Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #48941
    Quote Originally Posted by misterpuk View Post
    I'd bet a dollar that's not a 228. It might have 228 grips, but that frame/barrell is almost certainly a 229. Check that barrell, is it stamped 229-1?
    The newer guns are 229ish, yeah. They're not REALLY 229's from Ye Olden Days. The frame of the 228/ 229 was the same, the 228 had the stamped carbon slide, the 229 the milled stainless. They made some small changes to the frames when Germany got all bitchy and they switched to US made. The M11-a1 has the US frame, and one piece slide (not stamped) along with the newer parts which from everything I've heard are cheaper but okay compared to original German parts that were better.

    So yeah, you're right, it's the same as current 229's. I got the threaded barrel model and it comes default with SRT& short trigger, but it was an impulse buy since I couldn't find a real 228 when I was looking. The flipside is that the original 2 piece slides, which were lighter, never had a good finish on them. A guy I knew that was in er, some branch investigative something. They used M11's, but weren't active duty. He said the ones they had got refinished so often that the markings were barely visible.

    Now you've got me thinking I should track down an old one, but I never see the West German stamped ones for good prices anymore. I should have bought a P6 years ago...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Heck, the spot on the top of the barrel where they remove the finish, has little speckles of rust already. Stupid SIG.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  2. #48942
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    A wave of new gun law proposals are sweeping the nation after the Fla shooting. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...m-efforts.html In the interactive map provided in the link, you can move your mouse over your state to see which bills those are for and see the bill number if you want to contact your representative to ether support or not support a bill. In Ohio, 4 new bills have been introduced. Of course this does not mean any of them will be passed.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  3. #48943
    Why is it always motions to instate stricter gun control rather than motions to improve mental health services whenever a guy who's clearly mentally ill shoots up a school?

    It's so lopsided towards restricting guns. That's how it seems to me. Seems suspicious as fuck.

  4. #48944
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Stromgarde View Post
    Why is it always motions to instate stricter gun control rather than motions to improve mental health services whenever a guy who's clearly mentally ill shoots up a school?

    It's so lopsided towards restricting guns. That's how it seems to me. Seems suspicious as fuck.
    Some feel like it is a easier solution ( for a quick political fix ) to blame the tool rather than the person.

    If you are referring to the post I made right above you, some of those new bills will actually make possessing a firearm easier. Like one bill in Ohio, removes the duty to retreat if attacked in public. A Stand your Ground law. In NH one bill would prohibit local restrictions which go beyond what the state allows.
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2018-03-15 at 11:39 PM.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  5. #48945
    Quote Originally Posted by Stromgarde View Post
    Why is it always motions to instate stricter gun control rather than motions to improve mental health services whenever a guy who's clearly mentally ill shoots up a school?

    It's so lopsided towards restricting guns. That's how it seems to me. Seems suspicious as fuck.
    Actually one of the discussions on a gun board was talking about how, since the discussion shifts to a guncontrol agenda (which is very divisive), nothing actually gets done. It's like the other thread about some of the measures to improve school security and folks fixate on how it's worthless since it doesn't have gun control. If they can't have gun control, why bother with anything...

    It's all just very political at times, very tiresome.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  6. #48946
    Quote Originally Posted by Stromgarde View Post
    Why is it always motions to instate stricter gun control rather than motions to improve mental health services whenever a guy who's clearly mentally ill shoots up a school?

    It's so lopsided towards restricting guns. That's how it seems to me. Seems suspicious as fuck.
    Health care in the US, especially mental health care, is completely fucked.

    Half of the government got elected on a promise to repeal Obamacare. Huge groups of elected officials and influential conservative thinkers believe we would be better off with a completely free market system wherein those who can afford it are the only ones treated, and we should be reliant on things like churches and community activist groups to fund healthcare for the poor who can't afford it themselves.

