Let's talk about guns, shootings, solutions and idiotic suggestions

[Comshaw]

My bona fidas: I am a gun owner. I've had one in my hand since I was ten or eleven, back when I'd take my dads single shot Springfield .22 and go out hunting for grouse. I intend to keep them too. So I have a stake in gun ownership. But I've also been to war, have seen bodies of those who have been killed by guns. And make no mistake, we are in a war. Well more accurately it's a one sided massacre perpetrated by deranged people who have no regard for the sanctity of life.

With every thing going on, all the senseless kill's happening, the one question asked by everyone is: How do we stop it?

Let's look at the suggestions, the road blocks to them and what we need to do to stop it.

One of the major suggestions, made over and over, is to harden our schools. Lock the doors, metal detectors at the entrances, armed security guards, those are the most frequently voiced ones. Locked doors don't help if they are left open. they don't help if the shooter can shoot the lock out and enter. Metal detectors don't help if the shooter, like the last one, doesn't give a rats ass about hiding the gun. Armed guards don't help if they refuse to engage or if the shooter has the guard out gunned and kills them.

If the shooter gets past those, which viewing recent history it doesn't seem to be a problem, because of the way classrooms are designed (single entry/exit doors) they have a 'fish in a barrel' scenario. For the sake of argument, let's say we do all that for the schools. But wait! What about supermarkets? Churches? Musical events? Are we going to set up sanded bagged fighting positions around those too? That suggestion doesn't fly because unless we turn the whole country into a war zone, with all the associated hardening of EVERYTHING, shooters will find another target.

That's out then.

All almost everyone agrees the kid that killed all those children was mentally disturbed. And almost everyone agrees we need to find a way to keep those who are mentally disturbed and who would perpetrate such an action from having a gun. That, for the lack of a better term, would be a Red Flag Law. However, when we get to that point, many who agree intervention before the event needs to be done balk and refuse to do it. Why? It's EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE AGREES NEEDS TO BE DONE. Why then do they suggest one thing, then refuse to implement it?

The same goes for mental health. Almost everyone agrees people like the one in Texas need mental health help. Not just to better their lives, but to protect others from them. But when it comes down to implementation, the funding for such things never gets passed, or disappears, ala Texas Governor Abbott.

Every extreme right wing gun supporter will point to Chicago or Detroit and tell us that those are Democratically controlled bastions ave tightly controlled guns, and they have gun violence all the time. What they fail to say is all those guns are brought in from out of town, out of state in some instances, by people who buy them, legally, and sell them at a huge profit. That is a fabulous argument for a national date base of gun owners. The scream about that is "They'll have my name so they can come and take my guns!" That's true. If you break the law, if you're subject to a Red Flag hearing, they will, and can, and should. But it isn't going to happen for the law abiding citizen. The 2nd amendment see's to that. The reasoning of "I don't want them to know what I have, 'cause the government will come take them" is paranoid bullshit, or a perceived defense for those who do have them, but shouldn't.

There should be a national data based of those who own guns. There should be an FFL check on EVERY gun sale, even private ones. The right to own guns via the 2nd amendment has been reaffirmed by the courts over and over, even liberal lead courts. They have also affirmed that right doesn't mean that gun ownership can't be regulated and licensed.

The right blindly refuses to support ANY logical rules and regulations that are suggested. The left mean while, passes stupid ass laws that do nothing but make it harder on the legal, law abiding gun owner. It's time for both sides to get their head out of their asses and get some things done to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's time to stop the murder of our vulnerable, stop the killing of our kids and elderly who are dying for no other reason than the two sides are so invested, so narrow in their vision of how it should be, they can't see what needs be.


Comshaw

 

[coati]

It's time to stop the murder of our vulnerable, stop the killing of our kids and elderly who are dying for no other reason than the two sides are so invested, so narrow in their vision of how it should be, they can't see what needs be.

Nahhhh. This ain't a "both sides" issue. The Dems can't pass anything effective, because they are blocked by the Republicans at every attempt.

