A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

No, I was thinking more along the lines of, if the police had been to his house 30 times there was an obvious issue which in conjunction with the obvious signs of mental instability should have been documented in a way in which would have put a hold on his ability to purchase a firearm without some sort of additional scrutiny.

I don't think we have a huge problem with the systems talking to each other. Any reporting system is only as good as the information put in to that system.
There is a huge problem with the systems talking to each other. There are even differences in how states run background checks.

While I agree with you there was a problem, the system has no legal definition of “obvious problem” or way to flag the individual in a way that prevents them from buying a gun. Right now the only prohibition is around being declared legally insane by the judicial system or being committed to an institution. Therein lies a problem we can agree to a fix on?
 
There is a huge problem with the systems talking to each other. There are even differences in how states run background checks.

While I agree with you there was a problem, the system has no legal definition of “obvious problem” or way to flag the individual in a way that prevents them from buying a gun. Right now the only prohibition is around being declared legally insane by the judicial system or being committed to an institution. Therein lies a problem we can agree to a fix on?
It requires a judge to declare you mentally incompetent or if you are committed against your will.

Yes there needs to be some due process way to fix that.
 
Those are the same questions one could ask about any use of a gun or other implement in any self defense situation.

Every situation is different. Every environment is different.

Your average beat cop doesn’t have a lot of firearms training. Most departments are just one day a year. (Yes I was in LE). And those cops have handguns, rifles, and other weapons. Count on the average patrolman all you want…..

In a time where violence is necessary to stop a threat then it always comes down to the right person being in the right place making the right decisions….and being willing to use as much or more violence than the threat.

No one knows how anyone is going to react to that for the first time.

Anyone trying to imagine how someone is going to react is probably wrong. That also goes for anyone who has never been there and done that trying to imagine how they themselves would react….they have no idea.

Complacency kills….wether it’s failing to follow the building security training, failing to be observant, failing to act(as it sounds like the responding officers failed to do, and so on.

I would never advocate that anyone be forced to be armed. But some sort of lethal security is warranted.

We already have controlled access systems in every school in the nation….use them properly and don’t prop doors open as a teach did here.

One more layer of security is warranted.

I’d rather see a dedicated professional to do so, but I also think that a persons right to self defense shouldnt change going into a government building.
I appreciate your perspective, in many ways, I'm wondering about things I don't have experience with.

The difference I see, is that very few engagements take place with 100s of kids arrayed within 100 yds.
 
Therein lies a problem we can agree to a fix on?

Absolutely, in principal.

I am by no means an expert on the background check system, but I am not completely unversed either. I have had background checks done on me for various reasons in the past. It sure didn’t seem to me that very much was missed when they were done.

As I said in my original reply in this thread I think we need to strengthen our current system of background checks. That kind of makes my point though, as how can we expand the background check system, do universal background checks, etc. if the system we have in place is not performing satisfactorily? How can we expect for those systems to perform any better if we can’t get all of the potential out of the one that is already in place?

Another thing is the red flag laws being discussed. I think there is merit there, however I think an efficient system of checks and balances will have to be in place. Just because someones neighbor or even a LEO calls in and accuses them of being crazy doesn’t mean that they should have to jump through hoops in order to exercise their constitutional rights. I see and have read about a lot of potential benefits and issues with those types of laws.
 
It seems like it wasn't that long ago that we had this exact same discussion on this forum after the last school mass shooting.
Far too many politicians are beholding to the NRA.
It's so disheartening to see the same thing happening over and over again because so many believe that the only solution is to keep doing nothing because they might be inconvenienced by a law.
I guess it doesn't matter how many children get killed in the name of keeping your access to assault weapons.
Doing nothing is not the solution.

download (3).jpg
 
There have been numerous suggestions for an armed security guard being in school buildings. That made me curious enough to run some numbers.

There are a little more than 130k school buildings for k-12 in the US. If the pay and benefits for each guard is 75k the annual cost is 9.75 billion dollars each year. The total cost would have to also include the expense of ongoing training.

Since Columbine there has been 169 people killed in mass shootings in schools. There have been 14 mass shootings in schools since that time. A mass shooting defined as 4 or more deaths. Lets include Columbine and make it 15 shootings in call it 23 years. That is .65 mass killings in schools per year. The draw odds for each school building to have a mass killing each year is one in 200k, give or take. So, on average, each school building must wait for 200k years for their mass shooting.

So every guard in every building is in essence waiting for Godot.

If we assume that these armed guards entirely stop mass shootings, the cost is $15 billion dollars for every mass shooting prevented, if the risk is the same going forward.

Some might think that is preferable to other possible solutions. I don't

 
There have been numerous suggestions for an armed security guard being in school buildings. That made me curious enough to run some numbers.

There are a little more than 130k school buildings for k-12 in the US. If the pay and benefits for each guard is 75k the annual cost is 9.75 billion dollars each year. The total cost would have to also include the expense of ongoing training.

