Gun Control Bill


Recommended Posts

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3520521-mcconnell-touts-support-of-bipartisan-product-after-senate-gun-proposal-announced/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html

Apparently a gun control bill is about to pass Congress and the White House.

Here are the highlights:

  • Money being spent on mental health centers and resources (including suicide prevention).  And funding for schools and mental health.
  • Buyers under 21 have an enhanced background check.
  • Resources for states to remove guns from people who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others.
  • NICS will include domestic abusers and those who have restraining orders on them.
  • Closes loop holes on who is a federally licensed firearms dealer.  There was apparently a loophole that some could act as a dealer regarding purchasing from a manufacturer, but they did not qualify when it came to selling them to the public.  So, some people were able to buy without a background check.
  • Cracks down on straw purchases.

#1: I think most of us can get behind that one. 

#2: I think this is ok.  But if it is applied in such a manner that it ends up being an outright ban on those between 18 - 21, it is just the camel's nose in the tent.

#3 & #4: I support this in spirit.  But I see the potential for over-reaching government to oppressively apply this.  If one is mentally adjudicated as a danger to others simply because they want to buy a gun...  And, yes, many on the left have declared this is their goal.  No shame, no apologies, no exclusions, no conditions.  If you want to own a gun, you should be declared mentally insane.  As history has shown, what is fringe liberal today will be common liberal tomorrow.

#5: I didn't really know much about this.  Apparently it is a thing.  I'm not convinced that the statistic from "Every town for gun safety" is accurate.  But it is clear that it happens.  And I'm all for having a background check for everyone.  But what will this end up looking like?

#6: I figured this happened on some level.  I don't know how big a problem it is.  But I fear that this will get many people arrested for simply wanting to make some money on the sale of a gun.

 

So, my three rules?  Let's see if it works?

1) Not a re-hash of laws already on the books?  I'm not aware of any laws that cover these things already as far as gun safety.
2) Proven to reduce gun crime?  I believe the mental health stuff is understood to be a big factor in gun crimes.  But what percentage?  And is it going to make a big enough dent?  I don't know.  But overall, it seems benign enough to give it a try.
3) Not an outright gun ban?  We'll see if it ends up banning guns from a lot of people who should have a right to purchase and own a gun.  Again, it sure seems benign enough.  But I'm just not sure how it will be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colorado has had red flag bills on the books for a few years now.  It sounds so dang appealing - your crazy uncle says he's had it, and he's gonna go shoot up a police station tomorrow.  You call the cops, they get a judge to sign off on things, and they go separate him from his guns before he can do something bad.  He has mental health and law enforcement hoops to jump through before he gets his guns back.  What could possibly go wrong?

I have two issues.  First, not a fan of the government searching/seizing your property to prevent something someone MIGHT do.  Not a fan of potential abuses - angry ex-lovers, evil bosses who want to get you in trouble, political or cultural retaliation from activists - hooray, we now have new ways to remove someone's liberties from them through fraudulent activity!   Second, it didn't stop the Boulder King Soopers shooting, even though the guy had a big list of friends and family jumping up and down and warning everyone they could find that he was about to do something horrible. 

 

I'm ok with hardening schools, and glad to hear democrats are finally ending their opposition to such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

I’m against all those points, including background checks.  “Shall not be infringed” was put there for an important reason.

Is the gun violence / mass shooting issue not something worth addressing? Do you have better solutions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems obvious to me that there are problems that involve firearms in our society.  I am willing to have a discussion on this topic.  The big question is - are firearms the problem that needs to be solved?  I have long been a proponent of requiring that the proper use of firearms be required education.  I am also a proponent that every citizen be required to fulfil a military obligation before they can hold a public office (including teacher certification, an elected office, public safety position, having a law license or be a judge) or be able to vote.

I also think we have two more serious problems that seem to be involved .  One is mental illness and the other are drugs.  Just a note about drugs - I talked with a pharmacist a while back and he said that if a person is taking 6 or more drugs it is likely that the drugs will interfere  with each other and cause additional side effects other than what separate drugs have been tested and determined.   I am concerned that prescribed psyatorpic drugs taken improperly are more of an actual concern than are firearms.  Absolutely someone with mental issues abusing drugs should not have access to firearms but the problem goes beyond firearms - we have mental individuals using an automobile as a weapon of mass destruction. 

