$" better than the last round. But then when anti-gun people (not me) point out that guns only serve one purpose, we say "No. They are just for sport." We are not honest about the whole deal. Guns are made to kill. Sure, as hunters, the targets are animals, not people - but guns are tools designed to make it easier to kill things. 

- When we talk about numbers of people dying in gun deaths vs. car deaths vs. drunk driving, etc... we need to sit back, think a little bit, and then shut up. Sure, it makes a nice meme to tell people they are barking up the wrong tree when we say that in the same time 17 kids were murdered, than 132 died in car accidents - that does NOTHING for our cause, and only diminishes lives lost for the sake of a one-liner or meme to share on social media. Fact is, the 17 dead kids in Florida are no longer victims of this crime, but their 3,000 classmates still are, and will be for who knows how long. The 3,000 other kids that found their school turned into a war zone still are. We talk about PTSD, or what we called in the last century, shell-shock, for our military. Yet 3,000 kids that heard gun shots, were sprayed by blood, stepped over bodies of their classmates - that is significant and we should NEVER dismiss that. And we tell them to "go back to school. It'll all be fine." Guess again. It won't all be fine. Not for a long time, if ever. But hey, you only had to step over 17 bodies, so what's the big deal? Really? 

-Quit calling people worried about this "snowflakes." I grew up in a small, rural town. We all had guns in our trucks, especially during hunting season. But never once, did I fear getting shot at school. My kids do. At current rates of school shootings, by the time my second grade daughter graduates from high school, about 3 million American kids her age will witness a shooting at school. That reality scares the bejeebers out of me. Diminishing the very real fear is like telling a soldier of any war, "why are you staying inside for the fireworks?" or mocking them because they won't sit anywhere with their back to the door. 

- For me, I currently do not own any hand gun, or AR style gun. But I plan on buying both in the near future. Not for sport. Not because I can, but for the sole purpose that they are effective tools for protecting my family from people. It is evil people I worry about far more than an oppressive government. 

- Lots needs fixing. But until it is all fixed, whatever that means and whenever that happens, I'm fielding questions from a 7 year old girl about lock down drills, and nightmares about being safe at a school in one of the safest town in the country, and working to comfort a college freshman daughter with anxiety, over just walking to class from her apartment. So, yea.


----------



## backcountry

I'm not willing to "give up a right" but I am willing to compromise on specific guns or accessories that are constitutionally deemed to be under the umbrella of historic rulings stating the 2nd Amendment is not "unlimited". Finding that outcome is not easy. My metric beyond the Constitutional hurdle is targeted and nuanced. And I would love to see us lift the Congressional ban on government funded studies so we can actually see some empirical data.

And I think framing this in a way that makes it solely about safety and security is erroneous. Most of us will never experience a mass shooting so in general its not really about my safety or security. It is about, for me, trying to reduce the # of mass shootings, the # of people they can kill and wound in the first 10 minutes before trained officers arrive, and reducing the overall trauma this is inflicting on individuals. 

Have y'all talked with kids or parents who have practiced active shooter drills? Its traumatizing in itself. The mantra "run, hide, fight" completely affects the school environment beyond the training and heaven forbid an actual shooting. They often simulate forced entrance or cries from peers in the hallway once teachers have locked the doors. Can you imagine being challenged not to open a door for a friend in high school? Imagine if the old nuclear drills of the past were actually accompanied each year by real bombings that made their practice palpable and dire. That is what we are putting our young students through each year.

The fact is this is a massive impact on student's learning environment and potential emotional maturation. Can we really continue to expect children to slowly endure their schools turning into prison-lite (increasing armed guards, see through back packs, metal detectors, funneled entry ways, restrictions to off campus travel, etc) yet not be expected to even consider legislation to address certain guns or accessories? 

And trust me, I recognize people enjoy their "bump fire stocks" and extended mags for sport shooting. I even grapple with the "arbitrary" issue and what efficacy such a law could have in the first place. But this is a problem that is not only not going away but is steadily getting worse. And I don't think investigating what gun control measures, ie ones that pass Constitutional hurdles, might make a dent in these massacres is too much to ask. 

And my biggest fear is that if gun owners don't start showing greater vulnerability to even that possibility than eventually this tide will overtake the middle ground and we'll be stuck combating more draconian measures in the court systems for years. Its to our benefit to balance our certainty about Construction protections with reminders that we are a minority in America. 

I've still not seen a response to whether or not accessories like "bump fire stocks" can be regulated differently than firearms and if they would pass the lawful purpose threshold set by Heller if someone were to legally challenge such a ban. I sincerely don't know how to gauge that issue.


----------



## DallanC

GaryFish said:


> - Pro Gun people (like me) need to be willing to admit that guns are created for a single purpose - to kill. We go on and on splitting hairs on ballistic coefficients and bullet density structure to point out how the latest cartridge has 2.3 mm less drop at 500 yards than the last round de' jour, and therefore will "knock an elk on its a$$" better than the last round. But then when anti-gun people (not me) point out that guns only serve one purpose, we say "No. They are just for sport." We are not honest about the whole deal. Guns are made to kill. Sure, as hunters, the targets are animals, not people - but guns are tools designed to make it easier to kill things.


