RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 4, 2019 18:28:26 GMT -8
I had a conversation with a friend this afternoon who raised this question, and I'd like to pose it to every poster on this forum: If you could snap your fingers and make every firearm in America disappear (except those in the hands of the military and law enforcement personnel) would you do it? Or is your loyalty to gun ownership and the second amendment so strong that you wouldn't? I would do it in a heartbeat. I would not. It has nothing to do with loyalty to guns or the 2nd Amendment, rather to common sense. In your scenario, do you really believe that criminals wouldn't be able to steal guns from the military or law enforcement? Once they do, they then have an unarmed populace at their mercy. I believe we fundamentally disagree on two points: - The first is what a gun represents. To me, a gun is an equalizer, it puts power in the hands of one who may not have the physical size or strength of an attacker. There was a time where having a bladed instrument (sword, knife, pointed stick) gave one an advantage in a confrontation. Over time, as weapons change, the device that equalizes confrontations change. 200 years from now it may be some electronic device that locks up another persons nervous system so they can't move. In all cases, they are just a tool. How they get used, for good or evil, is completely based on the user.
- The second is personal responsibility for your safety. I believe each & every one of us is wholly responsible for our personal safety. Not police officers, remember they are called Law Enforcement, not crime prevention. That doesn't just mean we all need to carry weapons, rather it is the decisions in our life that lead to our safety. Choosing where to live, choosing when to be in public, choosing how to secure your home and choosing how to defend yourself if need be. The whole package, you & you alone are responsible for.
We often fall into a false sense of security because of the societies we have created. Being able to walk around outside with no defenses and not worrying about being physically assaulted is not the norm in nature, ask any critter who is the target of predators. As man, we have created societies where we have a social contract to not harm each other, but there are predators in our societies who have not signed on to that contract. We need to remember that and deal with those predators in a swift & harsh manner to eliminate them, for the safety of the rest of society.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 4, 2019 18:45:53 GMT -8
Great discussion, and the question above is the one the be examining, rather than going round and round on gun laws, statistics, and scoring cheap political points. I think both the comments below reveal some insight into the role social media may be playing in this phenomena of irrational mass murder going on in recent years. Throw in a couple of decades of systematic demonizing of young white men in America, mental health problems and the overmedication of these same young men, and you've got a toxic mix. Along those lines, I'm wondering if this isn't the same monsters we have always had in society who have now learned a new trick. In the 1950's thru the early 1980's, a menace upon American society was serial killers. Guys like John Wayne Gacy or the Freeway Killer would kill 20, 30, 40 people, but it would be one at a time over a period of months or years. As the concept of a mass shooting took hold of American society in the mid 1980's, serial killers have dropped off the radar. Are John Wayne Gacy & the guy who shot up the Colorado theater both suffering from the same mental illness and just chose to express it in different ways? If I am not mistaken, the profile of serial killers and mass shooters is for all intents & purposes the same, white males, often younger with extreme mental issues. In the same way that fundamental radical interpretation of the Muslim faith creates to Islamic terrorists, there is something within White American culture that creates serial killers & mass shooters of those who have extreme mental illness. This could be a time where the concept of "white privilege" applies, that mentally ill white men have a concept that it is okay to kill numbers of other people of any race for no other reason that they have the privilege to do so. So I fully expect that my sons & grandson will soon be rounded up for testing... |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Aug 4, 2019 18:58:15 GMT -8
. I like the fact that you offer solutions and I agree that it is the concern of every American. I believe the solution will not be found within the party lines. We have to put a plan in place and I could care less whose plan it is. Well here's a plan from an Independent...I'll use CA as a model for a portion of this. The idea is to greatly reduce ALL gun violence, not just the stuff that makes the news on occasion. 1. Expand the prison just outside California City into a super-sized prison large enough to accommodate the inmates in the other 33 CA prisons, plus capacity for another 50%. Adjacent, build a facility large enough to house the homeless / mentally ill population. Fund this with the sale of the 33 CA prisons to private enterprise. San Quentin alone is worth around $2 Billion. 2. Amend law to include mandatory 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a gun outside the home without a lawful purpose. What is considered a "lawful purpose" shouldn't be too hard to define. 3. Require licensing for gun ownership at LEAST as robust as getting a driver's license, that would also include a background check and some form of mental illness screening. 4. Require venues housing 500+ occupants to have metal detectors at secured entry points, and 1 armed officer per 500 occupants...plus whatever parameters are needed to sufficiently harden the target. Provide tax credits for capex required to meet security standards. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Aug 4, 2019 19:41:21 GMT -8
