|
Post by AlanC on Feb 15, 2018 14:29:09 GMT -5
I will bring this up for discussion and hope that no one gets too worked up and denigrates the intelligence, parentage, or motives of a fellow forumite. I will freely admit that I don't have the intelligence or the data that would be required to "fix" this horrible problem. I do wish there were some way to make it better but I just don't know what it would take. I ran across this article and I thought it was worth discussing. www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mclaughlin-parkland-shooting-20180215-story.htmlHe realizes that just focusing on guns alone won't even make a dent in this plague. I don't have a problem with reinstating the "assault rifle" ban. Yes, yes, we all know that is a misnomer and very imprecise but just think of it as "Crescent wrench", "Skil saw" and "Xerox machine". Sometimes a certain word or phrase becomes so ingrained and established that it is not worth the effort to try to correct it anymore. I will be more specific and say that I wouldn't oppose a ban on magazines over 5 rounds. This goes along with what McLaughlin said about large numbers of us willing to give up rights that we don't care about although others very much do. I know quite a few people who will be incensed and not comply. I don't think such a ban would do a damn thing to stop the mass killings but it would make many feel better at least until the next shooting. After that, the calls for more restrictive measures would begin and we would start down that oft discussed slippery slope. Let me turn my attention to his mention of restricting due process for certain people. Here is where another large portion of the populace gets their toes trampled upon. I would guess that Libertarians and Progressives would not want to sign off on "Jack Booted Thugs" pounding on doors in the middle of the night even if they were responding to a tip about illegal "Assault Rifles". What about- in our Brave, New, Crazy World- an AI dedicated to searching social media and other sources for people who fit our latest killer's profile- A highly unstable individual with a legal AR15 (or similar stash)? Would you be OK with the authorities paying him a visit in force (ala Waco but hopefully with better outcome) in order to confiscate any weapons found until a hearing or assessment could be performed? McLaughlin mentioned that it would be prohibitively expensive to provide a trained guard for schools. But would it really? Why can't we have teachers that are thoroughly vetted and trained who have a secure locker with body armor and weapons. Does he think that there are no veterans who would be willing to be a teacher and a sworn officer of the law? How much would that additional cost be? Is it really prohibitive? What about if the parents pitched in? I would donate to my grandchildrens school. There has got to be a plan that will help. Really sad here in Florida
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Feb 15, 2018 15:32:13 GMT -5
The answer is to create secure egress points at schools with security and find the budget for that. But, the nuts will just go to the mall, or the concert, or the whatever. I wonder if in 10 years we will even have centralized schools like we currently have?
Yep - probably going to have to do some profiling, reward offering, and break a few proactive eggs as part of the plan.
Other than that I'm with you - maybe ban stuff on a 6-12 month trial basis that reverts without certain benchmarks and lets see the stats when the dust settles. Won't stop or deter anything IMO but I'm sure someone will feel better and someone will get paid.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Feb 15, 2018 15:37:11 GMT -5
Home schooling! I'm betting those shootings are rare enough (though that genre has its share of evil kooks.)
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 15, 2018 15:46:04 GMT -5
Would that there was such a plan.
My study of security topics started out with the plain fact that there is no defense against a lone attacker who expects to be killed in the attack. Thwarting a lone wolf attack requires massive surveillance and pure luck. The goal of security is to harden potential targets such that attacking them is too expensive and hopeless to be worth attacking when there are softer targets available. I heard that there were police of some sort at the school. I don't know if they were armed but either way, they can't be everywhere and the attack appears to have been well planned. Triggering a second fire alarm for the day was a masterful step. I hope they fry the bastard. Meanwhile, nothing short of military-style compounds around schools would slow these shootings down and even that might not stop them. Military installations get attacked, sometimes successfully. Sadly, if you were to harden the schools, the nuts would just hit softer targets like clubs or athletic fields or anywhere in the open. Don't expect a master plan from the FBI or State police. They already know there is no defense against a lone wolf who plans to be killed. It was in the first chapter of the book.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Feb 16, 2018 8:53:59 GMT -5
I'm no angel but I fear to tread here as well.
