Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

I'm more of the opinion that we need to enforce existing laws, improve background checks, outlaw private transfer to remove any possibility of ambiguity regarding straw purchasers, institute NICS reporting for mental health patients (on a pass/fail basis only, no specific diagnosis details, to preserve HIPAA) and mentally disabled SSDI beneficiaries with third-party recipients (they would be denied initial sale and referred to a court hearing where they would be adjudicated as mentally competent and subsequently removed from NICS if so).

That's stage 1. Stage 1 could also include commonly suggested fixes like size limits on removable magazines. Barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts and the like are cosmetic features, don't bother restricting them, it would be useless.

Stage 2 is federal CCW permitting, on a shall issue basis, conditional upon training, testing, and a background check, paid by the individual. This is a 5 year license, with renewals required, a retest required if lapsed over 180 days, and retraining required if lapsed over 2 years or if the retest is failed.

Stage 3 is federal gun ownership permitting, on a shall issue basis, conditional upon training, testing, and a background check, paid by the state. Courses would need to be freely and widely available, completable in 1 day, and existing NRA and state programs would qualify and be grandfathered. This is where the first 2A challenges come in.

Stage 4 is federal registration. This is where civil war starts if public opinion hasn't turned.

Once all that is done, in the exceedingly unlikely event we still have a gun violence problem with guns purchased legally, then maybe we restrict specific guns.

Can Congress pass a law which requires the states to pay for something? They usually provide funding assist as a min when they do pass something like that. Or am I forgetting something? I am certainly not a law expert.

It is not that there would be a civil war over registration. There would be outright refusal to do it for millions of firearms.

Handguns are involved by far in more gun deaths than rifles of any kind are. So what you going to do, try to ban handguns? That would fail because SCOTUS has already ruled it would be Unconstitutional with Chicago and D.C. when they tried to. You could restrict it to only handguns which have a capacity of 8 rounds, or less. But that would not really solve it.

[cubby]

Could we start anew? We are on the wrong foot, so to speak, and that's as much my fault as yours.

The issue really is that there is no end to new gun laws. They won't be enforced any more than the current ones, so they really only hinder law abiding folks that follow the laws. I won't get a bump stock (don't want one anyway), but someone convinced by the news that they're basically machineguns will have no problem finding the methods to get one.

This is point #4 that I left off above (and honestly forgot about). You are entirely correct - we have gun laws on the books that are woefully unenforced.

It is obvious that the antigunners want to ban everything in private hands, neo-feudalists that only want their personal knights to be armed. They know they can't achieve that, so they continually chip away. Now they are going directly for the NRA, which has compromised so many times, and portraying them as terrorists with blood on their hands. Why compromise further? Why bother with the many NRA backed bills that improved NICS and that Democrats blocked at every turn?

I want to go on the record, as an "antigunner", and say that I do not want to ban everything in private hands. I understand from speaking with a number of gun rights' advocates that this is a major issue.

It's something that I think is a huge misunderstanding between the two groups. I can explain, at least my position, if you'd like.

[Ghostpanther]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There's your answer.

Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case several years ago, the Second Amendment could be used as a right for self defense apart from a militia.

There is your legal answer.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue really is that there is no end to new gun laws. They won't be enforced any more than the current ones, so they really only hinder law abiding folks that follow the laws. I won't get a bump stock (don't want one anyway), but someone convinced by the news that they're basically machineguns will have no problem finding the methods to get one.

It is obvious that the antigunners want to ban everything in private hands, neo-feudalists that only want their personal knights to be armed. They know they can't achieve that, so they continually chip away. Now they are going directly for the NRA, which has compromised so many times, and portraying them as terrorists with blood on their hands. Why compromise further? Why bother with the many NRA backed bills that improved NICS and that Democrats blocked at every turn?

It's so very pointless to explain things to people that are intentionally ignorant. Their entire task is to lump folks into "Other" so that they can dismiss everything entirely.

Yeah, I see your point and do agree in principle. I think we are overall, on the same page. While you may not agree with banning bumpstocks.

[Svifnymr]

This is a perfect example of why your arguments can't be taken seriously, ever. You can't even keep your continually ridiculous arguments straight while lying and shrilling for the NRA. At this point it's just pathetic.