    Why are we to believe Republicans would be willing to commit a penny to mental health causes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  7. #48947
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post

    Why are we to believe Republicans would be willing to commit a penny to mental health causes?
    Hell if this is about the feasibility of getting changes in while Repubcs are in office, then yes I think gunning for improved mental health care is a lot more realistic than trying to take people's guns away.

    Nevertheless, the fact that no real discussion on this has started happening is shitty no matter how you look at it. If the only thing we could accomplish is getting people to talk more openly about mental health in general and improving mental health services, then that's already progress.

  8. #48948
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Stromgarde View Post
    Hell if this is about the feasibility of getting changes in while Repubcs are in office, then yes I think gunning for improved mental health care is a lot more realistic than trying to take people's guns away.

    Nevertheless, the fact that no real discussion on this has started happening is shitty no matter how you look at it. If the only thing we could accomplish is getting people to talk more openly about mental health in general and improving mental health services, then that's already progress.
    Mental health care is something that's incredibly hard to standardize. A lot of mental health problems stem from poor social networks, and many people don't seek help. Compared to taking guns away, addressing mental health is a much harder problem that involves more mandatory and constitutionally questionable legislation. And like gun control measures, there's no guarantee that any of it will work. Actually, I would say that there is far less of a guarantee. Not every mass shooter has mental health problems, but every mass shooter has a gun.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    Health care in the US, especially mental health care, is completely fucked.

    Half of the government got elected on a promise to repeal Obamacare. Huge groups of elected officials and influential conservative thinkers believe we would be better off with a completely free market system wherein those who can afford it are the only ones treated, and we should be reliant on things like churches and community activist groups to fund healthcare for the poor who can't afford it themselves.

    Why are we to believe Republicans would be willing to commit a penny to mental health causes?
    How exactly is it fucked? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

    For example; I have pretty shitty health insurance, and I can go see a therapist 12 times a year for free and unlimited times thereafter for a $20 copay. That isn't terribly expensive. Beyond forcing people to see therapists, what solutions are actually being proposed to address mental health problems? I haven't seen any.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Some feel like it is a easier solution ( for a quick political fix ) to blame the tool rather than the person.

    If you are referring to the post I made right above you, some of those new bills will actually make possessing a firearm easier. Like one bill in Ohio, removes the duty to retreat if attacked in public. A Stand your Ground law. In NH one bill would prohibit local restrictions which go beyond what the state allows.
    Or maybe 'mental health solutions' is something that everyone likes to talk about, but nobody actually has an executable plan for. Gun control is simple and straightforward. Ban the especially dangerous ones. While I'm certain that improvements can be made in mental healthcare, I have yet to see anyone provide an actual plan, or evidence that it would reduce mass shootings at all. On the gun control side of the argument, we at least have examples of countries that have implemented gun control laws.

  9. #48949
    Quote Originally Posted by Stromgarde View Post
    Why is it always motions to instate stricter gun control rather than motions to improve mental health services whenever a guy who's clearly mentally ill shoots up a school?

    It's so lopsided towards restricting guns. That's how it seems to me. Seems suspicious as fuck.
    Because the leftist causeheads don't really have the specific problem in mind... it's an opportunity to push for disarmament policy, so anything that's directed at the specific problem and bypasses their big political wishlist item is of zero interest whatsoever. That is not to say, mind you, they don't care about the shooting on a visceral human level, but politically it's just a means to an end.

  10. #48950
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Actually one of the discussions on a gun board was talking about how, since the discussion shifts to a guncontrol agenda (which is very divisive), nothing actually gets done. It's like the other thread about some of the measures to improve school security and folks fixate on how it's worthless since it doesn't have gun control. If they can't have gun control, why bother with anything...

