Need more guns. Is it local?

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

An old school conservative issues a debate challenge in which he begs the question in exactly the way liberals and progressives would prefer: there is a problem about which the federal government must do something. And then to address it, posits a false dichotomy giving us a choice from the options that so called progressives and liberals pretty much always favor: more taxes and/or less freedom.

 

Be it rhetorical flimflam or satire, it's an interesting specimen.

[Beavah]

Yah, Callooh Callay!. I wasn't proposin' a dichotomy. I was just wonderin' if any of you new-school "conservatives" could be anything other than the Party of No.

 

I don't care what solution yeh propose. Just propose one. I reckon I've floated at least a half-dozen off da cuff, and I don't think any of 'em suggested a federal program da way the NRA proposed.

 

So can yeh join da effort with your fellow Americans and struggle to come up with solutions, or are yeh some loony mutterin' about da Second Amendment and worryin' about bein' da wannabe cop protectin' folks from da invading hordes?

 

Only caveat is that solutions have to be realistic. No "improve mental health" without payin' for it. No claimin' to be in favor of personal responsibility without steppin' up to be responsible. Yeh can reject federal programs, but then yeh have to make da free market work or have da states take up the slack.

 

So same challenge to you, eh? Can yeh offer a set of credible solutions? Or are you as well just da Party of No?

 

Us true old school conservatives believe in workin' together to solve problems. How 'bout you?

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

You continue to beg the question (original meaning BTW - not the one folks ascribe to it lately).

 

I'm not convinced there is a problem to which it makes any sense to propose one of your old school conservative type solutions.

 

You and the old school posse exhort me "Forward!"

I respond with an eloquent... "huh?"

And you bluster "Well then, you propose a way forward! Or are you part of the problem?"

 

And of course, as a member of the "party of no" I say "no."

 

Perhaps instead of loony muttering about the second amendment, you'd accept simple reference to it?

 

Cops by the way, are law enforcement officers. They are not generally trained or equipped to protect us from invading hordes unless in addition to being law enforcement officers they've coincidentally had military training. And they're not manned to be there when we need their help unlocking the two separate safes in which some folks think we ought to keep our ammo and our guns. Bad guys look to do bad things when armed representatives of the state aren't around to stop them. The good old progressive liberal values of preparedness and self reliance still have a place in this modern new old school conservative world of yours.

 

[sailingpj]

Beavah, I love this game.

 

We have a problem, lets wipe the slate clean and come up with a solution.

 

As I see it this is the problem. 1) People who are mentally unstable have on several occasions used guns to kill people. 2) Criminals use guns to commit crime.

 

If we can agree that those are the two main problems that we wish to examine, then lets do so and move on to the constraints that must be placed upon our solution.

1) The essence of the 2nd amendment must be upheld.

2) Any extra cost must be accounted for somewhere.

3)The police are not meant to be used for home protection.

4) What else? Any other constraints or can we move on to solutions?

 

(This message has been edited by sailingpj)(This message has been edited by sailingpj)

[JoeBob]

Beavah, I totally disagree with your assumption that TAXES should be a vehicle for cultural change.

 

We have too much government as it is. Mass shootings in schools have increased five-fold since schools were made 'gun free zones.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with you that armed guards aren't a good solution. Allowing school personnel the option of concealed carry would be much more effective, and cost nothing.(This message has been edited by JoeBob)

[Beavah]

JoeBob, I wasn't proposing taxes as a solution. I was simply makin' the point that you can't propose a big federal program of armed guards in the schools like the NRA did without paying for them. That yeh can't propose "fix da mental health problem" without paying for fixing the mental health problem. Doesn't need to be "taxes". Can be broader mandates for mental health coverage in da private insurance market or Obamacare. But somehow, some way, somebody needs to bear the costs. Preferably not our grandkids.

 

Callooh, as I've said before, if yeh really believe in da risk of invading hordes then yeh need to run, not walk, to a mental health professional. And yeh definitely should not be allowed to handle a firearm. Da fellow in the theater was a criminal. He was detained by off-duty law enforcement officers. That's as it should be, it was a law enforcement matter.

 

If yeh find being da top country for innocent people getting killed by firearms (outside of active war zones) is somethin' that makes yeh proud to be an American; if yeh feel it represents our country well to be featured in da international news on a regular basis for school shooting tragedies then "do nothing" is an appropriate choice. Is that really you? In that case, keep sayin' "no". The rest of us are just goin' to dismiss that as bein' nutters and outvote you.

 

SailingPJ, I think those are da rough outlines. I'd say da problems are:

 

1) We see large numbers of incidents of people in acute or chronic mental health situations use firearms to harm or threaten innocent folks. Mass shootings, sure, but also lots of road rage, shootin' the boss who fired you, etc.

 

2) We see a fair number of accidental/mishandling accidents with firearms, particularly among youth.

