I can’t imagine what it is like to be a teacher in U.S. public schools these days. First, they are hit with “so-called Christian” rhetoric by folks accusing schools of “grooming their children for pedophiles” because of proposed education curricula. Then there is the book banning by the same folks. As George Will would say, “Well.”

This is just awful for teachers who mostly have children’s interests at heart, or why else, in this day and age, would someone want to do a hard job that is grossly underpaid?

Now, we have yet another school massacre, this time in Texas: 19 children and two teachers killed in minutes by an 18-year-old with a high-powered rifle who was able to legally buy it on his 18th birthday.

The front page article in The Frederick News-Post about local teachers has the headline: “How much can we endure?” How much, indeed. And it’s so much worse when we heard people such as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton say, according to a Washington Post story, that teachers need to be armed (Paxton, by the way, is under indictment for various alleged actions). And we see the NRA meeting right after this Texas massacre of children in Houston. And we hear Trump at the NRA meeting, according to the Washington Post, rejecting proposals for new gun restrictions. Guns aren’t the problem? Really? I beg to differ. When teachers are contemplating regularly how they will get their children away from an active shooter situation, guns sure appear to be a problem to me. Some statistics here: in the U.S., there are 120 guns per 100 people. That’s a lot of guns! Of course, I’m not talking about a shotgun to kill varmints or a rifle to kill deer. I’m talking about these AR-15s and such, which are designed for one purpose only: to kill people in minutes.

Jan Warfield

Frederick

(96) comments

bckosk

Until people understand and rely on facts, there will always be a segment of gun owners who will never give up "their right" to own guns... and keep them in their home... "gdi". I have talked with friends in France, UK, and Germany. All know friends that own high powered "long guns". The difference is that they they would not say that it is their "right". The are "sportsmen and women". Long guns are owned but locked at gun clubs. When they want to target shoot etc. they only use them at these ranges... They don't need to have semi/auto weapons at home. Hand guns are regulated and licenses after registration and checks. Australia and Scotland have had gun buybacks. Guess which countries have 80- 90 % less shooting? Yes, the horse has left the barn. But within the past few weeks, two 18 y/o "men" legally purchased semi/automatic with the sole intention of killing human beings. Not sport shooting, target shooting or protecting their homes from burglars. You are neither a sportsperson or hero/protector of your home if you won't come to terms with the FACTS.. AMERICA has a serious GUN problem and at minimum, background checks, waiting periods, buybacks, mental health care, adhering to red flag warning confiscations, everything and anything reasonable should be put in place. Anyone who is not in favor should have to review photos or the dead/mutilated/unrecognizable bodies of 10 and 11 year old children, and adults in the morgue, identify them with their pictures with their families before you claim your "rights" to own a gun... Finally, read A2.. and turn in your modern weapon and legally purchase a single shot flint long gun used in the 1790's.. to protect your family... then . join your militia ( National Guard and serve your country.

olefool

Since pdl, boomer, bhall and CDReid are most likely one and the same, evidenced by their writing styles, political fantasies and conversational idiocy, seem to be enjoying a soliloquy between themselves today.

pdl603

Once again the fed system let us down. People saw something and didn’t say anything. Let’s ban everything from guns to knives to cars. It is clear banning everything never works. You just have to go back to prohibition to understand what will happen. The mob filled the gap when the need was there. Isn’t it obvious that mob or gangs will do it again? The Dem knee jerk reaction at its best. Thanks, Brandon.

C.D.Reid

"Let's go Brandon, I agree." ([lol][lol][lol][lol][lol])

mamlukman

Some more thoughts....

The idea of arming teachers or having police stationed in schools: Two elements to this. #1) Is the armed teacher / policeman going to accurately hit the target? Lots of studies have been done on this ( https://daiglelawgroup.com/new-study-on-shooting-accuracy-how-does-your-agency-stack-up/ ) for example. The conclusion of all the studies is that if the police hit their targets 50% of the time, that's about average. One study looked at the Dallas police over 15 years--less than 50% accuracy. Most shots missed.

Now note that these studies are of police--trained to shoot. (Although we should note here that US police training is laughable compared to other countries.) So if "trained" police miss more than 50% of the time, what's the accuracy rate for a teacher?

#2) Is the armed teacher / policeman going to react immediately, or is he / she going to "freeze" or hesitate? Lots of studies show that about 15% of soldiers in a combat situation don't fire their guns or just fire into the air. Police statistics are hard to come by, but everyone seems to agree that an immediate reaction is a product of both training and experience. For an average civilian, virtually none of them will have been trained in an active shooter simulation, and probably none of them have ever been in that situation before. The odds of them hesitating (and getting blown away...) are pretty high. Even if they are excellent marksmen--it won't matter if you don't pull the trigger.-

bhall74

mamlukman, so many "what ifs" I'm beginning to think that you are really privy in disguise.

threecents

Say, you don't think there is relation between us having by far the most guns per capita and by far the most gun deaths per capita of any peacetime country? Must be a coincidence, and we cannot do anything about it, right?

