Posted on 02/21/2018 6:25:59 AM PST by Kaslin
The gun control debate is complex. It pits rights against duties. It pits individualism against communitarianism. It pits gun owners against anti-gun activists, and law-abiding citizens against one another. Most of all, it pits "common sense" against evidence. The vast majority of gun control proponents keep talking about "common sense" gun control, as though Americans could simply blue-sky some ideas about curbing highly sporadic acts of violence and fix the problem immediately -- and as though Americans were suffering from lack of will, rather than disagreement about method. That's simply not the case.
But there are things we can do.
Let's begin with the easiest thing: We can insist that our law enforcement agencies actually enforce the law. The Parkland, Florida, shooting occurred because the FBI failed to do its job. Not once but twice, the FBI was warned about the shooter. And not once but twice, it ignored the warnings. That isn't rare. We know that law enforcement screwed up in the South Carolina black church massacre; we know it screwed up in the Texas church massacre; we know it screwed up in San Bernardino. We know that, as of 2013, out of 48,321 cases against straw buyers -- people who buy guns for others, including those who aren't legally allowed to buy them -- just 44 had been prosecuted. We know that as of 2013, there were nearly 20,000 people in California alone who weren't legally allowed to own guns but owned them anyway. Giving the government more legal power to confiscate weaponry or prosecute those who are dangerous means nothing if the government blows every available opportunity.
But we can do more.
David French at National Review suggests an option: gun-violence restraining orders, or GRVOs. These would allow family members to apply for an order enabling the legal authorities to temporarily remove guns from those who are deemed to be a significant danger to themselves or others. Furthermore, we should ensure more transparency in the background-check system with regard to mental health records, and we should look to ease the regulations on involuntary commitment of the dangerously mentally ill.
We should also radically increase security in schools. I attended a Jewish high school that was regularly threatened with violence. Every student who attends that school is now checked in by security; the school has barriers on every side; armed security guards attend the campus. The same measures should be available at every public school. Complaints about the so-called school-to-prison pipeline created by the presence of law enforcement at schools seem to be overblown, according to the data -- and, more importantly, it's the school's job to ensure the safety of students, not to protect students against their own criminal behavior.
These are simple measures that should be able to achieve broad agreement. But they probably won't, because it's too politically useful for the left to rail broadly about gun control. The biggest problem with the gun control debate has been its failure to boil down slogans to proposals. That problem won't be alleviated so long as the media insist on putting mourning teenagers on television with the chyron "DO SOMETHING." Something is nothing unless someone puts some actual proposals on the table.
“do something” means do something that won’t work. They yell and scream about guns, but never get to the heart of the problem: why does the guy’s “value system” allow him to shoot up innocents? (50 years of godless liberalism.)
We must begin by rooting out and destroying all the left wing BS that pervades the American culture. So long as the leftist BS exists there will be problems
The root cause of the school shootings was the school its self. That is barely being mentioned on Fox. One suspects those skirting the line on exposing that truth are controlled.
It’s time to change the debate. School shootings are not about guns - those are the means, not the cause. The cause is psychotropic drugs. Talking about gun control when we need to be talking about mental illness and psychiatric drugs is just giving into the false Rat narrative.
“Something” includes two choices:
1. Remove “gun free” status and allow parents and staff to CC on campus if they have a CC permit
2. Keep them gun free, but put up full protections at all entrances like you have at other gun free zones. e.g. Courthouses, airports and prisons.
And if you choose option two, you have effectively disarmed everyone, meaning you are fully and LEGALLY responsible for their safety. i.e. expect to get seriously sued by the survivors and families if a shooter DOES get in.
It’s simple really. And truth be told, this will massively deter shooters. It’s like the old walled cities. When under attack, their function was to repel said attack. But their practical and REAL function was to deter anyone from attacking. Same thing here. Otherwise we would have shoot outs with security checkpoint guards at airports and courthouses. We don’t.
Nothing will get done.
Liberals want a political issue and conservatives don’t want to set a dangerous precedent.
After passions have cooled, people will live as they always have, with the status quo.
“It pits rights against duties. It pits individualism against communitarianism.”
