“Voluntary safe storage is something that the gun community should adopt and encourage”. I’m pretty sure it already doe. As ever, I suppose, “it could do more”, but I get enough trite and tedious safety sermonizing as it is. Responsible gun owners already know this; irresponsible gun owners already don’t care. I’m thinking more lectures won’t move the needle.
Red flag laws tend to have serious due process/civil rights problems, which makes “do they work” either irrelevant or an attempt to sideline these problems.
The NICS system is a Second Amendment violation in its entirety. It is a prior restraint requiring you to get government permission (you can’t keep and bear arms without first buying them) and can’t be reconciled with the exercise of that right free of government interference.
Thanks for reading the EO. Sounds like another exercise in bureaucratic wankery and empire building.
"...nor will likely affect your life in meaningful ways. Nor will they do anything about actual crime..."
This may be technically true today but the constant filing away, even a single stroke of the file, removes protection of legal gun rights. Any sane person knows a legal gun owner is less likely to commit a gun crime than an illegal gun owner, and when legal gun owners get their guns taken away the criminals will still have theirs to continue on the crime spree happily...
The System wants to take away your guns so they can hurt you with impunity.
If crime and death reduction were the goal, there are plenty of opportunities to pursue actual criminals instead of law abiding citizens. Until I can safely walk the streets of Baltimore at night, any attempt to restrict firearm rights of non-criminals can only be seen as preparation by the government to abuse the citizenry.
Aside from the promised huge waste of taxpayer money and the always useless duplication of “thou shall not”, this fuzzy-bunny-feel-good EO was mostly about drumming up Soccer Mom support for the Harris-Walz campaign.
Regarding the murder rate thing, I saw an interesting argument recently, claiming that if it weren't for the vietnam-era improvements in golden-hour trauma medicine, the modern-era USA murder rate would be something like 4x higher than it currently is. So in theory, we actually have something like 4 times as many near-lethal injuries from homicide ATTEMPTS as back in 1963, we just manage to save 75% of their lives now. Obviously, those numbers are rough, and from memory.
Bottom line, more worthless ink on paper pandering to the Kringe Karens who support Kamala, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make anyone better off. I agree, "meh" sums up this and the last 43 months.
I think you're mostly right about these updates. In your school safety post, I hoped to get some thoughts on this feedback, but I was late to the game. So I'll try again:
The thing that has never made sense to me about the harden-the-schools argument is that kids don't live in the schools. They ride buses and walk on sidewalks and play in football games outside those buildings, which are all highly vulnerable places that would be easily targeted if entering a building becomes more difficult.
As for possible solutions, enforceable red flag laws combined with severe penalties for parents/guardians if their gun is used in such a shooting. This wouldn't be a cure-all but it could help as a reduction measure.
Hardening schools would do exactly zero to reduce spree shootings, it would just direct them elsewhere. Which, apparently, is something we must endeavor to do to reduce the anxiety of the Facebook Karens.
So you are FOR what amounts to a Constitutional Right being stripped in a "Minority Report" fashion?
Just like "Swatting," RFLs HAVE been used by everything from a vindictive ex to a "Karen" neighbor because they don't like your political signs in your front yard. Better think long and HARD about that.
Do you think every person in this country should be able to own a gun? If not, then it is a balancing act, which is the system we inherited from the founders.
"If they are a threat, perhaps they should be incarcerated / involuntarily committed." Permanent imprisonment based on the status of "threat" would be a much bigger constitutional violation than preventing gun ownership.
What about the rights of the multiple rounds of victims? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is tough if we give a crazy person multiple violent felonies before removing the most efficient way of causing harm to others.
I'd say past patterns would be a pretty good indicator. Especially 'repeat' offenders. The NRA pushed the "Three Strikes and You're Out" but it was a bit too broadly written, and it pissed off the liberals because IT WORKED.
I think "the harden-the-schools argument" amounts to locking the doors where they can't be opened from outside, and have a crash bar inside for easy egress when needed. And maybe a metal detector for back packs and the like. Also, an off duty police officer to meet an aggressor at the front door that is willing and able to respond with quick, adequate force to repel said aggressor.