mamlukman

The "madman" theory is...well, crazy. Note that both the Buffalo and Texas shooters carefully planned their actions--as did almost all mass shooters. Careful planning is not exactly the hallmark of a crazy person.

bhall74

So, it's your position that someone who plans and executes mass murder does not have a mental illness...of any kind? Is that what you're saying? Do you really believe that?

shiftless88

bhall; do you believe that mental health professionals are incorrect when they note that these people are not mentally ill?

bhall74

shiftforbrains, you keep saying these individuals were not mentally ill, so where is your proof? Provide valid citations, otherwise shut up.

shiftless88

bhole, apparently you do not understand how this works. It is up to YOU to prove your assertion. And just claiming it is so does not constitute "proof"

mamlukman

They may be evil, but they're not crazy. If you are crazy you are confused and unable to plan complicated sequences of action. Most (I won't say all because I haven't researched it) mass shooters are far from crazy. Certainly in the latest cases--Buffalo, Texas, El Paso, Michigan, etc.--each shooter had a very detailed plan. And they carried it out. They may not be "normal", but they're not insane.

Or take the case of terrorists. Are they insane? Of course not. They are perfectly sane but misguided. Some would call them evil. They have logic, planning, etc.

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend all these shooters are insane. So what's the answer to that? And again, to make the argument that all the US shooters are insane, you have to assume that the US has a much, much higher percentage of crazy people than say Japan or the UK. Do you really believe that? Or is it because it's much harder to get a semi-automatic gun in Japan or the UK?

bhall74

mamlukman, you really don't believe that a person who is mentally ill can plan a complicated sequence of actions? What exactly is your definition of mental illness?

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

Now, we have yet another school massacre, this time in Texas: 19 children and two teachers killed in minutes by an 18-year-old with a high-powered rifle who was able to legally buy it on his 18th birthday...

and we also know now that good guys with guns won't stop bad guys with guns...because they are afraid of the gun...So where were the 'good guys with guns'? Standing around doing nothing, as usual

https://www.rawstory.com/uvalde-police-2657406283/

In Uvalde, the "good guys with guns" wearing police uniforms stood around for almost an hour before storming a classroom and killing the murderer of 19 children and two teachers.

No matter which figure you use, that's one hell of a lot of "good guys with a gun" in the state of Texas, don't you think? If all that's necessary to take down a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, the question after the Uvalde shooting is, where were they? Even the good guys with guns wearing police uniforms, it was revealed on Friday, waited almost an hour before they stormed the classroom where the shooter was, and 19 of them waited until they could be backed up by a SWAT team from the Border Patrol before they finally used their guns to kill the murderer of 19 children and two teachers.

On Friday we heard reports that citizens of Uvalde, including at least one parent of a child who was killed, were outside the school yelling at armed police officers to go inside and take on the shooter. Cell phone video shot at the scene at 12:37 p.m., while the shooter was inside the school killing children, show one officer holding up his hands trying to prevent a person from filming him and shooing a crowd of people away from the doors of the school. One person can be heard calling to the others that they should enter the school and storm the shooter because the cops aren't doing anything. Another video shot at the same time showed numerous police officers in full tactical gear restraining parents who were trying to enter the school to retrieve their children. One father was pepper-sprayed in the face and a mother was handcuffed. In the background, a police officer in armored gear is hiding behind the bed of a pickup truck aiming his AR-style police rifle at the door of the school.

So some of the good guys with guns were doing exactly what so many cops are accused of every day: menacing civilians and pushing them around and threatening to arrest them for doing nothing that was even remotely illegal.

Maybe this year Wayne will explain to us that the reason we've had all these school shootings and mass killings is because we don't have enough good guys with guns. More good guys! More guns! That'll show these mass murderers! Next time one of them shoots up a school, we'll have even more people standing around outside picking their camo-clad asses as the bodies of the dead lie there inside submitting to the ministrations of the crime scene investigators.

More guns, and more crime scene investigators! That'll show 'em that in Texas, we're second to nobody!....

At this point it has been proven that goods guys with guns can't or won't stop bad guys with guns..so it's a matter of when, not if, you will die in a mass shooting event because as usual the good guys with guns are just going to stand around and do nothing other than flap their lips..offering thoughts and prayers..

bhall74

So what's your point privy, because once again much of what you're posting is your view of things, and therefore misinformation. Fortunately, many of us recognize it for what it is and ignore you, and as for the rest, well they're too wrapped up in their own anti-gun paranoia and lies to pay any attention to you either.

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

So why didn’t you just ignore me bhall? And why didn’t you provide any evidence that my view is incorrect? Because you can’t, because you know my view is the correct view of how things went down.

Good guys with guns cannot stop bad guys with guns… dispute my truth

shiftless88

because bhall is a ten-year old kid with a complex and whose mom probably hasn't loved him enough. Grade school insults, incapable of empathy, incapable of rational discussion.

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

Shiftless88 not surprising considering that is exactly how his Idol acts…

bhall74

privy, for the most part I do ignore you, but sometimes stupidity needs to be challenged.