There is no gun show loophole. Years ago, Florida passed a law intending to close this non-existent loophole. There are no private sales allowed on public access property. This has had no effect on anything, anywhere, at all. There has never been anyone convicted of breaking this law. Your lack of understanding about what the quotes mean speaks to your closemindedness in this entire discussion from the start, so go ahead and call me an NRA shill all you want. You're still wrong.

What laws kept him from getting and possessing the gun?

None kept him from it, since they weren't used. I assume you meant what laws WOULD have, if utilized?
Baker act could have had him committed for his many attempts to harm himself or others. Domestic violence charges would have also been appropriate. Any court record tied to similar charges would also have disqualified him under Florida law until the age of 25 even if he had not been restricted under one of those specific federal disqualifications.

Whichever conspiracy theory you want to follow, none were used. Contrast with his brother being held on $50,000 bond for simple tresspassing after the fact, shows they could have done plenty if they had wanted to.

Let me ask you a question, from the other direction. I'll answer the reverse, too, if that makes sense after seeing mine.

What gun control regulations would you be in favor of instituting?

I'd love a couple voluntary things that should be inoffensive to anyone. An NICS for private use, Pass or See Dealer. A system to subsidize safes or something like a small safe with a lo-jack type deal that could be available for free. Preventing gun theft is important.

I'd be for the National Concealed License Antiganon has discussed, and I'd also be for some sort of open-carry rules prohibiting it within city limits but allowing in rural/ wooded areas.

I also think they should remove the Hughes amendment and allow new machineguns to be registered. The National Firearms Act handled them well enough from 1934 to 1986 with no problems, it's just stupid to ban something already restricted. As part of this, include bump stocks as machineguns, but allowing them to be registered.

And of course, Silencers should be treated as title-1 firearms rather than NFA.

[cubby]

I'd love a couple voluntary things that should be inoffensive to anyone. An NICS for private use, Pass or See Dealer. A system to subsidize safes or something like a small safe with a lo-jack type deal that could be available for free. Preventing gun theft is important.

Is there any room to make them not voluntary, but required by law? I'm asking because I'm not sure I understand the NICS for private use, Pass or See Dealer - what does that mean? I could see the safe system being both a good idea and voluntary - I think good, responsible gun owners would want to have better protection for their property. I agree about gun theft.

I'd be for the National Concealed License Antiganon has discussed, and I'd also be for some sort of open-carry rules prohibiting it within city limits but allowing in rural/ wooded areas.

What about a license to even purchase a gun - not to circumvent the right to own (because like it or not the 2nd isn't going anywhere, @Ghostpanther and others are entirely correct on that front) - but one that represents that you've received proper training and been through a rudimentary background check (or something similar, these are just spitball ideas rather than policy suggestions)?

I also think they should remove the Hughes amendment and allow new machineguns to be registered. The National Firearms Act handled them well enough from 1934 to 1986 with no problems, it's just stupid to ban something already restricted. As part of this, include bump stocks as machineguns, but allowing them to be registered.

Why do people need to own machine guns? And btw, I love to shoot, so I understand how much fun they are to own. I'm just curious (and setting aside our previous and very recent vitriol, I'm not looking for an opening to attack - I'm just curious).

And of course, Silencers should be treated as title-1 firearms rather than NFA.

Agreed. I understand that one big benefit of silencers is that they help protect hearing when shooting at a range or other areas.

[Svifnymr]

Maybe you go on NICS and lose your 2A rights if you have a repeatedly demonstrated inability to secure your arms in such a way that they aren't stolen?

Possible, but it goes back to "will ATF care?" stuff. You'd need to prove that the person failed in some meaningful way. As I mentioned before (though the topic didn't get any traction), one of the issues is calling something a felony with a huge penalty, it gives a big burden of proof and costs $ to prosecute.

Lets say the first instance of stolen guns costs you $500 unless you prove you have a safe. Then the second instance costs you $1000 unless you prove you have an alarm, then third and future is just $1000 a pop. Certainly there will still be some dedicated folks out there shuffling guns, but they'd have to sell a $400 gun for $1400+ legal hassles for it to make sense, right?

As an example though, when I worked at a dealer, a guy came in to purchase a couple guns. He said he had a security firm, and the guns were the proper caliber but not a typical model for uniformed security. They would be fine for undercover security. We completed the multiple-gun-purchase form required by federal law and sent it in. A while later, same guy came in and bought a few more. We sent in same form, and called our local agent who said they'd look into it. After a while, we talked with other dealers who had also dealt with the guys and talked to ATF.