    It's all just very political at times, very tiresome.
    I think this is a case of seeing what you want to see. People don't like measures to increase school security because they always include a proliferation of firearms. There's no evidence that having armed security guards will help (there have been several school shootings with armed security present; the guard is either killed first or refuses to go toe to toe with an AR-wielding psycho for obvious reasons). It's just a shitty bandaid 'fix' that will probably only make things worse as emotionally charged students and teachers have better access to firearms.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Because the leftist causeheads don't really have the specific problem in mind... it's an opportunity to push for disarmament policy, so anything that's directed at the specific problem and bypasses their big political wishlist item is of zero interest whatsoever. That is not to say, mind you, they don't care about the shooting on a visceral human level, but politically it's just a means to an end.
    Or 'alternative solutions' like arming teachers and addressing mental health are shitty and have no evidence to support them. In some cases, these 'solutions' would probably make things worse, and thus they are policies that need to be opposed.

  11. #48951
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Mental health care is something that's incredibly hard to standardize. A lot of mental health problems stem from poor social networks, and many people don't seek help. Compared to taking guns away, addressing mental health is a much harder problem that involves more mandatory and constitutionally questionable legislation. And like gun control measures, there's no guarantee that any of it will work. Actually, I would say that there is far less of a guarantee. Not every mass shooter has mental health problems, but every mass shooter has a gun.
    I see what you're saying, but to even get to the point where we start to address mental health problems, we need to start talking about them and make it socially acceptable to be open about mental health problems. We're nowhere near that. Right now, it doesn't seem like it's on anyone's radar, Republican or Democrat.

    Just as a conclusive note, I'm not excusing anyone or absolving a shooter's blame by calling them mentally ill, nor am I implying you think that. I definitely think we need strict gun control laws in this country, and at least an assault rifle ban while giving properly vetted people the chance of owning sidearms.

  12. #48952
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    How exactly is it fucked? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

    For example; I have pretty shitty health insurance, and I can go see a therapist 12 times a year for free and unlimited times thereafter for a $20 copay. That isn't terribly expensive. Beyond forcing people to see therapists, what solutions are actually being proposed to address mental health problems? I haven't seen any.
    That is by no means bad insurance.

    I have reasonably good insurance, and I have a separate $1500 deductible for every member of my family before my insurance even starts to pay out.

    For proposed solutions, I have seen "Repeal HIPAA" floated seriously, as well as involuntary commitment for potentially violent people. Both are a bridge too far IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  13. #48953
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Or 'alternative solutions' like arming teachers and addressing mental health are shitty and have no evidence to support them. In some cases, these 'solutions' would probably make things worse, and thus they are policies that need to be opposed.
    Well there are few more proven failures at preventing people from being the victim of violent crime than banning instrumentalities of armed self-defense.

  14. #48954
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    I think this is a case of seeing what you want to see. People don't like measures to increase school security because they always include a proliferation of firearms. There's no evidence that having armed security guards will help (there have been several school shootings with armed security present; the guard is either killed first or refuses to go toe to toe with an AR-wielding psycho for obvious reasons). It's just a shitty bandaid 'fix' that will probably only make things worse as emotionally charged students and teachers have better access to firearms.

    - - - Updated - - -
    False. https://www.investors.com/politics/e...e-saved-lives/

    The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library.

    Harris and Klebold also carried improvised explosive devices, some that detonated, others that didn't. One thing is certain — the armed resistance of Gardner and his backup bought time and saved lives.

    There is no way of knowing how many lives were saved that day by an armed sheriff's deputy, and how many would have been slaughtered if nobody had been there with a gun at all.

    We have noted that days before Sandy Hook, an armed citizen stopped a shooter threatening a massacre at a mall in Clackamas, Ore. It echoed what happened in 2007 during a rampage in Trolley Square, Utah, which was put to an end after an officer who was on a date with his wife, confronted the shooter and kept the 18-year-old shooter pinned down until more police arrived and killed the shooter.
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2018-03-16 at 12:28 PM.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  15. #48955
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Or 'alternative solutions' like arming teachers and addressing mental health are shitty and have no evidence to support them. In some cases, these 'solutions' would probably make things worse, and thus they are policies that need to be opposed.
    I'm not the one that's fixated on solving a non problem... I know it's sad, but statistically a non problem.