C.D.Reid

Bill, privy is a perfect example of how stupidity can be challenged, but not fixed.

Boomer631B

guns are not the problem - mental health disease is and the lack of making sure these mental defect cases do not get a firearm of any kind is the area that we need to fix not getting rid of guns because these mental health folks will use something else.

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

BoomBoom

Did you see the news? I hope you aren't too upset by this??

Michael Sussmann Acquitted Of Lying To FBI In Trump-Russia Probe

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-sussmann-acquitted_n_62963ceee4b07aa93892a648

jsklinelga

pwp

Do not read too much into this. The jury was always going to be an issue. One Dem contributor, one who posted anti Trump material and one whose child goes to school with Sussman's kids. The important facts are what was brought to light under oath. The Clinton campaign orchestrated a false narrative. It misled the FBI and leaked a supposed Russian collusion story to the press stating the supposed charges were being investigated by the FBI. To be continued..

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

Your point JSK? Acquitted is Acquitted....so again I think you may not be reading enough into this...do you know what Acquitted means?

bhall74

jsk, I would say jury nullification took place in the case of Sussman, but I suspect Durham knew that was most likely going to be case with a DC jury and he may have had a different reason for pursuing this particular case. Time will tell.

shiftless88

jsk; do you actually understand how our court system works? Because it seems like you do not. The prosecution did not have to allow those jurors to be seated but they did. Just because YOU imply something does not make it true.

Hayduke2

Man jsk, do you even listen to yourself. Everything you post is some conspiracy theory or a made-up story to suit your world view. Just plain sad and delusional.

olefool

"and one whose child goes to school with Sussman's kids." Yeah, and Clarence Thomas' wife hangs around with insurrectionists and grifters..... Your point?????

C.D.Reid

Your point, Snowy?

mamlukman

Oh what a great idea! Arming teachers! What could POSSIBLY go wrong? I can't imagine....

bhall74

mamlukman, 34 states, with varying restrictions, currently allow teachers to carry firearms on school property. Are you aware of any situations where this has been a problem?

mamlukman

Of course I am. There is a long, long, long list (complete with the name of the school and the date) of incidents. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/ Now not every stupidity led to injury or death. Just like if you go 150 mph on Route 15 you're not going to crash 100% of the time. But that doesn't mean going 150 mph is either safe or a good idea.

That fact that you seem unaware of all these incidents is part of the problem.

Layer on top of all that this scenario: a shooter enters a classroom with an AR-15. The teacher has a gun, reaches for the gun, get the gun in his/her hand....and then what? There is now a 100% certainty that the shooter will target the teacher--and with an AR-15, most likely will kill or seriously injure them. Meanwhile the teacher is not Clint Eastwood. Most likely they will hesitate before shooting. Or they shoot but miss. Or they shoot but hit a student. A lot of possible outcomes, only one (1) of which is desirable.

bhall74

mamlukman, how many students or teachers were shot or injured by a teacher's gun? As for your "scenario", that's just a "what if" scenario, so my response is this, "what if the teacher, due to their superior training, pulls out their handgun and shoots the AR-15 gunman right between the eyes. End of gunman, end of scenario."

mamlukman

bhall74--You obviously didn't read the article I linked to. Then you would know that, yes, students have been injured. Secondly, read my other comment--your idea of the armed teaching shooting the bad guy in the middle of his forehead is fantasy. It relies on 1) terrific marksmanship--better than the average police! and 2) instant response, which would be possible but not likely. More likely is the long list of accidents, stupidity, etc. listed in the referenced article. And as for armed police in schools, they kill students too. Remember the student at Tuscarora who got tased and died? I bet his parents remember. If there had been no police at the school, he would be alive today.

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

mamlukman...I guess the new theory is teachers with guns can stop bad guys with guns...bhall seems to have forgotten or doesn't want to remember that a bunch of highly trained good guys with guns refused to stop one bad guy with a gun...he does seem to be living in an alternative reality doesn't he...I am trying to figure out what reality that may be...?

Bhall carry on...I am fascinated by how your mind works...please explain more about the reality of teachers with guns..

Hayduke2

mam - a suggestion for you. Don't engage bhall in his trolling behavior - he lives for projecting his fantasies and nonsense....