Not true. There are some guns specifically made for non-hunting purposes. Right off the top of my head is the Remington "Klinker" gun. The thing shoots massive shotgun shells to break up clinker buildup in industrial furnaces.










-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

backcountry said:


> Have y'all talked with kids or parents who have practiced active shooter drills? Its traumatizing in itself. The mantra "run, hide, fight" completely affects the school environment beyond the training and heaven forbid an actual shooting.


I don't see how that's any more traumatizing than fire drills personally.



> They often simulate forced entrance or cries from peers in the hallway once teachers have locked the doors. Can you imagine being challenged not to open a door for a friend in high school?


Ok that is messed up for sure.



> I've still not seen a response to whether or not accessories like "bump fire stocks" can be regulated differently than firearms and if they would pass the lawful purpose threshold set by Heller if someone were to legally challenge such a ban. I sincerely don't know how to gauge that issue.


It goes beyond that with wording banning modifications that "increase rate of fire"






-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

I've been through fire drills and these drills are nothing like them. Practicing for someone to kill you is not remotely the same as slowly walking out of a building if a fire hits and they therefore require different measures. Talking to kids and young adults about "Run, hide, fight" is an entirely different ball game. Teaching everyone the "all clear" process often involves explaining that one door will likely be busted down before the process begins. Explaining to kids that its possible they could be handcuffed after the shooting to eliminate the possibility of further threats is its own ball of wax. 

Nothing we have experienced or done in the past with students resembles the level of detail and air of fear and trauma this is inflicting on millions of children. 

And then there are all of the other variables. Have you spent hours talking with your wife about her students and when to call 911 or possibly involve the FBI? Have you had to differentiate between a real threat and just a teenager being arrogant and stupid? Have you had to wonder if one of these students will come back a few years later and start a mass shooting because his threats fell through the cracks? We have. It sucks and there is nothing that can be done about it beyond prep, talking and informing the proper authorities. There is no way I could help (legally from what I understand) or even respond in time if it happens. I've thought about it and in no scenario could I or others I trust act in a meaningful manner. 

This a massive issue with far reaching implications that are affecting some of us on a regular basis.


----------



## backcountry

PS...i often learn alot from your posts, Dallan. Folks on this forum are often well educated on these subjects. Sadly many in the public lack such understanding (on both sides). 

I am also concerned about what legislation could come up and what the language could influence. That said, if history is any measure, most laws aren't retroactive and confiscation has never been a serious option nor do I think it ever will be. 

No easy answers here. And a ton of information to wade through to remotely remain current and competent on the subject.


----------



## GaryFish

I can relate Backcountry. This whole thing isn't about bump stocks. Or gun laws. Or gun contol. And Caddis8 hit on that as well - this is about now living in a society where what Backcountry talks about is a very real deal. It is so dang far from the day I grew up. I remember in high school, parent teacher conference fell during hunting season. So I went up on the mountain for morning hunt. Then once the deer bedded for the day, I went back into town to talk with my teachers. I walked in with a sidearm on my belt, and no one thought anything of it. My how times have changed. 

I have a 2nd grader, and a high school junior, and the rest are in college right now. My 2nd grader has a planned lockdown drill tomorrow. We will be talking about it tonight. My high school daughter has been on egg shells since last week, as my brother lives in Florida, and this thing is hitting us harder than those of the past. Very real discussions and fear and concern and anxiety abound. How can I tell my kids that lockdown drills work when an AR will shoot through any school door, and when kids are huddled in a corner like at Sandy Hook, then an AR or 9 mm or whatever firearm at that point becomes an incredibly destructive device. 

We recently had an active shooter training thing at my workplace. The instructor pointed out five minute in that he could tell everyone with combat training, and law enforcement - both uniformed and not - because they were all against the back wall, where they could see both doors, and no one could approach them from behind. That is how those that have been in combat are always thinking, which is good I guess. But that is now how we have to train our 7 year olds to think. And that kind of sucks. 

So we can come on here and split hairs about what makes a weapon fire faster, or if 20 round clips are not as good as 30 round clips. But that is just a symptom of the bigger issue.


----------



## caddis8

Having lived through a mass casualty situation (personally) if you want to look for it AZF plant explosion Toulouse, France Sept 21, 2001. Exactly 10 days after 9/11 on the American Continent. I was close to the explosion, like really close. Not just in the area. I was within a mile of it. Saved by traffic noise control wall. That was absolutely insane and pretty scary stuff. Folks who should have been more composed were crazy, and the ones I thought would be crazy were composed. and it was scary. 

Speculation on terrorism as cause, but deemed accidental. 

Anyway, point is. It's really easy to speculate what should happen when you haven't gone through it. It messes with someone. 

And it's scary. It's scarier for a kid. 

We need to make kids feel safer. There are evil people around that are evil and crazy. and there are crazy people around that aren't evil, but crazy. 

A lot of those folks are dangerous. But those dangerous people still have rights. So, this is really sticky and tough.