Basically everyone just stopped selling to the guys, so they went further south to other dealers. A year later, we got traces on some of the guns they had bought, and a couple agents came by to collect the forms. Turns out some of the guns had turned up in USVI, and so ATF finally got around to arresting them. They were building the case in USVI, so they were going to fly me there for the trial to testify. Pay me $100 or so a day, put me up in a resort, but the guys settled the case the Friday before I left. Bah, woulda been a nice paid vacation!

Anyway, the point is, dealers are not risking a license for $1000. Dealers go out of their way to try to assist ATF, but they don't care. If a guy buys a gun for his felon buddy, or most commonly a girl buying it for her felon boyfriend, ATF would have to become aware of the situation. The guy is already a felon in possession of a firearm, the girl has already committed a straw purchase. If she claims she didn't know he stole it, you need to prove she did. Or charge her with failure to report. But most of all, you need ATF to actually care about the crime!

[Ghostpanther]

None kept him from it, since they weren't used. I assume you meant what laws WOULD have, if utilized?
Baker act could have had him committed for his many attempts to harm himself or others. Domestic violence charges would have also been appropriate. Any court record tied to similar charges would also have disqualified him under Florida law until the age of 25 even if he had not been restricted under one of those specific federal disqualifications.

Whichever conspiracy theory you want to follow, none were used. Contrast with his brother being held on $50,000 bond for simple tresspassing after the fact, shows they could have done plenty if they had wanted to.



I'd love a couple voluntary things that should be inoffensive to anyone. An NICS for private use, Pass or See Dealer. A system to subsidize safes or something like a small safe with a lo-jack type deal that could be available for free. Preventing gun theft is important.

I'd be for the National Concealed License Antiganon has discussed, and I'd also be for some sort of open-carry rules prohibiting it within city limits but allowing in rural/ wooded areas.

I also think they should remove the Hughes amendment and allow new machineguns to be registered. The National Firearms Act handled them well enough from 1934 to 1986 with no problems, it's just stupid to ban something already restricted. As part of this, include bump stocks as machineguns, but allowing them to be registered.

And of course, Silencers should be treated as title-1 firearms rather than NFA.

There was a lot the authorities could have done to prevent that tragic event. They failed and the media's reaction was to call out for more gun control.

I would also have no issue with Antiganon's suggestion.

If they ban open carry, then they need to allow conceal carry. Or in my opinion it violates the right to bear ( carry ) a firearm if they ban both.

I would have no issues with allowing bumpstocks if they required them to be registered. Good suggestion.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people need to own machine guns? And btw, I love to shoot, so I understand how much fun they are to own.

You answered your question.They are a blast to shoot. I shot all kinds of machine guns when I was in the Army. Still remember it as something a lot of fun to do. But I am not going to spend that much hassle and money to get one.

[Svifnymr]

Yeah, I see your point and do agree in principle. I think we are overall, on the same page. While you may not agree with banning bumpstocks.

You're a Fudd. :-p
Derogatory term for the revolver/ shotgun/ lever gun guys that don't see a need for high tech 60's technology, like Elmer Fudd. I'm mostly kidding...

As I've mentioned before, I see no use for a bumpstock. Spending money to make your gun less accurate while increasing ammo costs, meh. But plenty of people find them fun. Load up some mags and dump bullets into the backstop with a "woohoo!", again meh, whatever.

The issue for me is twofold:
1) The vagueness of the laws/ rules. The Florida thing is a clusterfuck.
2) The idea that we should legislate something that has been around for over 10 years, which is based on a technique that dates back to the 80's, because it was used in 1 high profile crime? Especially given the Vegas situation, the guy had a dozen guns and a lot of money. He could have bought a real machinegun, or a beltfed, or many other things. He also could have gone with a bolt rifle or a crossbow and still killed dozens of fish in the barrel.

It's just silly and reactionary for no reason other than placating people that will never be placated.

[Stormdash]

Did those gun laws protect the kids at Parkland? Or the other dozen school shootings we've had this year? I know the study you're referring to - and you tout it at every turn, but the fact remains that if we remove guns, we remove gun violence. Ask Australia. Ask the U.K. Or are you going to use that asinine argument that they don't have the 2nd so it doesn't count?

