The Parkland shooter bought his AR-15 legally. If it had been banned, he would not have been able to make that purchase legally. He would have been forced to the black market, or to choose another weapon. Perhaps he would not have carried out his plan at all. As stated several posts above, SOME shooters will still succeed with their plans, but if you make it harder to obtain the most deadly weapons, some will be less successful, and others will be thwarted entirely. This isn't rocket surgery, and dismissing a ban as "simply not realistic" is the answer of someone who prefers the status quo.


I've always been agnostic on guns. If you want 'em, you can have 'em, has been my position with respect to other people and their desires for self-defense and hunting. I don't own any because I choose not to live my life in fear, and the odds of ever needing a gun for self-defense are very, very remote. But, as Slowman has alluded to in this and other discussions, the intransigence of the NRA and pro-gun people in the face of our uniquely American tragedies is making me less sympathetic to gun owners. And I am not alone. The majority of Americans favor bans on assault weapons, better universal background checks, and bans on sales to the mentally ill and those on the terrorist-watch-list. If the those simple things don't become reality, then, like Slowman said, people will push even harder for further restrictions.

And yet we do limit the arms that we can bear currently, which does infringe on our rights. I think we all support limiting them. We just disagree on where to draw the line.

You do realize that we do not allow citizens the right to bear the arms that the military has, right? So do you feel that is constitutional?

These AR-style rifles are semi-automatic and except for largely cosmetic differences are largely indistinguishable from most other semi-automatic rifles on the market. This was partly why the 1994 ban on "assault weapons" ended up being a complete failure. They also project a fearsome appearance for sure. But that's about it.

I think there are things that can be done to prevent mass school shootings, though, starting with improving school security by hiring armed guards. You can also tightly restrict entry by non-students and non-authorized personnel. You could even allow teachers, if they want, to obtain concealed carry permits (but you simply can't force them to... and I'm still not all that keen on sticking guns into the hands of teachers at any rate). Also, the "gun-free zone" is a stupid concept and it should be done away with.

We also need to address mental health issues in this country, though that's a much stickier and thornier problem. Still, school shooters have almost uniformly been crazy, with this latest one being a particularly eye-wateringly apparent example of lunacy. He told everyone who would listen that he intended to be a school mass murderer, and it looks like absolutely no one was interested in acting on his threats, including school staff, the school district and board, the sheriff's office and the FBI. One day soon, we're going to have to do something about blatantly crazy and dangerous people BEFORE they act, not after it's way too late to do anything about them.

The FBI deserves special recognition in this latest school shooting, too. It dropped the ball in a spectacular, truly disastrous, fashion and the Bureau is obviously in desperate need of an overhaul. This should begin with the firing of the bureaucrats who are more interested in playing political games than in preventing crimes.

Lastly, I don't see where 15-to-18-year-old kids have any special insight into mass murders, especially those committed by the mentally ill, but that hasn't stopped various special interest groups in the gun reform lobby from using them to suit their own purposes in this tragedy.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Looks like up-gunning schools is being contemplated in other states as well:

Kentucky Moves To Add Guns To Schools After School Shooting.

The flippant side (okay, once again; the A-HOLE side) of me would say that it's good to see folks taking a common sense approach to gun violence.

Edited to add:

Man, I hate being right all the time. (Okay, not all the time. Maybe not 99.99% of the time. But I really nail it .01% of the time.)

The Hill: Calls for new gun laws are falling on deaf ears.

But I wonder if it's because those "calls" are mostly based in dumb emotional bullying?

"Renewed calls for stricter gun controls following a school shooting in Florida that left 17 dead are falling on deaf ears.

Legislators in states across the country have delayed, defeated or refused to take up new measures to prevent more gun violence — despite the impassioned calls of victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

In Florida’s legislature, House Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to revive debate on a measure to ban assault weapons with student survivors from Parkland watching in the gallery. . . .’ (ed. That measure was defeated by something like a 31-76 for/against ratio, indicating that it wasn't even close)

Students from Parkland who have blanketed the media to call for gun reforms have expressed incredulity at the lack of action."


Honestly, I think it's more that the media has blanketed them, in yet another effort to generate the political results that the media wants.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yes, that was my point. There are restrictions to the amendments so adding an AR-15 to the list does not create a constitutional crisis. I'm with you, I believe many people want to set limits but disagree with where they are to be set. That is where the discussion breaks down.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

So what was the purpose of ensuring that citizens were allowed to have guns similar to what the military/militia had at the time? And what does that say about the Second Amendment today and what it should allow?

---

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

It's a tough nut to crack, for sure. The old law school graduate (and I loved CON LAW studies) in me would observe that the Second Amendment has taken on much more significance these days, where once it was basically the stepchild of the Bill of Rights for much of the 20th century. Today, a ban on AR-15 style firearms might well be held unconstitutional, given the precedential history of gun rights decisions issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century. This would be both under 2A as well as the due process rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts could conceivably find that a ban on AR-15s irrationally distinguishes between that style of rifle -- and it's America's most-popular firearm today, being known more commonly as the "modern sporting rifle" -- and the many other semi-automatic rifles available on the market. The differences between the AR-15 (from any manufacturer, with "AR" standing for "Armalite") and other such rifles are largely cosmetic and mainly designed to give the AR-style weapon a really fearsome appearance that belies its essential .22 caliber (.223) nature.