Wake up.

 

[jaF0]

Anyone involved in a gun crime gets inducted into combat units and sent to fire zones. Somali would be good. They want to shoot shit, let them shoot all the shit they can handle.



Alternatively, sentence them to at least a year in a big city trauma unit caring for gunshot victims.

 

[Rightguide]

My bona fidas: I am a gun owner. I've had one in my hand since I was ten or eleven, back when I'd take my dads single shot Springfield .22 and go out hunting for grouse. I intend to keep them too. So I have a stake in gun ownership. But I've also been to war, have seen bodies of those who have been killed by guns. And make no mistake, we are in a war. Well more accurately it's a one sided massacre perpetrated by deranged people who have no regard for the sanctity of life.

With every thing going on, all the senseless kill's happening, the one question asked by everyone is: How do we stop it?

Let's look at the suggestions, the road blocks to them and what we need to do to stop it.

One of the major suggestions, made over and over, is to harden our schools. Lock the doors, metal detectors at the entrances, armed security guards, those are the most frequently voiced ones. Locked doors don't help if they are left open. they don't help if the shooter can shoot the lock out and enter. Metal detectors don't help if the shooter, like the last one, doesn't give a rats ass about hiding the gun. Armed guards don't help if they refuse to engage or if the shooter has the guard out gunned and kills them.

If the shooter gets past those, which viewing recent history it doesn't seem to be a problem, because of the way classrooms are designed (single entry/exit doors) they have a 'fish in a barrel' scenario. For the sake of argument, let's say we do all that for the schools. But wait! What about supermarkets? Churches? Musical events? Are we going to set up sanded bagged fighting positions around those too? That suggestion doesn't fly because unless we turn the whole country into a war zone, with all the associated hardening of EVERYTHING, shooters will find another target.

That's out then.

All almost everyone agrees the kid that killed all those children was mentally disturbed. And almost everyone agrees we need to find a way to keep those who are mentally disturbed and who would perpetrate such an action from having a gun. That, for the lack of a better term, would be a Red Flag Law. However, when we get to that point, many who agree intervention before the event needs to be done balk and refuse to do it. Why? It's EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE AGREES NEEDS TO BE DONE. Why then do they suggest one thing, then refuse to implement it?

The same goes for mental health. Almost everyone agrees people like the one in Texas need mental health help. Not just to better their lives, but to protect others from them. But when it comes down to implementation, the funding for such things never gets passed, or disappears, ala Texas Governor Abbott.

Every extreme right wing gun supporter will point to Chicago or Detroit and tell us that those are Democratically controlled bastions ave tightly controlled guns, and they have gun violence all the time. What they fail to say is all those guns are brought in from out of town, out of state in some instances, by people who buy them, legally, and sell them at a huge profit. That is a fabulous argument for a national date base of gun owners. The scream about that is "They'll have my name so they can come and take my guns!" That's true. If you break the law, if you're subject to a Red Flag hearing, they will, and can, and should. But it isn't going to happen for the law abiding citizen. The 2nd amendment see's to that. The reasoning of "I don't want them to know what I have, 'cause the government will come take them" is paranoid bullshit, or a perceived defense for those who do have them, but shouldn't.

There should be a national data based of those who own guns. There should be an FFL check on EVERY gun sale, even private ones. The right to own guns via the 2nd amendment has been reaffirmed by the courts over and over, even liberal lead courts. They have also affirmed that right doesn't mean that gun ownership can't be regulated and licensed.

The right blindly refuses to support ANY logical rules and regulations that are suggested. The left mean while, passes stupid ass laws that do nothing but make it harder on the legal, law abiding gun owner. It's time for both sides to get their head out of their asses and get some things done to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's time to stop the murder of our vulnerable, stop the killing of our kids and elderly who are dying for no other reason than the two sides are so invested, so narrow in their vision of how it should be, they can't see what needs be.


Comshaw

Gun control laws are not stopping Crazy. It's political bullshit. The most gun controlled places in America are the most dangerous.

