You said the term "assault rifles" was created in the mid-1990s, when in fact the gun industry itself used the term a decade earlier.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

but they are marketed as such. which means those who buy those guns are the stupidest, sorriest losers on the planet. i take that to be what you're saying. i agree with you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Laws require very precise language. The other usages would have been fine with generally understood, if not precisely defined, phrases.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

As someone who survived the Columbine massacre, your comment about "teenage emotionalism" really strikes me the wrong way. What a horrible thing to say. These kids were just shot at, and you are telling us that you can't pass any laws to prevent this from happening in the future because it would just be a response to "teenage emotionalism".

IF this isn't a reason to do something to prevent this from happening in the future, then I don't know what is. Why is it so important for you to make sure AR-15s don't get banned? How does this specific weapon make your life better? Can you weigh that against the many people that have been affected negatively by this weapon (many of which who have had their lives ended by it)?

I haven't read anything that says that they would be required to, only that they would be able to after training.

---

I miss YaHey

We should let school districts experiment. If one school district wants to allow interested teachers to arm themselves, fine. If another wants security guards, fine. If another wants prevention-via-counseling, fine. Over time the success, or lack thereof, of those experiments will start showing what works and what doesn't.

The solution that is dumb is the uniform solution. Shove the same solution down everyone's throat and we learn much less.

Personally, I don't think a heck of a lot of any "security" based solution. Security is terribly difficult. Only on TV is the good guy able to respond to the crisis created by the bad guy. In real life, security guy is asleep, watching TV, the first person shot, off-campus, or something. Altho I see it as less likely to succeed than it's advocates, it's none of my business if some school district wants to give it a try.

The military has an idea called a "paperdrill". It's something that sounds nice on paper, but in practice doesn't work for shit.

Allowing older and mature teachers that have extensive experience with firearms to carry a concealed firearm is interesting, but there'd be concerns too. Lots of ways it could go bad, in both day to day business or in a crisis. Is the risk worth it? I don't know. But we ought to let the individual school district decide.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

What law could be passed to prevent this from happening in the future?

---

I miss YaHey

I've been wondering about how much the appeal of teaching in the US must be waning with each shooting. Every time a teacher or coach is hailed as a hero for dying for their kids the profession sounds more and more dangerous.

And to BK's point, I think back to some of the subs and student teachers I had as a kid and the thought of them being armed is terrifying. They were inexperience and outmaneuvered by their students, carrying a firearm would not have made things any less stressful.

What law could be passed to prevent this from happening in the future?

You and everyone else in America has no idea so why not try passing something that *might* work?

I mean, wouldn't it be better to try something like banning "guns that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time" (God forbid that I use the wrong word) even if it's just to appease the people that are getting so angry because of no action. Doesn't anyone want to at least try living in a country where there can be some middle ground on contentious issues?

I think what he's getting at is just being shot at, and having gone through such an ordeal, does not make the survivors/victims experts on the complex issue surrounding the incident. In fact, it would be nearly impossible to remove one's emotional trauma from the topic to deliver an objective and well reasoned argument. As such, we should not make policy based on an (understandably) emotional plea from high school kids.

How are you going to ban guns that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time?

---

I miss YaHey

Ban AR-15s. There seems to be a fascination over this particular weapon among those responsible for school shootings. Ban it.

This is already happening in Wyoming. Districts are, as we speak, getting a feel for what the parents in their districts think on the topic with questionnaires. There is a surprising level of support for it in this area, which isn't all that shocking really since Wyoming is the most heavily armed state in the nation (per capita).

I don't get this.

Mom died from Opiates? Cant have an opinion on opiate legality.
Sister died from a drunk driver? Can't have an opinion on make it harder to get a license if you had a DUI.
Dad died from motorcycling without a helmet? Can't have an opinion on helmet laws.

Same logic.

What is your mechanism for banning them? Other than "passing a law".

---

I miss YaHey

Of course you can have an opinion, and who wouldn't given the circumstances, but don't expect to be treated as an expert on the topic. IOW, your emotionally charged opinion should not carry more weight than those people who have knowledge, education, training, and experience on the topic at hand.

Parents are dumb. A decade or so ago, my daughter's pre-school had a parent meeting to discuss adding security locks and support equipment to the 2-3 doors to the building, in reaction to some school shooting or other (how sad that I can't even recall which shooting?). All these parents were for it. I pointed out that, like the lottery where someone might win but it won't be you, the odds of someone trying to enter the school to do harm is vanishingly small, and wouldn't they rather the (private) school use those funds to provide more school supplies, or to increase the pay of the really good teachers they had to keep them around? The school opted not to implement this security.

Re Wyoming: were the parent supportive because they felt threatened by all the people with guns in Wyoming, or because carrying guns by everyone is so "normal?"

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

What's wrong with passing a law?

Here are some laws you may be familiar with:
1. speed limits
2. laws against drugs
3. tax laws

There are thousands of others. All of which affect behavior.

Okay, so you pass a law "banning" AR-15s. Then what? How exactly do you ban them?

---

I miss YaHey

could also pass a law regarding the manufacturer of AR-15's Or only manufacture / accept PO's from US military / Police Department, etc.

You have passed a law banning them. They are therefore, by definition, banned.

The ones in circulation gradually get confiscated as they are used in crimes, found during traffic stops, disposed of, turned in to police during estate sales etc. Is it perfect? No. Will it prevent ALL school shootings? No. Will it have a positive affect? Yes. Do the positives of such a policy outweigh the negatives (struggling to come up with any negatives here)? Yes.

What is your mechanism for banning them? Other than "passing a law".

But you ban a lot of things by passing laws. You ban speeding by giving fines and jail time, you ban alcohol in public (some places) by passing laws and enforcing them, you ban someone from flying drones near airports by the same. Some people still do these things of course but the law and strict enforcement certainly reduces the amount of speeding, sex in public and the number of drones flying near airports.

Why would it be so different for guns?

You could also go after the gun manufacturers, offer incentives to turn in guns before imposing penalties etc. You can then go after firing range owners who allow certain guns on their premises.

You just have to want to do it, and the real problem, no one wants to try.

Are you saying that after they are banned anyone who owns one becomes a criminal unless they turn it in?

---

I miss YaHey

Yes. What's the problem?

This happens all the time.