  16. #48956
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Delana View Post
    I'm not the one that's fixated on solving a non problem... I know it's sad, but statistically a non problem.
    True. This causes far more preventable death's of children than school shootings. A lot more. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ckled/5204127/

    "More than 650 children 12 and under were killed in crashes in 2011," Sauber-Schatz said. "That's more than a dozen children every week."
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2018-03-16 at 01:34 PM.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  17. #48957
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Mental health care is something that's incredibly hard to standardize. A lot of mental health problems stem from poor social networks, and many people don't seek help. Compared to taking guns away,
    Right, I see. Its easier to take peoples guns away then to actually identify and offer help to those who need it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    addressing mental health is a much harder problem that involves more mandatory and constitutionally questionable legislation. And like gun control measures, there's no guarantee that any of it will work. Actually, I would say that there is far less of a guarantee.
    Its only hard because nobody wants to do it because of the stigma. If you tell someone you are seeing a therapist they automatically look at you as if you have a problem. Instead they should be applauded for identifying that they may have an issue they are trying to correct. By the way, many people see a therapist just as someone to talk to, not because they have "issues".

    You are right, there is no guarantee, but if we had an acceptable system in place where family, neighbors or friends could go and anonymously report troubled individuals that could be brought in for an evaluation and possible "hospitalization" we could avoid alot of issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Not every mass shooter has mental health problems, but every mass shooter has a gun.
    I beg to differ. You have to have severe problems if you desire to kill/injur dozens of people. That is not a normal behavior to act on. I would argue your issues are even worse if you plan to do it in a school.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    How exactly is it fucked? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

    For example; I have pretty shitty health insurance, and I can go see a therapist 12 times a year for free and unlimited times thereafter for a $20 copay. That isn't terribly expensive.
    HA! I have a $50 copay for each visit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Beyond forcing people to see therapists, what solutions are actually being proposed to address mental health problems? I haven't seen any.
    Open more facilities to treat patients. Remove the stigma of seeing therapists and being in treatment. Create a system where people can have family, neighbors or friends they are worried about be taken for evaluation. Force insurance companies to take a bigger role in covering mental health costs. I know, its not as fucking popular and as big of a right as birth control, or being cover under your parents until 26, but arguably just as or more important.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Or maybe 'mental health solutions' is something that everyone likes to talk about, but nobody actually has an executable plan for. Gun control is simple and straightforward. Ban the especially dangerous ones. While I'm certain that improvements can be made in mental healthcare, I have yet to see anyone provide an actual plan, or evidence that it would reduce mass shootings at all. On the gun control side of the argument, we at least have examples of countries that have implemented gun control laws.
    Gun control isnt simple and straight forward. You mention ban the "dangerous" ones. What are the dangerous ones? I can post links to two different rifles and one will be judged "safe" to allow people to own, the other will be judged "dangerous" yet both will have similar capabilities. When it comes down to it, a ban would only remove the "dangerous" looking rifles, and result in no difference in deaths from rifles. Rifles make up a small percentage of gun deaths anyways, so there are many who are claiming you are barking up the wrong tree.

  18. #48958
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    Its only hard because nobody wants to do it because of the stigma. If you tell someone you are seeing a therapist they automatically look at you as if you have a problem. Instead they should be applauded for identifying that they may have an issue they are trying to correct. By the way, many people see a therapist just as someone to talk to, not because they have "issues".

    You are right, there is no guarantee, but if we had an acceptable system in place where family, neighbors or friends could go and anonymously report troubled individuals that could be brought in for an evaluation and possible "hospitalization" we could avoid alot of issues.