Individualism against COMMUNISM.
Say it, Ben.
Meanwhile, over at Colt, they are getting lots of overtime.
Create a National Firearms Safety Board to fully investigate each case in full context and hold accountable those in authority who failed at their jobs. That’s like we do with plane crashes and the NTSB, which has made flying much safer than it used to be.
I’m “borrowing” (stealing) this from FR member geeneyes over on another thread.
I hope I’m forgiven.
“..Does a bump stock CAUSE someone to murder? Can a bump stock act on it’s own? No - it’s ridiculous
Does a gun CAUSE someone to murder? Can a gun act on it’s own? No it’s ridiculous
When a truck drives into a crowd, or a truck bomb goes off, do we ever blame the Truck and suggest that Trucks should be outlawed? No that would be ridiculous.
Does the LSM ever ask anything about a the drug use of a shooter who massacres people? Do they ever seriously investigate why it happened? Will they investigate why the FBI really ignored this kid?
Shouldn’t any action taken address the CAUSE of the problem?
If such drugs are going to continue to be used, and we don’t know who will be impacted, shouldn’t we take real action, like eliminating gun free zones which are just the next massacre waiting to happen?
How about hardening these “soft” targets with security guards and effective security screening/restriction of access?
Is it not suspicious that we have these shootings, and the cause is never really explored? The shooter winds up dead or cops a plea, so there is not a thorough investigation and records are never really available to the public?
Does the Government/gun grabbers really want to know the cause of the problem? Do they want a solution or would they rather have kids continue to be killed so that they can disarm law abiding citizens?
In the 50’s we had kids driving to school with guns in gun racks in their pickups. We did NOT have all these massacres. Why is that? Why is no one trying figure that out?...”
“you have effectively disarmed everyone”
That whole theory hinges on the the shooter obeying the law. So you haven’t effectively disarmed everyone. You have disarmed everyone who is not a shooter.
Exactly right ... we have had second amendment rights for 200+ years ... but we haven't had 200+ years of school shootings ...
"What changed" is the question no liberal has the wherewithal to contemplate ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M
Where the politicos are right now in the debate.
From Blazing Saddles 1974—21 seconds long.
I can’t believe David French made a cogent point.
Since the liberals have rendered it almost impossible to forcibly institutionalize someone for aberrant mental behavior, there is frequently no record.
Since the Government apparently failed again, like in Texas to do their duty, there is no record.
The GRVO isn’t a bad idea. There must be protections for the person receiving the restraining order, such as a defined time to review and a probationary period after which, if certain criteria are met, full rights are restored.
But in essence, it’s a very good idea.
A year or two ago, my son was acting out a bit and having some emotional issues. I had decided that if it got any worse, removing any access to firearms was in order.
It turned out that his was due to a specific medical issue which was finally diagnosed a week or two later, so the issue went away as his treatment began. The physical pain he was in had a known side effect of emotional distress.
That whole theory hinges on the the shooter obeying the law. So you haven’t effectively disarmed everyone. You have disarmed everyone who is not a shooter.
And the result is that you have assumed full LEGAL responsibility for the safety of everyone inside the perimeter of the gun free zone. So if someone DOES get in and shoot anyone, it’s on you - legally.
Doing it the way schools now do it is hopelessly irresponsible. It does not reflect best practices nor due diligence. It’s time they choose one of the options and be prepared to take legal responsibility if they choose number 2.
I agree with improvements needed to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but they don’t even want to discuss mental illness.
Excellent point.
Get rid of the public school Gun-Free zones. Allow the teachers (trained) to conceal carry. Even if they do not have the gun with them, the “threat” that they POSSIBLY are armed will stop most cowards. This is what people MISS with CC, it isn’t that a person has a gun and is waiting for you to attack, it is that there MIGHT be a gun there ready to stop you. It is the THREAT that will stop this nonsense. (Go find another gun-free zone, like a hospital, to attack! /s).
I wonder who paid for those fancy buses??????
If they actually want to do something constructive, instead of purely “feel good”, they they need to march on Broward County and have them revoke the law that does not allow the records of minors to be entered into the criminal background check database.
That is the real culprit in the school shooting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.