Time for State Governments to take the lead on School Shootings

I think 2 is pretty standard already and 3 exists also. I'm sure legislation will be proposed. IIRC the most effective gun laws against crime in general were mandatory sentencing laws crimes involved with guns...that was implemented a decade ago by some states (?). Anyhow, that was overturned by the USSC.

 

The only way you can stop this madness is to prevent people from getting these guns capable of killing massive number of people. No legitimate gun owner needs the kinds of weapons capable of this kind of mass carnage.

If a gun is meant to defend and protect, why are we allowing people to own military style rifles?

 

I think 2 and 3 could be good ideas but 1 would be a 2nd amendment violation so it would be struck down by the courts even if passed as has already happened with similar laws in the past, including a federal law that at one time prohibited anyone with a restraining order out against them from possessing a firearm. It's only a matter of time before the same happens with the California law.

When it comes to 2, schools already technically have armed guards, but the problem is that most of the time they have an insufficient number of them. 1 armed guard for 3000 students is ridiculous. I think it would be helpful to set up some kind of guidelines that say you need x number of armed guards for every y number of students or x number of armed guards for every y number of square feet of the school. This IMO would be one of the most effective measures given that it would make schools no longer soft targets providing a disincentive for people to target schools to begin with

When it comes to 3, there could be practical problems with this idea in that you are setting up bottlenecks which would make good targets, but at least it's productive thought.

 

I'm not going to get into the whole idea of which guns should be banned and what your opinion of what guns are for. The men that wrote the 2nd Amendment laid out what they believed in the Federalist Papers.

I want to start with reality. The tightest you could possibly make gun control in this country would be similar to New York laws. They banned AR15 type rifles and tried to limit magazine capacity in pistols to 7 rounds. The NEW YORK SUPREME COURT (not exactly a conservative body) said that was too far reaching and changed it to 10 rounds. So there is your bottom line limit of gun control. If you think someone can't do this same shooting with pistols with 10 round magazines you would be wrong. Most of these psychos have more than one gun so they could just pull another gun out of their waistband and keep blasting, or anyone that has practiced can reload a semi auto pistol in about a second. Nobody can crawl out from under a desk and stop a guy during a reload. That would be fantasy movie nonsense... especially when the victims are children.

The vast majority of democrats are not even calling for a ban on handguns beyond what I mentioned above. Even if Democrats somehow brainwashed a republican house, senate, and the president we would still have weapons capable of performing the same shooting. Virginia Tech was the worst school shooting in our country. He used a 9mm and 22lr pistol. At point blank range rifle vs handgun is nearly irrelevant. Short of a Constitutional Amendment you can't ban enough guns.

The only way you actually stop this is to secure the schools. Blame whomever you want... but guard schools like courthouses and this ends.

 

Richmond, VA, iirc. Mandatory federal prosecution for anyone caught with an illegal gun, or committing a crime with one, legal or not.

I'm not sure why that was shot down, but it sounds like a good idea to me (again, I know nothing of the particulars). Stop throwing non-violent (drug) types in jail and start throwing in the violent ones.

 

It seems to work in other countries. Why is it that conservative arguments for their version of reality don't exist anywhere in reality? The one good guy with a gun principle is just fantasy. The a handgun is just as lethal as an AR15 is also fantasy. There's a reason mass shooters use AR15's and it's not because handguns are just as effective. A ten round AR15 (and especially one with a bullet button) is not as lethal a weapon as a 30 round AR15 with a slide fire. Stop with the ridiculous rhetoric.

 

I am pretty sure that less than 17 people would have died if Cruz had to use a handgun

 

1. What country had to overcome our 2nd Amendment, Congress, President, and Supreme Court to pass your magical gun control? I'm talking about now or even the last 10 years... not some American Utopia in 50 years.

2. The reality is OUR reality in America. I am for more gun control, but thinking that any ban that you can actually pass with our government will stop mass shootings is insane. Even Diane Feinstein's bill when the Democrats controlled the Senate did not call for confiscation of AR15s. They just could not buy new or transfer them.

3. Mass shooters didn't always use AR15s. Remember it used to be we have to ban GLOCKS? That was the gun of choice and used to carry out the biggest school shooting in our country. Again, a gun that would not be banned by any bill supported by the current anti-gun party.

4. I did not say an AR15 is less lethal. I said a 10 round semi auto pistol or 2 could have done the same shooting we saw this week and at point blank range it is probably irrelevant because you are screwed with either gun . Semi auto handguns don't have bullet buttons.

 

A psycho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech with a 9mm and 22lr handgun. George Hennard shot, and killed 23 people, ten of them with single shots to the head, and wounded another 27 at Lubys with 2 9mm pistols.

My point is even the strongest gun control that could be passed under our current system similar to New York would not ban the guns above. The guns aren't going away at the level of Austraila or Great Britain. Therefore, security would still be needed.

 

Every law that has restricted a constitutional right has overcome the Constitution, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court without any magic involved. What? Like, what?

It hasn't been insane in any other country. Why is it insane here? You could require anyone purchasing an AR15 or really any semi-automatic weapon to have a yearly registration, mandatory training, background checks, and insurance. That gives ample opportunity to gauge the fitness of a potential gun owner to own a weapon. All of it perfectly legal to do.

Furthermore, we know the Republicans are in the pocket of the NRA whose only goal is to increase their membership and sell more weapons. Republicans actually prevented the CDC from studying gun violence as a means to protect unfettered access to guns. They have no interest in solving this problem in any way. Everything they do and say it merely a deflection for the NRA.

 

Blah blah blah.

We dont allow people to own military style rifles (w/out proper permits and tax stamps). A military style weapon is a weapon that allows the shooter to choose between semi-automatic, short bursts or fully automatic.

Americans have been allowed to own semi-automatic rifles since the days they were first invented.

If you dont feel people should be allowed to own semi-automatic guns, then say so. Just stop using the wrong terminology. It makes a world of a difference in this argument.

 

Which is why we can either keep wasting our time discussing the authoritarian fantasies of the anti-gun crowd, or we can move on and discuss things that will actually help the situation that more importantly could actually happen.

Honestly those kinds of people are the reason why nothing has been done to prevent schools from being the soft targets that they still are today, they have all of their eggs in the "repeal the 2nd amendment" basket and that's a non-starter.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't do what you just said. In fact, I would support much of it. I'm saying it won't happen today, tomorrow, next week, next year, or even in 3 years. How about in the meantime while we wait for Congress to get off their ass we do something and protect our kids like we protect our football stadiums, courthouses, and jewelry stores. The next school shooting is likely coming before ANY of those laws could or would be passed.

 

I believe there was an armed officer at this school.

 

Wow.. one guy to protect a campus with multiple buildings. Sounds like Fort Knox up in there.

 

So you want how many guys? Five, ten? For every school in America... how do we pay for that?

 

I am fine with all 3 of your suggestions. Your second and third suggestions should be 100% financed through taxes on those that purchase and maintain fire arms.

 

Ah yes, adding a more cops to keep children safe would bankrupt the world, but we can pay for this NBD