 

3) We see hugely disproportionate violent crime with guns compared to comparable nations with comparable crime rates, with da consequence of hugely disproportionate deaths and serious injuries.

 

Each of those is a separate problem, I reckon, with separate solutions. In terms of constraints, I wouldn't overconstrain things.

 

1) We want to continue to allow responsible, law abiding citizens to own and use firearms as a hobby or pastime (hunting, range practice, sport shooting, etc.).

2) We want to at least allow folks with legitimate security needs, appropriate training & proficiency, etc. to have proper defensive firearms (ex. off duty LEOs, etc.).

3) Costs for solutions must be fully paid without borrowing.

4) Costs should be borne by those benefiting, not by society as a whole.

 

I suppose da last one is negotiable, but I'd like to try to keep it rather than allow for a general public "bailout".

 

Beavah

[boomerscout]

Firearms shooting is not the only hobby that causes an expense to the public at large. Rock climbers not reporting back in cause large numbers of S&R people to go out and look, thereby using up taxpayer dollars in wages and equip wear. Much the same can be said when crowded pleasure boats out on the water start to sink, sports cars crash into crowds of pedestrians at a street market, race cars flip over the fence into the stands, private planes crash into houses, people at rock concerts get crushed in the riots, food at picnics poisons many...

This is going to be unpopular, but while the murders at Newtown sickened me, I blame the teachers and admin. staff. We entrust our children to their care; cowering in a closet or restroom hardly seems to be a protective act.

Teachers, as lead by the NEA and AFT, claim they have the intelligence to be in charge of our children. Yet, after Columbine, after Aurora, after the childrens' camp in Norway, nothing much has changed. This school staff didn't even have any TASERS. Whether they choose to carry or not, basic firearms training should be a pre-req to receiving a teaching certificate. Our kids deserve at least this much.

There are those who claim the 2nd amendment is outmoded because pistols and rifles are outmoded against air assault. If I remember correctly, the VC didn't much use air assault. Nor have those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Prez sends in one drone strike after another; the bad guys should all be gone by now??

There is not always a sharp dividing line between mentally ill and mentally well. It is frequently quite fuzzy. It is also, many times, not permanent. Any person could be well one day, over the edge the next, and back to being a pillar of the community the day after. What is judged sane in one group may be judged insane by some other group at the same time.

 

"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act." --Marko Kloos

 

Gun violence is increasing in "gun-free" societies such as England.

Disclaimer: The NRA Basic Pistol course was the best $30 I've ever spent. I do not own any firearms at this time.

 

 

[Beavah]

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

 

Yah, I reckon this is da problem, eh? When someone who is experiencing a mental health crisis has a gun, it is very difficult to deal with him by force. The likelihood of an elementary school teacher being able to taser a fellow in body armor snapping off rounds from an AR-15 is pretty low, don't yeh think? Same with Mrs. Octogenarian pullin' off a head shot in a crowded classroom of screaming kindergarteners.

 

Da notion that some armed teacher with $30 worth of training a few years ago is goin' to safely and responsibly take out their Glock and shoot the student perp in da midst of an unexpected crowded melee is just nuts. It's Hollywood fantasyland.

 

Yep, there are aviation and auto accidents which merit emergency response. That's why those activities are regulated, eh? To limit da public exposure, and ensure that those piloting aircraft or driving cars have at least a reasonable level of proficiency before we hand 'em the keys. Those activities are also taxed through fuel taxes and license fees and such. Are yeh proposing that kind of regulation and taxation for firearms, boomerscout? That would be one way to address da issue.

 

Outdoors recreationists like Boy Scouts, rock climbers, etc. also trigger SAR responses, and we generally do cover those with volunteer and general public dollars, though the trend is toward charging victims or implementing some form of user fee support like da backcountry permit system in Colorado. Where it's not done by user fees, it's done by da general taxpayer to encourage tourism and other activity, eh? The local economies benefit by havin' outdoor recreationists come to visit, so a portion of that economic activity is taxed to provide support for the tourists. Yeh can propose that, but make da argument that it's necessary and fair for everyone to foot the bill.

 

Beavah

 

[JoeBob]

Someone suggested requiring teachers to take firearms training. I think that's a complete no-go. But allowing school personnel who are comfortable with firearms to take additional training to certify their competence, and then carry at school should almost eliminate the problem.

 

It's the element of uncertainty that deters the Bad Guys. They don't go to police stations and gun stores to kill people. They go where they know that no one will be shooting back: schools and 'Gun Free' theaters.

 

The proposal to increase the penalties for carrying a gun near a school is just bass-ackwards. In NONE of the mass shootings on record would a longer jail term have deterred a shooter from choosing that particular target. The Dems are just making it damn sure that schools are safe targets for future crazies.

 

 

****

Has the thought occurred to anyone else that maybe the Gun Control people won't consider common sense approaches because if the problem gets solved without to total elimination of guns, they won't have reached their goal?