 

[pecksniff]

Idiot suggestions?

Arm the teachers.

 

[Comshaw]

Nahhhh. This ain't a "both sides" issue. The Dems can't pass anything effective, because they are blocked by the Republicans at every attempt.

Wake up.

Nahhhh. This ain't a "both sides" issue. The Dems can't pass anything effective, because they are blocked by the Republicans at every attempt.

Wake up.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Myopic in view coupled with deflection of responsibility. "It ain't my fault! It's all theirs!" I'm not the one who needs to wake up. The left will blame the right, the right will blame the left and more kids will die. FUCK YOU ALL! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!

Comshaw

 

[ll74]

Ban AR-15 and any weapon that is militarized.

Red flag laws in place for everyone.

Some sort of social media reporting system to flag potential shooty assholes.

 

[pecksniff]

Ar-15s are a trivial part of the problem. We need to ban handguns.

 

[AlexBailey]

There are many pieces to this, and a big one of them is mental health and healthcare. I wonder if the U.S. founding fathers would have done anything differently had medicine been further along in 1776. Back then a barber was usually the most advanced physician in a community and mental health was usually dealt with by clergy.

It's hard to say if mental health problems have been on the rise recently or if they are just presenting in more spectacles of violence. There are many cracks for people with mental health problems to fall through - one of the most notable being that before someone turns 18, all medical and mental healthcare is the responsibility of a parent or possibly a foster organization, then after they come of age everyone is on their own.

A teen who was (or should be) under psychiatric care cannot be compelled to do so after they come of age. And think about it - how easy is it to navigate the U.S. healthcare system for someone who is of sound mind? Depression and anxiety can be crippling to the person who needs help the most.



I remember hearing the news about a guy who shot up a crowded McDonald's after not being able to set up a meeting with his counselor. After that, every time you reach a metal health clinic's message system the recording says i.e. "...if this is a mental health emergency, hang up and call 911.."




"The San Ysidro McDonald's massacre was an act of mass murder which occurred at a McDonald's restaurant in the San Ysidro neighborhood of San Diego , California, on July 18, 1984. The perpetrator, 41-year-old James Huberty, fatally shot 21 people and wounded 19 others before being killed by a police sniper approximately 77 minutes after he had first opened fire."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

"...he called a San Diego mental health clinic, requesting an appointment. Leaving his contact details with the receptionist, Huberty was assured the clinic would return his call within hours. According to his wife, he sat quietly beside the telephone for several hours, awaiting the return call, before abruptly walking out of the family home and riding to an unknown destination on his motorcycle...."

 

[butters]

coach for the Charlotte Junior Rifle Team, Evan Bille, said that he worries every day that the shooting skills he teaches young people could be used to carry out a school shooting.
According to Billie, one way to prevent mass shootings would be to raise the legal age to purchase a rifle to 21 (by federal law, you must be 21 to purchase a handgun, but only 18 to buy a rifle).

"There is a reason every terrorist group across the world, from the Taliban to the Klan, recruits isolated young men. Extremism and violence, especially now in decentralized online spaces, can provide a cheap sense of identity, community, and purpose," Billie writes, adding that by offering access to rifles at an early age, "our gun policy is aiding and abetting domestic terrorism."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...pc=U531&cvid=6c28eb46796043d9b2c596b435b793fd


keep your guns (for the most part) but step up for the responsibilities that come with ownership.

• raise purchase age of rifles to 21 to match hand-gun regs
• ban on all assault weapons such as the ARs/AKs with very limited exceptions that require additional testing/provisions
• 5-yearly med/psych competency checks and federal gun-registry database (ALL transactions of weaponry to be recorded, same as selling a vehicle, no loopholes)
• proper training on type of weapon to be purchased completed (like driving tests) before purchase permitted (to be revisited every 5 years)
• limit number of guns/rifles that may be privately owned to maybe 1 of each, potentially more depending on their purpose; if they are designated as 'collector's items' (such as an heirloom rifle passed down by family) in which case they need to be disabled and rendered unable to discharge)
• mandatory liability insurance
• ban explicit tv advertising and 'push-ads' for assault weapons online, limiting advertising material to the manufacturer/distributor's website alone. (ads promoting their website limited to text-only with no glorification of assault weapons or children used to sell guns).
• close all loopholes regarding ghost guns
• illegal to leave a gun/rifle in an unattended vehicle
• illegal to carry a firearm into a store, place of worship, diner, concert, theatre, etcetera

if you want firearms at home for 'protection', and some may well need them, there's no need to go about your daily lives carrying them into the public arena.