I am concerned that as gun violence increases that there is serious talk about limiting how police deal with threats to public safety.   I am also concerned that with increasing gun violence that it is becoming more difficult for our public safety officers (police, highway patrol and others) that elements in government want to make it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves.  One thing I learned while in the military - is that going up against superior armaments is a disadvantage.   If you are going to have a firearm for protection - you better have a weapon superior to your threat. 

But if you are going to have a firearm for protection you better have training and regular practice in using the weapon - you ought to also know how to not become a target when the authorities show up.  In the history of warfare one is more likely to be killed with friendly fire.  This can be rectified with training which is one of the prime reasons I believe citizens should be required to serve in the military.  As a side note here - I was hunting with another person that lacked experience with a firearm and when we acquired a target they got so excited that they shot themselves in the foot with a rifle (which I thought is quite difficult to do).  The fact that shooting one's self in the foot is a common phrase about making mistakes should indicate that such messing up with a firearm is not all that uncommon. 

Now with all this said - I believe that the best way to stop gun violence is to make gun violence a capitol crime.   I am not a law expert but I believe that states with a problem of gun violence can enact the death penalty without having to get federal permission.   

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fether said:

Is the gun violence / mass shooting issue not something worth addressing? Do you have better solutions?

My thoughts as well, and anyone who thinks there are easy answers to this vastly complex problem is lying to themselves. It’s way more complex than “banning AR-15’s” (a horrible idea) and arming teachers (a shaky idea at best). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

My thoughts as well, and anyone who thinks there are easy answers to this vastly complex problem is lying to themselves. It’s way more complex than “banning AR-15’s” (a horrible idea) and arming teachers (a shaky idea at best). 

I do not think that it is as complex or complicated as it is being made out to be but there are several conflicting issues.  I will try to express why I believe this is a simple issue.  The first issue I would point out is that this country is established upon the principles of the freedoms and liberties of its citizens.  I would point out that part of the principles of freedoms and liberties of citizens is the "RIGHT" to bear arms.  This right is a responsibility of free liberated citizens and not something to be negotiated with government bearcats and employees.  If the government takes responsibility citizens are no longer free but rather dependent.

At this time I believe it necessary to clarify that it is impossible for freedoms and liberty to exist in a secular (non religious) society.  However, I do not intend to defend this position in this thread - only to point out the simplicity of the concept.  Rejection of this simple concept complicates all the issues surrounding freedoms and liberties to the point of unsustainability. 

I have seen freedoms and responsibilities of society in the USA diminish greatly in my lifetime.  This social deterioration in my lifetime directly corresponds with the deterioration of "religious" principles upon which our country was founded.    Foremost in this deterioration is the movement away from the simplicity  of personal responsibility ethics to the complexity of situational ethics overseen by government controls.  So great is this deterioration of personal responsibilities and liberties that personal accountability is no longer considered as a solution in the public arena.  All the solutions  that I hear being discussed are completely reliant on increasing government control of the issue (which the intent to hide that individual controls and responsibilities are being taken away or removed by force of law.

I am a believer in the simplicity of incentive.  I do not believe anything happens in this universe without incentive.   Thus the only way I believe to end a behavior taking place in a society is to bring to bear sufficient  "punishments".  This means that if gun violence is increasing that the only "simple" way to deal with that problem without over complicating other issues is to increase the punishments and to continue to do so until the behaviors diminish on their own.  The only reason such things become complicated is because they are made to be more complicated.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I do not think that it is as complex or complicated as it is being made out to be but there are several conflicting issues.  I will try to express why I believe this is a simple issue.  The first issue I would point out is that this country is established upon the principles of the freedoms and liberties of its citizens.  I would point out that part of the principles of freedoms and liberties of citizens is the "RIGHT" to bear arms.  This right is a responsibility of free liberated citizens and not something to be negotiated with government bearcats and employees.  If the government takes responsibility citizens are no longer free but rather dependent.

At this time I believe it necessary to clarify that it is impossible for freedoms and liberty to exist in a secular (non religious) society.  However, I do not intend to defend this position in this thread - only to point out the simplicity of the concept.  Rejection of this simple concept complicates all the issues surrounding freedoms and liberties to the point of unsustainability. 

I have seen freedoms and responsibilities of society in the USA diminish greatly in my lifetime.  This social deterioration in my lifetime directly corresponds with the deterioration of "religious" principles upon which our country was founded.    Foremost in this deterioration is the movement away from the simplicity  of personal responsibility ethics to the complexity of situational ethics overseen by government controls.  So great is this deterioration of personal responsibilities and liberties that personal accountability is no longer considered as a solution in the public arena.  All the solutions  that I hear being discussed are completely reliant on increasing government control of the issue (which the intent to hide that individual controls and responsibilities are being taken away or removed by force of law.