    Open more facilities to treat patients. Remove the stigma of seeing therapists and being in treatment. Create a system where people can have family, neighbors or friends they are worried about be taken for evaluation. Force insurance companies to take a bigger role in covering mental health costs. I know, its not as fucking popular and as big of a right as birth control, or being cover under your parents until 26, but arguably just as or more important.
    None of this solves the two biggest issues with mental health care in the US:

    1) It is exceedingly difficult to get someone to accept treatment against their will. In order to be committed, you need to be an immediate risk to yourself or others. "Sometimes I feel like killing myself" is not enough. "I want to kill myself tonight" is.

    2) HIPAA prevents reporting of any mental health (or other health, for that matter) issues except in cases where it is required to provide medical care, bill a patient, or to report involuntary commitment (see above) to NICS for purposes of background checks.

    What you are suggesting would be considered unlawful imprisonment. Even if it was legal:

    1) Allowing people to anonymously report "loved ones" they are "concerned" about has huge issues. Hey, I am a divorced parent who doesn't want to fight a custody battle, let me anonymously report that my ex-wife is crazy and wants to hurt our children, have her committed, and use the commitment against her in court as a reason I should have custody.

    2) Family and friends reporting loved ones and having them committed is almost never a good situation when the committed person gets back to real life. Unless they were having serious problems and recognize that while in an institution, they will come out bitter and resentful of the loved ones who put them there, which means you now have at-risk people actively retreating from the support system that does essential tasks like checking on them regularly and making sure they stay on their meds.

    3) Family and friends may be less likely to report somebody as having issues if they know that everyone will know their loved one was committed.

    4) None of this does a thing to reduce the social stigma of mental health issues. You can't legislate that, nor can you even really encourage it. The only way that stigma will be reduced is with time. When I was a child growing up and dealing with severe depression issues (severe as in multiple suicide attempts), I was told by my family members, parents included, that I should just "Deal with it like everyone else" and "Figure out how to be happy on my own". I was told I didn't need help, or medication, I just needed to man up. Until the generations that push that type of thinking are out of the public discourse about mental health, we will never see that social stigma fade.

    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    Gun control isnt simple and straight forward. You mention ban the "dangerous" ones. What are the dangerous ones? I can post links to two different rifles and one will be judged "safe" to allow people to own, the other will be judged "dangerous" yet both will have similar capabilities. When it comes down to it, a ban would only remove the "dangerous" looking rifles, and result in no difference in deaths from rifles. Rifles make up a small percentage of gun deaths anyways, so there are many who are claiming you are barking up the wrong tree.
    Which is why gun control should be focused on three things:

    1) Elimination of private transfer absent an FFL dealer. Straw purchasing is illegal already, but very difficult to identify and enforce. If all non-FFL transfers were illegal on their face, there would be no question about whether a given purchase was for personal use or a straw purchase, they would all be equally criminal. Vastly simplifies enforcement.

    2) Strengthening of background check enforcement. Require the reporting agencies to update their information to NICS whenever a person has an update, good or bad. Levy exceedingly (and increasingly) heavy fines for anyone failing to do so, both on the individual and the organization level.

    Let's say hypothetically NYPD arrests somebody for domestic violence, doesn't report, the offender buys a gun and shoots their spouse. The individual officer who made the arrest and wrote up the report, the individual officer who is responsible for updating to NICS, and the NYPD in general would all be fined for noncompliance. The fines should increase for subsequent violations by the same entities (so a separate incident with a different arresting officer and a different reporting officer would be hit with the same fine as the first officers, but the fine to the NYPD in general would increase substantially).

    3) Add a Pass/Fail, Must-Report system to people seeking mental health care for issues associated with dissociative disorders, violent tendencies, sociopathy, etc. These individuals would be reported to NICS and would fail a background check, and would then be able to appeal this decision in court if desired. They would be required to be examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist, and would be adjudicated as mentally fit to possess a firearm. That decision could be appealed in higher courts like any other ruling. Include SSDI beneficiaries with mental health issues who have a third party manage their benefits (essentially the Obama regulation that Trump repealed).