Fredginrickey

BHole, or a solution? Cops carry guns and the waited outside the school while those children were murdered

mamlukman

And of course, just as at Parkland, there was a policeman assigned to the school. He was away at the time. Which makes sense...he has to go to the bathroom, eat lunch, etc. and of course there are sick days and vacation days. In other words, you can't just say "Right, we need 1 policeman per school." No. You need more than 1 just to keep one on guard at all times. And of course you are assuming that the policeman guard will be effective--a very big "if".

mamlukman

Exactly. They could have been the best marksmen in the world, but it didn't matter because they just stood there and waited. So did the policeman at Parkland. And what if the school policeman is at one end of the school and the shooter is at the other end busily shooting 45 rounds / minute into a classroom? What good would the policeman do?

bhall74

freddie, really? Are you sure, or have you been reading privy's posts for your news?

jsklinelga

Is it legal to own this type of gun in Maryland? Has the Supreme Court authorized the constitutionality of owning this type of weapon? Just curious.

shiftless88

Yes, it is legal to own them in Maryland. Actually, the Supreme Court authorized the BANNING of such a weapon.

bhall74

When you look at what makes a gun "banned" in MD, you quickly come to realize that the legislation was primarily focused on banning "scary" guns. As such folding stocks, flash suppressors, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds were banned for all center fire long guns. Same with some shotguns. At the same time, if the rifle is a rim fire model, then there are few, if any, modifications to the rifle that are banned. So, you can purchase an AR-15 with a 10 round magazine, but you cannot purchase an AK-47 with a 10 round magazine, even though both the AR-15 and AK-47 have the same basic features with the exception of ammunition caliber. As for true military "assault" weapons, you can purchase an M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine manufactured for US troops in WWII. You can also purchase any number of different military rifles, single shot and semi-automatic, manufactured by just about every country so long as the rifle was manufactured at least 50 years prior to the date of purchase. By the way, you may own a fully automatic "machine" gun in MD, so long as it is registered with the State Police. Fully automatic "machine" guns are allowed under federal law provided you complete the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. Same with suppressors (silencers).

jsklinelga

bhall

Thanks. On the second part - do you think SCOTUS would uphold a ban on weapons' of this type in view of their prior rulings?

bhall74

jsk, good question. As we've seen with other federal "rights' cases, SCOTUS has a tendency to look for a case that is perfect for delineating a clear line between what constitutes federal authority under the Constitution, and state authority under the Constitution. The current abortion case is appears to be one used by SCOTUS to correct a previous mistake by SCOTUS regarding abortion in Roe v. Wade and return responsibility for abortion laws to the states.

The perfect 2nd Amendment case might be exactly the opposite, to restore federal supremacy with regard to certain aspects of gun ownership over the states. The 2nd Amendment supersedes all state laws where there is conflict, but at the same time, SCOTUS has determined that states can implement laws that are not in direct conflict with the Constitution or federal law and meet an overriding state need. So, if a weapon is legal under federal law, then I could see SCOTUS deciding it cannot be illegal under a state law. This decision could potentially also incorporate some aspects of the Commerce clause, because a gun manufactured in Maryland and legal under federal law cannot be made illegal under another state law. What courts look at when making a decision is the basis of the law they are looking at, and whether there was an overriding state concern to support the law. They will also look at state requirements that may act to hinder an individual's right to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to determine if there is a valid basis for those requirements and what state concern do they serve.

So, will SCOTUS uphold a ban? I think not, in fact, we may see quite a few state and local laws dealing with gun ownership swept away by SCOTUS. I can potentially see the right to openly carry allowed, with the ability of states and private property owners to restrict certain locations (schools, places of business) from open carry. I could see conceal carry restrictions become extremely limited to the point where a state is required to issue a permit (shall issue in lieu of MD's may issue) so long as certain, not overly prohibitive restrictions are complied with.

However, SCOTUS does have the ability to surprise everyone sometimes with their rulings, so who knows what they will do with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

jsklinelga

bhall

It is good to know the law. When the federal Assault weapon ban went into effect it was supported by Ford, Carter and Reagan. When the ba ended in 2004 it has not been reinstated but concerning Mds law and the challenge

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the Maryland ban in November 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond had upheld the ban, stating that: "[A]ssault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment." Attorneys general in 21 states and the NRA had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.[43]

gabrielshorn2013

Yes, it is legal to own such firearms in Maryland, jsk. However, it has been illegal to buy or sell one in the State of Maryland since 2013. However, there is a case pending to overturn such a ban pending before the Supreme Court (Dominic Bianchi et al. v. Brian E. Frosh et al., No. 21-902). They had denied a 2017 appeal of a lower court decision that shiftless references. Fortunately, firearms do not have an expiration date, and with the usual preventative maintenance, those that have them can keep them for as long as they want. There are now over 20 million in the hands of private citizens in this country, and they aren't going anywhere.

https://thedailyrecord.com/2022/05/04/md-weapons-ban-fails-strict-scrutiny-gun-groups-tell-justices/

jsklinelga

gabe

. You may or may not be right. I suspect more States will ban them or have varying restrictions. I am definitely a 2nd amendment advocate. I just think there is a middle road somewhere and it would behoove the sportsmen to help find it.

gabrielshorn2013

i believe there must be a solution, jsk. Most of the shootings are from repeat offenders. Take them out of society for a long time (as Federal law mandates) and there are fewer repeat offenders. 0ver 40,000 people fail NICS background checks for lying on the form 4473 (a felony for each lie worth 5 years). How many are prosecuted? Very few if any. Require registration like we do for voting, and training in order to purchase a firearm. Severely punish illegal "gunrunners" to the full extent of federal law, without the opportunity to plea bargain down the charges to a slap on the wrist and a stern talking-to. They could earn decades behind bars. it is already mandatory to secure firearms and have trigger locks. Prosecute those individuals who violate the law after their child accesses the firearm and kills themselves or someone else. I advocate a background check on every sale, including private transfers (there is no such thing as a gun show loophole in Maryland. All transfers are checked), but it really isn't enforceable for private transfers, as I have pointed out multiple times here.

