# When?



## backcountry

I'm not here to blame or point fingers. I'm just here to ask us all when will put an end to this? I've grown use to knowing my wife could be shot and killed any day. The threats happen regularly and the police & FBI can't do much most of the time. I've made peace with our complete lack of control over that possiblity.

But these were elementary school kids. Again. That I can't allow myself to accept and find peace with. I'll have to sit with the grief & rage each & every time until we do better.


----------



## Critter

From what I have heard the children were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It sounds like the perp had a problem with a family member and was being chased by the cops when something happened to his vehicle and he then ran into the school shooting.

As to what can be done, I have no idea or solution in a free society. As this all unravels over the next few weeks we will learn a lot more as to what happened but with the perp being dead there will be a lot that we will never know.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff

Tragic event - no words to describe what those parents, friends, and family members who lost a loved one must be going through. 

I'm fine with armed guards and locked doors at every school in America. Heaven knows we, as a Nation, waste billions and billions of dollars annually on ridiculous crap that we could live without.


----------



## backcountry

I just can't fathom those last minutes for those innocent children. And those parents will carry that unique grief to their last days. 

It makes me ill to consider the solution might be turning our schools into inverted prisons & it might be what our unfortunate & unique set of variables allows.

I assume some on here are in the same boat, but my friends regularly talk about what it's like knowing any day someone could kill their child at school. It's been 20+ years since parents could send their kid off with a sense of security that such an autrocity wasn't remotely a possibility.


----------



## APD

I went to an inverted prison. You get used to it. I was bussed into the hood under mandatory desegregation. The barbed wire around the school was set to keep people from getting in. Drugs were sold on the street corners, in the school and people carried long guns out side of the school. Oddly, knowing somebody was a defense to crime was consoling but I still had an extreme awareness of my surroundings. Out here in suburbia, the threat in schools comes from within. The deterrent is inadequate and the publicity is overwhelming. Best case, you change a few kids minds. Next best case, you stop them before they carry it out or early in the event. 

The cat is out of the bag and there's no way to put it back in. I pray the mental state of our country improves. I plan for the worst and hope for the best.


----------



## Ray

I’m not sure what the solution is, honestly… so, I’ll continue to train, hard, as often as I can, will continue perfecting my hand to hand combat abilities, will continue strength training/working on my cardio and will continue to conceal carry everywhere I go.

The best anyone can do is to be prepared, be a hard target and hit with such force you make the perpetrators question their very existence.


----------



## paddler

I wrote a proposal years ago that would have prevented these mass killings. In fact, it was after Sandy Hook. The 50 Republican Senators have blocked any sort of reasonable gun control measures. All of them and all the " 2A" advocates throughout the country who refuse any sort of gun control are complicit in these crimes.

I'm sick and tired of the usual right wing, NRA BS, like the "slippery slope" argument, or the "gubmint gonna take yer guns" crap, or "the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". All a bunch of BS. Responsible gun owners and hunters need to do more than just offer "thoughts and prayers". Vote all those SOBs out of office!

The reclassication scheme I developed would have prevented so many of these events:


----------



## taxidermist

It is tragic, and devastating for many for sure. You just hope it doesn't happen in your neighborhood. It has gotten worse, and I don't see it getting any better in the future, as long as social media is around.
Let the teachers carry in class and have training. Best defense is at the point it's happening. I'm tired of the political stupidity and posturing in wanting to take rights from citizens. That will never work and only make it worse.

Paddler, Imagine if a law was passed that made photography illegal and owning a camera was only allowed by the government or military's. Because a camera "might be used" to take inappropriate photos. Just the same as a weapon can/may be used in an inappropriate way. Sounds stupid and crazy doesn't it. 
I love seeing your posts, and the perfection and care taken in capturing "just the right shot". Many people feel the way about the second amendment as you do for photography. One law doesn't work for all, all the time and never will.


----------



## Vanilla

And to think…photography isn’t a constitutional right!

I think it’s time we start talking about the security protocols and systems at schools. If we care about prevention I feel like there are measures that can be taken before we even begin the political handwringing on topics that won’t make a bit of difference and end in nothing but major fundraising options for both sides.

My children’s elementary school implemented new protocols this year. All exterior doors locked throughout the day. Any visitor must scan an ID at the entrance and have a reason for being there before being buzzed in. It is not impossible to gain access, but a person carrying long guns would not be able to just walk in at will. And someone like yesterday would have been stopped long enough for police to arrive.

The ironic thing about this after reading more of puddler’s constant political rubbish on this forum is that the people most against these protocols are my democrat neighbors that tried to get me to join them in major opposition and rising up against the school district over this. But I’m guessing they’ll want to talk about background checks as the answer this week, though. Ironic indeed.

I agree we are very far beyond the time action is necessary. I guess it now becomes do we want changes that will actually prevent these tragedies? Or are we only concerned with changes that score political points? Turn on the news and you’ll see where our elected officials, including the president is at.


----------



## taxidermist

*Turn on the news and you’ll see where our elected officials, including the president is at. *Someone has to tell him where he's at. 

The beat to death saying of "When they make guns illegal, only the illegal will have guns" will never go away. Neither will the traghetti of yesterday, or, the next day it happens again ad again. 
When I was in high school, we would hunt doves, pheasants, deer, elk and have the weapon hanging in the back window of the truck in the school parking lot. No-one ever said anything and it was common to see. There wasn't students going nuts shooting the place up. I have to push the change in society on the parents of the individuals creating the pandemonium, fear, and shock in the shopping malls, schools, etc. for not taking responsibility of proper parenting and locking up weapons properly. To me, this is where it should begin.


----------



## paddler

taxidermist said:


> It is tragic, and devastating for many for sure. You just hope it doesn't happen in your neighborhood. It has gotten worse, and I don't see it getting any better in the future, as long as social media is around.
> Let the teachers carry in class and have training. Best defense is at the point it's happening. I'm tired of the political stupidity and posturing in wanting to take rights from citizens. That will never work and only make it worse.
> 
> Paddler, Imagine if a law was passed that made photography illegal and owning a camera was only allowed by the government or military's. Because a camera "might be used" to take inappropriate photos. Just the same as a weapon can/may be used in an inappropriate way. Sounds stupid and crazy doesn't it.
> I love seeing your posts, and the perfection and care taken in capturing "just the right shot". Many people feel the way about the second amendment as you do for photography. One law doesn't work for all, all the time and never will.


Couple of points. Arming teachers would be very expensive, time-consuming and ineffective. Teachers should teach, not guard students with loaded weapons.

I enjoy getting that perfect shot with my camera, and my proposal is a perfect shot for preventing mass murders. It's a heart shot. It's the most accurate, effective and efficient way of keeping some automatic weapons with replaceable magazines out of the hands of the typical perpetrator of mass shootings, the 18 to 25-year-old demographic.

Hardening soft targets is ridiculous, inefficient and expensive. As I've said, I've heard all this crap before. Those who stand in their way of reasonable restrictions on these weapons are indeed complicit. Look in the mirror. Doing nothing is what most of you propose, it's not working. Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.


----------



## bfr

Paddler, be aware your liberal bias is showing. 
I read your proposal. As a former LEO and firearms instructor I can only say, sorry, you’re wrong on so many fronts. “Restricting” a class of firearm or loading platform is just another way of banning them from most of the public. As for handguns, semis vs revolvers, with a little practice a revolver would be better. Yes, you are restricted to 6 or 8 rounds in a revolver but those would likely be placed more accurately than 12 sprayed from a semi. Also, with speed loaders and some practice you can reload a revolver about as fast as a magazine in a semi.
On to center fire rounds, don’t discount the lowly 22LR as a deadly round, nor a lever action rifle as a serious weapon. Most lever 22s will hold 14 to 16 rounds, since there’s no recoil they can be fired very quickly and very accurately. Granted there’s not the high velocity damage but a 22 hollow point to the heart or brain will be devastating, especially if medical attention is delayed.
Now I DO partially agree with your statement about voting out the politicians it I say vote to ALL of them fro BOTH parties.


----------



## backcountry

I think reevaluating school protocols should be a constant process. And I'd love to see a protocol that eventually makes active shooter drills obsolete in schools; even the best designed ones are traumatizing (a lot of kids in every school have been victims of violence, these drills rip open those wounds). And locked doors seems like a basic standard we can live with.

And I see that as a stop gap unless we are willing to accept the continued escalation of that process.

My fear & anger comes from the fact we struggle to even sit at the same table and deescalate our partisanship for such a persistent problem. It's just so heartbreaking to know our kids have become acceptable collateral damage because of our failures as a country. That's not a finger pointed at anyone group, ideology or faction; it's pointing at all of us and the country we share. 

We all have a stake in this in some fashion. I'm not wise enough to know the exact solutions, if any exist. I just know we can't get there without working together to deal with this pernicious problem. I hate to think that's an impossibility now.


----------



## DallanC

12GA shotgun is infinitely more destructive than a AR15 in close quarters. AR rounds are .224" diameter, #4 buckshot is .240" diameter. Plenty of energy to kill a deer.

Each 12GA #4 buckshot shotshell contains 24 pellets. An average 12GA shotgun can hold 5 shells... thats 120 pellets, that can be fired without reloading. Thats equal to 4 30 round magazines from a AR15.

Cut down the shotgun barrel for increased pattern size... it would be an incredibly dangerous weapon in close quarters.

Throw on a 12 round extension tube... yikes.

We should pre-emptively ban shotguns before the bad guys figure that one out. Duck and pheasant hunters can use bows and Flu-flu arrows right? Doves might be a bit tricky with a bow... but there's a youtube video of a guy getting a limit with a bow.

/condolances to the familys affected.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

PS: About those against hardening schools... My sister attended American Fork High School in 1978. They had a closed and locked campus and an in-school police officer (Officer Schoonover). Kids really liked him. 

It's been done... it had no bad effects. We can easily do it again.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla

I guess puddler has put a price tag on our children’s safety. I am willing to pay that cost. Are you?

Who is complicit here, again?

I don’t think we have to arm teachers. If teachers want to arm themselves, I’m fine with it. But I want teachers hired to teach, not be security guards. There are plenty of other things we can do to keep these people completely out of our schools, even if they illegally obtain a weapon of some kind. Forgive me for not trusting gun laws to solve our problem here when the places with some of the most strict gun laws in our country have some of the highest gun crime incidents anywhere.

I’m only interested in things that will work. I have no interest in political wins and feel good measures.


----------



## BigT

This event was so tragic. Hard to watch it unfold. Regardless of if the kids were in the wrong place, at the wrong time is a moot point. My wife is a 5th grade teacher, and I have three that attend that school as well. I know there are a lot of things they could be doing a lot better in preparing and preventing this type of incident from occurring. The ideology that it's too expensive to target harden is a terrible argument. Our government wastes billions of dollars on all sorts of monies going to foreign adversaries. Why can't some of that be given to our education groups to target harden our schools? The thought that the right only cares about gun rights, and not about lost lives while the left only cares about the people is garbage. See Roe v Wade. Why vote out just 50? Why not all of them? 

Simply locking doors, and treating glass with film which would prevent someone from being able to shoot out the glass and enter would be a step in the right direction. Some older schools don't have good natural surveillance from the main office to see who is coming and going from the building anyways. Some wouldn't know there was a shooter in the building until it was too late. Simple vestibules could be added as a buffer between the main office, and the ability to walk in and run to the first classroom. 

As part of my job, I train a lot of people in active shooter prep. It's the sad state of the world we live in. It's sad that our children have to learn this. Another part of my job is that of responding to an active shooter which includes simulator and simmunition training. I can speak from experience as many others that have trained extensively, that your accuracy changes when your being shot back at. A teacher choosing to carry a concealed weapon should never be for him or her to respond to the incident, but rather to be used as a last resort of defense. 

I don't believe restrictive gun laws would have prevented the shooting yesterday personally. 

Personally, I believe the biggest issue causing these things, is the deterioration of the family unit in the Unites States. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> I’m only interested in things that will work. I have no interest in political wins and feel good measures.


From the increasing frequency of these events, it would seem that very little is working right now to prevent mass shootings/school shootings.

The right gives lip service to enhancing mental health services, but nothing happens when real programs and investments are proposed. The left is not much better. Some regulation of aspects of gun purchase has wide popular support, and wouldn't run afoul of 2A, but the far end extremists succeed in shooting things down. The left goes gaga the other way, way beyond what often is constitutional.
One thing is for sure, the current status quo is not working and the way our government is working now, nothing has changed and nothing changes .  Folks can play "whatabout" with any reasonable proposal showing an exception where it wouldn't have helped a specific incident. 

The causes of mass shootings are multifactorial, complicated, and diverse. There won't be a solution that is a tidy "win" for either partisan side and won't involve some discomfort from the right or left position. But we may need to look into something new. Or we can accept having our news broadcasts filled with these tragic events and go on blaming the liburls and conservutives. 

FWIW, I'm all for additional school security, but don't delude yourself that it will fix everything.


----------



## CPAjeff

BigT said:


> Personally, I believe the biggest issue causing these things, is the deterioration of the family unit in the Unites States. But that's just my opinion.


^^^^ This x 1,000,000

A little reading from the animal kingdom: The Delinquents


----------



## Daisy

The murder of our kids at schools and our neighbors at grocery stores should not be a partisan issue. For those that turn these horrific acts into the "liberal left did this" or the "radical right is for that," I have a serious F U coming your way. Get your priorities straight. 

I may be paraphrasing here but even Scalia stated in Heller the 2nd amend “like most rights, … is not unlimited.”

I don't pretend to have the answers but something has to be done


----------



## backcountry

Catherder said:


> From the increasing frequency of these events, it would seem that very little is working right now to prevent mass shootings/school shootings.
> 
> The right gives lip service to enhancing mental health services, but nothing happens when real programs and investments are proposed. The left is not much better. Some regulation of aspects of gun purchase has wide popular support, and wouldn't run afoul of 2A, but the far end extremists succeed in shooting things down. The left goes gaga the other way, way beyond what often is constitutional.
> One thing is for sure, the current status quo is not working and the way our government is working now, nothing has changed and nothing changes . Folks can play "whatabout" with any reasonable proposal showing an exception where it wouldn't have helped a specific incident.
> 
> The causes of mass shootings are multifactorial, complicated, and diverse. There won't be a solution that is a tidy "win" for either partisan side and won't involve some discomfort from the right or left position. But we may need to look into something new. Or we can accept having our news broadcasts filled with these tragic events and go on blaming the liburls and conservutives.
> 
> FWIW, I'm all for additional school security, but don't delude yourself that it will fix everything.


It's so complicated and I can't imagine inventorying all of the variables.

I am wondering if part of the solution isn't going to largely need to be massive funding at the federal level with stipulations that allow for flexible, local/state choices. That way they can adapt more readily.

Per hardening schools....even though I support the idea in general I have to admit I believe it would be quickly circumvented. We just took my daughter to the park. Next door where hundreds of middle schoolers playing in a field without any barriers. There is just no way to eliminate all vulnerability.

I think we are also going to have to discuss as a country that delicate balancing act between protecting individual liberty and public safety. Specifically, what constitutes a legal threat & if we are willing to legislate or amend accordingly. I know second hand from the threats against my wife that local police, hospitals and FBI have their hands tied. I'm not sure if we can get past that or not yet I have to wonder. It just obviously runs into serious constitutional barriers. 

This one just hits home differently. I don't know if 20 years of it is taking a toll or if it's having my toddler now & realizing just how innocent she & elementary school kids are. But yesterday was a gut punch I'm not recovering from.

It's to the point I'm considering having all of my firearms destroyed. It won't solve the national problem by any means. But I'm just second guessing if I'm willing to participate in gun ownership with so much mass murder happening. I had really looked forward to my daughter upland hunting with me and even having her being mentored for big game by my neighbor. But I'm wondering if it's best to keep our house gun free. Eliminate any chance she or her friends even have the any potential access to firearms from our house. Eliminate risk of accidental discharge and/or suicide (a huge part of gun violence stats). Eliminate chance of theft and them circulating with criminals. It's something I'm going to need to sit with for a while. * Not advocating it for anyone else, just being vulnerable given everything going on.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I work at a small rural high school. Our campus is an open campus where students come and go throughout the day as they travel to and from our campus to the CTE center and Snow College campus in Richfield (not to mention leaving our main building and entering the portable classrooms outside). Closing our campus and locking it up throughout the school day would be really difficult and almost impossible. We could possibly lock up all outside doors and try to funnel kids back through the front door, but with the number of outside doors we have, it is already difficult to keep kids from propping doors open to get where they should not be and asking students to travel from the back of our school in the portable classrooms to the front would be a big issue. Locking a school down throughout the day is simply much more difficult at our level than it might seem. Truthfully, I feel like any individual who really wants to cause mass harm will do it regardless of whether he/she has access to guns or not.


----------



## CPAjeff

wyoming2utah said:


> I work at a small rural high school. Our campus is an open campus where students come and go throughout the day as they travel to and from our campus to the CTE center and Snow College campus in Richfield (not to mention leaving our main building and entering the portable classrooms outside). Closing our campus and locking it up throughout the school day would be really difficult and almost impossible. We could possibly lock up all outside doors and try to funnel kids back through the front door, but with the number of outside doors we have, it is already difficult to keep kids from propping doors open to get where they should not be and asking students to travel from the back of our school in the portable classrooms to the front would be a big issue. Locking a school down throughout the day is simply much more difficult at our level than it might seem. Truthfully, I feel like any individual who really wants to cause mass harm will do it regardless of whether he/she has access to guns or not.


You have much more experience in this line of work than I do, but wouldn't the "effort" be worth it, if it saved the life of one student? How about the lives of multiple?

Simple solution - all people coming in and out must go through the front door.


----------



## wyoming2utah

CPAjeff said:


> You have much more experience in this line of work than I do, but wouldn't the "effort" be worth it, if it saved the life of one student? How about the lives of multiple?
> 
> Simple solution - all people coming in and out must go through the front door.


I don't think it is a matter of effort but whether or not it is even possible. All the doors would have to be locked from the inside and outside to disallow people not only from coming in but also going out (I doubt that would even pass fire code). And, with students exiting and entering between every class period to not only access the classrooms in our portable in the back of the building but also coming and going from the seminary building, I don't think that you could keep all doors locked throughout the day.


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler said:


> Couple of points. Arming teachers would be very expensive, time-consuming and ineffective. Teachers should teach, not guard students with loaded weapons.
> 
> I enjoy getting that perfect shot with my camera, and my proposal is a perfect shot for preventing mass murders. It's a heart shot. It's the most accurate, effective and efficient way of keeping some automatic weapons with replaceable magazines out of the hands of the typical perpetrator of mass shootings, the 18 to 25-year-old demographic.
> 
> Hardening soft targets is ridiculous, inefficient and expensive. As I've said, I've heard all this crap before. *Those who stand in their way of reasonable restrictions on these weapons are indeed complicit.* Look in the mirror. Doing nothing is what most of you propose, it's not working. Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.



What a sick, false, divisive statement. I get it that we are all going through the gamut of emotions right now in the wake of this tragedy but your comments are a new level of ignorant and your ill-considered proposal would have done nothing to stop this tragedy, only forcing the perpetrator to commit the crime with a different weapon and screwing over millions of law-abiding citizens in the meantime. Then we'd be having the same conversation only your 'brilliant' proposal would be targeting the next type of gun up on your list...then the next, then the next. No thanks. -----SS


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder, analyzing what would work and what wouldn’t is not “whataboutism,” it’s how good policy is made. We do this literally for every single other issue that is legislated when we analyze pros and cons and try to use anecdotes to determine how well it will work or how it won’t work. I would caution falling into that mindset. Every policy should go through that process. Especially this one. 
————
No, moving away from Catherder to a more general discussion about society at large. Literally every policy decision we make as a society goes through that process I described above. The fact that a segment of our society has convinced us that this topic should be immune from that ought to tell us exactly how serious we are about “doing something.”

I’ll take the incident in Texas yesterday, since that is the reason we’re discussing this thread. If this specific circumstances happened in my neighborhood, the monster would not have even got inside my children’s elementary school. Would this A hole still have been able to kill people? Probably, especially if he decided to head to a local grocery store instead of the school, but he would NOT have made it inside the school.

Everyone is talking about protecting kids. The outcry is “aren’t our kids worth it?” Well, if that poor school in Texas had the features that my kids do in Utah on their school, those 19 kids would still be alive. Aren’t those kids worth it?

Yes, securing schools more effectively will cost money. It will be difficult. It will not prevent EVERY incident. But it will protect those kids in that situation. Either we care about that, or we don’t. I’m sick of being lectured by people that are completely unwilling to contemplate anything outside their political talking points. The security measures at my children’s school would have saved 19 elementary students lives. Anyone want to guess how many lives universal background checks would have saved yesterday? (And I’m actually in favor of H.R. 8!)

Either we care or we don’t. Actions speak louder than words. This is a multifaceted issue that I can’t for the life of me figure out why we have this issue. But we do, so do we actually care about the kids or just politics?


----------



## BGD

It is logistically simpler to implement some of these protections and security measures at the elementary school level rather than High School. But, elementary school students are also more vulnerable. My kid’s elementary school requires entry through the main doors, with a vestibule to control entry and provide a barrier to administration. Other doors are locked from the outside with card reader access for staff to open to let kids enter in the morning and at recess, which requires a staff member to manage the door and monitor those who enter at those times. It isn’t completely foolproof, but it definitely restrict people from coming and going freely. High Schools are a bit different but they also have resource officers that could assist in monitoring entries at key times. Multiple entries/exits could be monitored at class change and beginning and end of school. Maybe everyone doesn’t have to come through 1 entry but it still limits entry to 3-4 locations. Many things can be done outside of fighting gun control issues.


----------



## paddler

Restricting access to schools is fine, not a cure all, but certainly worth doing insofar as possible. No problem. But we live in a society with mostly soft targets; schools, churches, theaters, nighclubs, stores, athletic venues, hospitals, clinics, etc. 
But the issue of mass shootings typically have very specific features, disaffected/mentally ill young males who use AR 15 type weapons to attack soft targets. If we can keep those weapons out of these people's hands, the incidence of these events should decrease. 

I've heard all these counter arguments many times before, but let's stick to facts. 

Sure, somebody could use revolvers with speedloaders, but the perpetrators likely don't even know what a speedloader is. Even if they did, they would be much slower to reload than an AR with 30-round magazines taped together, so that argument is invalid. The same poster said that restricting access to some weapons by some people is in effect a ban. Not true. Personally, I'd ban assault rifles. But my reclassification idea wouldn't ban anything, it would just make it harder for these guys to buy theses lethal weapons. 

Somebody mentioned a shotgun. True, at close range a single load of buckshot is more lethal than a single 5.56 or 223 round. But even with an extended magazine, a shotgun is limited to 8 rounds. After that you must load one round at a time. So, if you want to kill a bunch of school kids, the AR with high capacity magazines is clearly the way to go. Another invalid argument.

Another poster said the perpetrator would simply choose a different weapon. But the fact is that these crimes are almost invariably committed using AR-type weapons. They are without doubt the most lethal weapons available for that purpose, even moreso than a fully automatic weapon. They are the favorite weapon of mass murderers for a reason, nothing else comes close. Another invalid argument.

This 18-year-old high school dropout bought his first AR on his 18th birthday. Turns out being a high school dropout may be cause for concern. He later bought another, and entered the school with seven 30-round magazines. Nineteen school kids and two teachers are now dead. Or should I say "another" 19 kids and two teachers are dead. You see, this was entirely predictable, even inevitable, given the how many times this has already happened. And again, all of you who resist any attempt to stop these crimes are complicit in them. You enable them. And this will happen again.

Catherder attempt to draw a false equivalence between the right and left on this issue. There is none. The House passed H.R. 8, which 90% of Americans favor. Fifty Senate Republicans will not support it, so it langushes. This is entirely on the Republican party and their supporters. Politics? Maybe. But it is a fact that Republicans resist anything the would prevent buying an AR. So this will happen again. Guaranteed. !00%. And the blood will be on Republican's hands.


----------



## taxidermist

I think we can agree that there isn't a perfect solution, (or, any solution for that matter) that will work. I see school kids all the time out sluffing and doing who knows what. Look at the problem when COVID was in full force and the schools were closed down. Parents became the "teacher" and they weren't happy having to help the kids and work from home or go in. When the schools opened back up, the parents were happy that they had a "babysitter" back. Parents need to have actions with their kids! A "good kid" can still become a wild beast. Some need professional help. This is the kid that is making the news. 

Start at home is the first step IMO to begin education. Locking a school down isn't the solution either. If a nutcase wants to execute a plan of mass harm to school kids, they don't need to enter the building. It could be done as students are leaving for the day, heading home. 

I can only hope and prey that this type of action will never happen again.


----------



## Vanilla

Here is the flaw in your black and white reasoning on this and the “perfect heart shot,” as you call it.

Ban ARs tomorrow. How many are still in circulation? So the idea of bans being the fix is patently ridiculous. Not only wrong, but completely ridiculous. Anyone pushing that as the fix is complicit. Heck, might as well charge them with murder. (See how dumb that sounds when you write it?)

I’m open to the universal background checks in H.R. 8. That is a “reasonable regulation,” in my opinion. But I don’t believe even slightly that it will make a difference. Take the two most horrific elementary school shootings, Sandy Hook and this one yesterday. Neither would have been prevented by background checks. Simple security measures that don’t even change the look of the school could have, though. So care, or don’t. But I won’t be complicit. I want to save lives, not score points for “my team.”


----------



## backcountry

Every once in a while I remember I have Paddler on ignore (only person) and it helps explain what's happening in a thread.

No easy solutions. Heck, the solutions might not even be the same from state to state or school district to school district. 

It's so disheartening that we have to talk about basic activities of a modern society as "soft targets". That's a gut punch. And I recognize it's true. I don't want my daughter to be in a locked down elementary school but it's likely needed. And it probably wouldn't affect the K-5 experience very much. 

I'm not convinced much more peace officers would help. We sadly have multiple examples now where trained personnel were on site and didn't make much of a difference. This tends to take minutes and often needs expertise found more readily with SWAT like teams (I believe it was an equivalent Border Patrol agent who killed the subject yesterday). 

Hopefully we can get through the next few days and weeks without extreme rhetoric from across the spectrum dictating the terms of the conversation. That will be our first test.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> But even with an extended magazine, a shotgun is limited to 8 rounds..


Hmmm took me all of a few seconds to google "cabelas shotgun extended mag" and hit the dropdown to see 12 round extension tube for my shotgun is available.



> After that you must load one round at a time.


Uh huh... dont lets facts get in the way of your arguments. People doing competition shooting have been loading doubles for years now. Works in a duck blind too.








> Another invalid argument


Uh huh... says the person who listed how many inaccurate claims in this last post alone?

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Here is the flaw in your black and white reasoning on this and the “perfect heart shot,” as you call it.
> 
> Ban ARs tomorrow. How many are still in circulation? So the idea of bans being the fix is patently ridiculous. Not only wrong, but completely ridiculous. Anyone pushing that as the fix is complicit. Heck, might as well charge them with murder. (See how dumb that sounds when you write it?)
> 
> I’m open to the universal background checks in H.R. 8. That is a “reasonable regulation,” in my opinion. But I don’t believe even slightly that it will make a difference. Take the two most horrific elementary school shootings, Sandy Hook and this one yesterday. Neither would have been prevented by background checks. Simple security measures that don’t even change the look of the school could have, though. So care, or don’t. But I won’t be complicit. I want to save lives, not score points for “my team.”


Well, if you read and understood my proposal you'd know that it doesn't ban anything. It would just reclassify all semiautomatic weapons that accept detachable magazines as Class 3, and would apply to all such weapons in circulation. So anyone who wished to buy or retain such weapons would have to pass Class 3 requirements. Incorrect again, V.


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> Catherder, analyzing what would work and what wouldn’t is not “whataboutism,” it’s how good policy is made. We do this literally for every single other issue that is legislated when we analyze pros and cons and try to use anecdotes to determine how well it will work or how it won’t work.


I agree with you in the abstract, but this criticism would hold considerably more weight if we actually saw even a crumb or two of good policy on the national level. However we simply haven't seen squat. Not after Columbine, not after Sandy Hook, not after Vegas, and probably not now. We haven't seen anything substantive regarding mass shooting legislation in years. Why? Because neither side will consider compromise and find "whatabout" excuses to support remaining in their own position and not explore new alternatives. The lack of anything except partisan rhetoric is what is so frustrating to me. And the problem is getting worse.



https://kutv.com/news/local/active-shooter-incidents-increased-by-50-in-the-us-in-2021-fbi-data-shows



A little crumb of good news on the local level.









State legislature continues to fund mental health resources for Utah schools


Funding for mental health screenings, crisis intervention and other efforts have increased $60 million over the last three years. Since 2019, the Utah State Legislature has added money to school budgets to help pay for mental health experts in what some described as an unprecedented increase...




kutv.com





However, I know in dealing with a family member needing assistance, that the wait time for services is still months long. Most states haven't invested what we have either.



paddler said:


> Catherder attempt to draw a false equivalence between the right and left on this issue. There is none.


The usual partisan response that is all too common. Don't worry, I can heap copious scorn on the national "R"'s for the absence of any action, but it take two to tango in any bipartisan solution, and as I said above, I haven't seen much of anything positive, be it "D", "R", or mixed gridlock governance.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> Well, if you read and understood my proposal you'd know that it doesn't ban anything. It would just reclassify all semiautomatic weapons that accept detachable magazines as Class 3, and would apply to all such weapons in circulation. So anyone who wished to buy or retain such weapons would have to pass Class 3 requirements. Incorrect again, V.


So a Ruger 22 is a class 3 rifle now? sheesh.

But to directly address your silly proposal:






Thats A-ok right? No detachable mag so its safe.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

To be clear, I am for a sensible gun solution if one exists. I am however, adamantly against rules that will have little to no effect, or are obsolete from day one.

The vast majority of these shootings either use weapons legally purchased, or stolen. What additional laws would change those outcomes.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> Hmmm took me all of a few seconds to google "cabelas shotgun extended mag" and hit the dropdown to see 12 round extension tube for my shotgun is available.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh... dont lets facts get in the way of your arguments. People doing competition shooting have been loading doubles for years now. Works in a duck blind too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh... says the person who listed how many inaccurate claims in this last post alone?
> 
> -DallanC


Okay, Dallin, 12 shots instead of 8. But then you're still reloading one shell at a time. That's my point. The lethality of ARs depends on both being a semiauto and accepting detachable magazines. Don't be so sensitive. 

And no, only centerfire weapons would be reclassified.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> But then you're still reloading one shell at a time. That's my point.


And thats why you fail at this. I showed an actual example of people easily loading multiple shotshells at a time. Its common place in 3 gun competition.

The video I posted shows that guy loading 4 shotshells in under 1 second. And that's just a demonstration, not even a competition run where they are faster.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> And thats why you fail at this. I showed an actual example of people easily loading multiple shotshells at a time. Its common place in 3 gun competition.
> 
> The video I posted shows that guy loading 4 shotshells in under 1 second. And that's just a demonstration, not even a competition run where they are faster.
> 
> -DallanC


Okay, four rounds. Big deal. What about two 30 round magazines taped together? Or seven 30 round magazines? How many mass shootings have been carried out with shotguns as the only weapon? As opposed to semiautos with detachable magazines? That's why you fail in your attempts at deflection.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> To be clear, I am for a sensible gun solution if one exists. I am however, adamantly against rules that will have little to no effect, or are obsolete from day one.
> 
> The vast majority of these shootings either use weapons legally purchased, or stolen. What additional laws would change those outcomes.
> 
> -DallanC


Reclassfying them would prevent deranged people from legally buying or possessing them. So there's that.


----------



## johnnycake

Here's where my outrage at this situation is targeted: police officers on the scene choosing to not enter in to confront the active shooter--WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PREVENTING PARENTS FROM GOING IN TO TRY TO SAVE THEIR CHILDREN. But despite this, at least one officer went in to save his own children--maybe it was after the scum was scrubbed, maybe it was before, the reporting isn't clear. But there were parents being physically restrained by police from going in to try to stop the slaughter who had to listen to the gunfire that killed their children.

Gun ban, no gun ban, R or D who gives a flying f#**. When the police who have for years been insisting on more and more funding, and bigger and badder weapons not only refuse *for 90 minutes* to go in and stop a psychopath, but actively prevented others who were willing to try to save children, all I can think is that we need to seriously reconsider how we are approaching policing. This is beyond the pale. Not only were there multiple (+40) "good guys with a gun" present *for 90 minutes while children were being executed, *these "good guys" were trained officers sworn to uphold the law and who chose to sit back and wait for some other good guys to show up with their guns. Moment frantic parents urge cops to storm Texas school

But sure, the problem here is the type of firearm used... Let's just ignore that Bath Consolidated School in 1927 used explosives and is the worst school massacre in history. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/24/bath-consolidated-school-massacre-uvalde/









Police waited to enter Texas school as shooter went on killing spree: witness


“There was at least 40 lawmen armed to the teeth but didn’t do a darn thing [until] it was far too late,” Jacinto Cazares, the father of 10-year-old victim Jackie Cazares.




nypost.com























Salvador Ramos started shooting ‘whoever’s in his way’ at Texas school: police


The Texas shooter who entered Robb Elementary School started shooting at anyone in his way, Texas authorities told news organizations Tuesday.




nypost.com


----------



## taxidermist

Cake, Police nowadays are afraid to even pull someone over for a simple traffic violation. After the chausse of the "de-funding" over the last few years, I'm surprised there are any police left. 

It's a great retirement plan though. 25 years of service and you walk away with a full pension. So, why would you want to try and enter a building with an active shooter when your 4 years away of retirement? I agree......it's a joke what they didn't do.


----------



## wyoming2utah

BGD said:


> High Schools are a bit different but they also have resource officers that could assist in monitoring entries at key times. Multiple entries/exits could be monitored at class change and beginning and end of school. Maybe everyone doesn’t have to come through 1 entry but it still limits entry to 3-4 locations. Many things can be done outside of fighting gun control issues.


I think you are seriously oversimplifying this at the high school level...you wouldn't have to monitor 3-4 entries, but every entry to the school. Even if those doors are locked on the outside, you cannot--because of fire code--lock them from the inside. So, even if you try limiting students to 3-4 entries, they will use all entries...and, once a door is opened, the flood gates open. Additionally, our resource officer is in charge of three different schools--high school, middle school, and elementary. He, in no way, can be at three different schools at once. So, locally we would have to hire at least 2 more resource officers--1 for each school. And, to effectively monitor each entry, probably an additional 3 just at the high school alone.

Truthfully, the only way you I believe our school could really effectively lock down day in and day out is to close the campus. That won't ever happen simply because that would eliminate a lot of big opportunities through college and CTE classes. I agree that many things can be done outside of fighting gun control issues, and I think most schools are already trying to make students as safe as possible. But, as long as we have people mentally so unstable that they have the desire to kill large groups of people, they will find a way to do it. And, if they really want to target school-aged students, it doesn't have to be in the school...it might be a bus that is targeted or as students exit that one door.

As for arming and training teachers, I will never be a fan. Teachers are already over burdened with their craft and all the new responsibilities heaped upon them. Adding training and responsibility of gun safety to the mix just makes their jobs all that much harder.


----------



## CPAjeff

@wyoming2utah - you add a great perspective to this thread, due to your profession. Thanks for helping us see it from the school administration side!


----------



## paddler

The simplest, most efficient and least expensive way to prevent these events is to make it very difficult for the demographic that commits these crimes to get access to their weapons of choice. Reclassification would do this. Do you really think a mentally unstable high school dropout should be able to own an AR? Do you really believe that 2A is unlimited?


----------



## DallanC

The largest and most tragic school shooting in our history, the shooter stole the weapon, shot and killed the owner, then proceeded to shoot up the school. Laws would do what again?

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> The largest and most tragic school shooting in our history, the shooter stole the weapon, shot and killed the owner, then proceeded to shoot up the school. Laws would do what again?
> 
> -DallanC


I believe you're talking about Newtown. Adam Lanza demonstrated clear evidence of mental illness long before that event. As part of the Class 3 background check his mother would have had to guarantee safe storage. Having Lanza in the home, a guy who dropped out of school, with Aspberger's Syndrome, who never came out of his room nor allowed others in, who played violent video games all day would have precluded his mother from buying the five weapons. There is also some evidence his mother had issues of her own. Again, reclassification would mandate close scrutiny by the FBI and local LE of potential owners.