I totally agree with your last statement about irresponsible parents that let the child have access to the firearm. It needs to happen.
But, even if we could make every school impenetrable, what is to stop kids being targeted outside the school? I don't think hardening the schools solves the problem, it just moves it slightly farther away from the school building.
Take a look at the Colorado movie theater shooting.
The shooter passed up all the closer theaters and went for the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED. Gee, I wonder why.
And we all know how THAT worked out.
So, the answer is: GET RID OF ALL PUBLIC GUN FREE ZONES.
And don't even BOTHER to respond with crap about jails and similar secured areas.
But, you really wanna post your PRIVATE place "Gun Free?"
Fine.
Then they need to have a legally binding agreement that makes the property owner LIABLE for your safety once you cross the threshold.
I don't care if it's a HOSPITAL, School, Shopping Mall, or other publicly accessible area.
You wanna post it? You're responsible. If you want to include metal detectors, armed security, etc. that's the OWNERS responsibility, nobody else, and I will chose to take my business elsewhere.
Legally armed citizens should be able to carry pretty much ANYWHERE they want. Period.
Oh, before you go down the road about cops having training, etc. you might want to compare the shots fired VS hits scored on target by both LEOs and armed citizens. You'll find that the citizens FAR out shoot the average beat cop by a large margin. (I make an exception for SWAT teams, and people like the Hanford Atomic Energy security teams that regularly generate 55 gallon drums of empty .45 cases every few months.)
A couple of thoughts (OK, three):
“Voluntary safe storage is something that the gun community should adopt and encourage”. I’m pretty sure it already doe. As ever, I suppose, “it could do more”, but I get enough trite and tedious safety sermonizing as it is. Responsible gun owners already know this; irresponsible gun owners already don’t care. I’m thinking more lectures won’t move the needle.
Red flag laws tend to have serious due process/civil rights problems, which makes “do they work” either irrelevant or an attempt to sideline these problems.
The NICS system is a Second Amendment violation in its entirety. It is a prior restraint requiring you to get government permission (you can’t keep and bear arms without first buying them) and can’t be reconciled with the exercise of that right free of government interference.
Thanks for reading the EO. Sounds like another exercise in bureaucratic wankery and empire building.
"...nor will likely affect your life in meaningful ways. Nor will they do anything about actual crime..."
This may be technically true today but the constant filing away, even a single stroke of the file, removes protection of legal gun rights. Any sane person knows a legal gun owner is less likely to commit a gun crime than an illegal gun owner, and when legal gun owners get their guns taken away the criminals will still have theirs to continue on the crime spree happily...
The System wants to take away your guns so they can hurt you with impunity.
If crime and death reduction were the goal, there are plenty of opportunities to pursue actual criminals instead of law abiding citizens. Until I can safely walk the streets of Baltimore at night, any attempt to restrict firearm rights of non-criminals can only be seen as preparation by the government to abuse the citizenry.
Does it mention anything about gun crime rates in Afghanistan? Just curious because I'm not sure those fellas passed the background checks
Where's the mention of the roughly 20% drop in the VOLUNTARY crime reporting stats to the Feds?
Even MSN is reporting on Dr. John Lotts' Crime Prevention Research Center statistics blowing that 'drop' right outta the water...
And when cities stop reporting crimes because they have stopped arresting and prosecuting them it sure make s it appear the rate has gone down...
Aside from the promised huge waste of taxpayer money and the always useless duplication of “thou shall not”, this fuzzy-bunny-feel-good EO was mostly about drumming up Soccer Mom support for the Harris-Walz campaign.
Regarding the murder rate thing, I saw an interesting argument recently, claiming that if it weren't for the vietnam-era improvements in golden-hour trauma medicine, the modern-era USA murder rate would be something like 4x higher than it currently is. So in theory, we actually have something like 4 times as many near-lethal injuries from homicide ATTEMPTS as back in 1963, we just manage to save 75% of their lives now. Obviously, those numbers are rough, and from memory.
Bottom line, more worthless ink on paper pandering to the Kringe Karens who support Kamala, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make anyone better off. I agree, "meh" sums up this and the last 43 months.