Since Columbine there has been 169 people killed in mass shootings in schools. There have been 14 mass shootings in schools since that time. A mass shooting defined as 4 or more deaths. Lets include Columbine and make it 15 shootings in call it 23 years. That is .65 mass killings in schools per year. The draw odds for each school building to have a mass killing each year is one in 200k, give or take. So, on average, each school building must wait for 200k years for their mass shooting.

So every guard in every building is in essence waiting for Godot.

If we assume that these armed guards entirely stop mass shootings, the cost is $15 billion dollars for every mass shooting prevented, if the risk is the same going forward.

Some might think that is preferable to other possible solutions. I don't

We just sent how many billion to Ukraine?

Printed how much money for what 3 stimulus checks and Covid bail outs?

All without blinking an eye at it….

There is already a lot of money and grants out there for school security as well. Total dollar value I don’t know.

It’s the only legislation that actually has a chance of stopping anything right away.

The systems to physically secure the schools were taken care of through government funding 2 decades ago if memory is right. We are just missing that last step in security. And apparently we need continued training for school staff on access control.

Even if you banned all guns and started collecting them up…..we would still have quite the problem with guns…. Alcohol prohibition is a wonderful example of this.

The weapons capable of doing the carnage as easily as an AR or whatever have been around for over 150 years.

Something has changed in society….

And the mental health system is garbage now.

And no. I’m not a pro nra person……and no I don’t own any “assault weapons”. And I could really care less about them….I got to handle them enough in previous professions…..
 
I believe it is AND I believe it is some of the problem




Thank you. This willl be used today


I certainly agree with this. There seems to be less and less "middle ground", especially in Wash D.C. and IMHO there is plenty of blame for this on both sides of the aisle.

I should have been more clear. Politics is a variable, but I believe the primary factors are mental and emotional health individually and societally.
 
There have been numerous suggestions for an armed security guard being in school buildings. That made me curious enough to run some numbers.

There are a little more than 130k school buildings for k-12 in the US. If the pay and benefits for each guard is 75k the annual cost is 9.75 billion dollars each year. The total cost would have to also include the expense of ongoing training.

Since Columbine there has been 169 people killed in mass shootings in schools. There have been 14 mass shootings in schools since that time. A mass shooting defined as 4 or more deaths. Lets include Columbine and make it 15 shootings in call it 23 years. That is .65 mass killings in schools per year. The draw odds for each school building to have a mass killing each year is one in 200k, give or take. So, on average, each school building must wait for 200k years for their mass shooting.

So every guard in every building is in essence waiting for Godot.

If we assume that these armed guards entirely stop mass shootings, the cost is $15 billion dollars for every mass shooting prevented, if the risk is the same going forward.

Some might think that is preferable to other possible solutions. I don't


Math! I love it. What else could security guards provide? I believe much money toward counselors would provide a wider variety of positive inputs.
 
We just sent how many billion to Ukraine?

Printed how much money for what 3 stimulus checks and Covid bail outs?

All without blinking an eye at it….

There is already a lot of money and grants out there for school security as well. Total dollar value I don’t know.

It’s the only legislation that actually has a chance of stopping anything right away.

The systems to physically secure the schools were taken care of through government funding 2 decades ago if memory is right. We are just missing that last step in security. And apparently we need continued training for school staff on access control.

Even if you banned all guns and started collecting them up…..we would still have quite the problem with guns…. Alcohol prohibition is a wonderful example of this.

The weapons capable of doing the carnage as easily as an AR or whatever have been around for over 150 years.

Something has changed in society….

And the mental health system is garbage now.

And no. I’m not a pro nra person……and no I don’t own any “assault weapons”. And I could really care less about them….I got to handle them enough in previous professions…..

How many people are dying Ukraine? More than 169 over 15 years, I think.

I just ran numbers to show the cost of having one armed guard per school building. I did not even pad the numbers by having any sort of relief pool for sick days or vacation days.

There are other equally asinine solutions like limiting each building to having a single door. That will work great the first time a fire emergency takes place.

And no, there has not been a weapon as well suited for mass killings in a ambush fashion than an AR for the last 150 years. IF such weapon existed, it would also be a weapon of choice, for say the last 150 years.
 
Well as I have caught up with the comments this morning, I see that the discussion ultimately turned a little tribal. Meh, that’s the world we live in.

What does bother me a little is that so many are willing to give up one freedom for another,curtailing law abiding peoples access to firearms as opposed to actually securing schools for example. I am not sure how securing schools constitutes a loss of freedom and more gun control doesn’t?

Overall though, this discussion has been thought provoking for me, and I don’t think it is a bad thing to listen to views that I may not necessarily agree with and try to see other people’s perspectives. I think that was probably what @VikingsGuy was going for when he posted it, and if that is the case, thank you sir.

Does “human control” = gun control? Is managing people to prevent destructive acts gun control? Why or why not?