The laws didn't protect them because they were not enforced. Not just gun laws, just the general criminal law like those under which Cruz could have been charged with felonies or Baker acted (repeatedly) long before he purchased the weapon, let alone used it.

Exactly. And he shouldn't have. Let's change those laws, k?

Yes, let's murder the relevant facts from the equation and make it about the irrelevant ones. Might as well say it's Eugene Stoner's personal fault for all the rational credibility your argument has. Only the 11th Amendment prevents BSO from being sued for wrongful death over their gross malfeasance handling Cruz prior to the shooting, let alone the policy breach and wanton cowardice of their deputy on the day of.

- - - Updated - - -

More awkward facts -- Machine guns have been prohibitively licensed for 84 years, and their import into and manufacture within the U.S has been prohibited outright since 1986. None of the <200k legally available have ever been used to commit a crime.

[Ghostpanther]

You're a Fudd. :-p
Derogatory term for the revolver/ shotgun/ lever gun guys that don't see a need for high tech 60's technology, like Elmer Fudd. I'm mostly kidding...

As I've mentioned before, I see no use for a bumpstock. Spending money to make your gun less accurate while increasing ammo costs, meh. But plenty of people find them fun. Load up some mags and dump bullets into the backstop with a "woohoo!", again meh, whatever.

The issue for me is twofold:
1) The vagueness of the laws/ rules. The Florida thing is a clusterfuck.
2) The idea that we should legislate something that has been around for over 10 years, which is based on a technique that dates back to the 80's, because it was used in 1 high profile crime? Especially given the Vegas situation, the guy had a dozen guns and a lot of money. He could have bought a real machinegun, or a beltfed, or many other things. He also could have gone with a bolt rifle or a crossbow and still killed dozens of fish in the barrel.

It's just silly and reactionary for no reason other than placating people that will never be placated.

Lol! I do enjoy my older Marlin gold trigger .22 lever action rifle and think revolvers have some nice advantages over a semi-auto pistol. So I have no issues with being called a Fudd. But I also have semi-auto rifles and handguns. So I guess I am a semi-Fudd. lol!

[cubby]

The laws didn't protect them because they were not enforced. Not just gun laws, just the general criminal law like those under which Cruz could have been charged with felonies or Baker acted (repeatedly) long before he purchased the weapon, let alone used it.

Yes, let's murder the relevant facts from the equation and make it about the irrelevant ones. Might as well say it's Eugene Stoner's personal fault for all the rational credibility your argument has. Only the 11th Amendment prevents BSO from being sued for wrongful death over their gross malfeasance handling Cruz prior to the shooting, let alone the policy breach and wanton cowardice of their deputy on the day of.

More awkward facts -- Machine guns have been prohibitively licensed for 84 years, and their import into and manufacture within the U.S has been prohibited outright since 1986. None of the <200k legally available have ever been used to commit a crime.

What new gun regulations would you be in favor of?

(and I agree btw - current ones not being enforced are a major problem)

- - - Updated - - -

. . . let alone the policy breach and wanton cowardice of their deputy on the day of.

Hey, you're smart (no, I'm not being sarcastic) - are there any good numbers/stats on the cost/ramifications of putting LEO's in every school? I'm asking sincerely, just in case that isn't clear.

[Svifnymr]

Is there any room to make them not voluntary, but required by law? I'm asking because I'm not sure I understand the NICS for private use, Pass or See Dealer - what does that mean?

You can fight over mandatory, but voluntary might get passed. The point is to help the situation, not hinder the innocent. Without criminal laws, you still have liability of such a system not being used, even if voluntary. Myself, I sell through dealers for peace of mind. Only time I sell privately is to a buddy or two, whom I know have CWL's and have passed many background checks. What the "universal background check" system requires is for two people who may have known each other a long time, to go to a dealer, pay money, get background. You're hindering folks.

By contrast, a simple website that you input information in and it flags up as "He is approved, here's a number to prove it", or, if there's something wrong with the buyer, it says "Please See Dealer as instant result is not possible". That lets you know that something is off without giving you information about the person that may be private.

What about a license to even purchase a gun - not to circumvent the right to own (because like it or not the 2nd isn't going anywhere, @Ghostpanther and others are entirely correct on that front) - but one that represents that you've received proper training and been through a rudimentary background check (or something similar, these are just spitball ideas rather than policy suggestions)?