Or, we can do nothing again, as you suggest. This will absolutely, positively happen again. 100%. Thoughts and prayers, baby, thoughts and prayers.

The New York Times today has a chart showing mass shootings by country, ie, public shootings in which four or more people were killed. We lead the world with 101, France is next with 8, then Germany with 5, then Canada with 4. As Backcountry asked, "When"?


----------



## johnnycake

taxidermist said:


> Cake, Police nowadays are afraid to even pull someone over for a simple traffic violation. After the chausse of the "de-funding" over the last few years, I'm surprised there are any police left.
> 
> It's a great retirement plan though. 25 years of service and you walk away with a full pension. So, why would you want to try and enter a building with an active shooter when your 4 years away of retirement? I agree......it's a joke what they didn't do.


The thin blue line in Uvalde is pretty [email protected] yellow from my perspective, and deserves to have it's funding gutted. Why should Texas tax payers be paying for all of those officers to have body armor and weapons, just so that the police can take their time to set up the yellow tape and physically restrict other people from saving innocent children while the shooter is still actively killing victims? Simply abhorrent.


----------



## paddler

The other option would be to ban these weapons with a buy back program. I'm fine with either one, but my proposal is less restrictive. Nobody needs an AR for any legitimate sporting or home defense purpose.


----------



## bfr

paddler said:


> Reclassfying them would prevent deranged people from legally buying or possessing them. So there's that.


Absolute fact! Wait, not so fast. Isn’t it already against the law for “deranged” people to buy or own ANY firearms? Who decides if someone is deranged, the person at a gun counter? Next door neighbor? A school crossing guard? Paddler? No, it is thru the courts based on medical evidence. Or maybe we should classify anyone who wants an AR listed as deranged, you know for simplicity.
Reclassification is just another way to say LAW. We already have laws against murder, guns in certain areas, possession of guns by certain adjudicated individuals, guns being brandished, discharged in city limits, just to name a few. These were ignored by an individual, period. HE DID NOT OBEY ANY OF THE MANY LAWS IN EFFECT! What makes anyone think he would obey another that “reclassified” a particular weapon he would then have to steal or buy, he was after all able to legally buy one in the first place.
I agree this happens too often but how about getting to the actual causes, breakdown of family units, no responsibility for your actions, criminals being treated as victims and visa versa, lack of respect for other people or their property. Basically a breakdown of society on whole.


----------



## BigT

I am utterly surprised that the police stood outside for as long as they did which seems to break every policy and even moral ethic around. Maybe it's because it's small town. I don't know. This is a concern for me where I live. I don't believe the police in my little town are equipped or trained for this type of event if it were to occur here. Maybe this event spurs departments nationwide to get away from the "it'll never happen here" attitude and just be prepared for the worst. 

In 1999, there was a mentally ill man that walked into the Family History Library owned by the LDS Church in Salt Lake City with a semi-auto .22 long rifle and began shooting people. Police responded. The policy at that time was for the police to set a perimeter, and wait until SWAT arrived. All this while the shooting was happening, people were being killed inside. Mind you, this was only a few days after Columbine happened. A couple of police officers broke policy, entered the building and stopped the shooter. In the end, three people died, many were injured. But if not for those officers who knowingly broke policy, many others would have died. 

I just can't fathom as someone trained to respond to this type of incident, as a father, as a human, of not entering that building as soon as they arrived and took out the shooter. I am sure more details will come. What he!! these kids and teachers were put through! I also question the schools and districts training to the teachers and students. It's as though they sat there like the students at Virginia Tech and were executed. Run, Hide, Fight works. It doesn't prevent people from getting hurt, or killed, but it always prevents more casualties than if nothing is done. 

Paddler, I don't personally own an AR-15, but nearly all who own one are very good reputable and trusted people. I can assure you, that with all that's going on in our country with the moral decay, there's bad stuff coming. While your researching your left agenda, take a look at the City of Houston... Take a look at how many charged with murder have warrants out for their arrest... Warrants from committing murder, being caught and charged, getting released because of lax DAs, and then not returning to court. Why shouldn't people have the right to protect themselves? We have sat here and little by little became tolerant of things that are morally and ethically just wrong. Take guns away, great... But in your study if you could let us all know how many caught committing violent crimes with a gun, were from a restricted person.. Or in other words, a person who can't have a gun. That would also be great. Yeah there's more shootings in the U.S but keep in mind that the FBI data counts any shooting where there are three victims (not deaths, just shooting victims) as a mass shooting. So the great majority are gang related and other. But also don't forgot that mass casualty incidents happen internationally by knife, vehicle, explosive device, etc. I obviously lean conservative.. But I don't belong to either party. I would love to see corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle get booted from Washington. But this issue goes WAY deeper than guns. 

And prayers, prayers to a supreme being are sometimes what gets those that experience these incidents through to the next day. Those who have experienced tragic and horrific incidents often share experiences of how they could feel the power of others prayers in their life. Don't let yourself sink to the levels of Beto O'Rourke! You're better than that!


----------



## paddler

BigT said:


> I am utterly surprised that the police stood outside for as long as they did which seems to break every policy and even moral ethic around. Maybe it's because it's small town. I don't know. This is a concern for me where I live. I don't believe the police in my little town are equipped or trained for this type of event if it were to occur here. Maybe this event spurs departments nationwide to get away from the "it'll never happen here" attitude and just be prepared for the worst.
> 
> In 1999, there was a mentally ill man that walked into the Family History Library owned by the LDS Church in Salt Lake City with a semi-auto .22 long rifle and began shooting people. Police responded. The policy at that time was for the police to set a perimeter, and wait until SWAT arrived. All this while the shooting was happening, people were being killed inside. Mind you, this was only a few days after Columbine happened. A couple of police officers broke policy, entered the building and stopped the shooter. In the end, three people died, many were injured. But if not for those officers who knowingly broke policy, many others would have died.
> 
> I just can't fathom as someone trained to respond to this type of incident, as a father, as a human, of not entering that building as soon as they arrived and took out the shooter. I am sure more details will come. What he!! these kids and teachers were put through! I also question the schools and districts training to the teachers and students. It's as though they sat there like the students at Virginia Tech and were executed. Run, Hide, Fight works. It doesn't prevent people from getting hurt, or killed, but it always prevents more casualties than if nothing is done.
> 
> Paddler, I don't personally own an AR-15, but nearly all who own one are very good reputable and trusted people. I can assure you, that with all that's going on in our country with the moral decay, there's bad stuff coming. While your researching your left agenda, take a look at the City of Houston... Take a look at how many charged with murder have warrants out for their arrest... Warrants from committing murder, being caught and charged, getting released because of lax DAs, and then not returning to court. Why shouldn't people have the right to protect themselves? We have sat here and little by little became tolerant of things that are morally and ethically just wrong. Take guns away, great... But in your study if you could let us all know how many caught committing violent crimes with a gun, were from a restricted person.. Or in other words, a person who can't have a gun. That would also be great. Yeah there's more shootings in the U.S but keep in mind that the FBI data counts any shooting where there are three victims (not deaths, just shooting victims) as a mass shooting. So the great majority are gang related and other. But also don't forgot that mass casualty incidents happen internationally by knife, vehicle, explosive device, etc. I obviously lean conservative.. But I don't belong to either party. I would love to see corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle get booted from Washington. But this issue goes WAY deeper than guns.
> 
> And prayers, prayers to a supreme being are sometimes what gets those that experience these incidents through to the next day. Those who have experienced tragic and horrific incidents often share experiences of how they could feel the power of others prayers in their life. Don't let yourself sink to the levels of Beto O'Rourke! You're better than that!


Excuse me, but I've heard all these arguments before. Numerous times. What solutions are you proposing to prevent mass murders?


----------



## PBH

Here's the catch:

...a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that are real and immediate is the process of a rational mind.

Consider Orr.



> Orr was crazy and could be grounded [from flying]. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to.


That's some catch.



BFR said:


> maybe we should classify anyone who wants an AR listed as deranged, you know for simplicity.


The solution: only allow *sane* people to purchase AR style firearms. Make the requirements ludicrous (light speed is too slow). Any individual willing to proceed with completing the ludicrous requirements would obviously not be operating under a rational mind, and be considered deranged / insane. No gun sale. Any individual NOT willing to complete the ludicrous requirements -- operating under a rational mind, no less -- would not meet the requirements, and thus not be allowed to purchase the AR.

Problem solved.

🤷‍♂️


----------



## backcountry

I forgot to post this last night but its inline with criticisms today:

I think it's pretty revealing that we can't expect most peace officer training to be a common solution. I say that because these events are locally rare and how much time/training can we expect to be expended for such unlikely events? The ideal is clearly "whatever it takes" but we know even if that was adopted and funded it would eventually fade.

Reporting coming out if TX is also now claiming the shooter was outside the school firing for 12 minutes without lockdown or intervention, and then walked into the school 😞


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Nobody needs an AR for any legitimate sporting or home defense purpose.


Ask Ukraine if they agree.

It’s hilarious to see you take very specific actions people are proposing and saying you don’t want to do them, and then out of the other side of your mouth say “do nothing.” You’re another level man. A total other level.


----------



## johnnycake

This just keeps getting worse for the thin yellow line. Chief Wiggum would have been more useful. Now reports are that there were +150 officers present before the THREE Border Patrol guys went in to confront the monster. And to the cowards in kevlar that were there within 4 minutes of the sewage troll entering the school, but retreated when he returned fire--the public should know their names, and they deserve whatever hell comes their way. The blood of these 19 children and two teachers is primarily on the hands of a stain on humanity, but it definitely overflows to cover those sniveling worms with shiny badges.









Texas cops reveal there was NO armed guard on campus shooting started


At a press conference on Thursday afternoon, Victor Escalon shared new details from Tuesday's shooting including how SWAT teams took an hour to arrive to breach the classroom.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## BGD

wyoming2utah said:


> I think you are seriously oversimplifying this at the high school level...you wouldn't have to monitor 3-4 entries, but every entry to the school. Even if those doors are locked on the outside, you cannot--because of fire code--lock them from the inside. So, even if you try limiting students to 3-4 entries, they will use all entries...and, once a door is opened, the flood gates open. Additionally, our resource officer is in charge of three different schools--high school, middle school, and elementary. He, in no way, can be at three different schools at once. So, locally we would have to hire at least 2 more resource officers--1 for each school. And, to effectively monitor each entry, probably an additional 3 just at the high school alone.
> 
> Truthfully, the only way you I believe our school could really effectively lock down day in and day out is to close the campus. That won't ever happen simply because that would eliminate a lot of big opportunities through college and CTE classes. I agree that many things can be done outside of fighting gun control issues, and I think most schools are already trying to make students as safe as possible. But, as long as we have people mentally so unstable that they have the desire to kill large groups of people, they will find a way to do it. And, if they really want to target school-aged students, it doesn't have to be in the school...it might be a bus that is targeted or as students exit that one door.


Which is more plausible, finding a way to secure a high school campus or pass gun control measures? I acknowledged that high schools would be more difficult but it is not impossible and I certainly don’t think it is the cure all. I currently have 2 kids in high school, 2 kids in Jr High, 1 in elementary and my wife is an elementary librarian. I certainly don’t work in the school but I have quite a bit of exposure to how things are operating in the schools around me. Is there more that would have to be done to than what I mentioned in my short post? Sure, but my point is that there is more that can be done and throwing up our hands and saying it is too hard to try doesn’t seem like an appropriate response anymore. Many schools across the country have taken some pretty good steps to protect our kids. Many have not. This instance appears to be a situation did not have good protections in place or protocols being followed.

I also do not oppose keeping these weapons out of the hands of deranged/mentally Ill individuals. How that is accomplished without infringing on the rights of others I do not know. We do not have the political trust or goodwill between the two political parties right now to make the necessary concessions on both sides that would be required. I know I don’t trust either side to act without trying to further there agenda. I justdon’t trust that politics/government can solve this problem. Obviously I don’t have a good solution.


----------



## backcountry

To clarify, we do already have laws dealing with mental health and firearms. People can be held for 72 hours for supervision if they threaten themselves or others. After that they can be held involuntarily if the medical team finds evidence the threats are viable/actionable. Involuntary commitment is supposed to be reported to NICS and firearm possession/ownership prohibited.

Red Flag laws are similar.

Ultimately most of these individuals didn't have such behavior that was either reportable or actionable for prohibition of ownership. And for many there is no evidence of mental health problems. Reality is healthy individuals also (more often?) commit such violence. People can become violent for any number of reasons and sadly healthy teenagers can be radicalized as we've seen in other cases. 

That makes prevention difficult. We could lower the standard for things like involuntary commitment & that's one of the most severe infringements on personal liberty imaginable for someone who hasn't committed a crime yet. I try to remind my liberal friends on how easily such power could be abused.

The only real remedy in this vague realm I've seen that might have impact is raising the minimum age for gun ownership. We've seen a lot of brain science that individuals don't have the physical capacity for full executive function (huge impact on impulsiveness, self control & big picture reasoning) until their mid-20s. It could be wise to consider that in something as serious as owning a firearm. Heck, we should really be reconsidering enlistment and drinking age as well, but those are different subjects. The idea seems worth investigating to me. It's not shocking that so many of the mass murders are men between the age of 16-20ish, a time in which pressure is high and brain development is largely incomplete. Most people can overcome such limitations but a subset clearly can't.

But those would only deal with a small sample of the variables we have to consider.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> To clarify, we do already have laws dealing with mental health and firearms. People can be held for 72 hours for supervision if they threaten themselves or others. After that they can be held involuntarily if the medical team finds evidence the threats are viable/actionable. Involuntary commitment is supposed to be reported to NICS and firearm possession/ownership prohibited.
> 
> Red Flag laws are similar.
> 
> Ultimately most of these individuals didn't have such behavior that was either reportable or actionable for prohibition of ownership. And for many there is no evidence of mental health problems. Reality is healthy individuals also (more often?) commit such violence. People can become violent for any number of reasons and sadly healthy teenagers can be radicalized as we've seen in other cases.
> 
> That makes prevention difficult. We could lower the standard for things like involuntary commitment & that's one of the most severe infringements on personal liberty imaginable for someone who hasn't committed a crime yet. I try to remind my liberal friends on how easily such power could be abused.
> 
> The only real remedy in this vague realm I've seen that might have impact is raising the minimum age for gun ownership. We've seen a lot of brain science that individuals don't have the physical capacity for full executive function (huge impact on impulsiveness, self control & big picture reasoning) until their mid-20s. It could be wise to consider that in something as serious as owning a firearm. Heck, we should really be reconsidering enlistment and drinking age as well, but those are different subjects. The idea seems worth investigating to me. It's not shocking that so many of the mass murders are men between the age of 16-20ish, a time in which pressure is high and brain development is largely incomplete. Most people can overcome such limitations but a subset clearly can't.
> 
> But those would only deal with a small sample of the variables we have to consider.


I disagree with your first paragraph. Many of these murderers showed signs of mental illness well in advance of the events. That's why potential buyers/owners should undergo extensive background checks and scrutiny. Look at their social media posts, talk to family, friends, coworkers, etc. Visit the home and guarantee safe storage. Develop a questionnaire, fingerprint them, etc. Many of these perpetrators are 20 years old or younger. I agree with raising the minimum age for applying to buy these weapons to 25. Do something. 

I developed my proposal after doing root cause analysis, which tells us that young sick males commit mass murders and their preferred weapons are semiautomatics that accept detachable magazines. Thus, the most logical response is to keep these weapons out of their hands. That's the rationale behind my proposal. Certainly other things can be done, but reclassification is the best first step if banning them altogether isn't possible.


----------



## backcountry

There are those who hypothesize that mental illness is a leading cause and then there is the data. Even the FBI, who does rigorous follow ups, could only confirm 25% of them had mental health diagnoses. They state explicitly that mental health diagnoses are not a good predictor of violence, especially the targeted violence of mass murderers.

They did combine insight of mental health stressors overlapping with other behaviors to look for patterns. There were some such trends of concern. But many such patterns where only of concern after the fact when neighbors, coworkers and classmates reflected on the murders. Unfortunately that's an inherent type of bias that has huge impact on perception. The reality is each and every one of those potential indicators is sub clinical and often wasn't considered reportable (at the time in or in hindsight).

So the type of investigation needed would require a type of invasiveness and presumptuous intent that I'm not sure would pass legal muster. Do we really think the courts will hold up denial of a protected liberty because someone had an anxiety spell and only has 2-3 friends? Or that they made an unthoughtful comment to a coworker?

Obviously talking about killing others, what the FBI calls "leakage", 100% should be reported and investigated. I'm even supportive of a 72 hold for observation. But right now the vast majority of those threats aren't deemed viable or actionable to prohibit ownership. Why would we think the balancing test would suddenly change for a new law? It's possible but would require us penalizing youth for what would often be flippant speech which is currently protected by 1A. 

There are possible diagnoses for society to consider prohibition of ownership preemptively but that's still a treacherous path given only a single digit portion of them commit violence. That number isn't likely meaningfully different than the average population stats. There are arguments for it nonetheless but we have to talk about what it means to strip individuals of such liberty more explicitly instead of the way we currently talk about it. It's no light thing to deny someone freedom who hasn't done anything yet.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> There are those who hypothesize that mental illness is a leading cause and then there is the data. Even the FBI, who does rigorous follow ups, could only confirm 25% of them had mental health diagnoses. They state explicitly that mental health diagnoses are not a good predictor of violence, especially the targeted violence of mass murderers.
> 
> They did combine insight of mental health stressors overlapping with other behaviors to look for patterns. There were some such trends of concern. But many such patterns where only of concern after the fact when neighbors, coworkers and classmates reflected on the murders. Unfortunately that's an inherent type of bias that has huge impact on perception. The reality is each and every one of those potential indicators is sub clinical and often wasn't considered reportable (at the time in or in hindsight).
> 
> So the type of investigation needed would require a type of invasiveness and presumptuous intent that I'm not sure would pass legal muster. Do we really think the courts will hold up denial of a protected liberty because someone had an anxiety spell and only has 2-3 friends? Or that they made an unthoughtful comment to a coworker?
> 
> Obviously talking about killing others, what the FBI calls "leakage", 100% should be reported and investigated. I'm even supportive of a 72 hold for observation. But right now the vast majority of those threats aren't deemed viable or actionable to prohibit ownership. Why would we think the balancing test would suddenly change for a new law? It's possible but would require us penalizing youth for what would often be flippant speech which is currently protected by 1A.
> 
> There are possible diagnoses for society to consider prohibition of ownership preemptively but that's still a treacherous path given only a single digit portion of them commit violence. That number isn't likely meaningfully different than the average population stats. There are arguments for it nonetheless but we have to talk about what it means to strip individuals of such liberty more explicitly instead of the way we currently talk about it. It's no light thing to deny someone freedom who hasn't done anything yet.