----------



## Huntoholic

GaryFish said:


> My thoughts on the subject:
> 
> - Pro Gun people (like me) need to be willing to admit that guns are created for a single purpose - to kill. We go on and on splitting hairs on ballistic coefficients and bullet density structure to point out how the latest cartridge has 2.3 mm less drop at 500 yards than the last round de' jour, and therefore will "knock an elk on its a$$" better than the last round. But then when anti-gun people (not me) point out that guns only serve one purpose, we say "No. They are just for sport." We are not honest about the whole deal. Guns are made to kill. Sure, as hunters, the targets are animals, not people - but guns are tools designed to make it easier to kill things.
> 
> - When we talk about numbers of people dying in gun deaths vs. car deaths vs. drunk driving, etc... we need to sit back, think a little bit, and then shut up. Sure, it makes a nice meme to tell people they are barking up the wrong tree when we say that in the same time 17 kids were murdered, than 132 died in car accidents - that does NOTHING for our cause, and only diminishes lives lost for the sake of a one-liner or meme to share on social media. Fact is, the 17 dead kids in Florida are no longer victims of this crime, but their 3,000 classmates still are, and will be for who knows how long. The 3,000 other kids that found their school turned into a war zone still are. We talk about PTSD, or what we called in the last century, shell-shock, for our military. Yet 3,000 kids that heard gun shots, were sprayed by blood, stepped over bodies of their classmates - that is significant and we should NEVER dismiss that. And we tell them to "go back to school. It'll all be fine." Guess again. It won't all be fine. Not for a long time, if ever. But hey, you only had to step over 17 bodies, so what's the big deal? Really?
> 
> -Quit calling people worried about this "snowflakes." I grew up in a small, rural town. We all had guns in our trucks, especially during hunting season. But never once, did I fear getting shot at school. My kids do. At current rates of school shootings, by the time my second grade daughter graduates from high school, about 3 million American kids her age will witness a shooting at school. That reality scares the bejeebers out of me. Diminishing the very real fear is like telling a soldier of any war, "why are you staying inside for the fireworks?" or mocking them because they won't sit anywhere with their back to the door.
> 
> - For me, I currently do not own any hand gun, or AR style gun. But I plan on buying both in the near future. Not for sport. Not because I can, but for the sole purpose that they are effective tools for protecting my family from people. It is evil people I worry about far more than an oppressive government.
> 
> - Lots needs fixing. But until it is all fixed, whatever that means and whenever that happens, I'm fielding questions from a 7 year old girl about lock down drills, and nightmares about being safe at a school in one of the safest town in the country, and working to comfort a college freshman daughter with anxiety, over just walking to class from her apartment. So, yea.


Just my opinion, but I think some of your comments are wrong and really part of the problem. 
Guns have more then one purpose. Far more rounds are fired in the USA at targets then are fired at living things. So to say that they only have one purpose is wrong.
When my kids were in school (in the early 2000), they had a much higher likely hood seeing their friends dying or messed up because of an OD or alcohol then would be killed by gun fire. Sad thing is nothing has changed from that point time till now. So where is the same level of concern being portrayed to the public. 
I am sorry, but 3000 kids did not walk over dead bodies, see dead bodies, or blood spattered walls (unless they saw it on facebook, youtube, or the rest). Maybe just maybe kids have a fear because of all the miss information and generalization that is being disseminated. Maybe a little perspective is in order.


----------



## backcountry

We actively address many of those other issues directly as a society. We have programs directed at teenagers that deal with: distracted driving, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. 

Per the perspective comment....most students I know are fearful because of the facts. Do ya'll know how many students threaten mass violence at schools each year? Its mind boggling. We have educators and parents providing accurate perspective about this issue and the fear is a rational response to the specific type of violence and uncertainty of it all. 

Per the 3,000 ....we don't have reports yet so its difficult to know for sure how many students saw the massacre or how many witnessed the aftermath. We do know the school has roughly 3,000 and all of them will be processing this trauma for a long time. 

My wife and I are in the process of possibly taking information to the FBI because we believe a threat was important enough even if local police could not arrest or detain. Do you know what its like to discover detailed plans of your school for a massacre? I mean drawings, class schedules, photos of choke points, etc. That is what schools are dealing with now. And our systems are in too nascent a phase of development to adequately handle these difficulties. 

This threat is real, I'm living through part of the issue right now. I'm almost forty and the uncertainty is unnerving. Nonetheless, we have talented educators doing their best to prepare people for the possibility and they doing it with alot of grace and proper perspective. I think we can expect the general public and other citizens to work on the issue with similar determination.