However, 18 USC 922 (d) already states "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person...". How would you know? You ask! You ask those same questions as found on the 4473, and hold sellers and buyers responsible for their responses. No excuses! It is a federal crime to lie on that form. There are so many pre-existing laws that could be effective if the violators faced consequences for their violations. This is what sportsmen are advocating, but it falls on deaf ears.

C.D.Reid

One thing about these shootings, they sure can bring out the stupidity and irrationality of some people.

Case in point: in the referenced article, a couple of days ago, Plumbum declared “Ban assault rifles.” Gabe responded with “You want to ban the 20 million currently owned?” to which fido said “Yes, ban them. They are nothing more than an egotistical declaration of manhood.”

So I asked fido “OK, fido, you want to ban millions of guns already in possession of millions of people who legally bought them. And just how do you propose to do that?” and his response was “Remember Mr. Reid, I don’t answer STUPID questions. You know, I’m very happy that I and a few others are able to give you a place to vent your bitterness and anger, otherwise you’d be out torturing animals or even carrying out your own mass shootings. These shooters are just like you, bitter, angry at the World over some rejection or perceived mistreatment by people richer than you, smarter than you, happier than you. That is exactly what drives Donald John Trump, to seek revenge over those that have ignored him. I feel like the few of us here are carrying out a Community Service. You’re Welcome.”

My question was nothing more than that, a simple question, and his reply was a nothing more than a personal attack filled with lies, insults and innuendo; everything BUT an answer to my question. And why didn’t he give me an answer? Because he didn’t have one. Because he knew that to try to implement his idea was nothing short of impossible. So, his only resort is to attack me with what he knows are lies, but it was far easier to do that than it was to give me an honest, legitimate answer. Wasn’t it, fido?

A while back, after another shooting, sevenstones, backed by FredG, decided that a solution was to “get all guns registered.” OK, so I asked how did they suggest doing that? How would they get the estimated 400 million guns in this country registered, including all the black powder ones used by enthusiasts, reenactors, etc.? All the collector ones left from WWI, WWII? And, especially, all the illegal ones owned by the inner city thugs who are intent on killing each other off? I asked them this a few times and each time their reply was complete and utter………..silence. Why? Because they know that, again, it would be nothing short of impossible to implement their idea.

Time and again gabe has exhibited far more patience with these people than I ever could by referencing the Constitution, existing laws, and shear, common sense. Time and again. Yet the same old, same old irrational “arguments” keep popping up from they who are clueless of how laws can, and can not, be made. They’re thinking with their hearts, not their heads, which reminds me of a saying I heard years ago, adapted from an older one: “If you think with your head before the age of 30, you have no heart. If you think with your heart after the age of 30, you have no head.”

bhall74

CD, as I said in an earlier post, you can always tell that Democrats and their anti-gun useful idiots are not serious about their perceived "gun problem" when the only solutions they offer are nothing more than the same old stupid canards they always fall back on. Ban guns. Ban assault weapons. Sue the manufacturers. Register all guns. Blah, blah, blah. As we've seen, the FNP comment pages are not immune to the contamination of these useful idiots.

I recently read an article that surmised that young men who commit these kind of mass murders are, as you said, bitter and angry over some rejection or mistreatment by others that has warped their mind and created within them a desire to "get even" or "be noticed" by doing something that only a diseased mind can believe is appropriate. In other words, they're looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

C.D.Reid

Exactly, Bill. It's the same old, same old garbage from them, and that's the main reason why I don't participate in the shootings discussions like I used to. Idiots, one and all, they are.

Hayduke2

CD says It's the same old, same old garbage from them, and that's the main reason why I don't participate in the shootings discussions like I used to. Bro, you ought to look in the mirror.. Garbage in, garbage out and then you try to spin and justify it. Sad.

C.D.Reid

You can say what you like, Hay, but I don't come up with absolutely ridiculous ideas about how to solve the shootings problem, and you know it. Most of what I write are anti-Brandon facts which you call "garbage" because you have a problem with the truths about an idiot you voted for.

Yep, garbage in, garbage out; you're one of the biggest, left wing indoctrinated contributors here.

shiftless88

You can buy them back for one. You can register them. All of them. Once again the 2A fanatics are raising their hands and saying "it is too hard to do!" This is why these murders are on your heads. The blood is on your hands. I have outlined several ways this can be done. Is it easy? No. Well, it could be if all these law-abiding gun owners want to remain law abiding.

