my take on what would be helpful with guns

[dogs4thewin]

and one of them has NOTHING to do with gun laws

One have the media NOT report on them When a say this I do not mean literally say nothing about them, but instead to not talk about it for hours, days, and weeks on end. It may even be helpful to not name a suspect at least not every ten minutes after they know who he or she is.

Two enforce the current laws on the books. Here I am mostly talking about charges with weapons enhincments that end up being plea bargained down. Admottedly this one is tricky and a double edged sword in a way The reason it is is that there are so many cases ( in general whether they be gun cases, drug cases ect that without plea bargains the system would not work the state simply cannot afford to take every case to trial and it takes too long with the speedy trial rule would result in many cases being dismissed as the state would not get them to trial on time. HOWEVER, maybe a law saying that enhincments for guns could not be dropped ( unless the guns were found illegally or the case for the gun process part of the charge was weak

This of course with more fouce on mental health and encouraging people to see something say something ( that has stopped many attacks by the way as well. I would agrue would work better thanmore laws trying to restrict access.

The reason for this is because with so many guns the people who mean harm with them who usually have no business with them anyway ( case and point yesterday's shooter was 14 Seven years too young to buy a handgun in most states and four years too young to buy a long gun would get them anyway or either they would come up with other ways to do their damage

 

[Bradskii]

and one of them has NOTHING to do with gun laws

One have the media NOT report on them When a say this I do not mean literally say nothing about them, but instead to not talk about it for hours, days, and weeks on end. It may even be helpful to not name a suspect at least not every ten minutes after they know who he or she is.

So you don't want us to know about kids being shot? Well, that'll certainly stop people demanding that we must do something about the carnage. It'll be a simple response: 'Carnage? What carnage?'

Two enforce the current laws on the books. Here I am mostly talking about charges with weapons enhincments that end up being plea bargained down.

If you have an example of someone gunning down a few people and then plea bargaining their own release, please let me know. This might just be me, but I don't think that mass murderers are out on bail shooting yet more people. Unless they've already stopped reporting these events and we are already in blissful ignorance.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So you don't want us to know about kids being shot? Well, that'll certainly stop people demanding that we must do something about the carnage. It'll be a simple response: 'Carnage? What carnage?'

If you have an example of someone gunning down a few people and then plea bargaining their own release, please let me know. This might just be me, but I don't think that mass murderers are out on bail shooting yet more people. Unless they've already stopped reporting these events and we are already in blissful ignorance.

I did not say for the news not to report on it at all I said for them to not make it ALL they talked about for hours and days on end there is a BIG difference.

I also did not say that people would plea bargain their release after something like this event I am talking about gun crimes in general or change that to violent crimes in general ( Although sometimes these cases are plea bargined usually either for life without mercy where the death penalty is saught or for a sentence that would allow life with mercy in cases where the death penalty either is not saught or is not an option as is the case here since the defendant is under 18.

 

[Bradskii]

I did not say for the news not to report on it at all I said for them to not make it ALL they talked about for hours and days on end there is a BIG difference.

I watched some news earlier. There was very little about the the latest shooting. Hey, maybe that will help prevent another one!

I also did not say that people would plea bargain their release after something like this event...

Then it's not relevant, is it...

 

[dogs4thewin]

I watched some news earlier. There was very little about the the latest shooting. Hey, maybe that will help prevent another one!

Then it's not relevant, is it...

I will say that I am fairly close but literally that is all that was on the news yesterday. The only other thing on the news was the weather and even that was not focused on as much as it usually is.

It is in fact relavant because if people say that ACCESS to guns is the issue and many crimes that involve ACCESS to guns are pled down well maybe if overall gun crimes were punished in a harsher way ( and I am saying this by the way as someone who DOES believe that many non-violent crimes are punished too harshly then maybe there would not be as many gun crimes because a there would be more fear of punishment and B if they were enforced then people would be off the streets for longer after committing those offenses that is likely to be much more effective than trying to control legal ACCESS at this point since the people that want to commit violent crimes badly enough will ACCESS a gun or somethig to commit violence with one way or the other.

 

[Bradskii]

It is in fact relavant because if people say that ACCESS to guns is the issue and many crimes that involve ACCESS to guns are pled down well maybe if overall gun crimes were punished in a harsher way ( and I am saying this by the way as someone who DOES believe that many non-violent crimes are punished too harshly then maybe there would not be as many gun crimes...