    With those three systems in place, we would be in the best possible position to prevent people from getting guns that obviously should not have guns. When people talk about near-universally agreeable, "common sense gun control", this is the kind of thing they are talking about (at least the people I have spoken to, including politicians here in CT).

    I personally would go one step further:

    1) Mandatory firearms safety and marksmanship training required in order to obtain a Gun License. This Gun License would be issued by the Federal Government on a Shall-Issue basis for anyone completing the training and passing an exam. There would be no fee to the citizen for the training or licensing. The exam would include both a written and practical portion, require 80% correct or better on the written portion, and require perfect gun discipline (not perfect marksmanship) to pass the practical. Get 3 questions wrong on a 20 question test and you are fine. Inadvertently point the barrel of your gun at anything you aren't immediately prepared to shoot, fail to put the safety on when finished, fail to clear the chamber before storing the gun, etc - immediate failure of the practical portion. This would only need to be completed once in the lifetime of the individual.

    I would also have a Federal level CCW permit, on a Shall Issue basis, separate from the basic exam. The CCW permit would require a free training course, and the permit would be paid for by the citizen. This would be valid nationwide, and would replace individual state CCW permits. This would need to be renewed every 5 years.

    This ensures that all of the law-abiding citizens who purchase guns know how to use and store them safely and responsibly. It also ensures that all of the law-abiding citizens who wish to carry guns on their person in public know how to do so safely, responsibly, and legally, and eliminates any issues stemming from non-reciprocity of existing CCW permits.

    Once all that is done, we have made sure that dangerous individuals who shouldn't have guns can't get them legally, that everyone who buys a gun legally has an understanding of how to use guns safely and responsibly, and that everyone who regularly carries guns knows how to do so safely, responsibly, and legally, and can do so nationwide without fear of violating local laws when traveling.

    If all that was enacted tomorrow, we could prevent a LOT of avoidable gun violence and accidental deaths.

    We will never prevent all gun violence, because criminals who operate outside the law will continue to operate outside the law, but this would at least be a good start.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  19. #48959
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    I think this is a case of seeing what you want to see. People don't like measures to increase school security because they always include a proliferation of firearms. There's no evidence that having armed security guards will help (there have been several school shootings with armed security present; the guard is either killed first or refuses to go toe to toe with an AR-wielding psycho for obvious reasons). It's just a shitty bandaid 'fix' that will probably only make things worse as emotionally charged students and teachers have better access to firearms.
    It seems like you're fixated on the guns, so you are willing to let nothing else happen just because you can't get gun control...
    You don't trust a teacher to choose to carry a concealed gun, so what other methods would you use to increase security at a school? Bullet proof windows seems a sensible enough thing, certainly, but what about the simple solution of a checkpoint, only having one entrance? I mean, obviously the classroom doors shouldn't be just hanging open during class, so if you had someone at the cameras (and didn't have the cameras on a 20 minute delay for some inexplicable reason) you could easily lock someone out. I agree it does cost money, so lets come together and find that money.

    Oh, wait, that doesn't have gun control in it, so it's not worth doing. Even if the same policies would aid against other interactions in a school, it doesn't involve gun control so screw the kids.

    "Kids shouldn't have to study in a closed campus", why? They don't have some "right" to feelings. You want to remove MY guns because of what someone else did, but you won't remove their off-campus lunchs or anything to make them safer. Seems logical. I guess the democrats can just do nothing until the next tragedy so they can use that to push their agenda some more.

    Or 'alternative solutions' like arming teachers and addressing mental health are shitty and have no evidence to support them. In some cases, these 'solutions' would probably make things worse, and thus they are policies that need to be opposed.
    Mental Health, in so far as it affects many people that otherwise cannot support themselves, should be a major issue regardless of school violence. We already have disability programs that are federally linked, but homelessness/ drug addiction are generally local things. Broadening that to anyone having mental issues would be expensive, so both sides need to come together to find the money.

    I think a big part of the issue though is how subjective mental health is. We really can't quantify "how crazy" someone is.