C.D.Reid

Gun "buy back" programs are useless for stopping, or even reducing, crime, shift. The only thing they're good for is wasting taxpayer's money:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

Now, just what do you mean by "You can register them?" Which gun owners are you specifically talking about registering their firearms?

mamlukman

Which gun owners should register their guns? Easy. All of them. Just like we register cars. And just like getting a driver's license requires a written and a driving test. And just like a driver's license can be suspended or revoked for a list of offenses. And just like your car can be confiscated in certain situations. In other words, why not treat guns like cars????

As for buy-back programs being useless, why don't you ask the Brits, Australians, and New Zealanders about that? Or even the Canadians!

C.D.Reid

Ok, mamlukman, tell us, just how are you going to get all the inner city thug gun owners to register the guns that they've filed the serial numbers off of? Please, tell us.

shiftless88

CD; why are you so worried about inner-city people? Just focus on the law-abiding gun owners because they will have no problem registering their guns. And where do people get them illegally? You have to clamp down nationwide on who can buy which guns. No selling without mandatory background check and 100% transfer reporting. The reason it is easy to get a gun is because there are SO MANY in circulation. Trying to get one in the UK or Japan or other countries is very difficult. You are just trying to make excuses for not doing anything. So again, these murders are on your hands.

C.D.Reid

Well shift, in the first place, mamlukman was the one who said "ALL gun owners should register their guns," not me. I only asked him how he would get certain owners to register theirs. And, as you can see, he has no answer for me. No surprise there. In the second place, aren't the inner cities where there is a serious gun problem? Did you hear how many murders there were in them just this past weekend? Do you know how many thousands are killed by shootings in the inner cities each year? And you ask why I'm so worried about the inner cities? Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not. I couldn't care less if they succeed in killing themselves off. But I would have thought you would care, apparently you don't. (Don't be surprised when fido starts calling you a racist.) As far as mamlukman's brilliant idea, I refer you back to the first line in my initial 10:52 comment this morning.

shiftless88

CD; on a per capita basis, states like Montana have a higher incidence of gun deaths. But once again, just because some people will not follow the law is not a sufficient reason for not passing a law. Wouldn't you agree? If they do not register their guns and then are found to have a gun, they get in trouble and lose the gun. But I asked in another thread, what percentage of guns do you think are illegally owned? 10%? By getting a handle on 90% of the guns in this country immediately, that will help make it harder for those 10% to remain outside the system, and keep it from increasing.

mamlukman

CD Reid: Why did you say I have no answer for you? Of course I do. If criminals don't come forward to register their guns, then they would be breaking the law, and you could confiscate their guns and fine them. And yes, of course you would have to catch them first. And yes, of course there are a lot of guns out there. It would take time--years. But if they can't replace the guns, and if the police made it a top priority (sting operations, etc.) if would be effective. The alternative is having the number of guns in circulation keep rising. Take a look at some statistics from the ATF: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/26/tallying-americas-fascination-with-ar-15-style-rifles/ Since 1985--35 years--the number of guns manufactured in the US has gone from about 3 million a year to about 12 million a year. There's certainly no sign of this declining. If you narrow your definition to AR-15 type guns, look at the next graph: in 1990 probably fewer than 100,000 were manufactured / imported. In 2005 when the assault rifle ban expired, the numbers sky rocketed to 15-20+ times the 1990 levels. Again, no signs of this leveling off or declining. So here's the deal: either we keep pumping more and more millions of AR-15 assault rifles into the hands of anyone who wants to buy one, or we outlaw them. In the first case, we should expect--as we have already seen--mass shootings to increase in both frequency and deadliness. Is there a limit? Do we want to find out?

C.D.Reid

Mamlukman, you're idea is so ridiculously preposterous I'm not even going to discuss it with you anymore. Reality and logic are, obviously, not part of your thoughts.

Comment deleted.
shiftless88

Why is it guaranteed to fail, bhole? What percentage of firearms in this country do you think are illegally owned at this moment (owned by people not allowed to possess that particular gun)? Let's say it is 10%. Then this will account for 90% of the guns in this country. Pretty good for a start.

mamlukman

CD, I'm happy to help you out!

First of all, registration: In fact, registration of guns is against the law-- https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/are-guns-registered/ in 1986 the federal gov. passed a law making any registration of guns by the federal gov. "or any State or any political subdivision thereof" illegal. (Existing registries--NY and Hawaii--were excluded by a grandfather clause.) So step 1: Repeal that law. Insist on ALL existing guns and guns purchased in the future be registered. If you sell a gun to someone else, it's your responsibility to let the gov. know you sold it and to whom. Then they can delete your name and follow up with the new purchaser. Enforcement? Fines. Big fines. If you own 20 unregistered guns, fines are 20 x. If unregistered guns are used in a crime, it's off to jail.

How do you get the existing guns out of circulation? The same way Australia, NZ, and the UK did. You buy them back. You have a set time period--90 days? 6 months? to turn in your guns and get compensation. If you go over that period, no compensation; they are simply confiscated. That could be for another 6 months. After that, back to step 1--if you still have your gun, and you didn't register it, you get a fine, which is increased the longer you wait. Would this include ALL guns? No--just like other countries, you could have a rifle (registered!) for hunting, skeet shooting, or target practice. If you have a good reason, you could carry a handgun. But no semi-automatic assault rifles. No guns that can take magazines of more than 5-6 bullets.

Could this be done? Sure. Will it be done? Of course not. Gun owners would much rather see little children murdered in their schools on a regular basis. And I'm sure I don't have to remind gun owners that most suicides are by gunshot. One of my best friends from high school shot himself in the head last Sept. Kansas loosened gun laws....guess what happened next? More vigilantes shooting bad guys? Nah. Suicides jumped up. The same people clamoring for gun rights shot themselves.

bhall74

So mamlukman's proposed solution is to essentially repeal the 2nd Amendment to implement his "pie in the sky" solution. You can try to do that if you are prepared for civil war, a civil war that those in opposition to the 2nd Amendment and guns are guaranteed to lose. And don't give me any BS about gun owners don't have tanks, artillery, helicopter gunships, or any military grade weapons because in all likelihood the military members are not going to be on his side in this civil war. So stop with the stupid proposals already.

mamlukman

Yes, the ideal solution (as proposed by Justice Powell) would be to repeal the 2nd amendment. It's original purpose has long been obsolete.

gabrielshorn2013

Finally someone who gets it! Yes, repeal the 2A and have done with it. Article V of the Constitution has the blueprint to do it.

FlyFisherman

How is it a punishment to be required to license a deadly weapon? How is it a punishment to not sell weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute? How is it a punishment to create laws that allow manufacturers to be sued as we do with most products? I keep hearing that law abiding gun owners would welcome these laws as it takes nothing from them.

If police armed officers are unable to confidently confront an armed shooter we need to STOP telling teachers that they need to be armed.

bhall74

You "...keep hearing that law abiding gun owners would welcome these laws...". Really, and where do you "keep hearing" such nonsense? Most likely from the Democrats and their media supporters.

As for selling "...weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute..." What difference does it make how many rounds they can fire per minute? I realize that saying "hundreds of rounds per minute" is really scary for someone who doesn't know squat about guns, but a weapon that can only fire a few rounds per minute can still be put to an evil purpose.

And pray tell, why should gun manufacturers be open to lawsuit because someone who legally purchaseD a gun used it in an improper or illegal manner? Should auto manufacturers be subject to lawsuit every time a drunk driver kills someone, or someone runs a red light and hits another car? Can you explain your reasoning for this belief, or are you just parroting something you heard in the left wing media?

As for "telling" teachers they need to be armed, I agree, we shouldn't force teachers to be armed, only those who want to be armed and are prepared to take the appropriate fire arms safety program. BTW, there appears to be no shortage of teachers who are willing to be armed in order to protect their students and themselves.

jth7100

So, apparently, you don't know squat about guns. If I want to kill and injure as many people as possible as fast as possible, I'm going semi-automatic. It's the choice of mass killers. Not to sound scary, it's just more efficient. If you don't see the big difference, then math is your issue. I challenge you to cite your references on teachers willing to be armed. I know you made that up. The police had weapons that fire several rounds per minute and backed right up and out of there against hundreds of rounds per minute.

bhall74

jth, so you've been thinking about committing mass murder and have decided that a semi-automatic is the weapon you want to use because it's the "...choice of mass killers." So, tell me, how many rounds per minute can you fire in a semi-automatic AR-15? 100? 200? 300? Do you have any idea, or are you just blowing smoke out of your rear end?

You do know, don't you, that a semi-automatic weapon will only fire one round per pull of the trigger. Now, how fast can you pull the trigger, and what are you going to do when your 10, 20, or 30 round magazine is empty? How long is it going to take you to drop the empty magazine, pull out a new magazine, insert it, and chamber a round? Unless you are combat trained, and have rehearsed this process numerous times until it become instinctive muscle memory, you're probably going to drop the magazine or try to insert it backwards, or whatever. How long is it going to take you to clear a misfire, which is a high probability? So, jth, if you're going to make a name for yourself as a mass murderer, let me suggest you start practicing.

bhall74

"...not the solution."

mamlukman

How many rounds per minute can an AR-15 shoot? Of course it depends on the skill of the shooter, but estimates vary from 45 to 100 shots per minute.

But that's only one part of the problem: The bullet velocity of an AR-15 is about three (3) times that of a handgun. Impact = mass x speed. Much deadlier.

bhall74

Guns are not the problem, it's the person holding the gun that MIGHT be a problem, and the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible individuals and are, therefore, NOT the problem. Punishing responsible gun owners is NOT the solution, and making it extremely difficult for responsible individuals to purchase a gun is NOT the problem.