----------



## Huntoholic

backcountry said:


> We actively address many of those other issues directly as a society. We have programs directed at teenagers that deal with: distracted driving, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.
> 
> Per the perspective comment....most students I know are fearful because of the facts. Do ya'll know how many students threaten mass violence at schools each year? Its mind boggling. We have educators and parents providing accurate perspective about this issue and the fear is a rational response to the specific type of violence and uncertainty of it all.
> 
> Per the 3,000 ....we don't have reports yet so its difficult to know for sure how many students saw the massacre or how many witnessed the aftermath. We do know the school has roughly 3,000 and all of them will be processing this trauma for a long time.
> 
> My wife and I are in the process of possibly taking information to the FBI because we believe a threat was important enough even if local police could not arrest or detain. Do you know what its like to discover detailed plans of your school for a massacre? I mean drawings, class schedules, photos of choke points, etc. That is what schools are dealing with now. And our systems are in too nascent a phase of development to adequately handle these difficulties.
> 
> This threat is real, I'm living through part of the issue right now. I'm almost forty and the uncertainty is unnerving. Nonetheless, we have talented educators doing their best to prepare people for the possibility and they doing it with alot of grace and proper perspective. I think we can expect the general public and other citizens to work on the issue with similar determination.


Actively address the issues? Are you really being serious? Well I guess I can say the same thing about firearms. We have many programs and laws in place.

Most students are fearful because that is what is being focused on. That is what the media is focusing on. Shouldn't your students be more afraid of drugs? They should be. They see it every day in every school. Every one of those kids knows a classmate that is adversely affected by it. Personally. You cannot say that about firearms.

I am sorry you have to deal with threats. The system has created a generation that is not held accountable for their actions. Students can assault teachers and all we can say is they have had a rough life. There are individuals who are evil, but it is the individual who is evil. Stop blaming the tool they use. Fix the problem and quit trying to put a bandaid on it.


----------



## backcountry

Yes, actively addressing:

1) Criminalized for decades
2) Recovery centers and community help
3) School education 
4) Mental health industry and professionals adapting to new findings and creating policy and procedures to address adiction as a health/medical issue 

To just name a few. And to repeat, students already are warned and worry about drugs. 

Assaulting a teacher almost always results in expulsion and can lead to criminal and civil charges. You don't get a slap on the wrist. Cruz was actually expelled from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School before the shooting. They didn't write it off. Now we have to ask what mechanisms failed after that? We know a few but even those involve complex laws that set a very high standard for actionable offense. Its exceedingly difficult to arrest nonetheless prosecute some of these diffuse behaviors and early signs.

I don't know many people blaming the tool. I do know people who want gun control and almost always do. On the other hand, I am not certain if that is a measured response. I am not certain bans will have much affect on either the rate of mass shootings or the number of innocent students killed before police arrive. But I think its a fair question and should be on the table. (A caveat, the ban on the other thread doesn't look like a fair compromise to me and I'm not sure it will have a meaningful impact). 

I also don't know many people that want to put a bandaid on this. I think that is one of the cliches that is hurting us. I think we forget that most people sincerely want to find a solution make our schools safer for students. We may disagree on what mechanisms that need to be created or reinforced but I don't think its fair to assume folks just want to put a bandaid on it. These are complex issues that require complex attempts at solutions. Most people I know, on both sides of the aisle, want it to be addressed broadly. We know we have to address the mental health issue but we also need to do so in a way that recognizes 1) its more common for the mentally ill to be victims rather than perpetuators of violence and 2) that HIPPA laws and other protections are in place because we value patient health and privacy and release of such information has lifelong impacts and could lead to harm to innocent people (To put one myth to bed, we already require professionals to report viable threats to self or others to authorities, its legally required and part of the professional ethic). We know we need to get better at addressing the early signs and diverting whatever is causing this trend to less damaging outcomes. 

I would challenge you not to assume why students are fearful. You have heard from a father of multiple kids dealing with issue and a husband of educator also dealing with it. And from my stance, and understanding of Garyfish, this is not remotely about kids being fed fear from the media. This is about a reality that they are being forced to address. The SLC district alone dealt with dozens of potential school shooting threats last year. My wife's school expelled a student and now we have to track him for years (not an exaggeration and many of these kids come back a year or more later to kill students/staff). 

We are able to address multiple issues at once so focusing on the mass shooter issue isn't isolated from accounting from other issues affecting our kids nor diverting resources in any way I am aware of. 

And yes, at the end of the day the individual is the one that is held accountable. That's how it should be. But we are talking about the trend and addressing it. We'll still prosecute the murderers, assuming they survive, but that doesn't account for the factors leading to the noticeable increase in these crimes. That is the job of us to figure out and I think we are capable.


----------



## Huntoholic

Some of the topics being discussed are very much just a bandaid and a feel good. As has been pointed out, removing bumpstocks as a manufactured item will have virtually no impact on student deaths, since you can build your own out of common material. So why is this even a talking point? 

History has already told us the coarse that is going to happen. It happened with alcohol and the war on drugs. So instead of throwing a ton of money at legislation and all the law suits defending one side or the other, would it not have a bigger impact to take that money and find out why these individuals are acting different then they did 20 years ago. But we are not going to do that. We are going to follow the same history coarse as last time. We will drive firearms underground and to the black market. But we will still have the problem. Look no farther then Chicago.

And please don't think you are the only ones experiencing these problems. Society is numb right now. Respect needs to be taught again...


----------



## KineKilla

Been intently reading the thread and figured I'd chime in.