I've thought about it and I don't know what to do. I'll add a few thoughts to the mix.
Once upon a time, legislative bodies engaged in fact-finding to determine the best solutions for problems. That was before we substituted ideology for facts and got all gridlocked up. I'd like to see hearings at which legislators listened to people who actually know something. We might find that there are some steps we could take that would help without unduly harming ordinary gun owners.
I own a number of guns and was once an NRA member. The NRA's approach to all this seems counterproductive to me. When the twentieth century dawned, Europe was still largely ruled by hereditary monarchies. The British nobles realized that they needed to compromise to avoid revolution and they survived, after a fashion. The Romanovs and others wouldn't budge and they're gone. The NRA's uncompromising position reminds me of the Romanovs. Resposible gun owners had better be prepared to bend if they don't want to break.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 9:05:53 GMT -5
If I thought banning anything but evil would work, I'd be all for it.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 16, 2018 9:11:34 GMT -5
The militia doesn't seem to be very well regulated.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 16, 2018 9:16:15 GMT -5
This morning on my friend, Mark's, fb page there were two comments offered by two guys who desperately want gun control and believe they are on the same team.
MARK: "...there is no good argument for ownership of assault rifles (etc) by the general public."
...and the very next post was by Jim...
JIM: "No one is proposing taking away your guns."
Mark and Jim believe they are making the same argument. But it illustrates that there might be room for compromise, but it isn't just the gun owners who are going to have to do so.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 16, 2018 9:18:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Feb 16, 2018 9:18:42 GMT -5
Everyone seems to agree that there is a mental health component to these. It seems to me that letting the CDC study gun violence would be a fairly simple starting point.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 16, 2018 9:19:36 GMT -5
... Meanwhile, nothing short of military-style compounds around schools would slow these shootings down and even that might not stop them. Military installations get attacked, sometimes successfully. Sadly, if you were to harden the schools, the nuts would just hit softer targets like clubs or athletic fields or anywhere in the open. Don't expect a master plan from the FBI or State police. They already know there is no defense against a lone wolf who plans to be killed. It was in the first chapter of the book. Sure, assuming no gun control, or change from the present SNAFU. After an incident or two of what has become a regularity in the US, some other countries changed their laws. The US? Naw. A while back, after Vegas, one member here posted that they have a bump stock. What a nice toy, yeah...? Something that you can actually use responsibly?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 16, 2018 9:37:46 GMT -5
It seems to me that letting the CDC study gun violence would be a fairly simple starting point. I'd like to see hearings at which legislators listened to people who actually know something. Great ideas, but I'm guessing that the problem is that we can already guess with almost 100% certainty what either study would conclude. I don't know how you'd do either of those with the expectation of objectivity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 10:18:35 GMT -5
The militia doesn't seem to be very well regulated. You're absolutely right. Gun free zone. What could this fuckwad have been thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Feb 16, 2018 10:31:19 GMT -5
After spending 20 years in and a round schools, listening to people who have not been in a school for 30-50 years talk about how they would solve the problem is...problematic.
The idea of securing a school that has over 3000 kids in daily is rediculous. Kids open doors for their friends, teachers prop open doors so they can bring in supplies, pta members are constantly bringing in food, projects etc. Field trips and science shows and health practioneers (school nurses) are in and out all the time and human nature dictates they will take the shortest course between where they need to be. This goes on all day long every single day in every large school in America, also, at most large high schools, there is already a school resource officer (police officer) onsite. Federal and State mandated fire drills mean every few months the entire school emptys out and 3000 kids and teachers stand outside in fields and parking lots for a half hour or so. The idea of hardening the schools is a joke.
The second news flash is the vast majority of teachers did not enter the profession to pack a gun and get in a fire fight. They, and plenty of parents, don't even want their kids around guns. obviously this changes a bit from say, Casper WY compared to the Pacific Palisades.
So what is the answer with more guns on the streets now than people in the country?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 16, 2018 10:42:37 GMT -5
Well, Tom. We could easily spiral down this path. There's a facebook mime today that says, "Isn't it strange how mental illness hardly massacres anyone in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom?"