What about an ID to vote? :-P

Plenty of states have registration or purchase permits or many other things. Most of those states have more crime. They blame neighboring states, but the neighboring states with easier laws don't have more crime.

Why do people need to own machine guns? And btw, I love to shoot, so I understand how much fun they are to own. I'm just curious (and setting aside our previous and very recent vitriol, I'm not looking for an opening to attack - I'm just curious).

I have a few simple concepts:
1) Any law should affect criminals more than non-criminals.
2) The maxim of "your right to throw a punch ends at my face".
3) The oft-quoted "rights have restrictions, you can't yell fire in a theater" is inaccurate. The fact is you're responsible for the results of your actions. If you yell fire and people run and hurt themselves, you're responsible. If you yell fire in a comical moment and everyone laughs, you've broken no law.

So, no one should have to justify why they NEED something, whether it be a machinegun or a corvette or a boat or a super big gulp. Like alcohol, you don't need to justify why you want the $50 bottle of wine instead of the 4 pack of natural light, and so long as you don't bother anyone I don't care. Cigarettes and explosives are harmful in the normal course of their use, so restrictions make sense.

So yeah, it makes sense to have laws saying you can't shoot across the street at a stop sign, no matter how fun that might be.

It does not make sense to ban something that was regulated from 1934 to 1986 and had no measurable criminal use during that time. You don't NEED a machinegun (though if you're saying the 2nd is about keeping the Militia well armed/ trained, then it seems like the M4 should be the main gun allowed...), but you also don't NEED to ban them, so they should be allowed. Go ahead and make them more expensive perhaps, a $1000 tax for each one made would keep out the plebs, but there's no point to restricting them.

Of course, if you reversed it today, the press would result in a huge surge, so they probably would be used in crime because of all the news, so bleh.

Agreed. I understand that one big benefit of silencers is that they help protect hearing when shooting at a range or other areas.

They reduce the sound of a gunshot from above 140db (not hearing safe) to below it. Usually in the 125-135 db range. 120 db is a chainsaw, for comparison. Except 22lr, they're super quiet, though they're generally under 140 to start with.

[djcoin]

We need more gun violence. There's too many mouths to feed. Hail Hitler.

Infracted

[Svifnymr]

More awkward facts -- Machine guns have been prohibitively licensed for 84 years, and their import into and manufacture within the U.S has been prohibited outright since 1986. None of the <200k legally available have ever been used to commit a crime.

1934 registered them (along with short barreled rifles, sb-shotguns, silencers)
1968 banned import
1986 banned new manufacture of transferables.

I don't like to say none of, because I have heard third hand about some guy that had a registered Uzi and used it in self-defense, but the guy he shot fell and some of the rounds hit him in the back, so they charged the shooter with murder. I have never found the actual case, only "I read that someone" stories, none of which mention the actual disposition and whether the guy got convicted.

Even if true though, 1 "murder" in the 60+ years (I think it even happened after the 86 ban) is just not important.


It's also why I don't trust any of the gun control discussions, since none of them say "lets register assault weapons like NFA" or whatever. Same way they don't reference Canadian gun laws or plenty of the European countries where guns are legal. They always go for bans, or reference Australia (where most guns are banned) while saying they don't want to ban.

And of course, the Slippery Slope.

[Zantos]

Just wanted to state my opinion on a few things. We do need stricter background checks. I wont debate as to how effective I think they would or would not be. I would need to know if the ones who did the mass shootings would have passed those checks. I do believe that the magazine capacity is a pointless one. They'll just carry more magazines. Or make one at home with a 3d printer.

However, I see these as secondary issues. We have far greater issues on gun control then a ban or stricter checks. Its the things that have come to light recently. One of which was a shooter had been reported to the FBI, and they ignored it. Or the one where the police refused to enter the premises of an active shooter. We need better accountability for our law enforcement to get these situations handled.

[cubby]

You can fight over mandatory, but voluntary might get passed. The point is to help the situation, not hinder the innocent. Without criminal laws, you still have liability of such a system not being used, even if voluntary. Myself, I sell through dealers for peace of mind. Only time I sell privately is to a buddy or two, whom I know have CWL's and have passed many background checks. What the "universal background check" system requires is for two people who may have known each other a long time, to go to a dealer, pay money, get background. You're hindering folks.

