Proud of our Youth !

[barrysloate]

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

Barry, I don't have the answer. When I asked you the same question, you didn't have the answer either. Guess what? There are many problems in America that we just don't have answers to. If we had all the answers, why is there still a drug problem in America? Why is there still a gang problem in America? Why is there still a (fill in the blank) problem in America?

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the tools are in place to try and prevent the whackos from getting the guns, but the information isn't being disseminated. Look at the church shooter in San Antonio. He received a dishonorable discharge from the military, but the military failed to report that. That should have kept him from purchasing the weapon. And look at the Florida shooter. The cops were called to his house thirty-something times. He was reported to the FBI more than once. But, once again, the information wasn't disseminated.

[barrysloate]

I certainly agree that better information would be one way to make things safer. And I didn't dodge your question, but like you said I didn't have an answer. I'm smart enough to know that you know a whole lot more about gun culture than I do. I didn't grow up in that environment, never owned a gun, and never knew anyone who had one where I lived. So it's silly for me to pretend I have all the answers. I don't. I would rather listen than preach.

[chlankf]

The issues with gun control are not the guns but with the was children are raised, desensitization of minds and the media.

I have been an avid shooter and sportsman since 5 years old. I was raised with guns in the open in my home. Difference is I was educated on safety, use and history. I was the state championship in marksmanship with a rifle at 11 and then again with a shotgun for trap and skeet at 13. My family takes opening day of pheasant and deer season off each year. BTW, hunting is not just sport. I do fill a freezer and feed my family for a year with my harvests, and yes at times I use a semi-automatic shotgun.

Families don't sit down for dinner each night, play board games or spend the quality time together as in the past. We see horrible images in pop culture that would have shocked our grandparents. The media makes sure that they get the highest ratings by replying over and over again tragedies across the globe. Here is the root of the problems that plague our country. The gun issues are not global but local. Why? Family values and upbringing. Unfortunately, we can't parent all the children that have a lacking home life but small steps can help. Turn off or disconnect the cable/dish TV, shut off the Xbox and power down the PC. Buy a firearm, learn to safely use and teach your children the same and finally get a permit to carry. These sick humans wouldn't think of harming our children if the entire lawful community was armed.

I know this is a pipe dream that Americans way of life will de-evolve to a simpler way but one can hope.

Sorry for the long rant.

Craig

[bravos4evr]

Hey Craig, legit question from someone who has never done shotgun shooting.

what is the difference between trap and skeet?

thanks, and thank you for your support of the 2nd Amendment!

[chlankf]

Trap:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/begin...-trap-shooting

Skeet:
https://mynssa.nssa-nsca.org/skeet-basics/

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by chlankf

Trap:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/begin...-trap-shooting

Skeet:
https://mynssa.nssa-nsca.org/skeet-basics/

well I'll be! all this time what I thought was skeet was trap!

I thought that the clay targets high in the air was skeet, but that is when they are low to simulate low bird flight right?

[chlankf]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

well I'll be! all this time what I thought was skeet was trap!

I thought that the clay targets high in the air was skeet, but that is when they are low to simulate low bird flight right?

The high house only angles up slightly and the low house rises a bit more.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

It's not an either or. See Post 54 ("two of the biggest deterrents would be not declaring schools as gun-free zones and not providing 24/7 coverage to these events."). Those will be the biggest deterrents (IMO), though I acknowledge the second one would be much harder to do. There are other factors as well (social media, violence accepted as part of the culture, lack of respect for others, lack of responsibility for ones actions, et al).

I question all those asking for changes in gun laws to show me were this has worked. Gun laws and access to guns including semi and fully automatic weapons are more restrictive now than in the 40s-60s, yet there are more mass shootings now. The AR-15 was introduced in the mid '50s (I believe), yet has only recently become the 'weapon de jour'.

The problem I have with ANY laws is they are useless if not or capriciously enforced.

[packs]

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

So, what's your idea to reduce mass shootings?

[packs]

Form a national registry of firearms, which I think will promote more accountability from owners. It would also help law enforcement to monitor stockpiling of weapons, report stolen weapons, and connect weapons to crimes outside of local jurisdiction, which could prevent an attack, perhaps.

Require anyone buying ammo to present a current license to own a firearm. That way a person can't purchase ammo for an illegal firearm, or a firearm that belongs to someone else that they may have access to.

Close all loopholes that enable someone to purchase a weapon without a waiting period or background check or official registration. You can make private purchases of firearms in many states and at gun shows without any type of oversight, especially in states that don't require a license at all.

Make rifle and handgun legislation mirror each other. That way if it's illegal in your state to carry a concealed handgun, it would be similarly illegal to conceal a long gun.

These are just some of my own ideas.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

Form a national registry of firearms, which I think will promote more accountability from owners. It would also help law enforcement to monitor stockpiling of weapons, report stolen weapons, and connect weapons to crimes outside of local jurisdiction, which could prevent an attack, perhaps.

Require anyone buying ammo to present a current license to own a firearm. That way a person can't purchase ammo for an illegal firearm, or a firearm that belongs to someone else that they may have access to.

Close all loopholes that enable someone to purchase a weapon without a waiting period or background check or official registration. You can make private purchases of firearms in many states and at gun shows without any type of oversight, especially in states that don't require a license at all.

Make rifle and handgun legislation mirror each other. That way if it's illegal in your state to carry a concealed handgun, it would be similarly illegal to conceal a long gun.

These are just some of my own ideas.

EXCELLENT! I hope everyone reads every bit of your response. BRAVO!

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

Form a national registry of firearms, which I think will promote more accountability from owners. It would also help law enforcement to monitor stockpiling of weapons, report stolen weapons, and connect weapons to crimes outside of local jurisdiction, which could prevent an attack, perhaps.

Require anyone buying ammo to present a current license to own a firearm. That way a person can't purchase ammo for an illegal firearm, or a firearm that belongs to someone else that they may have access to.

Close all loopholes that enable someone to purchase a weapon without a waiting period or background check or official registration. You can make private purchases of firearms in many states and at gun shows without any type of oversight, especially in states that don't require a license at all.

Make rifle and handgun legislation mirror each other. That way if it's illegal in your state to carry a concealed handgun, it would be similarly illegal to conceal a long gun.

These are just some of my own ideas.

hahha, so tyranny, oppression, govt intrusion and oversight of my inalienable rights?
never will happen, NEVER "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

[packs]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

hahha, so tyranny, oppression, govt intrusion and oversight of my inalienable rights?
never will happen, NEVER "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

How can you say that when it already exists? Convicted felons can't purchase a firearm and are barred from owning one. So that would be an infringement and an oversight. That's just one example. You’re protective of your rights and you should be, but an inalienable right can still be regulated and your rights preserved.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

So, what's your idea to reduce mass shootings?

Disabling giant fonts?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by steve B

Disabling giant fonts?

Thanks Steve- We can all use a little chuckle here and there.

[barrysloate]

Taylor- if you want schools not to be gun free zones, who do you see as having the guns? The teachers? The students? I just don't know how that could possibly work.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Taylor- if you want schools not to be gun free zones, who do you see as having the guns? The teachers? The students? I just don't know how that could possibly work.

Anyone who can legally possess a firearm should be allowed, but not required. The real key is you don't advertise somewhere as a gun free zone.

There was a psych study done a while back that I can't remember who/when/where or find it now. Maybe not pre-internet but a WHILE ago and I read it non-electronically somewhere. Some interesting results, not just on guns. They had people answer a few sets of questions anonymously. It had to do how they want others to see them and what they might want or not want strangers to know about them. Some 'hot button' topics (abortion, guns, sex, religion) mixed in with normal stuff (sports, movies, etc).

The premise was whether they would want a sign posted on their lawn for each item they claimed (if I remember correctly). In one (of a number) of sets of questions the sign had to be true. In another set (of a number) it could be a lie. One of the fascinating things I remember is how many people claimed they owned or used guns and did (the true signs), however even more interesting were those who lied about owning or using a gun but did not. Very few lied the other way (claiming they did not own/use a gun but really did). Of course, sex was another interesting one. LOL

I think it makes for a good thought experiment today, if you want to be honest with yourself. If you had publicly claim you did or did not own or use a gun, and provide your address on the internet with that statement, what would you do?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

Not sure of the point, but would like a citation, please.

The authorities were quick to praise the school resource officer at Great Mills High, Deputy Blaine Gaskill, who they said responded almost immediately to the gunman and fired his weapon. Deputy Gaskill was unharmed in the exchange.

“He pursued the shooter, engaged the shooter,” Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron of St. Mary’s County said. The officer, he said, then “fired a round at the shooter; simultaneously the shooter fired a round as well.”

That would lead me to believe that he fired at the SRO as well. He probably didn't mean to though, right?

[packs]

Originally Posted by tschock

Not sure of the point, but would like a citation, please.

The authorities were quick to praise the school resource officer at Great Mills High, Deputy Blaine Gaskill, who they said responded almost immediately to the gunman and fired his weapon. Deputy Gaskill was unharmed in the exchange.

“He pursued the shooter, engaged the shooter,” Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron of St. Mary’s County said. The officer, he said, then “fired a round at the shooter; simultaneously the shooter fired a round as well.”

That would lead me to believe that he fired at the SRO as well. He probably didn't mean to though, right?

He shot the shooter in his hand while the shooter was shooting himself in the head. The officer's shot came after the shooter fatally injured his target and turned his weapon on himself:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...story,amp.html

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not sure that I would call the Maryland incident a school shooting. It was a different situation and could have happened anywhere.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

He shot the shooter in his hand while the shooter was shooting himself in the head. The officer's shot came after the shooter fatally injured his target and turned his weapon on himself:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...story,amp.html

Thanks for the link. Even with all the sources, it's hard to find things at times when you are looking for specific details (assuming anything reported is correct, of course).

So it wasn't an intended mass shooting then either. And assault weapon ban wouldn't have mattered. I get your point about an SRO not preventing the incidents, but are you really trying to use this as an example of how an SRO (or anyone for that matter) could have prevented a single intended victim incident?

[packs]

Originally Posted by tschock

Thanks for the link. Even with all the sources, it's hard to find things at times when you are looking for specific details (assuming anything reported is correct, of course).

So it wasn't an intended mass shooting then either. And assault weapon ban wouldn't have mattered. I get your point about an SRO not preventing the incidents, but are you really trying to use this as an example of how an SRO (or anyone for that matter) could have prevented a single intended victim incident?

No, just a larger point that having an armed presence isn't always a deterrent. I don't know for a fact because I'm not local to the shootings, but I would think students are aware there is an armed presence at their school.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

I gave a large list a few pages back on what could be done.

and no, more gun laws will make no difference at all. They never have and they never will. Not only that, but they are morally abhorrent.

Not one anti-gunner has been able to demonstrate that gun laws stop violence. Why might that be?