. I like the fact that you offer solutions and I agree that it is the concern of every American. I believe the solution will not be found within the party lines. We have to put a plan in place and I could care less whose plan it is. Well here's a plan from an Independent...I'll use CA as a model for a portion of this. The idea is to greatly reduce ALL gun violence, not just the stuff that makes the news on occasion. 1. Expand the prison just outside California City into a super-sized prison large enough to accommodate the inmates in the other 33 CA prisons, plus capacity for another 50%. Adjacent, build a facility large enough to house the homeless / mentally ill population. Fund this with the sale of the 33 CA prisons to private enterprise. San Quentin alone is worth around $2 Billion. 2. Amend law to include mandatory 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a gun outside the home without a lawful purpose. What is considered a "lawful purpose" shouldn't be too hard to define. 3. Require licensing for gun ownership at LEAST as robust as getting a driver's license, that would also include a background check and some form of mental illness screening. 4. Require venues housing 500+ occupants to have metal detectors at secured entry points, and 1 armed officer per 500 occupants...plus whatever parameters are needed to sufficiently harden the target. Provide tax credits for capex required to meet security standards. #2 Seems problematic. Self defense would be everyone's "lawful purpose." |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Aug 4, 2019 19:50:28 GMT -8
Well here's a plan from an Independent...I'll use CA as a model for a portion of this. The idea is to greatly reduce ALL gun violence, not just the stuff that makes the news on occasion. 1. Expand the prison just outside California City into a super-sized prison large enough to accommodate the inmates in the other 33 CA prisons, plus capacity for another 50%. Adjacent, build a facility large enough to house the homeless / mentally ill population. Fund this with the sale of the 33 CA prisons to private enterprise. San Quentin alone is worth around $2 Billion. 2. Amend law to include mandatory 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a gun outside the home without a lawful purpose. What is considered a "lawful purpose" shouldn't be too hard to define. 3. Require licensing for gun ownership at LEAST as robust as getting a driver's license, that would also include a background check and some form of mental illness screening. 4. Require venues housing 500+ occupants to have metal detectors at secured entry points, and 1 armed officer per 500 occupants...plus whatever parameters are needed to sufficiently harden the target. Provide tax credits for capex required to meet security standards. #2 Seems problematic. Self defense would be everyone's "lawful purpose." You would need a concealed carry permit to be outside your home with a weapon. The intent is to put teeth into the law when bad guys are caught carrying weapons. I think it would make sense to expand search laws to include vehicles in a gang infested area. Remember, there's a crapload of hand-wringing going on with cries about doing "something". Well, here's something. |
|
|
|
Post by sixthman on Aug 5, 2019 4:08:02 GMT -8
I would like to see an armed officer on every campus. The cost is not extravagant. Seems like a good place to start.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 5, 2019 5:46:29 GMT -8
I would like to see an armed officer on every campus. The cost is not extravagant. Seems like a good place to start. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Off duty police, retired military, and even some militia (properly vetted, of course) would do that for free... |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 5, 2019 5:47:40 GMT -8
. I like the fact that you offer solutions and I agree that it is the concern of every American. I believe the solution will not be found within the party lines. We have to put a plan in place and I could care less whose plan it is. Well here's a plan from an Independent...I'll use CA as a model for a portion of this. The idea is to greatly reduce ALL gun violence, not just the stuff that makes the news on occasion. 1. Expand the prison just outside California City into a super-sized prison large enough to accommodate the inmates in the other 33 CA prisons, plus capacity for another 50%. Adjacent, build a facility large enough to house the homeless / mentally ill population. Fund this with the sale of the 33 CA prisons to private enterprise. San Quentin alone is worth around $2 Billion. 2. Amend law to include mandatory 20 year prison sentence for being in possession of a gun outside the home without a lawful purpose. What is considered a "lawful purpose" shouldn't be too hard to define. 3. Require licensing for gun ownership at LEAST as robust as getting a driver's license, that would also include a background check and some form of mental illness screening. 4. Require venues housing 500+ occupants to have metal detectors at secured entry points, and 1 armed officer per 500 occupants...plus whatever parameters are needed to sufficiently harden the target. Provide tax credits for capex required to meet security standards. I like these, but the professor is right, we would have to be very careful how “lawful purpose” is defined. I particularly like #3 as THE ONE point on which rational people on both sides have agreed. #1 will take some persuading of people who will live around the super prison. Even now, propose building or expanding any detention facility brings the howling monkeys out of the woodwork to protest. Maybe annex 100 square miles immediately south of Texas’ southern border and wall it off... kill 1 1/2 birds with one stone. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Aug 5, 2019 6:43:09 GMT -8
Dave - I doubt the local inhabitants of the area around the current prison near California City would pitch much of a fit about expanding it. Do a Google Maps search satellite view, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree.