By contrast, a simple website that you input information in and it flags up as "He is approved, here's a number to prove it", or, if there's something wrong with the buyer, it says "Please See Dealer as instant result is not possible". That lets you know that something is off without giving you information about the person that may be private.

I like it - let's do it. I like the idea of responsible gun dealers selling responsibly too. I hate that the rules right now pretty much push people away from doing these essentially easy background checks on private sales.

What about an ID to vote? :-P

Plenty of states have registration or purchase permits or many other things. Most of those states have more crime. They blame neighboring states, but the neighboring states with easier laws don't have more crime.

I would challenge you to look at the per capita gun crimes of those areas compared to those without similar regulations. The numbers might surprise you.

I have a few simple concepts:
1) Any law should affect criminals more than non-criminals.
2) The maxim of "your right to throw a punch ends at my face".
3) The oft-quoted "rights have restrictions, you can't yell fire in a theater" is inaccurate. The fact is you're responsible for the results of your actions. If you yell fire and people run and hurt themselves, you're responsible. If you yell fire in a comical moment and everyone laughs, you've broken no law.

So, no one should have to justify why they NEED something, whether it be a machinegun or a corvette or a boat or a super big gulp. Like alcohol, you don't need to justify why you want the $50 bottle of wine instead of the 4 pack of natural light, and so long as you don't bother anyone I don't care. Cigarettes and explosives are harmful in the normal course of their use, so restrictions make sense.

So yeah, it makes sense to have laws saying you can't shoot across the street at a stop sign, no matter how fun that might be.

It does not make sense to ban something that was regulated from 1934 to 1986 and had no measurable criminal use during that time. You don't NEED a machinegun (though if you're saying the 2nd is about keeping the Militia well armed/ trained, then it seems like the M4 should be the main gun allowed...), but you also don't NEED to ban them, so they should be allowed. Go ahead and make them more expensive perhaps, a $1000 tax for each one made would keep out the plebs, but there's no point to restricting them.

Of course, if you reversed it today, the press would result in a huge surge, so they probably would be used in crime because of all the news, so bleh.

This might go up as my #5 argument, as I've just learned something new. You make a VERY good point here.

They reduce the sound of a gunshot from above 140db (not hearing safe) to below it. Usually in the 125-135 db range. 120 db is a chainsaw, for comparison. Except 22lr, they're super quiet, though they're generally under 140 to start with.

I think this piece of information, that silencers actually protect people (if you'll excuse the general summary of the point), if my favorite when talking to the gun-regulation nutters on my side of the equation. They just bristle at the idea that their ignorance is wantonly unjustified.

[Stormdash]

What new gun regulations would you be in favor of?

I felt pretty good about the suggestions in this piece by the Federalist, but most of my public policy suggestions on how to correct the dangers of mass shootings would probably not interest you in the least. All else being equal, you basically have a behavioral problem, and you have a deterrent/security problem. Behaviorally, we've got pretty far around the bend with people not valuing life in general -- like perspective on human mortality, our sense of humor and forms of entertainment and above all else our personal opinions have been sterilized of cost to human life and death. Like the 9 year old shooting the 13 year old, does anybody ultimately doubt that on some level that kid assumed that the victim would respawn? Or that the YouTube prank clip would end and she'd get back up? Not because he's mentally defective, but because he's never been made to really think about or face the importance and fragility of life. I have thought this since Kliebold and Harris, there has been a growing existential crisis of really understanding that other people exist and that they, like ourselves, only get the one spin of the wheel.

As a deterrent/security problem, I think permitting -- not mandating, merely permitting -- carry by school faculty or staff, and not to mention just the damn parents showing up in the drop off loop every morning and afternoon, would be sufficient to "harden" the targets. Funny thing about criminal behavior -- getting arrested, tried, convicted, and going to jail, or even being executed, are not actually very effective as behavioral deterrents. Why? Because they are too remote in consequence; the human mind is excellent at rationalizing risk, so the more remote a consequence it, the easier time we have convincing ourselves it won't bite us. So if you are, say, an armed robber, you aren't deterred from shoving a gun in someone's face by the possibility of a 15 year gun enhancement if convicted, because you won't get caught, you'll beat the case, etc. What might deter you? The possibility of getting frakking shot. That's immediate, present, and unavoidable, it's only limited by the random chance it may or may not happen.