i don't have a problem with people owning guns; i do have a problem with the lack of responsibility involved by so many that allows the angry/sad/mentally unwell to get their hands on them and use them for suicide or murder. There has to be a countrywide push for people to store their guns in their homes safely, just like there are ads about not allowing your toddler near laundry detergent capsules, or letting kids play with fireworks. The adults need to face serious charges of negligence if they fail to store guns correctly that then end up in the hands of those they shouldn't.

i also like jafo's suggestions: they may make someone thinking of using a gun for harm think again if they believed they'd be sent out to combat areas. It also would present issues, though, of determining the mental health of the shooter beyond 'do they know the difference between wrong and right?'

there's an article somewhere about how the makers of the AKs (that increased from1 to 50 in the US in a short time period) deliberately pushed for their specific inclusion in video games where their old market was drying up... they needed fresh, younger buyers. Kids choose these weapons in the games as they make killing their targets easier. They feel they are familiar with them. Now most kids won't dream of taking that gaming experience and translating it into the real world for violence... but, as clearly denoted by the increase of these assault rifle manufacturers in the US, it has exponentially increased the sales of such weaponry, mainly to young people. The manufacturers deliberately targeted, and continue to target, young (mostly) male teenagers, even younger, with images of toddlers holding assault rifles.

 

[AlexBailey]

Hardening schools?

I have four young-adult children who have attended a lot of schools, more than eight that I can think of at the moment. All of the schools have multiple wings and separate buildings. All can be entered and exited from several different directions.

Lock the doors? Who has the keys? The local high school has a least six entrances from different parking lots, including the stadium, the bus drop-off, the tennis courts, the main entrance, the auditorium.... I think there are six main single-story buildings, with internal hallways connecting four, six or eight class rooms depending on configuration.

Single point entry? That's a laugh. How many cops and metal detectors would it take...

How easy would it be to control access to your high school? I went to several that included portable out-buildings.

 

[ll74]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...pc=U531&cvid=6c28eb46796043d9b2c596b435b793fd


keep your guns (for the most part) but step up for the responsibilities that come with ownership.

• raise purchase age of rifles to 21 to match hand-gun regs
• ban on all assault weapons such as the ARs/AKs with very limited exceptions that require additional testing/provisions
• 5-yearly med/psych competency checks and federal gun-registry database (ALL transactions of weaponry to be recorded, same as selling a vehicle, no loopholes)
• proper training on type of weapon to be purchased completed (like driving tests) before purchase permitted (to be revisited every 5 years)
• limit number of guns/rifles that may be privately owned to maybe 1 of each, potentially more depending on their purpose; if they are designated as 'collector's items' (such as an heirloom rifle passed down by family) in which case they need to be disabled and rendered unable to discharge)
• mandatory liability insurance
• ban explicit tv advertising and 'push-ads' for assault weapons online, limiting advertising material to the manufacturer/distributor's website alone. (ads promoting their website limited to text-only with no glorification of assault weapons or children used to sell guns).
• close all loopholes regarding ghost guns
• illegal to leave a gun/rifle in an unattended vehicle
• illegal to carry a firearm into a store, place of worship, diner, concert, theatre, etcetera

if you want firearms at home for 'protection', and some may well need them, there's no need to go about your daily lives carrying them into the public arena.