I am a believer in the simplicity of incentive.  I do not believe anything happens in this universe without incentive.   Thus the only way I believe to end a behavior taking place in a society is to bring to bear sufficient  "punishments".  This means that if gun violence is increasing that the only "simple" way to deal with that problem without over complicating other issues is to increase the punishments and to continue to do so until the behaviors diminish on their own.  The only reason such things become complicated is because they are made to be more complicated.

 

The Traveler

Trav, your answer seems much more complex than any of the other answers I’ve seen! Lol! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Trav, your answer seems much more complex than any of the other answers I’ve seen! Lol! 

I was going to say “your simple answer has a lot of complex words and sentences” xD

But the overall “bigger punishment” idea is simple. Just took a minute to get there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LDSGator said:

arming teachers (a shaky idea at best). 

Arming teachers is not about having the cafeteria lady and pre-algebra teachers patrolling  the playground with M4s. It’s about school districts allowing, and maybe even paying for, concealed carry permits, classes, and regular trainings. It’s also not about saying the teachers are in charge of safety, but just having an extra precaution in case of a shooter situation.

It’s not a solution, but rather another roadblock to prevent a bad situation becoming worst.

The problem is mental health and having 1,000 kids, who are trying to figure out who they are, all trapped in a building together 8 hours a day half the year.

The fix? Easy. Everyone is homeschooled by parents who are morally pure and have the ability to teach their kids. If a child shows signs of mental health struggles, they get to meet with a good therapist to help them…Actually… nvm… that isn’t simple, finding a good therapist is nearly impossible. This plan won’t work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always like to remind folks that Utah has had legal concealed carry in public schools, for almost a quarter century now.  I'm not sure how many schools or districts had policies either in favor or against, or no specific policy at all, but it has indeed been legal for ~23 years.  I remember reading about it in the news in 1999 when I still lived in Utah.

That's a long enough time to study and conclude whether it was a mistake or not.  And from what I can tell, nobody can really come up with any data indicating anything bad happened. 
- Zero incidents of a student attacking a teacher and taking the gun and going on a spree.
- Zero incidents of unbalanced teachers going on rampages.
- Zero incidents of unbalanced teachers doing anything firearm related, even so much as disrupting a class.
- Zero incidents of gang banger students showing up to challenge mr. Brown to a duel.

The Homeland Security database on school violence contains 2055 entries, with Utah making up less than a tenth of a percent (that's 0.008) of the entries.  That's 17 out of 2055.  Out of those 17 entries, only one deals with an armed teacher.  Looks like an elementary school teacher in Taylorsville negligently shot herself in the leg while trying to use the faculty bathroom.   She resigned.

Unless someone can come up with some sort of data or persuasive argument, it seems obvious to me that allowing school teachers and staff to get trained and carry concealed, is at the very, very least, a neutral thing that brings no disruption or danger.  At best, it'll save lives.

I read Ohio just legalized arming teachers after they have 24 hours of training.  That's an awful lot more hours of training than what Utah requires

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I always like to remind folks that Utah has had legal concealed carry in public schools, for almost a quarter century now.  I'm not sure how many schools or districts had policies either in favor or against, or no specific policy at all, but it has indeed been legal for ~23 years.  I remember reading about it in the news in 1999 when I still lived in Utah.

That's a long enough time to study and conclude whether it was a mistake or not.  And from what I can tell, nobody can really come up with any data indicating anything bad happened. 
- Zero incidents of a student attacking a teacher and taking the gun and going on a spree.
- Zero incidents of unbalanced teachers going on rampages.
- Zero incidents of unbalanced teachers doing anything firearm related, even so much as disrupting a class.
- Zero incidents of gang banger students showing up to challenge mr. Brown to a duel.

The Homeland Security database on school violence contains 2055 entries, with Utah making up less than a tenth of a percent (that's 0.008) of the entries.  That's 17 out of 2055.  Out of those 17 entries, only one deals with an armed teacher.  Looks like an elementary school teacher in Taylorsville negligently shot herself in the leg while trying to use the faculty bathroom.   She resigned.

Unless someone can come up with some sort of data or persuasive argument, it seems obvious to me that allowing school teachers and staff to get trained and carry concealed, is at the very, very least, a neutral thing that brings no disruption or danger.  At best, it'll save lives.