I think you're mostly right about these updates. In your school safety post, I hoped to get some thoughts on this feedback, but I was late to the game. So I'll try again:
The thing that has never made sense to me about the harden-the-schools argument is that kids don't live in the schools. They ride buses and walk on sidewalks and play in football games outside those buildings, which are all highly vulnerable places that would be easily targeted if entering a building becomes more difficult.
As for possible solutions, enforceable red flag laws combined with severe penalties for parents/guardians if their gun is used in such a shooting. This wouldn't be a cure-all but it could help as a reduction measure.
Hardening schools would do exactly zero to reduce spree shootings, it would just direct them elsewhere. Which, apparently, is something we must endeavor to do to reduce the anxiety of the Facebook Karens.
Aren't most school shootings done by school age kids? They don't necessarily have to be students at the school they choose to shoot up.
"Enforceable" Red Flag laws?
So you are FOR what amounts to a Constitutional Right being stripped in a "Minority Report" fashion?
Just like "Swatting," RFLs HAVE been used by everything from a vindictive ex to a "Karen" neighbor because they don't like your political signs in your front yard. Better think long and HARD about that.
Do you think every person in this country should be able to own a gun? If not, then it is a balancing act, which is the system we inherited from the founders.
Pretty much every CITIZEN, for sure.
If they are a threat, perhaps they should be incarcerated / involuntarily committed.
"If they are a threat, perhaps they should be incarcerated / involuntarily committed." Permanent imprisonment based on the status of "threat" would be a much bigger constitutional violation than preventing gun ownership.
I'd say multiple violent felony's would qualify, especially if committed AFTER a period of incarceration, don't you?
What about the rights of the multiple rounds of victims? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is tough if we give a crazy person multiple violent felonies before removing the most efficient way of causing harm to others.
Who defines the threat?
I'd say past patterns would be a pretty good indicator. Especially 'repeat' offenders. The NRA pushed the "Three Strikes and You're Out" but it was a bit too broadly written, and it pissed off the liberals because IT WORKED.
Yes. Every person who is not in prison has the right to own firearms.
Guns are really not the problem anyway. Isn't the problem the break down of societal norms, and an indifference to human life and death.
I think "the harden-the-schools argument" amounts to locking the doors where they can't be opened from outside, and have a crash bar inside for easy egress when needed. And maybe a metal detector for back packs and the like. Also, an off duty police officer to meet an aggressor at the front door that is willing and able to respond with quick, adequate force to repel said aggressor.
I totally agree with your last statement about irresponsible parents that let the child have access to the firearm. It needs to happen.
I started shooting at six years old.
Of course, I didn't go blast the crap out of my 7th grade math teacher, despite loathing the ground she walked on.
I'm glad to hear that...
But, even if we could make every school impenetrable, what is to stop kids being targeted outside the school? I don't think hardening the schools solves the problem, it just moves it slightly farther away from the school building.
But getting it out of the schools, by definition, solves the school shooting problems.
Sorry.
Take a look at the Colorado movie theater shooting.
The shooter passed up all the closer theaters and went for the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED. Gee, I wonder why.
And we all know how THAT worked out.
So, the answer is: GET RID OF ALL PUBLIC GUN FREE ZONES.
And don't even BOTHER to respond with crap about jails and similar secured areas.
But, you really wanna post your PRIVATE place "Gun Free?"
Fine.
Then they need to have a legally binding agreement that makes the property owner LIABLE for your safety once you cross the threshold.
I don't care if it's a HOSPITAL, School, Shopping Mall, or other publicly accessible area.
You wanna post it? You're responsible. If you want to include metal detectors, armed security, etc. that's the OWNERS responsibility, nobody else, and I will chose to take my business elsewhere.
Legally armed citizens should be able to carry pretty much ANYWHERE they want. Period.
Oh, before you go down the road about cops having training, etc. you might want to compare the shots fired VS hits scored on target by both LEOs and armed citizens. You'll find that the citizens FAR out shoot the average beat cop by a large margin. (I make an exception for SWAT teams, and people like the Hanford Atomic Energy security teams that regularly generate 55 gallon drums of empty .45 cases every few months.)