    The main thing is, people should be discussing mental issues all the time, not saying "we aren't going to talk about this because it doesn't have gun control in it". Why don't the democrats that are all "free health care for everyone!" stand up and submit a bill that increases mental health care? Why isn't Bernie campaigning for such a plan? The republicans say it needs to happen, but instead of the democrats calling them on it and submitting a fucking bill, they change the topic to gun control. It's pitiful. And that's even knowing that the Republicans probably wouldn't vote for the bill if the democrats DID submit it. But we won't know, since the Democrats don't care.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  20. #48960
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    1) Allowing people to anonymously report "loved ones" they are "concerned" about has huge issues. Hey, I am a divorced parent who doesn't want to fight a custody battle, let me anonymously report that my ex-wife is crazy and wants to hurt our children, have her committed, and use the commitment against her in court as a reason I should have custody.
    There's also a general feeling of distrust that "a liberal doctor" (government psychologist) would be impartial in deciding if you should have a gun anyway. I don't mean the militiamen out in the hills who don't trust gubmint. I mean the corporate culture of medical professionals that believe guns are a problem and no one should have them, so if you are applying for a gun or defending your possesion of a gun, they might view that as a defect on it's own. "Subject needs to have his gun rights revoked, he has paranoid delusions that his gun is the only thing standing between the government and tyranny. Also believes he needs a gun for self defense, when it's well known that you don't."

    1) Elimination of private transfer absent an FFL dealer. Straw purchasing is illegal already, but very difficult to identify and enforce. If all non-FFL transfers were illegal on their face, there would be no question about whether a given purchase was for personal use or a straw purchase, they would all be equally criminal. Vastly simplifies enforcement.
    I'd still prefer a call in system, rather than an FFL being involved, and I'm not sure why folks want to involve FFL's. An exemption for card-carrying folks too (CWL or whatnot). The straw purchases aren't hard to prove though. ATF just doesn't bother. They need BIG cases, they want the guy that trafficed 100 guns, not the guy that bought 5 for his buddies. Maybe things have changed, but I doubt it. The ATF doesn't give a damn, I dealt with them often enough.

    Part of it makes sense though. They need to use their resources where they can. The federal prosecution is expensive and they don't want to "waste" the time on some guy that did a few guns here or there. They have X agents and Y prosecutors, not including the money if they have to pay for the Defense also. Same with the "private sellers" that are in gunshows in some locales. ATF knows who they are, knows what they're doing, doesn't give a damn.

    There's also that California study, since they have such a "go to FFL" system that just shows more guns reported stolen...

    2) Strengthening of background check enforcement. Require the reporting agencies to update their information to NICS whenever a person has an update, good or bad. Levy exceedingly (and increasingly) heavy fines for anyone failing to do so, both on the individual and the organization level.
    One of the frustrating things was the NICS (FDLE) non-approvals. You have someone fill out a form, they sign it. You do a background check, they get a non-approval, because one of the questions, they lied. Maybe it's a simple error, maybe it's not. Once again, ATF doesn't give a damn. 1 out of 1000 they might stop by and ask to see the form, and they actually RESENT having to do it! You have a felon that tried to buy a gun, and they resent having to investigate the deal. It's a waste of their time, even if that person most likely just went elsewhere and bought a gun illegally/ black market/ straw purchase.

    There was a change to the NFA process (silencers, machineguns, Short barrel rifles/ shotguns) in 2016. They wanted to redo how a Trust or Corporation buys stuff. Supposedly this was flagged because a guy tried to buy one personally, and was denied due to felony. He then (being the brilliant guy he is) submitted a Trust with his name... So they redesign the entire NFA system to make sure everyone on a trust has a complete record search (not just the NICS that was done to that point).

    But they didn't investigate that guy. They refused the transfer, for a silencer, but didn't go to that guys house to investigate. Who knows what other guns he might have had, it's not worth their time.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •