There is a large push to change the OUTSIDE of schools to limit school shooters - have a longer trek from the parking lot to the entrance of the school... have a fence was clear entrances and exits.... possible a longer walk from the entrance of the school to where the classrooms actually are. The idea is that if the parking lot is monitored, it gives additional time to react and prepare.
Sure. It is always easier to increase security by limiting freedom. If we got rid of the fourth amendment, we could drive crime way down. If we let the police summarily execute gang bangers crime would plummet like a stone. I prefer to take less effective action that is more in keeping with freedom and Constitutionality.
I think it's a good idea and I've suggested it on the bbs before. Though I also recognize that some school sites wouldn't lend well to that treatment, not to mention budgets. From private schools I'm familiar with that have perimeter security like that, it still wouldn't be that hard to penetrate for someone very familiar with the layout and security practices of the school -- someone like a disgruntled student, alum, parent, or employee. Still, it improves access control. I wasn't even advocating for some abolition of our second amendment right (not here, though elsewhere -- sure I have), just the common recommendations for reasonable bounds that could be found to be constitutional (by a reasonable and nonpartisan court) and would not heavily burden the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Things like registries, background checks, waiting periods, or form factor regulations that tend to be popular with a majority of Americans but struck down by judges to maintain the purity of their constitutional interpretative frameworks. You may like less effective action, but the majority of people in what is supposed to be a voter-led democracy are asking for a little less of this freedom and a little more of that security.
Across 6 states, from a small town in AL at a sweet 16 party to a park park in a city. It’s very rare. There were seven mass shootings on Saturday - the most of any day this year https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/mass-shootings-us-april-2023-dg/index.html
Why are you against making people with guns have to take a course in how to use them and de-escalate. And have a mental health check? Are you afraid that mentally ill people will lose their rights to automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Why so much push back against things that seem common sense?
Sure, that too. Anyone that prefers the conditions that exist in another place should go to that place if it is reasonable to do so. I haven't seen a lot of posters talk about how much better Brazil is than the United States on X, Y, and Z, but if there is such a person, that would be a good plan for them. I have seen a lot of people talking about how much better Canada is on guns, health care, government, COVID policy, etc. I'm glad that, at least sometimes, the Constitution has stood against drives to sacrifice freedom for security. I don't like conditioning our rights, especially on subjective grounds. Who determines whether you are mentally fit to have a gun? Whether you are sufficiently trained in de-escalation? I'm happy with criminal conviction being the disqualifier. Knowing what drives gun violence in America, that is more than sufficient for most purposes.
I don't get why taking a course in de-escalation is any different than taking driver's ed. How to determine if you are sufficiently trained? You see, they have these things called tests. Maybe you've taken one? They also have evaluations for mental illness. Obviously the criminal justice system and fear of going to jail isn't stopping gun violence. So it's not sufficient to the 10's of thousands of people are being murdered every year. Maybe you want to tell their families it's sufficient?
You don't have a right to drive. You have a right to speak. How many tests do you think you should need to pass before you are allowed to express your opinion? You have a right to vote. How many tests should you need to pass before you are allowed to cast a ballot? I wouldn't have an issue making driving a right and eliminating driving tests, but that is not the state of the law. Yes they do. But it isn't like a test of your cholesterol where there is an objective number. There are around 200 mental health diagnoses (give or take) in the DSM-5. Does having such a diagnosis disqualify you under your system? It is illegal to own a gun if you have a felony or certain misdemeanor convictions. That is what I was referring to, not the deterrent effect of criminalization. We should substantially increase most criminal penalties, especially as applied vs. nominal.
I don't understand your point here. Are you equating buying an AR-15 with speaking freely and expressing an opinion?
Even the right to speech is regulated. You can't speak whenever you want, and you can't even use whatever words you want. You have a freedom to BELIEVE whatever you want and express that opinion in most cases, but in some cases, expressing that opinion will get you in jail. So why can't gun ownership also be regulated? If other rights can be regulated for sanity's sake, then so can guns. If you want to have a test to vote, I am open to discussing that. You certainly have to have an address to vote, and you can't be in prison, so even that right gets regulated. So you can't tell me a right isn't something that can't be regulated. It is across so many things. If the FAA can screen pilots for mental issues, then so can gun owners be screened as well. You can't tell me that we have mental health tests for certain jobs but can't have it for guns because here are no objective tests. Anyone with a history of schizophrenia should not own a gun. Anyone who has a history of beating their wife - should not own a gun. Anyone with a history of major depression and has suicidal thoughts before - should not own a gun. Yes, your medical records should be reviewed for mental health issues and if you have them, you need to go through extra testing. I'm fine with good guys having guns. But not anyone else.