As others here who own and handle guns regularly have observed: a firearms user who's intent on firing the maximum amount of rounds can just as easily put that much lead in the air from a rapid cycle rate (i.e. dropping a magazine and inserting a fresh one and continuing firing) as from having a so-called "high-capacity" magazine. The Virginia Tech shooter had two semi-automatic pistols and managed to kill 33, for a good reason: he overwhelmed his victims with extreme violence and they, in turn, reacted as many people would do: they went into some sort of shock or momentary paralysis that allowed the shooter to herd them and then take them in detail.

The above can be overcome, though, by training of subject populations. Training in how to respond to an active shooter, for instance. We need that in some schools (or all schools, sadly) for sure, and for starters. Simply trying to ban some sort of specific firearm will be completely insufficient to the task, in my opinion.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

My wife is a teacher. My two brothers and their wives are teachers. My mom was a teacher. I went to school and knew teachers. My kids are in school and they know teachers, and I know their teachers. Do I qualify as knowing "fuck all"?

I would not trust any of them (with the possible exception of one brother, who is a hunter) with a gun in a school. You are talking about introducing hundreds of thousands of guns into schools, with the hope of intervening in the one or two school shootings per year. You think that there would be no adverse effects from having that many guns around? Nobody mishandles them? No student gets hold of them (and students out-think teachers on a daily basis)? No teacher panics and shoots someone? No teacher goes postal and threatens or shoots a student? No teacher accidentally shoots another teacher in the case of a real attack?

Do you require military-style training for anyone carrying? How many weeks per year of ongoing training? Who certifies them? How much background do you investigate? How often do you check each one for psychological issues that may have arisen to make them unsafe? How much do you spend to provide the facilities for each teacher to secure their gun during the day? What about teachers (like my wife) who move between multiple classrooms every day? Do they have a secure gun safe in each room? Who has access to each safe? Or do teachers carry them through the halls that are crowded with students between classes, and keep them holstered during class? Or maybe put them in their desk drawer during class, next to the spare pencils and calculators? What can *possibly* go wrong?

On the way to school this morning, my ninth grade daughter laughed when she heard the suggestion on the radio that teachers should carry guns.

---

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

In that instance they could then have their fight and we can all see if they really are 'assault rifles'.

I am just not a fan of arming teachers, for all of the reasons you state. If a school system perceives the need, then they should hire trained and vetted security guards whose only job is to protect the school. Or, perhaps, local police should be on the hook to rotate officers into the schools.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Apparently, the East Brunswick district here in NJ has just approved putting armed security in every school in the district.

---

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

I have to admit: arming teachers, whether they want to arm themselves voluntarily or not, makes me very uneasy, and I'm usually a "right to arm bears" kind of guy. I'm not sure we want one of the prime shapers of kids' minds to be sporting that pink ladies Ruger I displayed in my OP.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Perhaps you think this teacher knows "fuck all," too?

---

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

Despite your snark, I'll bet cash dollars that my 9th grade daughter knows more about teachers than do you.

Great idea for teachers to be walking in student-crowded halls while carrying. Should my wife have her gun in her purse, or in her computer bag, or in a holster for all to see? When she puts her purse down in the classroom, is that "on their person"?

---

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

No, the real problem is that it is unconstitutional.

Nobody is going to require your wife to carry a gun. Your comments seem to indicate that she and those you know will be required to carry and I haven't seen anyone propose that. They are obviously not the type of teachers who would be good candidates. But just because they are not good candidates (n=3) it doesn't mean that there may be one or two who are.

Sure there are some logistical issues that would need to be addressed, but it doesn't mean that it is impossible. It is odd that you don't want teachers to carry to stop the one or two school shootings a year, but you want to have (some) guns banned for that same reason.

Amend it then

I was using my wife as an example to understand how someone *like her* would need to carry her gun.

My attitude is not odd at all. Like the lottery: someone is likely to win, but it ain't gonna be you. So you shouldn't play.

---

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

You know this. Even Dan repeatedly acknowledges this. The purpose then, as in now, is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1) educate me, if you think I'm smart enough to understand you
2) fix your quotes
3) congrats on the correct usage of "whether" (by omitting "or not") although the "regardless" is redundant

---

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

Renewed calls for gun legislation is falling on deaf ears because corrupt politicians are afraid of the gun lobby. That’s all. They are addicted to the money. That is what is preventing any sort of common sense gun legislation.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Obviously I don't, or I wouldn't have asked. And your answer wouldn't have occurred to me, as it isn't part of the Second Amendment last I checked.

So, how is it that owning guns, in reality, meets that purpose today? "Red Dawn"? Or against an oppressive government of our own? What threat to the Constitution do you see that owning guns protects against that threat?

---

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