With a school shooter, or a mass shooter, the criminal justice system isn't any deterrent whatsoever, because for the most part they are trying to author their own end. What can deter them? The possibility of getting cut off before they can make gory history. Which is, again, the possibility of getting frakking shot.

I also would like to see more robust opportunities for the young to handle and train with firearms and better comprehend their lethality and danger. When I was 9 or 10, a family friend who was a cop in CA took me to a quarry as he took my older sisters before me and I fired his .38 at a gallon jug of red kool-aid with a face drawn on it, until I hit it. There was something very clear and final and definite about watching that face vanish in a red spray that convinced me that a gun is damn serious business, way bigger than handling a nail gun or other power tools, or the car. I question, I suppose, if the generation that invented texting and driving really "gets" how much damage they can do with a gun handled irresponsibly if they have never even been taught to understand it about their car. And, yeah, I do think there's a value to knowing the seriousness of the business to even damaged people weighing the costs of using it to vent their rage. The same way people will be careful with eggs even when they are angry, or that they'll punch or kick a relatively unbreakable surface and not plate glass even when really flipping out.

I probably TL;DR'd at start of two paragraphs ago so I'll just digress.

Hey, you're smart (no, I'm not being sarcastic) - are there any good numbers/stats on the cost/ramifications of putting LEO's in every school? I'm asking sincerely, just in case that isn't clear.

None whatsoever. I know I can't remember a time when they weren't basically universal in Florida. Maybe some schools share one, but as far as I personally observed or know about in my community, SROs are a fact of life in public schools in Florida. They're nominally there to support staff in handling behavioral or criminal matters of the normal degree, but they never stop being "real" cops and they have "real" cop responsibilities, including running toward the gunfire the way a firefighter does toward the fire.

[sarahtasher]

Again a basic observation for ''good guys with guns'' proponents.

A extremely vague agitprop argument pushed by the NRA is that in 1980(1) ''2 millions'' American defended themselves with a gun. That statistic is constantly pushed. I will be charitable and take it at face value. There are huge problems with that figure....

The most basic one is the huge gap between those numbers and the precise stories the NRA is able to push out. Let's say that the NRA did a ''little'' white lie and merely multiplicated by TEN the numbers of ''good guys with guns'' saving the day with their big glock.

200 000 cases per year Now, of course, the eeeeevil MSM supress those stories (to the point that the NRA can't push them...). One story out of 100 come out of the woods.

It still means that there would be 2000 cases of ''good guys with guns'' easy to find per year. 6 good guys with gun stories per day.

Is this the case ?

(No. That's why the same list of 15-20 cases, across a couple of decades, is always used)

(1)A 40 years old study is in itself a huge alarm bell

[Ghostpanther]

Just wanted to state my opinion on a few things. We do need stricter background checks. I wont debate as to how effective I think they would or would not be. I would need to know if the ones who did the mass shootings would have passed those checks. I do believe that the magazine capacity is a pointless one. They'll just carry more magazines. Or make one at home with a 3d printer.

However, I see these as secondary issues. We have far greater issues on gun control then a ban or stricter checks. Its the things that have come to light recently. One of which was a shooter had been reported to the FBI, and they ignored it. Or the one where the police refused to enter the premises of an active shooter. We need better accountability for our law enforcement to get these situations handled.

Good opinion. And I agree with them. Thanks for your input. Always welcome to see thoughtful and respectful posts in here.

[Stormdash]

Again a basic observation for ''good guys with guns'' proponents.

A extremely vague agitprop argument pushed by the NRA is that in 1980(1) ''2 millions'' American defended themselves with a gun. That statistic is constantly pushed. I will be charitable and take it at face value. There are huge problems with that figure....

The most basic one is the huge gap between those numbers and the precise stories the NRA is able to push out. Let's say that the NRA did a ''little'' white lie and merely multiplicated by TEN the numbers of ''good guys with guns'' saving the day with their big glock.

200 000 cases per year Now, of course, the eeeeevil MSM supress those stories (to the point that the NRA can't push them...). One story out of 100 come out of the woods.

It still means that there would be 2000 cases of ''good guys with guns'' easy to find per year. 6 good guys with gun stories per day.

Is this the case ?

(No. That's why the same list of 15-20 cases, across a couple of decades, is always used)

(1)A 40 years old study is in itself a huge alarm bell

A 2013 study, one commissioned by the Obama administration, concluded defensive gun use ranged between 500k and 3m every year.