Take your so called facts and shove them buddy. You fail to see the main point. Household with guns cause more deaths. We can eliminate that in a civil society. As far as the majority of thugs with guns, gangs with guns, criminals with guns, we can make the guns illegal and then when they are caught with them we can lock them up. Get rid of the guns and we won't lead the cWestern world countries in mass shootings and gun kkillings. You'd probably prefer to just eliminate all the blacks and Hispanics, but that isn't going to happen. As long as we keep pushing guns, the non-whites you call the biggest killers will go down to buy them legally, and load up on ammo at any local gun shop.
Take your so called facts and shove them buddy. You fail to see the main point. Household with guns cause more deaths. We can eliminate that in a civil society. As far as the majority of thugs with guns, gangs with guns, criminals with guns, we can make the guns illegal and then when they are caught with them we can lock them up. Get rid of the guns and we won't lead the civilized Western world countries in mass shootings and gun killings. You'd probably prefer to just eliminate all the blacks and Hispanics, but that isn't going to happen. As long as we keep pushing guns, the non-whites you call the biggest killers will go down to buy them legally, and load up on ammo at any local gun shop. People like you and the NRA fed politicians skirt the truth to fit their agendas. You types see what works in other countries but refuse to do as they do all in the name of freedom and the outdated 2nd Amendment. You are stubborn old mules who see it works in other countries but don't care. You will never see the fact that this gun haven country is doing it wrong. You are an old goat, a stubborn mule, and a part of the problem by your protective defense of people needing guns. People don't need guns. At the least we should ban pistols and AR-15 type weapons. At the least, we should have mandatory training, and annual licensing. At the least, we should have a better screening for any history of gang affiliation, mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, and history of assault or domestic violence. It should be thoroughly vetted, with longer waiting periods to check them out. People with prescriptions for drugs for depression, mental health treatment, or other mental issues should not be allowed to buy or operate a weapon. At the least, it should be a felony to do ink and operate a gun.
So is your right to bear arms. You cannot carry a gun wherever you want or shoot it wherever you want. Doing so in come cases will land you in jail. You cannot possess a firearm in prison either. Seems like the 2nd Amendment is already MORE regulated than these other ones, doesn't it. Which Amendment gave people the Constitutional right to be a pilot? Should someone with a history of schizophrenia be allowed to vote? This is already the law. You cannot own a gun if you have any history of depression? Good news. Most people are good guys. Most bad guys are already not allowed to own guns. You have already gotten what you want, barring some edge cases. They aren't "so called facts," they are just facts. I even gave you the links. I'm sorry it bothers you that most gun violence is done by violent street criminals. I don't know why it would, besides destroying your narrative. I already gave you the numbers. Having a gun at home is not a major risk factor. Even with a gun at home your chances of dying are very, very small. Somehow, most communities are right in line with the Western world in gun killings. Maybe we should focus on the tiny minority of communities that are causing the problems. Nope, as I said, most black and Hispanic people are law abiding citizens who don't hurt anyone. The group of people that cause most of the crime is very small. That isn't how they get guns. They aren't going to the gun shop and going through background checks and filling out forms. They are either stealing them, buying them on the streets, or making them. Most of these things are already the case. It is a matter of enforcement. We need more cops in bad neighborhoods.
krisiti Noem the governor of South Dakota said at the NRA convention that her family had given her 2 year old grand daughter firearms. What you’re stating is that firearms should be treated with caution and training. That isn’t what much of the NRA rhetoric is pushing or what many politicians pushing for more access to firearms. As I’ve stated before rights also have responsibilities. The arguments made here only focus on the right to something without concern for responsibility. That doesn’t mean that easy access to firearms by all groups isn’t a factor. And before you bring up Switzerland firearms and ammunition are much highly regulated than here.
I’m just going to remind everyone that in the Heller decision Scalia himself noted that while firearm ownership might be a right firearms can be regulated and are regulated. There is nothing unconstitutional about regulations on firearms. There is nothing unconstitutional about regulating ownership of firearms.