I read Ohio just legalized arming teachers after they have 24 hours of training.  That's an awful lot more hours of training than what Utah requires

My gentle comeback (and you know how much I love you bro) is that Utah isn’t Connecticut or Sacramento. I’m sure it works in a sensible state like Utah. I’m worried about the things you mentioned in other states.

When another shooting happens (and it will, just a matter of time, and yes, it could happen even if teachers are armed) do you think the anti gunners are just going to say “Well, teachers are already armed, so we’re not going to call for more gun control.” 

Also, yes, it is strange how two weeks ago some don’t trust teachers to pick books and educational tools because they might “groom” children but now teachers are trusted enough to carry a gun. That sounds very strange. Which is it? The awkward truth is that if you really thought someone was a groomer, the LAST thing you would give them was a gun.  
 

Last thing. There’s a very small chance of dying due to Covid, but I’m going to make you wear a mask. Dirty truth-the odds of school shooting are very slim too. So why force teachers to carry if having to wear a mask forces the right into temper tantrums? 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally get it Gator.  My kiddos did some public school time here in CO, and if UT is similar, I can see why one might be hesitant to apply Utah's lessons across the country.    

Further, I'm not saying arming teachers will suddenly make murder and violence, or even school shootings, a thing of the past.  

I think we can agree on two things:  First, mass school shootings that make the news are so incredibly rare, that it makes sense to measure the impact of any changes to address it.   Second, individual liberty is important.   

My overall support on letting school staff and teachers arm themselves, are based on both of those things, and especially the 2nd.  The impact is minimal, meaning if someone wants to arm up on their own cost, then it costs the school nothing in insurance or policy or whatever.   And from a liberty standpoint, it makes sense to let people whatever the crap they want to, unless there's a compelling reason to restrict them.  And Utah's quarter century has failed to produce any of the worries we come up with.

I suppose we'll see with Ohio.  From the aforementioned DHS database, that state makes up 4.2% of the results - 41 times as many as Utah.  Here's a question for you - how many years of results would you like to see from OH, before reconsidering any of your opinions on the matter?

 

(Oh - and my opinion about teachers picking books: Let 'em.  Get rid of the Department of Education.  Be transparent with the parents, and let 'em choose.)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

think we can agree on two things:  First, mass school shootings that make the news are so incredibly rare, that it makes sense to measure the impact of any changes to address it.   Second, individual liberty is important. 

We agree totally. You make great points as always my friend. I’m not really “against” arming teachers. I’m just not overly romantic about the idea. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One proposal I've seen is for each school in the US two have two military veterans, veterans who have passed extensive background checks, hired on as on-site armed security. 

The logic is that it's jobs for veterans and a greatly increased security presence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard that proposal, and I like it too.  Vets living as civilians can face some difficulties finding places to fit.  The prospect of quiet days keeping children safe from an attack that will probably never come, with lots of daily exercise and an opportunity to interact with kids in a positive way, is more appealing than, like, armed bank security or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've heard that proposal, and I like it too.  Vets living as civilians can face some difficulties finding places to fit.  The prospect of quiet days keeping children safe from an attack that will probably never come, with lots of daily exercise and an opportunity to interact with kids in a positive way, is more appealing than, like, armed bank security or whatever.

There is one thing I do not like about this (even though I am a Vet) is that we are already spending more $$$ in education for stuff that has nothing to do with education?????  In general I do not like walking around in a society that I must focus on defending myself and others.  I did not grow up in such a society.  The other thing that concerns me is that our society seems to not understand why we are having such problems internally; so we end up trying to treat symptoms rather than the  cause.

 

The Traveler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

In general I do not like walking around in a society that I must focus on defending myself and others.  I did not grow up in such a society.  The other thing that concerns me is that our society seems to not understand why we are having such problems internally; so we end up trying to treat symptoms rather than the  cause.

I don't either.  Me neither.  Me too, and I agree.  :( 

None of that means we shouldn't allow people to protect the innocents in their care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't either.  Me neither.  Me too, and I agree.  :( 

None of that means we shouldn't allow people to protect the innocents in their care.

The other piece of this puzzle is funding - If I could have my way based on my opinion; I would do away with all federal funding of education (especially at the college level of research grants).  I believe education and funding of all education is a STATE not federal right and responsibility.  I am somewhat discouraged that the discussions on this topic seem to be addressed at the federal level by federal entities.  I do not believe this can end well.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share