Couple of points. Most mental illness goes undiagnosed, as they don't come to the attention of mental health professionals. That means that diagnosis of mental illness is an insensitive predictor of the true prevalence of the disease in the general population. Which is why focusing on mental illness alone would be a very inefficient way to reduce mass murders. A study out of UCLA, my alma mater, showed that 42% of patients seen in the ED presenting with nonspecific complaints had occult mental illness. Secondly, mass murderers likely do not reflect the characteristics of other types of gun violence; suicides, crimes of passion, armed robbery, etc. So I'm not sure that the FBI statistics referenced above are just mass murderers or all gun violence. Doesn't matter too much given my first point.

Also, the right to gun ownership is not unlimited. We can ban assault weapons without violating 2A. It's been done before. Given that, there is no reason we cannot reclassify them to restrict ownership to those who can meet Class 3 requirements. It's not even clear to me that doing so would require congressional action. Perhaps it could be done by executive order, or a simple rule change by ATFE.


----------



## wyoming2utah

BGD said:


> Which is more plausible, finding a way to secure a high school campus or pass gun control measures?


Honestly? Gun control measures...

...securing an open campus with multiple buildings and students moving from one campus to another is much harder. 

I would also argue that with the level of "security" that would ensure safety, we would be treating high school students similarly to criminals in prisons. At what point does this kind of "security" become more harmful?


----------



## backcountry

That's my concern. People have been posting aerial photos of their high school campuses the last few days. Many are the size of colleges in the early 90s. 

And not to be grotesque but how long before a mass murderer understands pinch points during bell changes? At many campuses you would never have to enter a building to do untold damage. 

I'm shocked I'm open to it for elementary school but it seems feasible there with less impact on daily movement. The playgrounds would be vulnerable but you could possibly mitigate that with some thought.

Just remembered one of my close friends had a job along this line. After serving in the Israeli military he ended up being an armed guard on K-12 buses back in the 90s. I don't think he ever had to neutralize a target but I have to wonder the impact that presence had on kids, if any in the long run.


----------



## Catherder

Good discussion on some of this stuff. 

Regarding the umbrella of "mental health", there are two aspects IMO. One, is specific prescribed action for a patient that is diagnosed with certain conditions. As noted, not everyone that ends up doing something horrific has previously fallen under this basket of priors. However, some do and regulations in place for those folks would likely be helpful in preventing some incidents in the long run. The taking away of peoples rights is a valid concern, but is not beyond the scope of good law and policy to overcome. The second aspect is general enhanced mental health availability and services. This part doesn't necessarily provide "sexy" results of specific examples of a prevented mass shooting incident, but does have the ability to prevent the mass shooting by treating the potential perp 2 years before so he doesn't go on to commit the act. There are also tangible benefits to society in less suicide, homelessness, drug abuse, crime, and other benefits. However, it by no means is the "single answer" to solving the mass shooting epidemic. 

This is what I can't abide though. 









As Gov. Abbott places shooting blame on mental health, what has Texas done to address it?


Gov. Greg Abbott blamed the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, on mental health, but critics argue the state has missed several opportunities to address mental health care.




abcnews.go.com





Giving lip service to mental health, but before the incident, cutting mental health services to citizens and having the worst mental health availability in the country. 


With respect to school "campus closing", I do think it could be feasible in elementary schools only but agree with Wyo that it is an impossibility as you get to older grades. As this incident also shows, you can have all the security in the world, say 150 armed cops, but if they aren't acting decisively and correctly, bad outcomes will still occur. 

IMO, any meaningful steps to really tackle this problem is going to require a combination of mental health enhancement, security, police training, and unfortunately, gun regulation/control within the bounds of 2A.


----------



## BGD

wyoming2utah said:


> Honestly? Gun control measures...
> 
> ...securing an open campus with multiple buildings and students moving from one campus to another is much harder.
> 
> I would also argue that with the level of "security" that would ensure safety, we would be treating high school students similarly to criminals in prisons. At what point does this kind of "security" become more harmful?


You have more faith in policy makers than I do. Especially policy makers that can thread the needle of creating policy that makes a measurable difference without trampling rights. Regardless of weather I agree with you, I appreciate the different perspective. It helps me consider points of view I wouldn’t consider otherwise. 

Your question asking at what point “security” becomes more harmful is very valid. I know lockdown drills at schools have added to my kid’s anxieties and worries. Coming up with solutions for this issue is really about making trade offs - what are we willing to give up to make a difference. For some it is AR’s, for some it is convenience, for some it is additional scrutiny of individuals personal lives, for some it is additional security measures, for some it is $$, etc. And ultimately most possibilities are an experiment that no one is sure will make a meaningful difference. I am trying to figure out for myself what experiments I can get behind.


----------



## backcountry

Just when you didn't think it could get worse. They've admitted some of the officers actually entered the building to get their own kids. 😞🤮🤬

Original source without profane Twitter commentary, sorry for that mistake earlier:


----------



## johnnycake

The failures keep stacking up. The shooter only gained access to the school, which has locked doors policies, because a teacher went out to grab her phone from her car and left the door propped open. JFC. 

Yes, whataboutisms are frustrating when trying to confront a problem and seek out solutions. We can spend all the time in the world crafting policies, regulations, laws, procedures, training and then implementing them, but at the end of the day there are just too many morons and cowards. 

We need another plague.


----------



## CPAjeff

Wow … just … wow! 🤦🏻‍♂️


----------



## backcountry

I hope it's clear this isn't a condemnation of police in general. This is a distinct scenario and I'm going to guess whatever after action report that comes out will show a combination of: basic human error, miscommunication, actual incompetence, etc. Sadly those things have a way of compounding into a disaster and it normally doesn't take long for that to happen .

It is so disheartening that the BORTAC team that eventually killed him had been on scene for upwards of an hour and was held back. Details aren't going to be pretty on answering the question why. Even with an inability to breach the door (got a key key as plan B) they were able to neutralize him in minutes. Even if they couldn't have saved the lives of the kids (911 call logs would indicate many were still alive well after noon) it would have led to less trauma for all of the families (and officers) for them to go in once assembled on scene.

My heartaches for these families. Especially knowing this will go on for years before every investigation and legal avenue has been exhausted. Their wounds won't even get the chance to start healing until all of this gets officially wrapped up. So much suffering and grieving. I don't know if my heart could heal from the righteous anger some of them must be feeling. 😞


----------



## paddler

Absolutely horrible errors were made and an absolutely horrible outcome. I was up fishing again, but my wife told me one of the teachers who was killed had called 911, pleading for help and saying she had 8 or 9 kids still alive. Due to the mismanagement and resultant delays, all were killed. Hard to imagine pain, grief and anger the families whose lost loved ones are feeling. Imagine how those who failed to act in a timely fashion feel. All will carry the burdens of this tragedy to their graves.

This illustrates, as stated above, these situations are extremely anxiety provoking. It's chaotic, thinking clearly and making all the right decisions is incredibly difficult. This will happen again. Congress will do nothing. As I have said repeatedly, preventing these sick individuals from obtaining these weapons of war is a much better approach. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> It's no light thing to deny someone freedom who hasn't done anything yet.


Careful! Some may start thinking you’re a “right wing whacko” with statements like that.

This is a very complicated issue. I was a part of the discussions for red flag laws here in Utah that did not pass. The due process involved is tricky. It really isn’t insurmountable. I think there could be a solution. The challenge becomes getting all stake holders to stay focused on the specific issue at hand. Too often (meaning just about every single time) these discussion revert to political talking points rather than the real issue at hand and then everyone runs to their corner and becomes more interested in their team winning than actually doing something fruitful.

Yes, I’ve actually been in the rooms for these discussions with the policy makers. I know how they’ve gone. It’s why I always chuckle when I get lectured by those who haven’t and don’t.


----------



## Vanilla

For those saying closed campuses in high school can’t work, I’ll refer you to MANY inner-city schools that are and have been that way for decades.

I’m not even sure I’m ready to advocate for that, but don’t tell me it’s impossible or even improbable. They do this all over the country already due to different security concerns they are facing.

Again, I’m not sure I’m even ready to advocate for that across the board, but it absolutely should be being vetted. It has to be an option considered and fully vetted. Maybe it’s a good idea, maybe it isn’t. If the only answer you can come up with is banning guns or certain types of guns then such a person really doesn’t care about what they’re claiming to care about.


----------



## backcountry

There is a "the internet isn't real life" theme that has been common for a while. It's always been untrue and this another example, in a long list, of reasons why. 

How do we expect teenagers to not only report this behavior but then remain persistent with reporting when the behavior is 1) ubiquitous online and 2) there are rarely consequences. We've indirectly trained multiple generations of women that this is just normal, acceptable and for them to just "cope" with it. 

A lot of this stuff is so vague it's probably not actionable but I have to wonder if we shouldn't reconsider our laws so there is a threshold on quantity as well for being deemed justified to be involuntarily committed for observation of violent ideology, and therefore prohibited from gun ownership. We'd have to account for false reporting but that ultimately seems rare.





__





Loading…






www.washingtonpost.com


----------



## paddler

It seems that many here believe that any 18 yo should be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with an AR, and any laws that prevent that is unacceptable. Am I reading that correctly?


----------



## johnnycake

paddler said:


> It seems that many here believe that any 18 yo should be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with an AR, and any laws that prevent that is unacceptable. Am I reading that correctly?


I could support raising the age on purchasing semiautomatic firearms to 21 (maybe even all firearms), like is currently required for handguns. Even if we did that, I still doubt it would decrease the occurrence of mass shootings.

At the same time, I take issue with the fact that we require 18 year old boys to register for the draft and allow them to serve voluntarily in the military, but they are not allowed to do other "adult" things like purchase alcohol or handguns. And why not throw in voting while we're at it. If on average a person's brain isn't developed enough or mature enough to control themselves with booze and handguns, then we shouldn't be obligating them for potential military service, allowing them to commit to military service voluntarily, or allowing to participate in elections.


----------



## paddler

johnnycake said:


> I could support raising the age on purchasing semiautomatic firearms to 21 (maybe even all firearms), like is currently required for handguns. Even if we did that, I still doubt it would decrease the occurrence of mass shootings.
> 
> At the same time, I take issue with the fact that we require 18 year old boys to register for the draft and allow them to serve voluntarily in the military, but they are not allowed to do other "adult" things like purchase alcohol or handguns. And why not throw in voting while we're at it. If on average a person's brain isn't developed enough or mature enough to control themselves with booze and handguns, then we shouldn't be obligating them for potential military service, allowing them to commit to military service voluntarily, or allowing to participate in elections.


It's not clear to me that needing to register for the draft or being able to enlist in the military present the same potential risk to society that being able to own a civilain version of a weapon of war does. I don't see the connection.

The question I posed was who here believes that an 18 yo has an inviolable constitutional right to walk into any gun store and buy an AR, or for that matter to buy one from a private party without a background check at all. In fact, I don't see any reference to assault rifles in the original text. So, according to Alito, no such right exists.


----------



## Catherder

johnnycake said:


> I could support raising the age on purchasing semiautomatic firearms to 21 (maybe even all firearms), like is currently required for handguns. Even if we did that, I still doubt it would decrease the occurrence of mass shootings.



I have reluctantly come to the opinion that I support this also. While it (or any other single act) won't stop all mass shootings, based on presented evidence on the Uvalde and possibly Buffalo scum, it could have helped. The 17-21 y/o demographic seems to be highly represented in these incidents. 



johnnycake said:


> At the same time, I take issue with the fact that we require 18 year old boys to register for the draft and allow them to serve voluntarily in the military, but they are not allowed to do other "adult" things like purchase alcohol or handguns. And why not throw in voting while we're at it. If on average a person's brain isn't developed enough or mature enough to control themselves with booze and handguns, then we shouldn't be obligating them for potential military service, allowing them to commit to military service voluntarily, or allowing to participate in elections.


That is the tricky part isn't it? The reason many states went back to 21 y/o for drinking was because public safety stats showed it worked, but we are denying (or delaying) certain rights. It is not really any different than other proposed solution though. Don't you think turning our schools into an armed prison will also take away rights from students and faculty? And as you pointed out, there is always the moron and coward factors. There definitely aren't any easy and all encompassing answers here.


----------



## Critter

The biggest problem is that if you take one tool away from them they will find another one.

A person like this last one was would jest let everything fester until he could get his hands onto what he wanted.

Back in my bar crawling days I would of only needed to talk to two or three people and I could of had just about anything that I wanted for a price. One person knew that I was into firearms and tried to sell me a Colt 1911 for $50. That person ended up doing some time in a federal prison on firearm charges.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> I have reluctantly come to the opinion that I support this also. While it (or any other single act) won't stop all mass shootings, based on presented evidence on the Uvalde and possibly Buffalo scum, it could have helped. The 17-21 y/o demographic seems to be highly represented in these incidents.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the tricky part isn't it? The reason many states went back to 21 y/o for drinking was because public safety stats showed it worked, but we are denying (or delaying) certain rights. It is not really any different than other proposed solution though. Don't you think turning our schools into an armed prison will also take away rights from students and faculty? And as you pointed out, there is always the moron and coward factors. There definitely aren't any easy and all encompassing answers here.


I'd go 25 for assault weapons, ie, semiautos with detachable magazines.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> The biggest problem is that if you take one tool away from them they will find another one.
> 
> A person like this last one was would jest let everything fester until he could get his hands onto what he wanted.
> 
> Back in my bar crawling days I would of only needed to talk to two or three people and I could of had just about anything that I wanted for a price. One person knew that I was into firearms and tried to sell me a Colt 1911 for $50. That person ended up doing some time in a federal prison on firearm charges.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


This argument comes up repeatedly, and has already on this thread. It's very weak. Just because people violate laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have any.


----------



## backcountry

Is anyone aware of the history and legal theories behind how age based restrictions have been justified and secured in the past? Just curious how it's proceeded in other scenarios and any hurdles they may have overcome. Or for that matter any attempts that failed in the past.


----------



## middlefork

Quick search









1960s Unrest Was The Impetus For The First Gun Age Limits


You have to be 21 to buy a handgun at a store, but only 18 to get one at a gun show.




www.history.com


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> The question I posed was who here believes that an 18 yo has an inviolable constitutional right to walk into any gun store and buy an AR…


I don’t think a single person has made that argument in this thread. Why are you completely incapable of anything other than a straw man? Maybe you should go away? The adults are having a conversation here. I don’t think anyone has an inviolable constitutional right to do anything.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> Is anyone aware of the history and legal theories behind how age based restrictions have been justified and secured in the past? Just curious how it's proceeded in other scenarios and any hurdles they may have overcome. Or for that matter any attempts that failed in the past.


Most age based restrictions are based upon biological factors and development. If we were smart and actually cared about the health of society we’d prohibit alcohol to anyone under the age of 25. The damage being done to developing brains for younger people can’t be helping any of the situations we debate on the stupidity meter on this forum, including gun violence.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> Don't you think turning our schools into an armed prison will also take away rights from students and faculty?


No need to turn them into armed prisons. Just keep the door locked and apparently people live. So unbelievably frustrating to make that realization.


----------



## middlefork

Amazing that the demographic of 18-25 males is targeted from so many directions. No wonder they go ballistic.

As for locks, if people are involved there will be mistakes made and ways around found. Much like other societal ills none of the cures seem to work. That war on drugs comes to mind.


----------



## backcountry

I don't think this "targets" that demographic in an unhealthy way. We all know it's a small minority of young men in that age bracket that even think about this type of violence, nonetheless act on it.

And this has been going on for 23+ years and that minority of young men has destroyed a sense of security and safety in our schools. It's not an overstatement to conclude that. And we can't forget the primary victims are kids who aren't afforded the luxury of voting or input on the policy that should protect them.

As a society we should at least be willing to ask if we should reconsider access to these weapons at that age. And not just for young men but for everyone. I'm still trying to understand how the "age of majority" has been defined and changed over time. I'm just less knowledgeable on how that played out in policy and if there was any conflict with it during those eras. I think it's a justifiable option that could lead to reduction in these unique tragedies but I'm not yet fully convinced.


----------



## middlefork

The youngest age of the signatures of the Declaration of Independence were 26 the average was I believe 44. A bunch of middle age white guys making policy.

No doubt modern data has indicated the increased risks of being in the above demographic. Maybe that is why they are targeted for military service, humanitarian service or higher education or training. They are the most malleable demographic available. For better or worse.


----------



## backcountry

I'm trying to understand your post, you are saying 26-44 year olds are the most malleable? How does that play into conversation?


----------



## johnnycake

paddler said:


> It's not clear to me that needing to register for the draft or being able to enlist in the military present the same potential risk to society that being able to own a civilain version of a weapon of war does. I don't see the connection.
> 
> The question I posed was who here believes that an 18 yo has an inviolable constitutional right to walk into any gun store and buy an AR, or for that matter to buy one from a private party without a background check at all. In fact, I don't see any reference to assault rifles in the original text. So, according to Alito, no such right exists.


No you didn't. Your exact post said, 
"It seems that many here believe that any 18 yo should be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with an AR, and any laws that prevent that is unacceptable. Am I reading that correctly?"

No such thing as an inviolable constitutional right. My constitutional law professor might have been borderline senile, but I'm pretty sure not even he made that claim. 

The comparison of these issues should have been readily apparent, but frankly you are most likely being intentionally obtuse. You want a restriction on a constitutional right based on age and the fact that brain development etc appears to support to some extent that such a limitation might improve the greater good. 

But, if the mental development is truly enough of an issue that we shouldn't allow individuals the same level of rights under one part of the constitution until a certain threshold is reached, then it stands to reason that other constitutional rights might also need to be withheld. The danger to society from 18 year olds buying semiautomatic firearms, on the aggregate and from a utilitarian perspective is likely smaller than the number of 18 year olds who get harmed/killed as a direct result of their military service. 

And in the case of the draft, if the country is going to insist on the mandate to be able to force you into military service, and potentially to die in the line of duty, then it is fundamentally unfair to simultaneously tell that same individual that they are unfit to be trusted to exercise their 2nd amendment right to arm themselves with a semiautomatic firearm. 

I could go on, but what's the point? I can explain it to you, but understanding it is on you and it's patently clear that you have no intention of engaging in good faith. And cue the moving the goal posts in three... two...


----------



## paddler

So, our resident attorney has confirmed that there is no constitutionally-guaranteed right to owning assault weapons. It follows that restricting ownership of these weapons doesn't undermine the Second Amendment. Yet many posts here discuss other measures which may or may not help, such as hardening schools, arming teachers, etc. The only restriction on buying/owning these weapons discussed here is raising the legal age to purchase all the way from 18 to 21.

I haven't had anybody suport the idea of reclassication, despite the fact that it is far less restrictive than an outright ban. In fact, some posts have been negative and reference denying "someone freedom who hasn't done anything yet". That's confusing, as illustrated in the preceeding post.


----------



## johnnycake

All rights under the Constitution have been deemed to be subject to certain restrictions, and the legal determination of where and how to draw that line tends to wander from time to time. That doesn't mean that these restrictions "don't undermine [insert Amendment here]" but rather that the individual's right is outweighed by the affects it has on others according to at least 5 Justices on the Supreme Court. 

But you already knew that, and thus shifted the goal posts accordingly. Unsurprisingly, you'll do so again and again.


----------



## johnnycake

Here's a solid OpEd for any interested in various policies and to what extent the data plays out on the efficacies of these policies









OPINION: What the research says about gun laws


The divide over guns can be partisan and ideological. But a growing body of social-science research is showing which laws work - and which don’t.




www.adn.com


----------



## paddler

johnnycake said:


> All rights under the Constitution have been deemed to be subject to certain restrictions, and the legal determination of where and how to draw that line tends to wander from time to time. That doesn't mean that these restrictions "don't undermine [insert Amendment here]" but rather that the individual's right is outweighed by the affects it has on others according to at least 5 Justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> But you already knew that, and thus shifted the goal posts accordingly. Unsurprisingly, you'll do so again and again.


If you mean that I understand that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is at rock bottom now, given it's shadow docket, recent decisions, machinations of the "advise and consent" process by Senate Republicans, neither Gorsuch or Coney Barrett should have been confirmed, I'm well aware. Their approval rating is the the tank, two of the justices have been legitimately of accused sexual assault/harrassment, the disapproval rating is 54% and falling. Hacks in robes, hacks in robes. Despicable they are.


----------



## paddler

johnnycake said:


> Here's a solid OpEd for any interested in various policies and to what extent the data plays out on the efficacies of these policies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPINION: What the research says about gun laws
> 
> 
> The divide over guns can be partisan and ideological. But a growing body of social-science research is showing which laws work - and which don’t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adn.com


So it looks like assault weapons bans, universal backrground checks and waiting periods decrease homicides, while "Stand Your Ground" laws increase them. Interesting how support for these laws falls with regard to political parties. We'd probably have a better understanding if the Republicans hadn't prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence.


----------



## johnnycake

paddler said:


> So it looks *like assault weapons bans*, universal backrground checks and waiting periods decrease homicides, while "Stand Your Ground" laws increase them. Interesting how support for these laws falls with regard to political parties. We'd probably have a better understanding if the Republicans hadn't prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence.


You're reading comprehension skills never fail to underwhelm. Directly from the article: 
"Other policies — *such as assault weapons bans of the sort the United States had in place for the 10 years after 1994 — don’t yet provide enough scientific evidence to indicate what their effects might be. That is not to say that these laws do not have effects, only that they have not been rigorously demonstrated.* By some definitions, for example, mass shootings declined in the United States during the period of the federal ban, but because mass shootings remain, at least in a statistical sense, relatively rare, and because rates of mass shootings highly variable from year to year, there are methodological challenges to reliably detecting even fairly strong effects for these laws."

I do agree that it was shameful that Republicans blocked any funding on gun violence studies for twenty years. But it was also Republicans and Trump that reversed course on this. Obama had Democrat control of both the House and Senate say the beginning of his term and he didn't make that happen. Politicians all suck for many of the same reasons, and where they differ they tend to still suck equally. But ideologues don't help rectify the situation either.


----------



## paddler

paddler said:


> We'd probably have a better understanding if the Republicans hadn't prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence.





johnnycake said:


> You're reading comprehension skills never fail to underwhelm. Directly from the article:
> "*Other policies — such as assault weapons bans of the sort the United States had in place for the 10 years after 1994 — don’t yet provide enough scientific evidence to indicate what their effects might be. That is not to say that these laws do not have effects, only that they have not been rigorously demonstrated. *By some definitions, for example, mass shootings declined in the United States during the period of the federal ban, but because mass shootings remain, at least in a statistical sense, relatively rare, and because rates of mass shootings highly variable from year to year, there are methodological challenges to reliably detecting even fairly strong effects for these laws."
> 
> I do agree that it was shameful that Republicans blocked any funding on gun violence studies for twenty years. But it was also Republicans and Trump that reversed course on this. Obama had Democrat control of both the House and Senate say the beginning of his term and he didn't make that happen. Politicians all suck for many of the same reasons, and where they differ they tend to still suck equally. But ideologues don't help rectify the situation either.


We just disagree on which parts should be bolded. I would bold it as below, and interpret it to mean that because mass shootings are relatively rare as compared to other forms of gun violence, statistical significance is difficult to demonstrate, but mass shootings declined during the ban years. A matter of perspective, I suppose:

Other policies — such as assault weapons bans of the sort the United States had in place for the 10 years after 1994 — don’t yet provide enough scientific evidence to indicate what their effects might be. That is not to say that these laws do not have effects, only that they have not been rigorously demonstrated. *By some definitions, for example, mass shootings declined in the United States during the period of the federal ban, but because mass shootings remain, at least in a statistical sense, relatively rare, and because rates of mass shootings highly variable from year to year, there are methodological challenges to reliably detecting even fairly strong effects for these laws. *

Regarding the Dickey Amendment, it was lobbied for by the NRA and inserted into the Omnibus Spending Bill by a Republican Congress. Obama directed the CDC to do research on gun violence in 2012, after Sandy Hook. Trump spoke at the NRA convention this weekend, he doesn't give a crap about gun violence. The bill he signed in 2018 contained no earmarks for gun safety.


----------



## johnnycake

Good to know that statistics and drawing valid conclusions robust data sets are also in your dearth of skill sets. 

And unsurprisingly you are also wrong on the research funding. Gun Violence Research Receives Federal Funding for First Time in 20 Years

I'm done playing with the local troll, so pivot away and find another player to tilt at windmills with you


----------



## middlefork

backcountry said:


> I'm trying to understand your post, you are saying 26-44 year olds are the most malleable? How does that play into conversation?


18-25


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Trump spoke at the NRA convention this weekend, he doesn't give a crap about gun violence.


Hey, you and Donald have something in common after all!


----------



## APD

johnnycake said:


> At the same time, I take issue with the fact that we require 18 year old boys to register for the draft and allow them to serve voluntarily in the military, but they are not allowed to do other "adult" things like purchase alcohol or handguns. And why not throw in voting while we're at it. If on average a person's brain isn't developed enough or mature enough to control themselves with booze and handguns, then we shouldn't be obligating them for potential military service, allowing them to commit to military service voluntarily, or allowing to participate in elections.


I'll play devil's advocate on this one. The difference here is training and in some cases permitting. It's the same reason most of you don't have explosives at your disposal and others do. 

As for the brain, I'll agree that not every brain is as developed as the next. There's a reason why rental car companies require 25 years old for rentals. Mathematically below that number results in losses more frequently. It's probably a combination of low skill set and high tolerance for risk.


----------



## APD

paddler said:


> I'd go 25 for assault weapons, ie, semiautos with detachable magazines.


That description is the problem. I want my kid to be able to protect himself if needed with a handgun when he is of age and traveling. He doesn't need an AR to do that but he shouldn't be relegated to a revolver either.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> For those saying closed campuses in high school can’t work, I’ll refer you to MANY inner-city schools that are and have been that way for decades.


Yes, but what is the trade-off? At a small rural school we lose opportunities...like college courses, CTE courses, seminary, etc. Also, have you been in those inner-city schools with closed and secure campuses? Personally, I would never want my child attending such a school in such an atmosphere. To me, these schools are akin to prisons. Not exactly the most favorable of educational environments. And, are those closed campuses really any more "secure"? Think about it all students come and go through that one entrance making it a funnel and perfect point of attack.

At what point is making our schools secure like wearing a bee suit outdoors to avoid anaphylactic shock from a bee sting?


----------



## Vanilla

All valid questions that should be part of the discussion. But it should be a discussion. 

Remember, I’m not arguing for this, I’m simply responding to people who say it is impossible. Those statements are objectively incorrect. 

I read a quote from Governor Cox this morning that I believe is 100% true. Paraphrasing here, but something to the effect of I would not trust anyone that talks only about guns. At the same time, you should probably not trust anyone that refuses to talk about guns either. 

We shouldn’t be afraid of discussing anything. Not all ideas are good ideas, and the bad ones can be cast aside after vetting. But we need to be having wide sweeping conversations if we REALLY care about safety for our schools. I doubt that many people actually care about that and are much more concerned about their “team” winning. But they expose themselves pretty quickly, so it’s easy to move on from those stinky opinions.


----------



## backcountry

And weighing the pros & cons publicly helps us understand things more clearly.

I've appreciated the convo. For the most part people are interested in solutions of sort and staying away from the common pitfalls of tribalism.

This massacre is still shaking me up. I've realized part of that was how numb I had become to it all and being slapped out of it. 

The element that is just getting some attention is 16 of the 21 victims were girls and women. Will be interesting to see if that was intentional or just the first rooms he chose. His online behavior was explicitly hateful and demeaning to women so it could be part of a larger theme for him (common amongst mass murders).


----------



## Springville Shooter

It's a conversation worth having and I think it has, once again, illustrated the vast divide that we have in our nation. Here's a bit more of my perspective. 

The point has been thrown around loosely that 'no one needs an AR-15 type rifle'. Here is my honest feeling on this statement. While I wish I lived in a world where I would never need to defend myself and my family, that simply isn't reality. I remember watching in horror during the recent riots where cities were besieged with lawlessness and looting while half the leadership and citizens of our country were calling for defunding the police. This wasn't happening in foreign lands, but in our own cities where I often travel and work. Gun-shy police were soon standing by as angry mobs entered neighborhoods threatening to 'take back' property that they deemed theirs. Home owners were harassed and terrorized with no help or support from the government or police. Regular citizens were on their own to defend themselves and their families. If I am ever in this situation, I plan on defending my family, my self, and my legally held property to the best of my ability. In this real world scenario, the features of the AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle sure seem necessary and justified. Similar situations were faced by business owners whose livelihoods were threatened by uncontrolled mobs. Many of those who survived guarded their own businesses using the best weapons they had access to, often the AR-15 style rifle. Lastly, consider the current situation in eastern Europe. This is a situation that could happen anywhere in the world where corrupt, evil leadership exists and we are not exempt or safe here in America. I'd say the citizens of Ukraine are putting their weapons to great use and would greatly benefit from more and better. Go tell them that 'no one needs and AR-15'. 

So, no. I'm not willing to give up my ability to defend myself in the most efficient manner possible in the name of 'doing something' that may or may not even work. The best point made by the gun control crowd is that weapons bans are the easiest thing. I think we should do the hard things and work to eliminate or control evil while preserving the freedoms of the righteous. We can argue all day about the details, scope, etc. of the Constitution but one thing is irrefutable; our founders saw the value in preserving the rights of free citizens to effectively defend themselves from evil. I am thankful for their foresight and will continue to fight relentlessly to preserve this, most basic, of rights. -----SS


----------



## Vanilla

Preach, Springville Shooter! Can I get an AMEN?

I remember the video from the CHAZ or CHOP, whatever those criminals called it, where the business owner had to fend off the mob from looting his store and burning it to the ground and then threatening to kill him and his son, and he was using an AR-15. The government in Seattle or Washington certainly wasn’t coming to help him! 

Is the only reason he is alive and/or has a livelihood because he lawfully owned a firearm some are claiming “nobody has any business to own?” 

These are great points when people start using to restrict and ban. The very essence of the 2nd Amendment as dictated in Heller is the ability for one to defend himself.


----------



## 2full

I don't have an AK....but I have a SK. 
I don't want to ever have to use it in self defense, but I will. I watched the garbage going on in Seattle, and the other areas that was out of control. These people want to defund the police.......I say we need more police protection. The numbers show the crime increase that has popped up in the areas that police protection is lowered. Ask the people in Chicago about how that went for them. 
Sorry, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## johnnycake

2full said:


> I don't have an AK....but I have a SK.
> I don't want to ever have to use it in self defense, but I will. I watched the garbage going on in Seattle, and the other areas that was out of control. These people want to defund the police.......I say we need more police protection. The numbers show the crime increase that has popped up in the areas that police protection is lowered. Ask the people in Chicago about how that went for them.
> Sorry, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.


Ask the people in Uvalde how +40% of their local taxes being spent on their police force has panned out


----------



## 2full

johnnycake said:


> Ask the people in Uvalde how +40% of their local taxes being spent on their police force has panned out


I am as confused and puzzled by the police reaction there as anyone. Usually cops get criticism for being over zealous and too aggressive. This one did not seem to be the norm.
Was very disappointed with the reaction.
Won't argue that point at all.


----------



## paddler

I would favor a reclassification of these weapons with a buy back program for those who decide the hassle of meeting Class 3 requirements isn't worth it. But I'd be okay with an outright ban, too, again with a buy back, to include all guns currently in circulation. I'd gladly sell my 92F back if it saved one life, let alone, in this case, 21.


----------



## bowgy

I will gladly keep my AR if it saves one life.


----------



## Catherder

johnnycake said:


> Ask the people in Uvalde how +40% of their local taxes being spent on their police force has panned out


It looks like the local police aren't cooperating with the investigation anymore. 









Uvalde police, school district no longer cooperating with Texas probe of shooting: Sources


Uvalde police and school district police are no longer cooperating with the Texas Dept. of Public Safety's probe into the Robb Elementary School shooting, sources say.




abcnews.go.com













'Very angry': Uvalde locals grapple with school chief's role


The blame for an excruciating delay in killing the gunman at a Texas elementary school — even as parents outside begged police to rush in and panicked children called 911 from inside — has been placed with the school district’s homegrown police chief




abcnews.go.com





It seems increasingly likely it was a situation where a small town (school district) police chief was put in a situation that was way over his head and disastrous errors were made. I know turf battles are a frequent issue in LE cases, but I wonder if some reform in how that type of situation is led could be made, especially if Federal assets are available and used? (such as BORTAC officers in this case)


----------



## johnnycake

Catherder said:


> It looks like the local police aren't cooperating with the investigation anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uvalde police, school district no longer cooperating with Texas probe of shooting: Sources
> 
> 
> Uvalde police and school district police are no longer cooperating with the Texas Dept. of Public Safety's probe into the Robb Elementary School shooting, sources say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Very angry': Uvalde locals grapple with school chief's role
> 
> 
> The blame for an excruciating delay in killing the gunman at a Texas elementary school — even as parents outside begged police to rush in and panicked children called 911 from inside — has been placed with the school district’s homegrown police chief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems increasingly like it was a situation where a small town (school district) police chief was put in a situation that was way over his head and disastrous errors were made. I know turf battles are a frequent issue in LE cases, but I wonder if some reform in how that type of situation is led could be made, especially if Federal assets are available and used? (such as BORTAC officers in this case)


With the video from the school district now showing that the cops lied about the teacher leaving the door propped open (it was closed, but apparently not locked), and all the other lies that the cops have tried to hide behind I'm not just waiting for the announcement that one or more of the kids were shot by one of these chucklef###ers.


----------



## Catherder

johnnycake said:


> With the video from the school district now showing that the cops lied about the teacher leaving the door propped open (it was closed, but apparently not locked), and all the other lies that the cops have tried to hide behind I'm not just waiting for the announcement that one or more of the kids were shot by one of these chucklef###ers.


🤷‍♂️ on that (certainly possible), but I was reading yesterday that evidence suggests that one or two victims bled out during the time LE was waiting around wondering what to do, who would have been saved if the response would have been immediate and medical attention to them started, not to mention victims shot after the initial barrage.


----------



## backcountry

Catherder said:


> It looks like the local police aren't cooperating with the investigation anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uvalde police, school district no longer cooperating with Texas probe of shooting: Sources
> 
> 
> Uvalde police and school district police are no longer cooperating with the Texas Dept. of Public Safety's probe into the Robb Elementary School shooting, sources say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Very angry': Uvalde locals grapple with school chief's role
> 
> 
> The blame for an excruciating delay in killing the gunman at a Texas elementary school — even as parents outside begged police to rush in and panicked children called 911 from inside — has been placed with the school district’s homegrown police chief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems increasingly likely it was a situation where a small town (school district) police chief was put in a situation that was way over his head and disastrous errors were made. I know turf battles are a frequent issue in LE cases, but I wonder if some reform in how that type of situation is led could be made, especially if Federal assets are available and used? (such as BORTAC officers in this case)


The one leader was blunt about the choices last Friday and then they went radio silent. Sounds like a special school district team had command with the controversial "barricaded shooter" call before BORTAC team ignored them and went in despite command structure.

This is going to be one of the ugliest investigations and reports we've ever seen for a mass shooting. And I see no real avenue for accountability beyond terminations/resignations in mass. I imagine the state will be paying out a huge settlement in the future.


----------



## paddler

The best battle is one you never fought. This could have been prevented by keeping the two ARs out of the shooter's possession.

And yes, the payouts for the failed response will be enormous, but it will never be enough to bring the victms back.


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> Sounds like a special school district team had command with the controversial "barricaded shooter" call before BORTAC team ignored them and went in despite command structure.


Remember, that the entire school district PD force consists of the chief and 4-5 officers. Not much to pick from to assemble a critical incident "team". Is it any wonder that Barney wasn't up to the task when thrust into a major incident? 

Looking forward, it could be something to look at, reform wise, among many issues regarding mass shootings.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> No meaningful gun control will happen until the Democrats gain enough seats in the Senate that they don't have to rely on Manchin or Sinema and get rid of the filibuster. Republicans will always choose ARs over the lives of schoolkids, just as they always have.
> 
> I would favor a reclassification of these weapons with a buy back program for those who decide the hassle of meeting Class 3 requirements isn't worth it. But I'd be okay with an outright ban, too, again with a buy back, to include all guns currently in circulation. I'd gladly sell my 92F back if it saved one life, let alone, in this case, 21.


Raw raw raw....GOOOOOOO TEAM!


----------



## PBH

OK -- I'll admit it up front: I'm lazy. I have merely skimmed through most of this discussion. Please forgive me.

Help me out: throughout this discussion we've heard terms used like AR (assault rifle) and assault weapons. Can someone please help me out with some definitions? Paddler -- I'll just point to you -- can you define what each is so I know the difference, and can maybe be better educated on what people are asking for?

thanks.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Raw raw raw....GOOOOOOO TEAM!


I believe it's "Rah, Rah, Rah" in this context. Or just keep voting R and enabling mass murderers killing school kids, because that's what 50 Republican senators are doing. There is a clear choice.

I spent the day yesterday with a friend of mine, good guy, fishing in my boat. He's a Republican, but still believes that gun safety could happen at the federal level. I reminded him that it didn't happen after Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting since, and the Republican party is solely responsible. I reminded him that the party is now the party f Trump and the NRA. He is an avid hunter, just like me, and supports my reclassification idea without reservation.

Everybody seems to think that this time is different, McConnell said that maybe Congress will actually do something. We'll see. My prediction is they may do something very incremental, but it won't decrease mass shootings or have any significant impact on gun violence as a whole. 50/50 chance they stall, hoping the furor will die down and do nothing at all.


----------



## paddler

PBH said:


> OK -- I'll admit it up front: I'm lazy. I have merely skimmed through most of this discussion. Please forgive me.
> 
> Help me out: throughout this discussion we've heard terms used like AR (assault rifle) and assault weapons. Can someone please help me out with some definitions? Paddler -- I'll just point to you -- can you define what each is so I know the difference, and can maybe be better educated on what people are asking for?
> 
> thanks.


Sure. And you are correct, people do throw "assault weapon" around a lot, which is a rather vague descriptor. That's why in my proposal I defined the weapons that should be reclassified to Class 3 any weapon that has all of following the characteristics:

1) Semiautomatic action
2) Accepts detachable magazines
3) Fires centerfire ammunition

Barrel length doesn't matter, black plastic or wood stock doesn't matter, shotgun, handgun or rifle doesn't matter.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I spent the day yesterday with a friend of mine, good guy, fishing in my boat.


Is the very most surprising thing about your post that you actually have a friend?

I think that is a resounding yes!


----------



## APD

paddler said:


> Sure. And you are correct, people do throw "assault weapon" around a lot, which is a rather vague descriptor. That's why in my proposal I defined the weapons that should be reclassified to Class 3 any weapon that has all of following the characteristics:
> 
> 1) Semiautomatic action
> 2) Accepts detachable magazines
> 3) Fires centerfire ammunition
> 
> Barrel length doesn't matter, black plastic or wood stock doesn't matter, shotgun, handgun or rifle doesn't matter.



i'm out. have fun with your flint lock musket. 

you won't find much support trying to classify everything that is not single shot, lever or bolt action as an assault weapon. 

when people will only accept all or nothing they usually end up with the latter. it's a shame because this is what backs the 2A folks up against the wall and nothing happens.


----------



## PBH

paddler said:


> Sure. And you are correct, people do throw "assault weapon" around a lot, which is a rather vague descriptor. That's why in my proposal....





paddler said:


> The best battle is one you never fought. This could have been prevented by keeping the two ARs out of the shooter's possession.



I'm still confused. In the context above, you're using "AR". So, is this "assault rifle", "assault weapon", or class 3 weapon?


I thought "assault rifle" was a rifle that can be switched from automatic to semi-automatic. (ie: military)
And, "assault weapon" was a _scary looking_ rifle with a detachable magazine, pistol grip, and maybe a forward grip.


This is why I hate these discussions. The terms are all used interchangeably, but have no real defined specs. Right now, my .223 is just a boring hunting rifle that nobody cares about. But tomorrow I could switch the stock giving it a different aesthetic quality with no change in function, and people would want it banned.


So, in Paddler's statement above thinking this situation could have been prevented if the two "ARs" were never available to the shooter, I have to ask: what made the two guns the shooter had "ARs"? or were they AWs? or were they just a plain old .223 that looked really scary? Does anyone know at this point what those rifles were? What made those rifles any more dangerous than my Howa .223 with a full kryptek dip?


----------



## paddler

APD said:


> i'm out. have fun with your flint lock musket.
> 
> you won't find much support trying to classify everything that is not single shot, lever or bolt action as an assault weapon.
> 
> when people will only accept all or nothing they usually end up with the latter. it's a shame because this is what backs the 2A folks up against the wall and nothing happens.


All rimfires would be exempt, all semiautomatics with fixed magazines, as most shotguns, for instance, all pump guns and revolvers would be exempt. Just in the interest of accuracy, as hyperbole doesn't help, either. I think most American voters would support it, too. But that won't help, as 91% of voters support background checks, but that has zero support from Republican senators. It's clear that they do not represent all, or perhaps even most, Republican voters.


----------



## paddler

PBH said:


> I'm still confused. In the context above, you're using "AR". So, is this "assault rifle", "assault weapon", or class 3 weapon?
> 
> 
> I thought "assault rifle" was a rifle that can be switched from automatic to semi-automatic. (ie: military)
> And, "assault weapon" was a _scary looking_ rifle with a detachable magazine, pistol grip, and maybe a forward grip.
> 
> 
> This is why I hate these discussions. The terms are all used interchangeably, but have no real defined specs. Right now, my .223 is just a boring hunting rifle that nobody cares about. But tomorrow I could switch the stock giving it a different aesthetic quality with no change in function, and people would want it banned.
> 
> 
> So, in Paddler's statement above thinking this situation could have been prevented if the two "ARs" were never available to the shooter, I have to ask: what made the two guns the shooter had "ARs"? or were they AWs? or were they just a plain old .223 that looked really scary? Does anyone know at this point what those rifles were? What made those rifles any more dangerous than my Howa .223 with a full kryptek dip?


I could be wrong, but I think it was reported that he bought two AR15s. The term "assault weapon" doesn't really have a precise definition, as you say. My Argentine 1909 Mauser was an assault rifle in it's day, capable using stripper clips of firing 31 aimed shots per minute.

Not sure what your Howa is exactly, but if it's a .223, a semiauto that accepts detachable magazines it would be subject to reclassification under my proposal. The stock doesn't matter.


----------



## backcountry

The nature of the crime was different but I'm hoping the domestic terrorism charge w/ the Buffalo shooter makes some of these young men reconsider. Unfortunately most of them see it as suicide so I'm not sure they care.


----------



## bfr

So, my Grampas Winchester 1907 would be “reclassified”.
So, since the weapons availability is to blame for all shootings it stands to reason that the availability ALL cameras are responsible for pornography in films and photo form. So using this basis ALL cameras capable of capturing an image need to be banned or reclassified. This will keep them out of the hands of pornographers and eliminate all pornography. We can also make it more difficult to get booze and cars to stop drunk driving and vehicular deaths. 
I love the phrase “If it saves just one life…” sounds good but in reality meaningless. People have been killed with rocks, tree limbs, knives, spears, arrows, even just fists and feet. Should these be banned or “reclassified” so they’re not readily available? Sound far fetched but I’m just using the same “logic” as used for gun bans or reclassification.


----------



## paddler

Yes, the Browning BAR would also be subject to reclassification. I think that's unfortunate but haven't been able to figure a way around it.


----------



## backcountry

The AR language is conflated from the start given it's used in model names (please don't rehash the old armalite talking point). And even the industry was using assault weapon moniker in publications. 

I'm personally against the "if only one life" argument when it comes to government policy. We have to admit there are tradeoffs and cost/benefit analysis anytime liberty is implicated. 

And reform on these firearms is also a fair conversation. I'm not for Paddler's idea, and not just because I think Heller is a roadblock. But I do think it's worthy of discussion to reconsider if an age based restrictions similar to handguns is appropriate. 

Some mass murderers would still find a way. But I think it could make an impact in reducing access to highly lethal firearms for these relatively unskilled shooters. I believe there is a reason most of them are mid to late teens & setting a temporal barrier to access could be a key component of creating change.

I also think we would benefit from challenging firearm manufacturers to advertise with more restraint. That advertisement by Daniel Defense is going to haunt the industry and gun owners for years. I'm not for regulation there but it seems to our benefit to encourage these companies to reel it in a bit.


----------



## maffleck6

So most politicians just don't know how to do anything but talk and get re-elected. Hardened leftists who fought for abortion in the 1970's are disgusted by todays democratic party who simply fundraise off the controversy. They mean no sensible solution to any of these issues as their biggest fundraising efforts come from abortion and gun control. That keeps them in power. The R's stand around trying to be liked instead of doing anything. Here is the truth. Washington DC didn't use the doctors who were in congress to work on the Affordable Care Act. They didn't use tort reform which was critical for any health care improvement. They don't want law enforcement to help fix school security. Any serious person must admit we could do something but DC will for sure make it worse. I think this is where most Americans are. We don't have a representative government and our politcians aren't capable of fixing things or they would. Suppose we made it illegal to kill someone, oh wait, it already is. Tell me seriously how a gun law would have stopped this or any other mass shooting. I am outraged and disgusted also. The worst gun crime areas are in gun restricted locations because criminals don't care about your proposal or any legislation. Laughed a million times as politicians tried to act like they had the first clue about a microorganism they planned to contain with cloth masks. Please, these people aren't able to do anything about it.


----------



## APD

maffleck6 said:


> So most politicians just don't know how to do anything but talk and get re-elected. Hardened leftists who fought for abortion in the 1970's are disgusted by todays democratic party who simply fundraise off the controversy. They mean no sensible solution to any of these issues as their biggest fundraising efforts come from abortion and gun control. That keeps them in power. The R's stand around trying to be liked instead of doing anything. Here is the truth. Washington DC didn't use the doctors who were in congress to work on the Affordable Care Act. They didn't use tort reform which was critical for any health care improvement. They don't want law enforcement to help fix school security. Any serious person must admit we could do something but DC will for sure make it worse. I think this is where most Americans are. We don't have a representative government and our politcians aren't capable of fixing things or they would. Suppose we made it illegal to kill someone, oh wait, it already is. Tell me seriously how a gun law would have stopped this or any other mass shooting. I am outraged and disgusted also. The worst gun crime areas are in gun restricted locations because criminals don't care about your proposal or any legislation. Laughed a million times as politicians tried to act like they had the first clue about a microorganism they planned to contain with cloth masks. Please, these people aren't able to do anything about it.



most people don't join wildlife forums to get political so i guess this is congratulations on your first post or welcome or something like that.


----------



## paddler

At least three more dead in Tulsa today. The article says "rifle". Any bets it's centerfire semiauto that accepts detachable magazines?


----------



## middlefork

So I've never worried about getting a class 3 permit and realize that the hoops to jump through for scary suppressors are mainly time and money and assume the class 3 permit is much the same so what's the big deal?

The fact that I'm morally unacceptable to qualify or just bogged down with bureaucratic BS?

Having been trained with fully automatic weapons in the military and judged competent to utilize them when needed still doesn't allow me to posses them without paying a lot more money to the government. Is that background check that much more rigorous? I just don't know. But all it takes is a file to go from semi automatic to full. 

And it really doesn't take much to machine an extended non-detachable magazine to accept more rounds. Throw in some strip clips and practice and you can get a pretty good rate of fire.

It's almost unbelievable since the Donald banned bump stocks you just never hear of them being used anymore. Talk about effective!


----------



## backcountry

My friends haven't been happy when I call out old memes that beg to ban bump stocks & allow the CDC & NIH to be funded to study gun violence. They didn't realize Trump did both of those already. Trump actually implemented more gun policy than most recent presidents.


----------



## 2full

Why does Paddler get to be so political ??

Sorry I've been out to the ranch all day irrigating and just got back in on this conversation.


----------



## backcountry

I have him on ignore or I'd report him more. I stopped being able to tolerate his negative partisanship rants several years ago. I only read his stuff if s thread takes a sudden turn. It's normally obvious when he is the culprit.


----------



## paddler

So, is it political to talk about gun control legislation here? Buffalo (10 dead, 3 wounded), Uvalde (21 dead), now Tulsa (4 dead, several others wounded). As reported by CBS News, there were 15 mass shootings over Memorial Day weekend, defined as shootings in which 4 or more people are injured, in which 9 were killed and more than 70 injured.

Is it political to say that Democrats have introduced multiple bills addressing gun violence, and will soon be introducing many more, but no Republicans have voted in favor of any of them? Is reporting facts here overly political?


----------



## APD

middlefork said:


> So I've never worried about getting a class 3 permit and realize that the hoops to jump through for scary suppressors are mainly time and money and assume the class 3 permit is much the same so what's the big deal?
> 
> The fact that I'm morally unacceptable to qualify or just bogged down with bureaucratic BS?


Suppressors being regulated they way they are is BS. Too many gullible people setting policy after watching movies.

As for the form 4, it's taking about 4 months to turn those around on e file. Form 1 is about a week. If they batch approved or took other clearances into account it could be quicker.


----------



## Vanilla

Remarks by President Biden After Marine One Arrival - The White House


South Lawn 9:15 A.M. EDT Q Good morning, Mr. President. Do you feel more motivated to get action on guns now? THE PRESIDENT:




www.whitehouse.gov





Very sensible solutions here, right?


----------



## CPAjeff

Alright gents, I believe the constant barrage of D vs R here is getting beyond old. For those that continually want to post about politicians and who said what, please refrain. Honest discussion about the issue at hand is healthy, the constant B.S. back and forth about politics is not. 

I'm happy to lock this thread down, and if needed, put some forum members in timeout if the political crap continues.


----------



## paddler

We'll see what comes of these recent mass shootings. It won't be anything meaningful. I guess schoolkids dying is just the cost of doing business. What a country, eh? I'm out.


----------



## Catherder

I don't think this article is at all political, but does discuss the issue thoughtfully.

We’ve Known How To Prevent A School Shooting for More Than 20 Years


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I'm out.


Once again, I doubt it! But we can hope.

CPAjeff, I figured a link to an official transcript on the topic from the White House was relevant to the discussion. No political commentary at all, just the official transcript. The reality is a topic like this is never going to be totally apolitical. I guess it's how some try to approach it and present it that makes the difference.


----------



## maffleck6

I am an archery guy but for gun owners and manufacturers whom we know, this conversation is here and it will be political and it will change things. How it changes is what concerns me. My personal political contribution is to simply say those we have elected will not be able to fix this, R's or D's. Whatever they do will certainly not work as intended. I would love to get more educated on things that would work. With gun ownership at an all time low, much lower than 50 years ago, I hope we stop blaming the guns or else we can face more of these shootings with no hope for improvement.


----------



## maffleck6

APD said:


> most people don't join wildlife forums to get political so i guess this is congratulations on your first post or welcome or something like that.


I am a welcome back kind of guy. Used to post under a different name but had my account hacked. Also got tired of point creep discussions. This one just got me back. I am just a concerned archery guy who sees the politicians getting it wrong too often and worry about every decision they make. Have a friend who own gun manufacturing facility and cannot help be feel their future grows increasingly unsure.


----------



## bowgy

*PBH wrote: "I thought "assault rifle" was a rifle that can be switched from automatic to semi-automatic. (ie: military)
And, "assault weapon" was a scary looking rifle with a detachable magazine, pistol grip, and maybe a forward grip."*


What is an assault weapon? When I smack you on the back of the head with a skateboard, that is an assault weapon, when you defend yourself with an AR that is a defensive weapon.

Anything that your are assaulted with can be an assault weapon.


----------



## DallanC

Ban bow and arrows!









Man armed with bow and arrows kills 5 people in Norway, police say


A man armed with a bow fired arrows at shoppers in a small Norwegian town Wednesday, killing five people before he was arrested, authorities said.




www.cbsnews.com





Bad people do Bad things with all kinds of methods.

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

And how many people die per capita from such weapons in other countries per year? Countering with those arguments isn't an analog to the epidemic of mass shootings this country has. 

And "people do bad things" or "wrong place wrong time" don't remotely rise to the level of civic responsibility we have for these students. We've raised two generations of kids in schools in which mass slaughter happens at unacceptable levels. And we know why they choose semi-automatic rifles that can use large, interchangeable magazines. 

Can't we be fully honest that these weapons are more efficient for novice, teenage shooters to indiscriminately murder people with? They serve a purpose in keeping police at bay to maximize the death toll. Why do we obscure those facts with poor rhetorical tricks?

Admitting that doesn't mean you have to support any new gun law. But 19 kids were just murdered and it's time to be unabashedly honest about the tools these murderers use. Countless others will live the trauma of listening to their classmates being murdered for the long remainder of their lives. Please stop trying to make it seem like the weapon of choice isn't important.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Personally, I like Flordia's Red Flag law:








Florida's red flag law, championed by Republicans, is taking guns from thousands of people | CNN Politics


Twice a week from her courtroom, Florida 13th Circuit Court Judge Denise Pomponio decides who in Hillsborough County can no longer be trusted with a gun.




www.cnn.com





But, I get frustrated sometimes when these shootings do happen and the public is so outraged (and rightfully so), but we hear very little about other similarly pressing and serious problems...According to the CDC, all firearm deaths equaled 45,222 (13.7 deaths per 100,000 population) while, by way of comparison, the number of deaths via drug overdose/drug poisoning equaled 91,799 or (27.9 deaths per 100,000 population). Overall, which is the bigger problem? And, though gun-related deaths are the second leading cause of death for our youth, a much larger percentage of those deaths are suicide than by mass shooting.

To me, this growing problem is much more about mental health than it is guns. I believe some more restrictive gun laws could help, but they are bandaids to a bigger issue.


----------



## wyoming2utah

wyoming2utah said:


> Personally, I like Flordia's Red Flag law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Florida's red flag law, championed by Republicans, is taking guns from thousands of people | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> Twice a week from her courtroom, Florida 13th Circuit Court Judge Denise Pomponio decides who in Hillsborough County can no longer be trusted with a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, I get frustrated sometimes when these shootings do happen and the public is so outraged (and rightfully so), but we hear very little about other similarly pressing and serious problems...According to the CDC, all firearm deaths equaled 45,222 (13.7 deaths per 100,000 population) while, by way of comparison, the number of deaths via drug overdose/drug poisoning equaled 91,799 or (27.9 deaths per 100,000 population). Overall, which is the bigger problem? And, though gun-related deaths are the second leading cause of death for our youth, a much larger percentage of those deaths are suicide than by mass shooting.
> 
> To me, this growing problem is much more about mental health than it is guns. I believe some more restrictive gun laws could help, but they are bandaids to a bigger issue.


And, I, personally am much more concerned about the rising vaping issues and fentanyl than mass shootings by guns...how much, though, do wear about this problem in the media?








Teens are vaping fentanyl, poison control warns


An amount of fentanyl as small as a few grains of sand can be deadly. And young people are experimenting with vaping it.




kdvr.com








__





Overdose Death Rates | National Institute on Drug Abuse


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collects information on deaths involving many commonly used drugs




nida.nih.gov


----------



## Vanilla

Alright, I'll take a stab at this one. Below are my proposals for how to forge forward. 

1- Schools need funding to increase security measures. I do not believe they need to look like prisons, but common sense security upgrades such as secured doors, entrance only through a single door after the school day begins, ID shown if not a student, etc. These work better for elementary schools than middle and high schools, but I want to create taskforces to look at middle and high schools as well to see if and how these can be effective. 

2- Pass H.R. 8. Most gun control measures that have been proposed in the House the last several years have been idiotic, to say the least. There has been a lot of talk about this one, so I went and read it. Yes, it will require more background checks than current law does, but I do not believe this is overburdensome. For the record, I think this is one of the least effective things we can do to prevent mass shootings, but it may help with other types of gun violence that don't meet that statistically very small number of mass shootings out there that occur. I'm fine with H.R. 8. 

3- Institute a waiting period on purchase of firearms. I don't know if this ultimately prevents any mass shootings, but the one in Tulsa doesn't happen yesterday if this is the case. The dude would have made his purchase, and he'd be waiting for his gun today instead of being at the morgue. Now, maybe it just happens in two weeks anyway, but maybe not. The Buffalo situation wouldn't have happened that day either. Again, maybe he runs down there next week anyway? Who knows? The Texas one appears he purchased online and had to wait for it to be delivered to the FFL, so I'm not sure we can say that one would have even been delayed. But again, who knows? Maybe some of these spur of the moment, heat of the moment in rage situations don't happen? I certainly do NOT agree with some overburdensome system to purchase firearms or extensive and lame delays like for suppressors have been. But a week waiting period, maybe two weeks? I could probably be talked into that as a "reasonable restriction." 

4- We need red flag laws. And I'm not even sure how much it will stop mass shootings, but I do think they'll help with other gun violence we see more prevalently. As I indicated earlier in this thread, I've been at the table with the policy makers on this issue when it's been discussed. I favored them then, I still do now. We have to figure out the due process aspect. The removal period to when the person may not only request a hearing, but have their day in court at that hearing needs to be pretty short. We can't just take someone's guns when no crime has been committed and hold them for months on end waiting for the courts to get something scheduled. But overall, I think red flag laws are a good thing for many reasons, even if mass shootings are not one of them. 

5- I have considered how I felt about prohibiting anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a firearm. It seems odd to most people that you can buy an AR-15 at 18 but not a handgun. You do have to consider that mass shootings make up a very small percentage of gun crime in the United States, however. And the handgun is the most used firearm in gun violence in America. That, I believe, was the thinking when restricting purchase of a handgun to 21 and older. All that said, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (yes, THAT 9th Circuit in the liberal mecca of the country) just ruled on May 11th of this year that California's law requiring someone to be 21 years old to purchase a semi-automatic centerfire rifle is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So while I've tried to tell one certain member for years his proposal would violate the constitution, now we have a federal appellate case to show for it. (It's almost like a constitutional law scholar knows more about the constitution than some who is not. Weird...huh?) So while that type of a law sounds all good, if it violates the constitution, it violates the constitution. 

This is about what I'm personally willing to do on this topic. I'm convinced that two of these will help a lot, and two may or may not do much, but wouldn't be too big of a burden in the process, so I'm willing to try. Talks of bans and restrictions on certain types of firearms are silly and are way more about politics than meaningful policy. As Governor Cox said, I would not trust anyone only talking about banning or restricting guns as a solution to this. 

Feel free to rake me over the coals. I'm a big boy, I can take it.


----------



## backcountry

Thank you on the update on #5. That answers an important question and should allow most of us to move onto other options. 

The other thing I'd like to see is higher funding in a schools for more counselors and/or social workers. These individuals would be able to deal with situations that not only happen there but also trends that if properly mitigated to reduce the likelihood these shooters go down this path. Wether we like it or not these students live significant parts of their lives at school and those professionals often catch behavioral trends parents don't. 

I don't believe most of those things are what professionals consider mental health problems. They are subclinical but can culminate in violence. It seems to me that the Texas shooter gave off some important clues that private businesses didn't track (or punish). I have to think the fellow students who witnessed his talk of violent fantasies could have reported such to school personnel. But for that to matter the schools have to be empowered to not only know such things but investigate. I'd personally like to know as a parent if a student was talking about raping women with fellow students. 

Ultimately that would have to be coupled with public resources for any families who have to help mitigate these behaviors. So many families just don't have the means otherwise.


----------



## middlefork

So who pays for the representation during this hearing?
If it is the accused that seems an unfair burden. But what do I know.


----------



## Vanilla

middlefork said:


> So who pays for the representation during this hearing?
> If it is the accused that seems an unfair burden. But what do I know.


If I sue you tomorrow, for any reason, who pays for your representation?

I guess if you don’t want to have to go to court to justify your ability to own weapons then maybe you should not threaten to kill people with those weapons. It’s not like red flag laws allow the police to knock on your door and take your guns without any reason to do so. 

If someone is making threats against the public or him/herself, I have no problem requiring them to pay for representation for a hearing on their safety and ability to posses deadly weapons. Utah’s proposed red flag law in 2021 was more about suicide prevention than mass shooting prevention. I think that’s where you’ll see the largest benefit. Also in domestic violence homicides, potentially.


----------



## middlefork

Got it!
Just need to define the rules. Picky little details.


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler said:


> Sure. And you are correct, people do throw "assault weapon" around a lot, which is a rather vague descriptor. That's why in my proposal I defined the weapons that should be reclassified to Class 3 any weapon that has all of following the characteristics:
> 
> 1) Semiautomatic action
> 2) Accepts detachable magazines
> 3) Fires centerfire ammunition
> 
> Barrel length doesn't matter, black plastic or wood stock doesn't matter, shotgun, handgun or rifle doesn't matter.


So the Navy issue Colt 1911 that my great-grandfather brought home from WWII would be a Class 3 firearm under your 'proposal' and I would have to register it a such or sell it to the Govt. to avoid becoming a criminal? Thank goodness that even our current President and 3/4 of the Democrat party has more common sense than you do and thank goodness for our Supreme Court that would never allow such stupidity to stand even if it somehow got passed through congress. You really are way out on the fringe when you talk about things like an illegitimate SCOTUS and getting rid of the filibuster. Once again, thank goodness for the foresight of our founders who designed a government that was resistant to the extremes and thank goodness they provided the guaranteed means for free citizens to defend themselves!

Please keep spouting your 'ideas' to anyone who will listen. The good citizens of this country need a rude reminder that we are facing some radical opposition from the fringes and we need to mobilize and unite against it in defense of our freedoms.------SS


----------



## Vanilla

middlefork said:


> Got it!
> Just need to define the rules. Picky little details.


The devil is ALWAYS in the details. Here is what Utah’s last bill attempting to implement them looked like from 2020. It obviously didn’t pass. Didn’t get much of a chance, unfortunately. 





__





HB0229







le.utah.gov


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> Alright, I'll take a stab at this one. Below are my proposals for how to forge forward.


I know we've sparred a bit on this thread, but I like the list. Here is mine. I likewise expect some criticism. Whatever. 

1. I would like to see HR 8 passed ASAP. It has wide public support and IMO, does have the ability to help with some gun crime issues. I don't see a notable downside. I assume this and possibly red flag legislation are what the bipartisan working group are focusing on and I hope an agreement is reached. I agree it is a small step, but a needed one to help reduce the country's situation. 

2. Likewise agree on red flag laws. They do seem to work and I would think such laws would have bipartisan support. It permits the "R"s to be "tough on crime" and "D"s to have "gun restrictions" that produce real results. 

3. I would like to see additional security at schools too, although the details may vary in how much. I can accept that elementary schools can more easily be taken to a closed system, but any improvements to all schools is welcome. IMO, "one size fits all" approaches may be problematic, but that doesn't mean more can't be done. 

4. Likewise, as Uvalde sadly showed, there is room for improvement in police response and policy to an incident or suspected incident. Additionally, training for school workers, counselors, LE, and others to recognize the warning signs of someone ready to "go off" should be pursued. As the article I posted earlier today showed, most mass shooters do give off warning signs, which often allow intervention or at minimum interception. 

5. Enhanced mental health resources. IMO, this could be the most useful one of all. Investment in better mental health will have benefits in reducing mass shootings, and even greater benefits in reducing suicide, drug use, crime, homelessness, and other adverse societal outcomes. Again, referring to the mentioned article, most of these "shooters" are more or less committing suicide in a very horrible way. Suicide prevention measures are known and can often be effective. It is less rocket science than it seems. Since a good mental health safety net may prevent the mass shooting years before they occur and it doesn't score "partisan win points", it isn't the sexiest solution, but until it is seriously addressed (not political lip service), I can just about promise the high rate of gun suicides and increasing mass shootings will not improve. 

6. I do favor a 21 Y/o age to buy certain weapons, but recognize that if an appellate court decision declared what it did, it probably is a waste of time to pursue this until any appeals have worked their way through the courts.


----------



## Ray

Here ya go gents, go get your $50 maverick gift card 😂 my guess is they get less than ten guns.









Salt Lake City to launch new gun buyback program in wake of deadly shootings


Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall announced Friday a new city-sponsored gun buyback program event, the first of its kind since the 1990s.




www.ksl.com


----------



## Vanilla

I'm sure every criminal looking to do harm to others with guns in Salt Lake City will be lining up for that $50 Maverik card! It's adventure's first stop, after all. How could you turn that down? 

I'm going to go buy a couple more guns to turn in just so I can get those gift cards!


----------



## Ray

Vanilla said:


> I'm sure every criminal looking to do harm to others with guns in Salt Lake City will be lining up for that $50 Maverik card! It's adventure's first stop, after all. How could you turn that down?
> 
> I'm going to go buy a couple more guns to turn in just so I can get those gift cards!


that’s the spirit, Vanilla! I’m thinking about taking my sig p229 legion sao in as we speak, I know I’ve spent over $1,200 on it but I could buy 30 Mountain Dew’s with that gift card


----------



## backcountry

Isn't it required by Utah law that guns that are forfeited to police be sold? Meaning, if my memory serves me right, these will just go back in circulation and the departments made money off of this.

I'm still considering having my firearms destroyed and I thought I read about that law during my research. Maybe it has context I'm forgetting.


----------



## backcountry

More ridiculous news about the mass shooting, the chief arrived to the scene without his radio. 

There response is just absurd.


----------



## Vanilla

I know at least one department that destroyed all firearms they received that were not being returned to an owner and were no longer needed for the criminal case or in evidence retention requirements. I know that because I was the one approving all those destruction orders. 

They were not sold for the very reason you mentioned. Bad to put them back in circulation, and plus, it just looks bad for the police regardless.


----------



## APD

backcountry said:


> I'm still considering having my firearms destroyed and I thought I read about that law during my research. Maybe it has context I'm forgetting.


Uh, you need some to destroy a firearm for you? I'm not even going to ask why you're destroying them because I can guess. But really, you can't make a firearm unusable?


----------



## backcountry

I might be able to with the right tools just not sure mine are appropriate yet. I was doing research on what the legal standard and requirements were, especially if documentation was needed. 

I found the bill I was referencing, originally read about it in a vague article, and it seems specific to abandoned weapons and those no longer needed as evidence. Doesn't appear to impact buyback programs if I'm reading it correctly.





__





HB0252







le.utah.gov


----------



## APD

A simple saw through the action and barrel tenon will do it. Can't just reweld and use it.


----------



## backcountry

ATF standard is three (or more depending on model) cuts if that's the preferred method. 

If I decide to destroy my firearms my first choice would be to hand them in to be professionally done so. Second choice would be to DIY them. I'm on the fence and won't make a decision for a while. Was researching to understand the options and possible legal standards (or at least fed policy to CYA).


----------



## APD

Well, I've demilitarized weapons before and am effective at it. If you'd like to make 2 extra cuts then that's fine too. The fact is that the lower is the serialized part. It's either aluminum or plastic. Aluminum is weak and can be destroyed by a hammer if you want. Plastic can be cut or melted. The barrel can be thrown in the trash or you can drill a hole in the chamber. A cut though the chamber works too. 

Be careful who you take it to. If it's a nice firearm, it's just as easy for them to keep it or trade the upper out and have a functional rifle with their lower. 
I commend you for your effort but the people keeping their rifles fall into two catagories. Those with good intentions and those with bad. If you divide out the ones with good intentions you'll eventually end up with the balance on the wrong side. Safely stored your firearm will do no harm.


----------



## backcountry

Choosing carefully would be key if I hand it in for destruction.

If I go DYI I'll do the ATF way just from a legal CYA perspective. I have no doubt it's overkill but I'm all for having a documented record of going by their standard.

Safely stored in a safe now. I have no big reason to rush as my lil daughter can barely walk. Beyond the current national dilemma I'm reconsidering if having firearms in the house is worth the risk. I've worked with teenagers long enough to know it's extremely difficult to ever be fully secured with them. It's especially true if they have any access for hunting. And even then it's been eye opening to know how well they can & do find ways into what we consider secure. 

I was just talking with an acquaintance who son had a friend killed by an accidental discharge. The gun owners thought they had secured them well enough. Pretty frightening to consider how quick it can happen given all of us let our guard down on accident.

I still love the idea of taking my daughter hunting in the future but I can't dismiss the statistics about teen suicide and accidental discharge. For most of us that's more likely to happen than ever using a firearm for home defense (I refuse to conceal carry). 

And after this last school shooting I'm just not sure I can justify being a gun owner anymore. I'd likely be in a different place if I believed our country was honestly going to address this problem. That just seems like misplaced hope at this point. And when I have to talk to my daughter about school shootings in a few years I want to know I did the most I could. 

I don't know what I'll ultimately do. There are no black and white solutions here.


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> Choosing carefully would be key if I hand it in for destruction.
> 
> If I go DYI I'll do the ATF way just from a legal CYA perspective. I have no doubt it's overkill but I'm all for having a documented record of going by their standard.
> 
> Safely stored in a safe now. I have no big reason to rush as my lil daughter can barely walk. Beyond the current national dilemma I'm reconsidering if having firearms in the house is worth the risk. I've worked with teenagers long enough to know it's extremely difficult to ever be fully secured with them. It's especially true if they have any access for hunting. And even then it's been eye opening to know how well they can & do find ways into what we consider secure.
> 
> I was just talking with an acquaintance who son had a friend killed by an accidental discharge. The gun owners thought they had secured them well enough. Pretty frightening to consider how quick it can happen given all of us let our guard down on accident.
> 
> I still love the idea of taking my daughter hunting in the future but I can't dismiss the statistics about teen suicide and accidental discharge. For most of us that's more likely to happen than ever using a firearm for home defense (I refuse to conceal carry).
> 
> And after this last school shooting I'm just not sure I can justify being a gun owner anymore. I'd likely be in a different place if I believed our country was honestly going to address this problem. That just seems like misplaced hope at this point. And when I have to talk to my daughter about school shootings in a few years I want to know I did the most I could.
> 
> I don't know what I'll ultimately do. There are no black and white solutions here.


out of curiosity, will you stop hunting?


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry- do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Nobody can tell you what should make you comfortable.

I just don’t get destroying your guns so you can say you did your part. I’m doing my part by not murdering people. I’ve been SUPER successful at this for my whole life. I plan to keep doing my part in that realm by not murdering anyone in the future too.

I guess there is always that chance something bad could happen. But man, if I got rid of everything in my life that COULD result in an accident (or worse, someone with bad intentions purposefully doing something) then that would be a miserable life, indeed. People weigh risks with what we do all the time. Nobody can weigh those for us. We determine what our risk comfort level is and act accordingly every day of our lives, consciously or not.


----------



## APD

You can always remove firing pins in all your firearms for a two year period. If after that two years you still want to destroy the guns then have at it. At least you've had a cooling off period and made a well though out decision. In the meantime they won't be shooting anything.


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> out of curiosity, will you stop hunting?


That's the decision at hand. I'll miss upland hunting if that ends up being my choice. Not only for myself but as an opportunity to teach my daughter in the future. The grouse hunting here has been a great experience to be outside and provide some occasional meat for the family & I've enjoyed the idea of starting that tradition with my girl.

But something about another school full of elementary school age kids getting massacred has changed the entire equation for me. 



Vanilla said:


> backcountry- do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Nobody can tell you what should make you comfortable.
> 
> I just don’t get destroying your guns so you can say you did your part. I’m doing my part by not murdering people. I’ve been SUPER successful at this for my whole life. I plan to keep doing my part in that realm by not murdering anyone in the future too.
> 
> I guess there is always that chance something bad could happen. But man, if I got rid of everything in my life that COULD result in an accident (or worse, someone with bad intentions purposefully doing something) then that would be a miserable life, indeed. People weigh risks with what we do all the time. Nobody can weigh those for us. We determine what our risk comfort level is and act accordingly every day of our lives, consciously or not.


It's definitely not black and white. I just can't help but realize how unique firearms are as a tool for harm in this country. I can't logically compare them to any other tool I have. They are designed to kill and are obviously very effective at it. I've justified it because I use them to kill wildlife, and have no qualms with that. 

But I can't control how others may intentionally or accidentally use them. At the end of the day I couldn't live with myself if my daughter, her friends or acquaintances harmed someone with one of my firearms, accidentally or intentionally. And I've seen to much evidence of teenage ingenuity to believe you can create a truly secure system they can't break. 

That's one of the biggest things haunting me right now. You slip up once, even after years of teaching your child gun safety, and a child(ren) could end up dead. There just isn't anything else in my life designed to be so intentionally lethal that I have to consider in this fashion.

Add onto that the number of my friends and family now affected. Two friends are teachers who went into hours long lock downs at the end of last week because of threats. Listening to their stories of consolling young kids has left an indelible mark. Those same people have been under attack by the public for 18 months and are now being rhetorically asked to carry firearms to defend their schools. Many of them are considering quitting their jobs now. 

Plus a friend now thinking about moving because their state allows open carry and folks have strutted around public parks with assault weapons hung over the shoulder. This also days after Ulvalde. That friend (from a gun family) already had PTSD and hasn't recovered from wondering if she & her kids were about to be murdered. 

I truly value hunting. It's been a great experience and learning process. But something has gone seriously wrong in our country and we aren't (rhetorical"we", not pointing fingers at individuals) working together to solve it. I'm just not convinced our nation has shown the wisdom needed to balance this liberty with our civic responsibility. Since it's enshrined in our Constitution and protected by serious precedent I know this liberty isn't likely to change; if anything it's likely to expand with the cases I've seen. 

The one option that remains if our nation continues to abdicate responsibility is to opt out of gun ownership; to eliminate the risk associated of gun ownership in my household; to not raise my daughter around them. It's a question that has haunted me for almost 2 weeks now and I don't know the answer.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I totally respect your choice but I have to admit that looking at those diagrams with illustrations on how to destroy a firearm made me a bit queasy. I really don't believe it will do any good other than possibly making you feel better. My guess is that you are already doing the most important things to prevent mass shootings......raising your daughter right and being a good citizen.------SS


----------



## CPAjeff

Soap Box Rant:

Growing up, we were taught that guns were a tool. Just like a hammer or a screwdriver. We were taught never to aim at something we didn’t intend to shoot and we sure as hell weren’t allowed to play hours and hours of videos games. It’s amazing to me the amount of hours spent, by kids and adults, on “shooter-type” video games. All this screaming about gun control, but not even a whisper about elimination of shooter type video games.

I’m no medical expert, but I can’t image that individuals who spend so much time in virtual reality - be it social media or video games - don’t develop a false sense of reality.

I have two older brothers and we fought ALL THE TIME growing up. Never once did the thought of grabbing a gun and start shooting enter into my head. But, back then, parents “could” tell their kids no and kick their butts if needed - with no fear of child protective services showing up. 🤦🏻‍♂️

This world is going to the dumps quickly …

Rant over.


----------



## 2full

CPAjeff said:


> Soap Box Rant:
> 
> Growing up, we were taught that guns were a tool. Just like a hammer or a screwdriver. We were taught never to aim at something we didn’t intend to shoot and we sure as hell weren’t allowed to play hours and hours of videos games. It’s amazing to me the amount of hours spent, by kids and adults, on “shooter-type” video games. All this screaming about gun control, but not even a whisper about elimination of shooter type video games.
> 
> I’m no medical expert, but I can’t image that individuals who spend so much time in virtual reality - be it social media or video games - don’t develop a false sense of reality.
> 
> I have two older brothers and we fought ALL THE TIME growing up. Never once did the thought of grabbing a gun and start shooting enter into my head. But, back then, parents “could” tell their kids no and kick their butts if needed - with no fear of child protective services showing up. 🤦🏻‍♂️
> 
> This world is going to the dumps quickly …
> 
> Rant over.



I really believe that the video games are a terrible influence and a big part of the problem. It makes them numb to the reality of the actions that they take. It amazes me that it not discussed in the gun control conversations. It needs to be !!


----------



## Catherder

It is a personal decision that only you know the right answer for, but here are a couple more thoughts. 

1. The guns you own and the way you are handling them are not the reason the country is having these problems. While powerful, sporting shotguns and hunting rifles are not typically the weapon of choice of criminals or "shooters" . Additionally, how you handle them is not the way that some folks make the evening news with tragedies. Removing them from circulation will not affect the national tragedy trajectory in any way. 
2. There are no two cases that are similar, but my kids hardly know I have guns in the house. They know dad goes hunting in the fall (when the tag fairy allows) but it is not something that is front and center every minute. This may be good or bad as far as "passing on the tradition" but it seems to work for us. When they have asked about them, it has allowed me to have a frank discussion about them. 
3. The experiences of your friends are sad, but it may actually be helpful for them to know someone who is a gun owner that isn't a far right, snake flag waving, assault weapon toting soul.


----------



## backcountry

CPAjeff said:


> Soap Box Rant:
> 
> Growing up, we were taught that guns were a tool. Just like a hammer or a screwdriver. We were taught never to aim at something we didn’t intend to shoot and we sure as hell weren’t allowed to play hours and hours of videos games. It’s amazing to me the amount of hours spent, by kids and adults, on “shooter-type” video games. All this screaming about gun control, but not even a whisper about elimination of shooter type video games.
> 
> I’m no medical expert, but I can’t image that individuals who spend so much time in virtual reality - be it social media or video games - don’t develop a false sense of reality.
> 
> I have two older brothers and we fought ALL THE TIME growing up. Never once did the thought of grabbing a gun and start shooting enter into my head. But, back then, parents “could” tell their kids no and kick their butts if needed - with no fear of child protective services showing up. 🤦🏻‍♂️
> 
> This world is going to the dumps quickly …
> 
> Rant over.





2full said:


> I really believe that the video games are a terrible influence and a big part of the problem. It makes them numb to the reality of the actions that they take. It amazes me that it not discussed in the gun control conversations. It needs to be !!


The video game conclusions are tough, especially since it was politicized decades ago before studies were conducted.

1) Moderate time (more than you would think) playing video games is actually correlated with less aggression according to studies. It's believed to keep kids away from other negative sources of violence, ie peer to peer violence which is exceedingly common.

2) Evidence doesn't support kids becoming desensitized to violence to other humans from violent games (the last time I looked). From a very young age kids learn to differentiate imaginative play from reality. From what I remember studies have shown impulse control can be differentiated between fictional environments and reality. With the exception of #3 below

3) Studies have shown an increased willingness to touch and play with weapons after playing violent video games compared to non-violent ones. Evidence also showed parental education and/or gun safety courses mitigated that risk. That's a key finding.

4) Lots of evidence that in game chats and forums are places people learn to practice violent language and threats. Most kids are probably fine but a subset seem to be radicalized by it. But again, this is real human to human interaction not with fictional characters. Hence my persistent soapbox that the internet is reality. The environment normalizes extremely dangerous ideas like rape, shooting, racism, etc.

I personally don't see broad societal changes that lead to violence. What were once rare became more common because of the statistical realities that came with country growing in population since the 50s. Couple that with systems being increasingly strained to help families and the problem becomes more obvious. And then you add in the contagion effect of media effect and much of the trend becomes recognizable.

And this is a tough one but those of us raised with "corporal" punishment as kids (me) could learn: any physical punishment like spanking, etc for misbehavior is actually linked to increased likelihood of aggressive behavior down the road. No matter the intent it literally role models violence to young minds. Again, most kids aren't going to then go massacre others because of spanking but a subset of kids raised in houses that use corporal punishment are more prone to be violent. One of our weaknesses as humans is we tend to replicate the bad along with the good, and that includes causing others pain. We've known that for decades with evidence from domestic abuse as victims often become abusers, without significant intervention. The mechanism is different for physical punishment but sadly the lesson of violence sticks. And that is often coupled with other major problems and indicators from anti-social behavior to serious, lasting trauma, especially since some parents escalate the physical punishment as it predictably becomes less effective over time.


----------



## Vanilla

I grew up in a house with a lot of guns. My dad owned 20-30 guns at any given time. I had access to all of them if I wanted. Gun safes were not a common thing back then. We had wood and glass gun cabinets, but that was the extent of it. And all the guns didn’t fit in there, so not all were secured. Things were different back then, no doubt. But I never went and played with them as I knew I could go shoot with my dad whenever I wanted. There was no mystery. No reason to go grab them or mess with them. Thankfully, I did not have suicidal ideations. One of my best friends got into his dad’s guns, took one of his handguns, and died by suicide by shooting himself in the head when we were 13 years old. It was a complete shock to all of us. No real warning signs I could see at 13. So the worry about protecting children is not lost on me.

Our experiences are our expertise. We all have different ones too. My experiences have not led me to worry about the safety of my children, my family, or my community based upon the guns I own. They are as secured as possible. I try to take the mystery out of them by talking about it, letting my kids handle them, and go and shoot every so often. (Not nearly enough!) 

Responsible gun ownership, however, is not the issue we’re trying to address as a nation. Well, most of us, at least. Some even on this forum would very much like that to not even be a possibility.


----------



## bfr

So, a “subset of kids” are going to learn to be violent from corporal punishment that hasn’t been deemed acceptable for 20+ years. For years many teachers have coached kids to call CPS if they are punished, then blame parents for kids misbehaving in class. If the current shootings were remotely connected to corporal punishment in the home, it would have gone on long before the 2000s. There has always been a subset of people, kids and adults who have no moral compass and will commit heinous crimes. 
Growing up I got my butt whooped, sometimes seriously, can’t sit down whooped. I understood that actions have consequences, I did wrong, I got whooped, period. 
In 1968 I was drafted into the US Army, guess what……..I was taught to kill people, not only that but was taught to be good at it and be proud of doing it. Some will say that was war time. Yes it was but when we came home we weren’t deprogrammed, we were turned loose into a society that hated us, disrespected and insulted us. Some went off the deep end for whatever reason but the majority has reasonably rejoined society. All had something in common, we all grew up with corporal punishment. 
Actions have consequences, one way or another. We are seeing some of them way too often. Restricting law abiding citizens will not deter criminals, 20+ years working in a prison has taught me that. Criminals will be criminals, that’s who they are.


----------



## Ray

backcountry, leave your guns in a safe in your house, then take your bolts, or slides into
A safety deposit box.

I’d like to see some little snot nosed kid figure that one out!


----------



## APD

Ray said:


> backcountry, leave your guns in a safe in your house, then take your bolts, or slides into
> A safety deposit box.
> 
> I’d like to see some little snot nosed kid figure that one out!


Can we have a pink flag law? Like if someone is about to do something irrevocable, like destroying firearms, we can help them out by taking them to a safe place until the person comes to their senses.


----------



## backcountry

bfr said:


> So, a “subset of kids” are going to learn to be violent from corporal punishment that hasn’t been deemed acceptable for 20+ years. For years many teachers have coached kids to call CPS if they are punished, then blame parents for kids misbehaving in class. If the current shootings were remotely connected to corporal punishment in the home, it would have gone on long before the 2000s. There has always been a subset of people, kids and adults who have no moral compass and will commit heinous crimes.
> Growing up I got my butt whooped, sometimes seriously, can’t sit down whooped. I understood that actions have consequences, I did wrong, I got whooped, period.
> In 1968 I was drafted into the US Army, guess what……..I was taught to kill people, not only that but was taught to be good at it and be proud of doing it. Some will say that was war time. Yes it was but when we came home we weren’t deprogrammed, we were turned loose into a society that hated us, disrespected and insulted us. Some went off the deep end for whatever reason but the majority has reasonably rejoined society. All had something in common, we all grew up with corporal punishment.
> Actions have consequences, one way or another. We are seeing some of them way too often. Restricting law abiding citizens will not deter criminals, 20+ years working in a prison has taught me that. Criminals will be criminals, that’s who they are.


I don't think most people here are talking about generically restricting law abiding citizens from anything really. Only thing that seems to have interest is a minimum age for assault weapons but the ruling in May makes that highly unlikely.

Per corporal punishment of children, it only came up because another user mentioned it as a possible deterrent. But the science isn't subtle on how unlikely that punishment is to illicit desired behavior. The only big study to find any benefit showed it only lasted temporarily, which is logical.

Study after study shows physical punishment is linked with negative outcomes, not positive. Not only is aggression likely to increase but it is correlated with future issues like becoming a domestic abuser. The negative effects are widespread.

Many people don't succumb to those issues but teaching kids that the costs of mistakes is causing completely unrelated pain is the last thing we want young men to learn if we are hoping to decrease mass murders. They replicate it. Anger from parents is very common during such punishment and the subconscious lesson that sticks for many kids is that when they get angry, from disappointing behavior from peers, the righteous thing to do is hurt others. We see this play out all the time in peer to peer violence like bullying.

I'm not calling for any civic program on this issue but simply pointing out we have data based reasons to reject physical punishment as an option for prevention. What is needed is something completely different given most of these young men ultimately see these events as suicide.


----------



## Ray

APD said:


> Can we have a pink flag law? Like if someone is about to do something irrevocable, like destroying firearms, we can help them out by taking them to a safe place until the person comes to their senses.


😂 now that’s a bill I could get behind!


----------



## Ray

I know I finished my last comment off with a joke but it is a serious recommendation, if you remove a key component and put it into a safety deposit box, you will never have to worry about it, it would be impossible to fire.

with your shotgun, you take the trigger group, rifle take the bolt, handgun (if you have one) take the slide. You won’t have to stop hunting.

the annual fee, depending on the size of the box, the bank, or even location of a branch, will typically be anywhere from $15-$150. That’s incredibly affordable and you get to keep a passion


----------



## taxidermist

Educating kids at a young age, taking the mystery out of the weapon, letting them handle it, and taking them shooting *In a safe setting *(as Vanilla has said) is a great start. Locking weapons up in a *dang good safe *needs to happen as well! If you can spend thousands of dollars on weapons, why cant you spend the same on a thick, fireproof, heavy steel safe?? I'm sorry Ray, I don't agree with the safe deposit box at a bank with gun parts sitting in it making every weapon in your possession incapable of firing. If someone breaks into your home at night, you going to ask them to be patient and wait for the bank to open so you get the slide to your .45 ACP so you can defend your home, family, and all you've worked for?

I saw in the news that the "administration" is pushing for age restrictions on AR platform weapons, from 18 to 21 years of age to purchase. But it's OK to train a Marine recruit of 18 to handle the same weapon and be very sufficient with it in the taking of human life's??? If this is the case, better raise the age of enlisting in the armed forces to 21. 

There isn't a one rule/law "fix all" that will work. Dip Chits have, and will, continue to act out in similar ways we are seeing play out in the media. It's sad and horrific! I see the pain these acts take on the victims families. It needs to start at home first.


----------



## Ray

taxidermist said:


> Educating kids at a young age, taking the mystery out of the weapon, letting them handle it, and taking them shooting *In a safe setting *(as Vanilla has said) is a great start. Locking weapons up in a *dang good safe *needs to happen as well! If you can spend thousands of dollars on weapons, why cant you spend the same on a thick, fireproof, heavy steel safe?? I'm sorry Ray, I don't agree with the safe deposit box at a bank with gun parts sitting in it making every weapon in your possession incapable of firing. If someone breaks into your home at night, you going to ask them to be patient and wait for the bank to open so you get the slide to your .45 ACP so you can defend your home, family, and all you've worked for?
> 
> I saw in the news that the "administration" is pushing for age restrictions on AR platform weapons, from 18 to 21 years of age to purchase. But it's OK to train a Marine recruit of 18 to handle the same weapon and be very sufficient with it in the taking of human life's??? If this is the case, better raise the age of enlisting in the armed forces to 21.
> 
> There isn't a one rule/law "fix all" that will work. Dip Chits have, and will, continue to act out in similar ways we are seeing play out in the media. It's sad and horrific! I see the pain these acts take on the victims families. It needs to start at home first.


Preaching to the choir, good sir. I’m not saying I’d do it, or everyone else should, I came up with a solution for one individual that’s wrestling with the idea of stopping hunting, I don’t want to see that.

so rather than having him destroy all of his guns and never hunt again, I came up a solution that would render his guns inoperable, when not in the field.


----------



## taxidermist

Ray said:


> Preaching to the choir, good sir. I’m not saying I’d do it, or everyone else should, I came up with a solution for one individual that’s wrestling with the idea of stopping hunting, I don’t want to see that.
> 
> so rather than having him destroy all of his guns and never hunt again, I came up a solution that would render his guns inoperable, when not in the field.


Understand completely. Maybe offer to house the guns at your place for him??


----------



## backcountry

He's talking about me, and we don't know each other beyond the forum. I'm definitely considering the alternative recommendations I've seen here.


----------



## Vanilla

taxidermist said:


> Understand completely. Maybe offer to house the guns at your place for him??


I want to buy a bunch of new ATVs and a toy hauler for hunting, but don’t have room to store them. Can I bring them to your place to take care of and I’ll come pick them up only as I want to use them?


----------



## Ray

Vanilla said:


> I want to buy a bunch of new ATVs and a toy hauler for hunting, but don’t have room to store them. Can I bring them to your place to take care of and I’ll come pick them up only as I want to use them?


You can drop them off at my place, good sir!


----------



## Vanilla

Ray said:


> You can drop them off at my place, good sir!


I’m going to put the keys in a safe deposit box at the bank so you don’t use them! 😂


----------



## taxidermist

Vanilla said:


> I want to buy a bunch of new ATVs and a toy hauler for hunting, but don’t have room to store them. Can I bring them to your place to take care of and I’ll come pick them up only as I want to use them?


Absolutely! I have plenty of room to take whatever you need stored. I don't do it for free though. Either you pay a monthly fee, or, I'll make sure they are running and operating just fine.


----------