I do not blame the tool used for the crime committed. I do however feel that if your intent is to shoot/kill/harm/etc. as many humans as possible then these shooters are in fact choosing the right tool for the job. Or at least the best tool available to them at the time.

I know that should I desire to do the same thing, I'd definitely select one of my AR style rifles from the safe as opposed to one of my bolt guns or shotguns. I've always believed in using the right tool for the job and working smarter instead of harder.

Does having a bump stock make a gun more dangerous? Well, that depends I guess but does a "sportsman" need to have a bump stock to use the rifle for hunting or sportsman related activities, I think not. I have no use for one personally and would not care to have them banned.

It may in fact prove to just be the tip of the spear as far as weapons bans are concerned, not sure, possibly.

I guess since it is often school shootings that spark these debates, I may as well also ask the question....what did those other students (not all of them and possibly not any of the ones actually injured or killed in this shooting) do to make a person want to do this? I know that mental illness is often blamed but is there not a good chance that a good many a**holes also exist in that school?

I believe that treating people with respect and the removal of the internet and social media masks that people wear online would go a long ways towards minimizing the occurrence of these events.


----------



## middlefork

This
Social media allows all sorts attacks unsubstantiated. All it takes is somebody to say something and every one jumps on.


----------



## DallanC

Just say'n, two idiots with some diesel and fertilizer.

168 dead, 19 of which were children, 680 wounded and an absolutely staggering +600 million in damages.










-DallanC


----------



## Clarq

KineKilla said:


> I do not blame the tool used for the crime committed. I do however feel that if your intent is to shoot/kill/harm/etc. as many humans as possible then these shooters are in fact choosing the right tool for the job. Or at least the best tool available to them at the time.
> 
> I know that should I desire to do the same thing, I'd definitely select one of my AR style rifles from the safe as opposed to one of my bolt guns or shotguns. I've always believed in using the right tool for the job and working smarter instead of harder.


I don't agree. DallanC beat me to it. We'd have a problem on our hands even if we could keep a gun out of the hands of every person who shouldn't have one.

I'm personally way more scared of getting bombed than getting shot. I was thinking about it when I was in the midst of the crowd at the hunt expo - a near-perfect setting for a terror attack. If some crazy person decided to open fire there, I'd *probably* still get away. Odds of being one of the victims just aren't high when you consider the thousands of attendees there at any one time. Especially at a place where a significant portion of them are probably carrying concealed.

If a bomb went off, though... it's game over for everyone in the blast zone. If you look at global lists of terror attacks, gun attacks start to look pretty insignificant.

And no, that's not an excuse to throw our hands up in the air and do nothing at all about guns, but it is reason for me to believe that our primary weapons against terror attacks are increased security, mental health intervention, and maybe some societal change while we're at it. If someone has a strong enough desire to cause harm, they will find a way if not stopped.


----------



## wyogoob

*Testing, Testing*



DallanC said:


> It was in the Q&A at the end.
> 
> -DallanC


I'm thinking...Most of us only read posts in the last page of a thread so we should have a test, a quiz, like on every 5th page of any thread over 5 pages long. Maybe there'd be a question from each page. Always be a question on what was the original post was about. That's a tough one. If you don't get over a 70% grade you're locked out of the thread.

.


----------



## caddis8

This is sort of rhetorical, sort of not. I was reading a book and it had a quote of Mother Theresa answering the question of why she did what she did because there were more people that wouldn't receive her help than would, so basically why try? He answer was I made a difference to that person. We don't fill the ocean all at once, it's drop by drop.

Point is, explosions are more dangerous, as evidenced by DallanC in OKC. As mentioned earlier, I was involved in an explosion- not a bomb, but it hurt a lot of people. One of the scariest things ever to happen in my life. 

I don't buy the argument that criminals will be criminals so we can't do anything. I also don't buy the argument that we should blame guns for it. I don't buy the argument that it's a spoons's fault for being fat. That's hyperbole and unproductive. 

Gun control (or any other constitutional question) is insanely complex and I'm amazed that our Founding Father's (God bless them) were inspired to do what they did and write it the way they did. Free speech is free speech. Unreasonable search and seizure is still real. (FISA needs to be corralled), we have a right to bear arms. I'll fight for those rights as long as I breathe. I'll argue for those rights even if I disagree with the cause. 

However, this is real. I can't imagine the horror that parents went though on any shooting. I can't imagine the feelings that come with a son/daughter shot and killed or shot and wounded. We haven't walked in their shoes and I would imagine that some folks have a different perspective than we do. I think that perspective is absolutely valid and should be listened to. May not agree with it, but it should be heard.

There's a lot of smart people who have made some very valid arguments and I have learned a lot. 

But every mass killing and school shooting (I don't care if it's a shooting or a bomb) anywhere is too many. Vegas made me sick. Two mass shootings in Florida, the night club and the school, were absolutely horrible. There are too many to count, and that is a shame. 

I think there are some things that we can do that hopefully both sides of the argument can rationally discuss and agree to. I'm a dreamer, and I hope for world peace someday. I can't fix all the problems, but if I can be a solution to someone's problems then I had better try.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Time to cut off Dick's! 
They are discontinuing the AR line of rifles, high capacity magazines, and restricting gun purchases to 21 and older.
How many more stores will follow their lead?


----------



## RandomElk16

caddis8 said:


> He answer was I made a difference to that person. We don't fill the ocean all at once, it's drop by drop.


If we take away, what someone just stated as the "best tool for the job" - then what? Do they use other guns or resort to something with more power? If it's the second, we didn't help we made it worse.

We can always say "then what". However, there is a solution to both these: start with the source. The individual. We skip that in all these talks. "Take away weapons", it's never "What causes someone to feel this way? How can we help them". If this person had no resources, they would still feel the way they do and we would be happy to keep going about our day. Yes we want to reduce collateral damage, but we need to go to the real issue.

In school I was quite social. The only time I felt "bullied" was by a teacher. Have none of you seen how they treat the minority - not race but the kid who is a class clown, or dresses different from everyone, or has a different religion? I have. I have also witnessed it happen currently having kids in school. There was actually recently a kid who was troubled. Not a full blown bully, but a little snot. I knew this for months, we even said something to the school. They didn't really do much until they had grounds to expel him. Basically, the kid got zero help they simply "fixed the problem". Yeah well, probably not in his eyes.

I love teachers and will never take away that it's a tough job. However, if they have slip ups in how they treat someone, then the kids darn sure will have those slips ups. Again we educate that there IS a problem, not about THE problem. So no one changes the way they act.

-end rant.


----------



## caddis8

RandomElk16 said:


> If we take away, what someone just stated as the "best tool for the job" - then what? Do they use other guns or resort to something with more power? If it's the second, we didn't help we made it worse.
> 
> We can always say "then what". However, there is a solution to both these: start with the source. The individual. We skip that in all these talks. "Take away weapons", it's never "What causes someone to feel this way? How can we help them". If this person had no resources, they would still feel the way they do and we would be happy to keep going about our day. Yes we want to reduce collateral damage, but we need to go to the real issue.
> 
> In school I was quite social. The only time I felt "bullied" was by a teacher. Have none of you seen how they treat the minority - not race but the kid who is a class clown, or dresses different from everyone, or has a different religion? I have. I have also witnessed it happen currently having kids in school. There was actually recently a kid who was troubled. Not a full blown bully, but a little snot. I knew this for months, we even said something to the school. They didn't really do much until they had grounds to expel him. Basically, the kid got zero help they simply "fixed the problem". Yeah well, probably not in his eyes.
> 
> I love teachers and will never take away that it's a tough job. However, if they have slip ups in how they treat someone, then the kids darn sure will have those slips ups. Again we educate that there IS a problem, not about THE problem. So no one changes the way they act.
> 
> -end rant.


I agree with you. We need to educate kids on problems and how to deal with them.


----------



## DallanC

This is a really well done summary of the issue as I see it.

12 minutes long.






-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Per bump fire stocks....they have only been used in one mass shooting and that wasn't at a school. 
The other side of the coin is why did the Vegas shooter choose it if he could possibly replicate rate of fire without attachment? I think most of us know its because the tool short cuts that learning curve. Most of these guys are not criminal geniuses with years of high level training. 
I still posit that these people will use the most effective legal means that requires the least amount of work/practice to inflict the most damage in the shortest time possible. There is a reason the AR platform is so commonly used. 

As others have highlighted though, what will be the new choice under a ban, if it happens? And will the difference actually reduce the number of people killed in the first 5-10 minutes? I don't know and I tend to think we should before legislation is enacted.

I also think its fair to say that what a few highly trained citizens can do on YouTube isn't the best way to approach the issue.


----------



## caddis8

Good summation.


----------



## Fowlmouth

We keep talking about mental health help for students, but what about the teachers? 
http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/shots-fired-suspect-barricaded-in-classroom


----------



## GaryFish

Huntoholic said:


> Most students are fearful because that is what is being focused on. That is what the media is focusing on. Shouldn't your students be more afraid of drugs? They should be. They see it every day in every school. Every one of those kids knows a classmate that is adversely affected by it. Personally. You cannot say that about firearms.


You mentioned that students should be more afraid of drugs. There is a distinct difference here. I have taught my kids the dangers of drugs. I grew up in the "Just say no" days, and have conveyed that to my children. So when faced with drugs at school, or any other setting, they have the choice of how to react. And hopefully, they will turn down the opportunity.

Shootings are different. No kid shot, had the chance to make a choice - it was made upon them. None of the 17 dead kids in Florida, or anywhere else, chose that outcome. None of the other kids that witnessed and experienced 5, 10, or 15 minutes of war in their school had the option of "just saying no." Sure, kids should be, and are afraid of drugs. But it is their choice to make to be part of that or not. So comparing it to an active shooter simply doesn't work. IT is an entirely different deal.