i don't have a problem with people owning guns; i do have a problem with the lack of responsibility involved by so many that allows the angry/sad/mentally unwell to get their hands on them and use them for suicide or murder. There has to be a countrywide push for people to store their guns in their homes safely, just like there are ads about not allowing your toddler near laundry detergent capsules, or letting kids play with fireworks. The adults need to face serious charges of negligence if they fail to store guns correctly that then end up in the hands of those they shouldn't.

i also like jafo's suggestions: they may make someone thinking of using a gun for harm think again if they believed they'd be sent out to combat areas. It also would present issues, though, of determining the mental health of the shooter beyond 'do they know the difference between wrong and right?'

there's an article somewhere about how the makers of the AKs (that increased from1 to 50 in the US in a short time period) deliberately pushed for their specific inclusion in video games where their old market was drying up... they needed fresh, younger buyers. Kids choose these weapons in the games as they make killing their targets easier. They feel they are familiar with them. Now most kids won't dream of taking that gaming experience and translating it into the real world for violence... but, as clearly denoted by the increase of these assault rifle manufacturers in the US, it has exponentially increased the sales of such weaponry, mainly to young people. The manufacturers deliberately targeted, and continue to target, young (mostly) male teenagers, even younger, with images of toddlers holding assault rifles.

A lot of great ideas here. I really like mandatory liability insurance.

 

[jaF0]

Mostly the same things I've suggested, along with annual training, certification and range qualification.

Internship in Trauma ERs would go a long way in showing what a gunshot wound does to a person.

I also think homes should fall under special fire codes and inspection rules if they have more than X rounds of ammo.

 

[butters]

A lot of great ideas here. I really like mandatory liability insurance.

the sliding rate would make it a lot less attractive to own a high-powered, high ammo capacity weapon that a regular kind of rifle that might be used to take out rabbits, an intruder (better to use a handgun at close range anyway), or to deter coyotes and whatnot.

 

[coati]

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Myopic in view coupled with deflection of responsibility. "It ain't my fault! It's all theirs!" I'm not the one who needs to wake up. The left will blame the right, the right will blame the left and more kids will die. FUCK YOU ALL! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!

Comshaw

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The Republicans are the hang-up in the Senate right now. If anything at all comes out of the current so-called bipartisan talks, it will be half-assed, because Republicans can't get past a primary with a record of ANY sort of gun regulation vote, whereas most Democratic representatives are rewarded in their primaries for advocating for better regulation of guns.

That is also taking place in many state governments. This is primarily a Republican-caused obstruction. That is reflected in the history of almost every gun regulation proposal.

The equivocating wimps of the Democratic Party need to take a page out of the Republican playbook and place voting records and blame squarely where it belongs.

The Republican Party currently favors unfettered gun rights over the lives of school children.

 

[Dribble]

Simplest solution...let States leave. Same solution as with EVERY other issue this country has right now. Republicans keep harping on State's Rights. Cool. I am totally for maximizing this concept

 

[butters]

Simplest solution...let States leave. Same solution as with EVERY other issue this country has right now. Republicans keep harping on State's Rights. Cool. I am totally for maximizing this concept

not everyone's a republican, or a democrat for that matter. For those living in states whose rules they don't agree with (in your hypothetical situation) and who are maybe dems in a red state/pubs in a blue, that doesn't mean they can leave and move elsewhere. Sure SOME can, but many would be tied by family, by jobs, their social environments, by financial considerations such as simply not being able to afford to move. And some will have life-long roots in homes and places they love, even if they hate the rules politicians would be putting in place.

Voting is where it's at. That's why it's so important to have voting made as easy as possible and a socially responsible thing to do

 

[Comshaw]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The Republicans are the hang-up in the Senate right now. If anything at all comes out of the current so-called bipartisan talks, it will be half-assed, because Republicans can't get past a primary with a record of ANY sort of gun regulation vote, whereas most Democratic representatives are rewarded in their primaries for advocating for better regulation of guns.

That is also taking place in many state governments. This is primarily a Republican-caused obstruction. That is reflected in the history of almost every gun regulation proposal.