My ex-father-in-law was a teacher in Butte, MT. He was a teacher, physically and mentally abused his whole family, alcoholic from a family of alcoholics that also have a history of schizophrenia, and his father committed suicide. He also held a gun to family members heads and through my daughter I’ve heard continues to beat his 75 year old wife. He owns a plethora of loaded guns. Should he own them?
 
Last edited:
It seems like it wasn't that long ago that we had this exact same discussion on this forum after the last school mass shooting.
Far too many politicians are beholding to the NRA.
It's so disheartening to see the same thing happening over and over again because so many believe that the only solution is to keep doing nothing because they might be inconvenienced by a law.
I guess it doesn't matter how many children get killed in the name of keeping your access to assault weapons.
Doing nothing is not the solution.

View attachment 223929
Did I somehow end up on the MSNBC website?

This is just as irrational as the folks on the other side shouting " from my cold dead hands"...

Let's just throw up our hands and sling around dumbest memes...
 
How many people are dying Ukraine? More than 169 over 15 years, I think.

I just ran numbers to show the cost of having one armed guard per school building. I did not even pad the numbers by having any sort of relief pool for sick days or vacation days.

There are other equally asinine solutions like limiting each building to having a single door. That will work great the first time a fire emergency takes place.

And no, there has not been a weapon as well suited for mass killings in a ambush fashion than an AR for the last 150 years. IF such weapon existed, it would also be a weapon of choice, for say the last 150 years.
I’m guessing the door thing was directed at me.

They all open from the inside as normal.

And most schools installed the keypads outside of each door so that first responders could enter a code to gain access….

So in essence….it’s no different than any of the commercial buildings you go into now with fire doors on all sides that open as normal from the inside….

Wow….that must be a completely stupid idea🤣

Actually….on the gun thing…you could buy a Tommy gun through the sears a long time ago without a back ground check. Do a little more digging on your history before you start acting a 🤡

Weapons that took detachable high capacity magazines go back way further.
 
There are a lot of well thought out ideas by the OP and commenters. Personally, for me it's zero when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. By that I mean NO FURTHER INFRINGEMENTS!!! ZERO!!! Because as much as we want to call it compromise, the only thing being compromised is the degree of rights that are lost. Guns are already heavily regulated. Laws are already in place. Government needs to figure out how to make THOSE work before even thinking about further infringement. They have a lot of tools already on the books to use, but don't... then want to make further restrictions. Why? Because they don't care about you or making things safe. They care about elections, power and chipping away at your rights.
 
There have been numerous suggestions for an armed security guard being in school buildings. That made me curious enough to run some numbers.

There are a little more than 130k school buildings for k-12 in the US. If the pay and benefits for each guard is 75k the annual cost is 9.75 billion dollars each year. The total cost would have to also include the expense of ongoing training.

Since Columbine there has been 169 people killed in mass shootings in schools. There have been 14 mass shootings in schools since that time. A mass shooting defined as 4 or more deaths. Lets include Columbine and make it 15 shootings in call it 23 years. That is .65 mass killings in schools per year. The draw odds for each school building to have a mass killing each year is one in 200k, give or take. So, on average, each school building must wait for 200k years for their mass shooting.

So every guard in every building is in essence waiting for Godot.

If we assume that these armed guards entirely stop mass shootings, the cost is $15 billion dollars for every mass shooting prevented, if the risk is the same going forward.

Some might think that is preferable to other possible solutions. I don't

So you would rather further curtail 2nd Amendment rights than potentially solve the problem by investing in safer schools?

15 billion is a drop in the bucket comaparedto what we spend on other far less important things.

What happened to the "if it only saves one child" mantra? Does that only apply if it is debted from 2A and not the government coffers?
 
Did I somehow end up on the MSNBC website?

This is just as irrational as the folks on the other side shouting " from my cold dead hands"...

Let's just throw up our hands and sling around dumbest memes...
So in your mind the answer really is to CONTINUE DOING NOTHING and as Buzz said keep building coffins. :cry:
 
I think the point of the thread is about what constraints we are willing to put on 2A freedoms. We have generally deflected (I’m guilty of this as much as anyone) into causes and other solutions. But the thread is about constraints on 2A freedoms.
As the OP, the point of the thread was that we think broadly and make some logical but not dramatic compromises were all sides could get things they wanted and we might make a step forward. And am surprised as I am not sure how a proposal that include nationwide carry, federal preemption and elimination of the dumbest NFA restrictions goes away is an “increase in gun control” proposal. Yes I know it proposed UNC to get that, but I view it is a net reduction in gun controls as proposed and would literally wipe a few hundred gun laws off the books. But in an absolutist world everything must be a 100% threat I guess.

It was also meant to highlight lack of progress on mental health and poverty/dispair. But instead the thread proved the left’s point that blaming the mental state of the shooter rather than gun access is a meaningless and hollow position of the right. Sad.
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,554
Messages
2,024,950
Members
36,228
Latest member
PNWeekender
Back
Top