----------



## Huntoholic

GaryFish said:


> You mentioned that students should be more afraid of drugs. There is a distinct difference here. I have taught my kids the dangers of drugs. I grew up in the "Just say no" days, and have conveyed that to my children. So when faced with drugs at school, or any other setting, they have the choice of how to react. And hopefully, they will turn down the opportunity.
> 
> Shootings are different. No kid shot, had the chance to make a choice - it was made upon them. None of the 17 dead kids in Florida, or anywhere else, chose that outcome. None of the other kids that witnessed and experienced 5, 10, or 15 minutes of war in their school had the option of "just saying no." Sure, kids should be, and are afraid of drugs. But it is their choice to make to be part of that or not. So comparing it to an active shooter simply doesn't work. IT is an entirely different deal.


Nope it is not a different deal. Nobody chooses to be on the receiving end of evil. Guns, Drugs, Alcohol, Gangs. A child high or drunk running into people and property with cars is an issue and far more common. I would bet far more lives are lost or destroyed over drugs and alcohol than by guns. Maybe the end result just does not happen at school. Those people on the other end did not ask for it either. They are just expected to pay for it.

So let me get this straight. You are okay with just letting the child make the decision whether to use drugs or not. Throw some information out there, teach a few classes, and then let them decide.

Kids are also taught not to pickup guns, knifes, needles. They are taught that it can be dangerous. But I guess that it is their choice to do it anyway.

How come you are not asking for the kids to be searched before they enter school grounds? I will stop now. Goob will probably take me to the wood shed. Oh wait can you do that anymore?

PS:
It is not my intent to be disrespectful to teachers. It is a hard job. I am just giving my opinion as I see it.


----------



## DallanC

Am I the only one annoyed people are only focusing on shooting victims and not all lives of kids? 

11 kids die every single day due to texting while driving. Where is the outrage at 11 children's lives PER DAY lost needlessly?


-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

You aren't the only one that cares about general under-age safety but the problem is this approach is often a non-sequitor that directly or indirectly diverts attention away from the issue at hand. We simply can't address and attempt to resolve an issue if the conversation devolves into whataboutisms. We are talking about mass shootings because 17 students were just killed. That is enough reason to be specific.

Take the concern about drugs. There is a lesson there: when you address an issue actively and head on you can have a positive impact. General underage drug and alcohol abuse has stabalized or decreased over the last two decades.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/monitoring-future-survey-high-school-youth-trends

Now imagine if we made a similar concerted effort for school shootings? Imagine what we could accomplish as a country?

Or take the dangers of teen driving. A quick Google search reveals we as a nation address that with mandatory education that is adaptive to current needs, safety weeks, incentives and penalties, state and national organizations designed to educate and decrease problem, etc.

Google "underage driving accident campaign" for an initial survey.

Maybe its time we did the same with this issue. But that means addressing it head on with our collective energy, intelligence and skills.


----------



## Huntoholic

Sorry...I said I would stop....

All of the above items are education related. So why is it you cannot apply the same to firearms? If it is working so good. Why is banning the first thing on the table when talking about firearms?


----------



## Trooper

Airborne said:


> When I was 18 years old Uncle Sam trusted me with an M16A2 Assault Rifle that had a 40mm M203 grenade launcher mounted to the bottom of it, not to mention the AT4 anti-tank bazooka strapped to my ruck. But hey, I couldn't order a beer at a bar so there's that...


Me too... but Sam also provided some fairly intense training, and A LOT of semi-grown up supervision. If I remember this correctly, there were lots of long talks about how we were SUPPOSED to point our weapons at the guys with beards and to NEVER point them at the guys without beards, but then some of the guys who we weren't supposed to point them at started growing beards and some of the guys with beards started wearing uniforms and then we all just got mad at went home... that's how I remember it anyway.


----------



## backcountry

Huntoholic said:


> Sorry...I said I would stop....
> 
> All of the above items are education related. So why is it you cannot apply the same to firearms? If it is working so good. Why is banning the first thing on the table when talking about firearms?


You'd have to ask someone else as I'm advocating a multi-pronged approach and vocalizing skepticism about the efficacy of any ban.

That said, they are not all education based. We have many preventative laws and criminal charges in place. Do you remember the draconian measures put in place because of meth manufacturing? I couldn't buy my favorite water purification method anymore because crystalized iodine was being used by meth manufacturers. Have you bought anything with ephedra in the last decade? Its behind the counter and requires ID so the feds can track quantity purchased. There are laws in place that criminalize buying alcohol for minors. We provide insurance incentives to those that drive better and take defensive driving classes. The list goes on and on.

Trust me, I support other avenues to address the issue. We need to reverse our funding trend that has slowly deprived community mental health facilities of funding. Our structure for involuntarily committing individuals is underserved and understaffed and delays setting in motion the existing measures that temporarily deny those in danger of harming self or others access to weaponry. (For example, ERs are the primary avenue for most patients and they are not well-equiped for such a responsibility) We don't fund our schools well enough to house an appropriate number of counselors, a principal line of defense in dealing with early warning signs. Etc, etc, etc.

We definitely need to end the Dickey Amendment that affectively ended government research on gun violence.

