Should have to show citizenship to purchase firearms. That citizenship could then be flagged with mental health/criminality alerts that might highly restrict, if not outright bar, firearm ownership. Schools and their staff need to be trained concerning mental health issues associated with violent outcomes. Reporting of possible issues should be frequently stressed as mandatory. Crazy should not keep firearms, period. Amend the 2nd if that’s required. Use strong language that protects the right to keep arms outside of violent criminal records/mental health diagnosis. And then insert language to keep those violent criminals and disturbed individuals from being able to legally obtain arms. The problem isn’t semi-automatic rifles. This kid/guy could have carried out a bloody massacre with two handguns.
Then use that precedent to allow for PROOF of citizenship, and flagged restrictions, for voting…
Both sides irritate me. Despite the sadness of the tragedy, this is far from a common experience. You would expect children would be barred anywhere near a road. I also do not like the idea that because terror occurs, we should be willing to reflexively snuff out what are supposedly inherent rights. Sorry, but we should take the same stance we do with this fellow’s actions as we would with a foreign terrorist. We don’t blindly give up liberties and freedoms in the face of ANY acts of terror. Be the aggressor a single crazy citizen, or a foreign collection of crazies, we don’t change ourselves blindly out of fear. We must cherish liberty, often in the face of security. At the same time, I hate the idea that common sense can not be prevail in amending the 2nd, if need be. Crazy and violent should not be able to legally obtain firearms. Strengthen the language concerning the right to keep and bear arms outside of those two issues (crazy and violent), in exchange for language allowing a background check that has three disqualifying flags (crazy/violent/non-citizen).
I realize we are on the same page but here’s the thing, when someone is shooting at you and there are no police in sight then what use is the protection of the government? It would be better if guns were never invented, but they exist so there isn’t an easy solution and the best one that I can see is for people to be able to defend themselves. You can only regulate who legally owns guns, the majority of murders by guns around the world are not done with legally owned guns.
That’s what people are not realizing, while 17 murders in a school is horrible and shocking it is still just a drop in the bucket. Look at Venezuela, a few years ago they passed some laws to restrict gun ownership and sales and the murder rate is now higher than ever. All that taking guns away from law abiding citizens does is empower criminals. Criminals still have access to guns, even in relatively peaceful places like Canada, they just have no choice but to go the illegal route to get them.
Are you of the opinion that the ability to get access to illegal firearms isn’t changed by tighter gun laws? Or that the lower access for criminals isn’t worth the lower access for everyone else?
I absolutely believe that more concealed carry means safer streets. On the otherhand I think better training requirements would be an improvement, especially for a federal level permit. Like Col. Jeff Cooper said, (paraphrasing here) buying a gun doesn’t make a man armed anymore than buying a guitar makes him a musician.
As far as my age requirements, I think an exemption for military service would be appropriate. Hopefully the nuts would be weeded out pretty quick, but the Air Force certainly screwed the pooch with that piece of shit who shot up the church in texas.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the part about it would be better if guns weren’t invented. Before there were guns there were swords and dirty peasants like you and I weren’t allowed to own or carry them. They were in large part tools for the aristocracy to keep filthy scum like us in line.
How else is a woman living alone going to defend herself from a man?
The total number of guns available to criminals in a place where guns are not easily obtained might be lower, but that doesn’t make much difference. People share guns, rent or lend them out, the same gun is often used in multiple shootings by multiple people. Less access to guns for everyone else just makes it easier for criminals to prey on the rest of society. Criminals in America might have an easier time getting guns, but the murder rate is still nowhere near some other nearby countries. There are other factors involved.
Access to tools that can cause enough carnage to become an instant celebrity. Infamy is still fame to an angry “loser.” One can go from being a faceless and nameless outcast to the center of a national conversation within minutes. All while unloading a lifetime of anger and ‘revenge.’ The kid is now a historical figure. Might his moment of rage passed had he faced the possibility of only killing 1 or 2, if any, people? Risking lifetime imprisonment, or death, for a rather forgettable crime in history? Perhaps Cruz might have let his moment pass him by had he not had the proper tool to guarantee his rise to celebrity status.
I have never heard that before, where was this? But still, guns made it easier to kill people and in the places with the most killing going on it’s mostly done with guns. And in many parts of the world it is not easy to get guns legally and you can’t carry them, only police and certain security personnel (like the ones protecting the current aristocracy) can carry guns.
I don’t really see that as a valid argument here. What is the number of cases where a woman living alone has used a gun to defend herself from a man vs. the number of deaths caused by firearms?
Sitting around angry and brooding while playing a lot of Doom isn’t illegal. Fantasizing about having your picture all over the nightly news for shooting up your classmates isn’t illegal. Being an angry narcissist with nihilistic tendencies isn’t illegal. When we look at some of these disturbed individuals, like the Columbine shooters, it’s very difficult to proactively determine the level of potential violence. Angry and antisocial people aren’t always mentally ill. And people have due process. This makes some of the policy related to this very difficult.
I’m not saying we can’t do better. Apparently the FL school was aware that he was a disturbed person. He was expelled. School staff was asked to alert the administration if he was seen on campus with a backpack. Apparently, they feared he might bring a weapon. Neighbors reported him, so forth…
I’m not a LEO, but I’m not sure what is available in terms of mental health for parents who call in and say that they have a very disturbed teen, particularly if there’s been no sign of a physical threat YET.
Historically, the most effective way for discouraging and when necessary defending one’s citizens from armed attackers had been to train/arm your own people with like weapons. Hence the formation of armies, armed police forces, and armed security guards.
If it’s important, protect it. We already do this for courthouses and governments to name a few, why not schools?
Protect the kids first, work on the problem after that.
Edited for spelling
I did not know that and it’s good to hear. Did the armed guard make a difference? i.e, did he help prevent a tragic event for being even more tragic? [quote=“pfury, post:220, topic:239320”]
I really liked someone’s previous idea of sending reservists/military. It’s not like we don’t have room in the inifinite defense budget
[/quote]
I completely agree with this idea, it makes stunningly good sense to use your troops to protect your own.