The equivocating wimps of the Democratic Party need to take a page out of the Republican playbook and place voting records and blame squarely where it belongs.

The Republican Party currently favors unfettered gun rights over the lives of school children.

Thank you for highlighting the point I made, finger pointing with no attempt at real movement of either side. Your last sentence is absolutely true. Along with that truth is another, the Democrats aren't trying to pass sensible regulations, aren't trying to put a stop to the killing, they want to pass extreme legislation. For a taste of that read butters post and suggestions. I agee with some of them, but disagree with some too. Here, let me quote:

• raise purchase age of rifles to 21 to match hand-gun regs
• ban on all assault weapons such as the ARs/AKs with very limited exceptions that require additional testing/provisions
• 5-yearly med/psych competency checks and federal gun-registry database (ALL transactions of weaponry to be recorded, same as selling a vehicle, no loopholes)
• proper training on type of weapon to be purchased completed (like driving tests) before purchase permitted (to be revisited every 5 years)
• limit number of guns/rifles that may be privately owned to maybe 1 of each, potentially more depending on their purpose; if they are designated as 'collector's items' (such as an heirloom rifle passed down by family) in which case they need to be disabled and rendered unable to discharge)
• mandatory liability insurance
• ban explicit tv advertising and 'push-ads' for assault weapons online, limiting advertising material to the manufacturer/distributor's website alone. (ads promoting their website limited to text-only with no glorification of assault weapons or children used to sell guns).
• close all loopholes regarding ghost guns
• illegal to leave a gun/rifle in an unattended vehicle
• illegal to carry a firearm into a store, place of worship, diner, concert, theatre, etcetera

1 and 2 I agree with. The last half of 3 I also agree with, but the first part is redundant and designed solely to inconvenience a firearm's owner.

4 I also agree with, EXCEPT for the requirement of going through training every 5 years. Again, a redundant requirement that does nothing.

5 is another extreme example. If I go through the training, and a psychiatric evaluation and pass, why should I be limited to one firearm? Again, an extreme requirement meant to inconvenience.

6 I'm still considering.

7 Ban advertisement? If all the other things above that are met, why?

8 is a hell yes. Along with FFL checks on ALL firearm sales, even private ones.

9 & 10, another example of extreme regulation. You take a firearm with you, and decide to stop for a bite. You can't take it in with you, and you can't leave it in the car, EVEN IF IT IS LOCKED IN A SAFE CONTAINER! Nothing like conflicting laws to screw someone. Even now, the incidence of someone who has a carry permit murdering others with a firearm is extremely rare. Throw in those things already mentioned that I agree with and that number would fall to almost nothing.

My point still stands. The left don't want effective legislation. They want extreme legislation, like the right wants none. Both sides need to quit thinks about what they want and start thinking about what we can do to save lives.

I'm not the one who is wrong.

Comshaw

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Myopic in view coupled with deflection of responsibility. "It ain't my fault! It's all theirs!" I'm not the one who needs to wake up. The left will blame the right, the right will blame the left and more kids will die. FUCK YOU ALL! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!

Comshaw

I disagree. The right wing has historically said/done nothing constructive vis-a-vis gun control after mass murders, they put the onus on the left wing to come up with solutions, which are then pilloried to death for political purposes.

Both-sides-ism won't work on this issue.

 

[jaF0]

The insurance, training, certification and storage requirements would only work for the so called law abding gun owner, who are probably the one who least need it. Whether or not they would affect the mass shooters many be open for debate.

They would do nothing for the street punks. Those are the ones I would send out of country to combat zones, or impose some other equally intensive punishment. Sending them to prison isn't much other than sending them to school to be more effective street thugs.

 

[jaF0]

Funny thing is, the courts that won't let us do anything about guns wouldn't allow that either.

 

[icanhelp1]

Thank you for highlighting the point I made, finger pointing with no attempt at real movement of either side. Your last sentence is absolutely true. Along with that truth is another, the Democrats aren't trying to pass sensible regulations, aren't trying to put a stop to the killing, they want to pass extreme legislation. For a taste of that read butters post and suggestions. I agee with some of them, but disagree with some too. Here, let me quote:

• raise purchase age of rifles to 21 to match hand-gun regs
• ban on all assault weapons such as the ARs/AKs with very limited exceptions that require additional testing/provisions
• 5-yearly med/psych competency checks and federal gun-registry database (ALL transactions of weaponry to be recorded, same as selling a vehicle, no loopholes)
• proper training on type of weapon to be purchased completed (like driving tests) before purchase permitted (to be revisited every 5 years)
• limit number of guns/rifles that may be privately owned to maybe 1 of each, potentially more depending on their purpose; if they are designated as 'collector's items' (such as an heirloom rifle passed down by family) in which case they need to be disabled and rendered unable to discharge)
• mandatory liability insurance
• ban explicit tv advertising and 'push-ads' for assault weapons online, limiting advertising material to the manufacturer/distributor's website alone. (ads promoting their website limited to text-only with no glorification of assault weapons or children used to sell guns).
• close all loopholes regarding ghost guns
• illegal to leave a gun/rifle in an unattended vehicle
• illegal to carry a firearm into a store, place of worship, diner, concert, theatre, etcetera

1 and 2 I agree with. The last half of 3 I also agree with, but the first part is redundant and designed solely to inconvenience a firearm's owner.

4 I also agree with, EXCEPT for the requirement of going through training every 5 years. Again, a redundant requirement that does nothing.

5 is another extreme example. If I go through the training, and a psychiatric evaluation and pass, why should I be limited to one firearm? Again, an extreme requirement meant to inconvenience.

6 I'm still considering.

7 Ban advertisement? If all the other things above that are met, why?

8 is a hell yes. Along with FFL checks on ALL firearm sales, even private ones.

9 & 10, another example of extreme regulation. You take a firearm with you, and decide to stop for a bite. You can't take it in with you, and you can't leave it in the car, EVEN IF IT IS LOCKED IN A SAFE CONTAINER! Nothing like conflicting laws to screw someone. Even now, the incidence of someone who has a carry permit murdering others with a firearm is extremely rare. Throw in those things already mentioned that I agree with and that number would fall to almost nothing.

My point still stands. The left don't want effective legislation. They want extreme legislation, like the right wants none. Both sides need to quit thinks about what they want and start thinking about what we can do to save lives.

I'm not the one who is wrong.

Comshaw

Most of what you wrote should be legislated at the state level and can be done successfully. If a state wants to ban AR-15 style weapons, so bi it. In blue sky country an AR is nothing more that a varmint gun.

Other than federal registration and federal laws concerning fully automatic weapons most issues can be regulated at state level.

Red flag laws are something to look at but until juvenile criminal or mental disorder records can be viewed by gun dealers it's all for not.

We'll never solve the issues as long as the incubation cubes ( internet portals ) are supervised closely, I don't don't think that issue can be solved without some serious violations of constitutional rights. How many demented kids with dark hearts are radicalized on line.

There's a big difference when dealing with the NY city boroughs and a town in Idaho where some homes are 25 miles apart.

Insurance on gun owners I can assure you will be abused.

 

[jomar]

Since Republicans are saying it’s not the guns it’s the mental health of the shooter and point to all the missed signs and opportunities to intervene, surely we’ll see them sponsor much legislation and funding for programs and systems to be implemented so future “thoughts and prayers” won’t be necessary. Right?

 

[Comshaw]

I disagree. The right wing has historically said/done nothing constructive vis-a-vis gun control after mass murders, they put the onus on the left wing to come up with solutions, which are then pilloried to death for political purposes.

Both-sides-ism won't work on this issue.

Disagree all you want. It's your right and that's what makes this country great. But you are as blind as the other side. I've listed why and you still ignore it. That's why kids are still getting killed. Ain't no way around it, YOU ARE ALL responsible for this.

Comshaw

 

[phrodeau]

Small towns in Idaho are where white supremacy festers.