[Twocubdad]

Legitimate (that is, non-rhetorical) question, Beav:

 

My neighbor's 12-y.o. son takes his dad's non-secured gun out from behind the nightstand and decides to see if he can shoot it. He can. In the process a stray round shoots off my left pinkie-toe while I relax in my backyard lounger. What prevents me from suing the snot out of my neighbor?

 

How is that any different for any other stupid activity the boy may engage in such as taking the family car and running over my right pinkie-toe or playing with matches and burning down my house? Does any general liability coverage the family might have treat the negligent use of a firearm any differently from a car or matches?

 

Is is not true that as a general proposition, intentional and/or criminal acts are not covered by insurance?

 

 

[gsdad]

Since the shootings in Aurora and Newtown I have taught eleven of my liberal minded friends and family to shoot and took them to my local gun dealers to pick out a firearm. In four cases they bought more than one firearm, and have applied for and received their PA license to carry. Seven of them have joined the gun club where I taught them to shoot. Their reasons varied from their distrust in society as a whole, to exercising a right while they can. They are still liberal minded and our opinions still contradict each other on most politcial and social issues.

 

The VP at one of my children's school was a Marine Officer and we touched on the subject of school personnel carrying. It came about as my daughter has shown him pictures of the deer she shot, and of her shooting with me. There are no less than fifteen employees in the school with combat experience and three with civilian LE experience. They range from custodians, to kitchen staff, teachers's aide, to principal. They would all be willing if allowed, and offered to take the required training on their own time and carry concealed, or at least have available firearms in the school.

 

I am not for mandating it, but if teachers or other school personnel are willing and able to do it, where is the harm?

[scoutingagain]

"but if teachers or other school personnel are willing and able to do it, where is the harm? "

 

Agreed, one part of an answer might be to have appropriately trained and qualified personnel armed or with access to a weapon to defend a school or other location. However this should be a last line of defense. This still means someone has gotten into the school with a weapon and is firing on or about to fire on students/people. The other part of the equation as has been pointed out is the confluence of metally disturbed people getting their hands on guns. While increasing the defense capability in schools may be one part of the answer we also need to look at the other end. How do we keep firearms out of the hands of metally disturbed people? Or at least make it more difficult for them to get their hands on guns? Is there any reason to believe that the individuals involved in recent mass shootings would not use fully automatic weapons if they could get them? For some reason they are not using maching guns. Why? If we can keep machine guns out of their hands, why can't we keep semi-automatic weapons out of their hands?

 

Or as noted, we can just say oh well, the best we can do is arm more people and just with the mentally disturbed with guns when they start shooting?

 

SA

 

 

[packsaddle]

A big student at the middle school is overcome by hormones and anger about something and in the middle of the day, she pulls a knife and starts screaming and making verbal threats at everyone around her. The coach, the custodian, the assistant principal, and one of the nearby teachers produce their concealed weapons and take aim. The assistant principal is scared to death to the point of shaking. The kid is so angry she doesn't care about her own life and sees the chance to let the staff do the deed for her so she charges right at the assistant principal. You think this girl deserves to die?

 

[sailingpj]

How about a state by state registration system? Like DMV? Annual registration, and when you re-register your gun they run your name through the system to make sure you are not flagged for any reason that would disqualify you from owning a gun. Those state agencies could also manage CCWs and permits for some of the more exotic firearms.

[Beavah]

My neighbor's 12-y.o. son takes his dad's non-secured gun out from behind the nightstand and decides to see if he can shoot it. He can. In the process a stray round shoots off my left pinkie-toe while I relax in my backyard lounger. What prevents me from suing the snot out of my neighbor?

 

That kind of liability is complimicated, TwoCubDad. States take varying views on da responsibility of parents for da criminal or negligent actions of their offspring; often parental liability is quite limited. Cars are different because da law is fairly well established that insurance and liability rest with da vehicle owner. Absent legislation about securin' guns from minors, it's unclear whether leavin' a loaded gun around da house is negligent at all. Some folks here on da forums would call it normative, because they want their 12-year-old to be able to defend da household against the invading hordes. Heck, it's unclear that giving a lad his own pistol and high-capacity magazines is negligent. And I reckon we want to be cautious and thoughtful as well, because there are lots of teens in my state who have their own hunting rifles and pellet guns and such, so legislation which isn't thoughtful and careful can start to get pretty insane.

 

Additionally, lots of folks are largely judgment-proof, in that they do not have da resources to pay for their personal negligence. Or, as in da Sandy Hook mess, da parent was the first to be gunned down and isn't available to sue. That's why insurance or surety/risk bonds up front might be a good idea, da same way many states require auto insurance or risk bonds for driving or vehicle registration. It ensures that folks who act negligently can meet their obligation to make the people they hurt whole again.

 

Beavah