As for lawful purpose to carry a weapon outside the home, besides hunting (which also requires a license) and CCW permitees, I can't think of any other exceptions.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 5, 2019 7:03:21 GMT -8
Dave - I doubt the local inhabitants of the area around the current prison near California City would pitch much of a fit about expanding it. Do a Google Maps search satellite view, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree. As for lawful purpose to carry a weapon outside the home, besides hunting (which also requires a license) and CCW permitees, I can't think of any other exceptions. I agree about the CA City prison, but I understood you were only using California as an example. If the posit is that we use CA, specifically, then no issue (although, my idea about walling off 100 square miles of northern Mexico would be effectively the same thing)😬 i don’t disagree with what rational people would accept as “lawful,” but we all know it is not the rational people we need to be concerned about. If you leave the law as stated “...without a lawful purpose...” it is only a matter of time for some eager beaver zealot to un-define CCW as a lawful purpose. So all I’m saying is, define it well. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 5, 2019 7:34:31 GMT -8
This seems the most fitting thread for this: Those were the words of Mexico's Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard as he announced Mexico’s intent to sue the U.S. over the deaths of 6 Mexican citizens amongst the 20 deaths in the El Paso mall Saturday. This quote is taken from an article on Fox News, but it is all over the internet. I do not believe for a moment Mexico came up with this “plan” on their own. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 5, 2019 7:35:58 GMT -8
As for lawful purpose to carry a weapon outside the home, besides hunting (which also requires a license) and CCW permitees, I can't think of any other exceptions. Would driving into the heart of L.A. count as a legal exception? There are many streets and areas of Los Angeles that I will not go to without being armed or having armed protection. Reginald Denny's life would have been very different had there been a shotgun inside the cab of his truck the day he was pulled out into the street during broad daylight. Heck, the entire riot may have turned out differently had Football Williams & a couple of his thug friends faced the business end of a shotgun as they climbed up on Mr. Denny's truck. Facing a gun sobers up the most enthusiastic criminal very fast. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 5, 2019 7:41:03 GMT -8
This seems the most fitting thread for this: Those were the words of Mexico's Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard as he announced Mexico’s intent to sue the U.S. over the deaths of 6 Mexican citizens amongst the 20 deaths in the El Paso mall Saturday. This quote is taken from an article on Fox News, but it is all over the internet. If he wanted to sue the twat that pulled the trigger, I would back him 100%. Suing the government in this situation is a non starter for me. BTW, I read that the shooter not only wanted to kill illegal aliens, he wanted to kill people who didn't take care of the environment. If true, he was all over the board ideologically, although I doubt the mainstream press will print the second part. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Aug 5, 2019 19:55:56 GMT -8
As for lawful purpose to carry a weapon outside the home, besides hunting (which also requires a license) and CCW permitees, I can't think of any other exceptions. Would driving into the heart of L.A. count as a legal exception? There are many streets and areas of Los Angeles that I will not go to without being armed or having armed protection. Reginald Denny's life would have been very different had there been a shotgun inside the cab of his truck the day he was pulled out into the street during broad daylight. Heck, the entire riot may have turned out differently had Football Williams & a couple of his thug friends faced the business end of a shotgun as they climbed up on Mr. Denny's truck. Facing a gun sobers up the most enthusiastic criminal very fast. With what I'm suggesting, you would need a CCW to carry in those areas...or just stay out of them. The centerpiece to what I'm proposing is a very harsh punishment, that will actually be followed through with until completion of sentence, for carrying a weapon outside the home with a permit. The law must have teeth in order to be effective. It's why prisons need to be expanded. But after thinking about what Dave noted, the locations at the border would actually make a lot of sense if you make violation of these gun laws a FEDERAL offense. I still think CA should consolidate the prisons into a single location, and make better use of the land they currently reside. But that's just the pragmatic business side of me speaking. It makes way to much sense to consolidate manpower, and operate efficiently. Heck...32 wardens and support staff would be out of a job. Back to these gun violations being a Federal crime...I'm liking it an awful lot. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Aug 5, 2019 20:08:21 GMT -8
I would like to see an armed officer on every campus. The cost is not extravagant. Seems like a good place to start. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Servite's new Dean of Students is the retired Chief of Police of Brea, so I'm confident we'll have good lockdown and safety procedures in place. Not sure if there is any armed presence on campus but I wouldn't be surprised if it's being done quietly. |
|