So stop your complaining and offer up a workable solution that doesn't punish responsible gun owners for the actions of a very, very, few irresponsible and mentally ill gun owners.

shiftless88

bhall; since you do not believe that weapons are the problem, then I suppose you are against restrictions for countries developing nuclear weapons, right? Because the weapon is not the problem!

bhall74

Once again, when you are unable to come up with a cogent argument, you resort to the false equivalence argument. Just like I am not in favor of allowing someone who has a mental health issue to own or have access to a gun, I am also in favor of trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of countries that have unstable leadership, especially Iran, but I guess in Iran's case, I am in opposite camp from the Joementia Administration's plan to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. So, shiftforbrains, your false equivalence failed again, but tell me, do you support the Joementia Administration's efforts to let Iran have nuclear weapons?

shiftless88

If the weapon is not the problem then why are there any restrictions on weapons? How are you going to tell if this person has a mental health issue? Actually Iran has a very stable leadership. In fact, we have had more leadership trauma in the past three years than they have (I do not recall an invasion of the seat of Iran's government to overturn an election, do you?). The Biden administration is working with our allies to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; such a shame the Trump administration gave up that agreement that insured that outcome. Again, if you think the person is the problem and not the weapon, do you support allowing anyone who is not under mental health care to purchase SAMs, RPGs, Howitzers and so forth? Are you okay if Bill Gates builds himself a standing army?

shiftless88

We have a "death to ISIS" attitude. They are a rational country. Just because you do not agree with them does not mean they are not rational based on their system of beliefs and their country's priorities.

wran

Not even close to the same situation.

shiftless88

Logically the same. If it is only the person that is the problem then it should be no worries if a person not under mental health care obtains any weapon, up to and including nukes. Right? Because that person is not looney so no worries.

gabrielshorn2013

OK, I see you've even added some hot sauce to your red herring. Bombs, especially nuclear ones cannot be possessed by anyone other than the military, and even then only by those trained in their handling and safekeeping. Why? Because they indiscriminately destroy everything within their blast radius, target or not. That results in an incredible amount of collateral damage. Furthermore, if it accidentally "goes off" anywhere from where it was made until the time of detonation people can and will be killed at any point along that path Firearms only hit what they are aimed at, must be properly loaded, and therefore are not nearly as deadly of dangerous as a bomb of any kind. But you already knew that. The nuke comparison is just lame.

shiftless88

but Gabe; it's not the bomb that is the issue, only the person.

You think that the kids in Texas are not "collateral damage" in general? Randomly targeting everyone in sight is essentially the same thing.

shiftless88

And of course, people accidentally shoot and kill themselves (or someone next to them, or their kid who found it in a drawer) all the time. My neighbor shot himself accidentally.

gabrielshorn2013

And your proposed regulations would prevent any of this, how? The firearm owner who left his gun where a kid can get to it is already in violation of the law. Prosecute them! Put them in jail. Laws don't mean anything if they're not enforced.

shiftless88

smart guns, gabe. But the right-wingers made sufficient death threats to enough people to stop that trend.

gabrielshorn2013

Smart guns, shiftless? And how many do you think will buy one? Not many. There are many flaws in the design that make them prone to failure when you may need it. The system is easily defeated by removing the RFID system in the handle, converting it back to a standard handgun. So, if stolen, it can still be used by a criminal. You can still wear your "smart ring" as costume jewelry i guess.

Hopefully the manufacturers kept all of the standard safety features for redundancy. I might buy one for the novelty, but it would probably sit in my safe. BTW. this has been explained to you before.

gabrielshorn2013

Tangent alert, with a side of red herring!

bhall74

Tangent? No, it appears that shiftforbrains has run his train of thought completely off the tracks.

shiftless88

It is important to pay attention to the fact that while mass murder of children captures our attention, thousands of people are murdered by guns every year. And if bhall believes that mental health is the issue (which is is not), then where is his big push for mental health resources? Nowhere, as usual.

bhall74

shiftforbrains, my focus right now is on getting people like you to get off of the "guns are bad" knee jerk reaction you always have to every mass murder situation, and to the recognition that mass murderers have mental health issues that, had they been properly addressed, may have prevented the mass murder. As long as you continue to deny that mass murderers have a mental health condition, then you are condoning the continuation of mass murder. Once the focus moves to mental health, then the appropriate mental health resources can be identified and deployed.

shiftless88

I do not believe guns are bad. I own several. But our gun laws are far, far too loose and that allows too many people to own too many, and too powerful, weapons of war and that leads us to where we are now.

olefool

Another squeak from the conversational cripple bhall..... "shiftforbrains" or it's connotation is a perfect self identification for bhall.

C.D.Reid

"Thousands of people are murdered by guns every year." Maybe we should start locking up the guns in prisons instead of the thugs who pull the triggers. Think that would work, shift?

olefool

Agreed, guns in general are not the problem, BUT, guns designed and manufactured as weapons of war, people killers, are a huge problem in the wrong hands, as we know from experience. What "responsible gun owner" would have use for a gun designed solely to kill people, even kindergarten kids and pre-teens. Those guns ARE a problem.

A workable solution?? Regarding "people killer guns", maybe an enhanced criminal background investigation, an enhanced mental and medical investigation, posting a surety bond to protect the public, periodic updates and certifications to all background investigations. strict civil liability laws, and lastly a 30 day waiting period before taking possession.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.