To just name a few ideas. Despite political rhetoric, most people I know want a multi-pronged, nuanced attempt at solutions.


----------



## GaryFish

Huntoholic said:


> Nope it is not a different deal. Nobody chooses to be on the receiving end of evil. Guns, Drugs, Alcohol, Gangs. A child high or drunk running into people and property with cars is an issue and far more common. I would bet far more lives are lost or destroyed over drugs and alcohol than by guns. Maybe the end result just does not happen at school. Those people on the other end did not ask for it either. They are just expected to pay for it.
> 
> So let me get this straight. You are okay with just letting the child make the decision whether to use drugs or not. Throw some information out there, teach a few classes, and then let them decide.
> 
> Kids are also taught not to pickup guns, knifes, needles. They are taught that it can be dangerous. But I guess that it is their choice to do it anyway.
> 
> How come you are not asking for the kids to be searched before they enter school grounds? I will stop now. Goob will probably take me to the wood shed. Oh wait can you do that anymore?
> 
> PS:
> It is not my intent to be disrespectful to teachers. It is a hard job. I am just giving my opinion as I see it.


My point was that my kid can make the choice if they take drugs. Drugs cannot be forced upon them. Someone can't walk down the hall with a bag of weed or coke and fire it at them from 30 yards away so they get stoned. Can they get caught in crossfire or the wrong lane while walking or driving and someone else that is stoned or high or on an acid trip will hurt them? Sure. That can happen. But it also doesn't typically happen to them while they are sitting in algebra or when Mrs. Backcountry is reading Summer of the Monkeys to the kids at their school. I can teach my kid all about gun safety, but when a gun is in someone else's hands, any safety I taught my kid becomes irrelevant.

Sure, this thread started about bump stocks. And the media are all about limiting access to a tool of destruction. But the bigger discussion is about the very real issue of weekly murdering sprees that leave a far wider wake than the number that die. Anyone at the concert in Vegas - how is that going to be next year when they try to enjoy a family 4th of July Celebration? How about attending any outdoor public event? Same goes for people directly impacted at the Boston Marathon. Or working in Oklahoma City. Or going to church in south Texas.

My own solution for school safety is to deploy a minimum of 5 active-duty soldiers or marines to every school in America, so at least 2 could be on watch whenever school was in session. I'd love to see our soldiers or marines protecting our schools, in uniform, fully equipped to keep any one from doing harm to our children. I'd love to see my 7 year old high-fiving and thanking them as she goes into school, knowing she is safe because some of our finest defenders of America are protecting her. And I'd love to see these guardians protecting our children here on American soil, rather than deployed in another part of the world where they are hated. And I would just bet that kids being protected by such people would not be sitting during our national anthem.

I can't be the only father on here that is having a hard time dealing with this thing. Monday night, I sat down with my 7 year old and we talked in very simple terms about the need for the lockdown drill that was to happen on Tuesday, and that sometimes we need to do what we can to protect ourselves from bad people. It wasn't a gun discussion. It wasn't a bomb discussion, or any other method for violence discussion. It was a discussion about how to be brave when there are bad people around. And that is a very hard thing for a 7 year old to grapple with. I'm no rookie at parenting - she is the youngest of 5, with the three oldest in college now. And yet here I am - trying to make sense of it for her, while it certainly doesn't make sense to me.

Education for the above mentioned ills of our society is certainly a thing. And has been mentioned, has been going on for decades for things we have found to be harmful. I'm old enough to have had a doctor conduct my scout camp physical while smoking a cigarette for heck sake! So I've seen the difference that improving education can make in a variety of places. But I think part of the struggle is we are at the point of training elementary school kids how to take cover in a gun attack. And that is messed up. And in deflecting just how hard that is, discovering that our nation has devolved for whatever reason to the point that this is now necessary. That is a hard thing to see in our collective national mirror. And with that kind of realization, the human nature is to go after the thing that is the easiest, that makes you feel like you are doing something, even if that is misguided in the real crux of it all. And in this case, people are turning on the thing - the tool - because the bigger issue, the real issue, is so freaking complex and overwhelming and frightening.


----------



## Dunkem

My thoughts-- If someone is hellbent on destroying someone else, be it with a A.R., bomb, knife, car, poison, etc then how do you stop or prevent it from happening? Does it start at home, school. church, with their peers,? Nobody has the quick fix for this, times have changed for the worse my friends. If you ban the semi auto assaults they will use something else, personally I don't have high capacity mags, nor do I see a good reason for them (other than less reloading your gun). We can all argue this till we are out of breath, but until someone comes up with a magic wond or something the best we can do is teach our kids!! Mind you this is my opinion only!!! Not looking for any arguement.


----------



## DallanC

Cain killed Able. 

He didn't play video games, he didn't listen to rock music, he didn't come from a broken family, he didn't spend most of his time on social media, and he didn't use a gun.

Evil, can just exist. 

And you cannot fully protect against it, not without sacrificing most of your freedom anyway.


-DallanC


----------



## caddis8

This is a pretty good read. I like this guy and what he has had to say about a lot of issues.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...o-in-defense-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms.html


----------