And to your comment, Mike, a friend of mine is a substitute teacher. He went to a school yesterday afternoon (4,000 enrollment) to pick up something. He parked on the wrong side of the school for the one secure door. He walked up to a nearby door and knocked on it. A teacher passing by popped it open for him. He thanked the guy. Then said, "I guess you weren't supposed to do that." The teacher said, "I don't want to talk about it," and walked away.
And reportedly the perp in Florida walked in the door and pulled the fire alarm so the halls were immediately filled with students trying to evacuate the building like they were told.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Feb 16, 2018 10:49:41 GMT -5
Mike, I've been in many schools in recent years and I agree that they can't be all that well secured. Besides, the problem isn't limited to schools.
I don't think that restrictions on particular kinds of firearms would have that much effect. If this killer had used my bolt-action deer rifle, he could have killed a lot of people in a fairly short time. Some restrictions on the kinds of firearms wouldn't bother me if they might do some good. Unless I'm mistaken, it's been illegal to possess a Thompson submachine gun all my life. That restriction didn't lead to everyone's hunting rifles being seized. So I'm not an absolutist on this point but I don't think such restrictions would get to the core of the problem.
I think the core of the problem is that we don't want mentally troubled people getting such firearms. I don't know how well we can identify the dangerous people in advance at this point, or how much that ability might be improved if we made it a priority to get better at it. If we are or could be good enough at such screening, we might make it a prerequisite to owning firearms. If we can't do it very well, that wouldn't be a good solution.
Maybe if we looked into the issue more we might find that a combination of things might be the best solution available.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 16, 2018 10:55:29 GMT -5
Yes, there has to be an investigation into how this mentally ill guy got his hands on an AR-15. Somebody needs to be held accountable for that. His parents? Gun store owner? Lax coordination between government agencies charged with tracking this kind of information.
There needs to be serious penalties for those that allow a person with a track record like this to get his hands on such lethal tools.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Feb 16, 2018 11:16:00 GMT -5
Yes, there has to be an investigation into how this mentally ill guy got his hands on an AR-15. Somebody needs to be held accountable for that. His parents? Gun store owner? Lax coordination between government agencies charged with tracking this kind of information. There needs to be serious penalties for those that allow a person with a track record like this to get his hands on such lethal tools. Trump and the republicans revearsed Obama era legislation that kept guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 16, 2018 11:26:08 GMT -5
We may have a firearm regulation problem, but solving that is not the answer.
We certainly have mental health problems, but solving them is not the answer, either.
We surely have some security vulnerabilities in our schools, but solving them is not the answer, either.
What we have is a problem with our souls. We have developed a culture that has managed to somehow simultaneously glorify, sensationalize, and trivialize violence in general, and gun violence in particular. We've got too many kids with absent parents, and too many parents and teachers who won't do the things that instill moral courage and discipline (or are not allowed to do so). We treasure our victimhood, and we're more concerned with preserving our rights than actually doing what's right.
So I think we should try to sensibly and constitutionally manage our access and use of firearms, and we should try to find more resources for the mentally ill, and we should be sure sensible and efficient protections are in place for our schools and other institutions. All of those things are good, and even noble. But the big solution doesn't lie in changing our circumstances; it lies in changing our hearts. I fear no one really wants to address that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 11:33:02 GMT -5
Yes, there has to be an investigation into how this mentally ill guy got his hands on an AR-15. Somebody needs to be held accountable for that. His parents? Gun store owner? Lax coordination between government agencies charged with tracking this kind of information. There needs to be serious penalties for those that allow a person with a track record like this to get his hands on such lethal tools. Trump and the republicans revearsed Obama era legislation that kept guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Mike Did they? Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? The mentally ill are well protected by liberals, however. As are the politicians with their armed body guards. Anyone want to go where angels truly dare to tread? The constitution and the 2nd amendment haven't changed in the last couple hundred years. So what changes have taken place in the last thirty or forty have led to such a disregard for life? Let's blame those bitter clingers. Must be their fault.
|
|