The case in question is of a type where the perpetrator is either shot in the process of commiting the crime, jailed for life or executed. Maybe we could promise to hang, draw and quarter them if they're not shot? That would be harsher. But you know the bleeding hearts. 'Cruel and unusual!' But they may have a point in that case.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The case in question is of a type where the perpetrator is either shot in the process of commiting the crime, jailed for life or executed. Maybe we could promise to hang, draw and quarter them if they're not shot? That would be harsher. But you know the bleeding hearts. 'Cruel and unusual!' But they may have a point in that case.

Actually, in this particular case I KNOW the death penalty is not an option and I do not know if jailing him for life ( at least life without mercy is either.

 

[Neogaia777]

and one of them has NOTHING to do with gun laws

One have the media NOT report on them When a say this I do not mean literally say nothing about them, but instead to not talk about it for hours, days, and weeks on end. It may even be helpful to not name a suspect at least not every ten minutes after they know who he or she is.

Two enforce the current laws on the books. Here I am mostly talking about charges with weapons enhincments that end up being plea bargained down. Admottedly this one is tricky and a double edged sword in a way The reason it is is that there are so many cases ( in general whether they be gun cases, drug cases ect that without plea bargains the system would not work the state simply cannot afford to take every case to trial and it takes too long with the speedy trial rule would result in many cases being dismissed as the state would not get them to trial on time. HOWEVER, maybe a law saying that enhincments for guns could not be dropped ( unless the guns were found illegally or the case for the gun process part of the charge was weak

This of course with more fouce on mental health and encouraging people to see something say something ( that has stopped many attacks by the way as well. I would agrue would work better thanmore laws trying to restrict access.

The reason for this is because with so many guns the people who mean harm with them who usually have no business with them anyway ( case and point yesterday's shooter was 14 Seven years too young to buy a handgun in most states and four years too young to buy a long gun would get them anyway or either they would come up with other ways to do their damage

With youths it's pretty easy. Just simply raise the legal age limit, and then threaten to put whomever's firearm it was that the youths got a hold of to do something like this, when something like this happens, hold those individuals that they got the unsecured firearm from just as much equally accountable as if they were the shooter themselves when something like this happens, etc. Very long prison sentences for them potentially if necessary, etc. And fully enforce and fully follow through with that when something like this happens with very little to no excuses/exceptions regarding this no matter what, etc.

Either keep your firearms very, very much securely secured from all of the people under the age limit, or face the same kinds of consequences as if you were the shooter themselves if they get ahold of yours and do something like this with it. It's either that, or let the government completely take away all of your firearms completely if you can't do that, or if it's juat too inconvenient for you to do that, or you just don't want to be bothered with it, etc.

 

[Desk trauma]

and one of them has NOTHING to do with gun laws

One have the media NOT report on them When a say this I do not mean literally say nothing about them, but instead to not talk about it for hours, days, and weeks on end. It may even be helpful to not name a suspect at least not every ten minutes after they know who he or she is.

Two enforce the current laws on the books. Here I am mostly talking about charges with weapons enhincments that end up being plea bargained down. Admottedly this one is tricky and a double edged sword in a way The reason it is is that there are so many cases ( in general whether they be gun cases, drug cases ect that without plea bargains the system would not work the state simply cannot afford to take every case to trial and it takes too long with the speedy trial rule would result in many cases being dismissed as the state would not get them to trial on time. HOWEVER, maybe a law saying that enhincments for guns could not be dropped ( unless the guns were found illegally or the case for the gun process part of the charge was weak

This of course with more fouce on mental health and encouraging people to see something say something ( that has stopped many attacks by the way as well. I would agrue would work better thanmore laws trying to restrict access.

The reason for this is because with so many guns the people who mean harm with them who usually have no business with them anyway ( case and point yesterday's shooter was 14 Seven years too young to buy a handgun in most states and four years too young to buy a long gun would get them anyway or either they would come up with other ways to do their damage

Of all the takes on school shootings, that is sure one of them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

With youths it's pretty easy. Just simply raise the legal age limit, and then threaten to put whomever's firearm it was that the youths got a hold of to do something like this, when something like this happens, hold those individuals that they got the unsecured firearm from just as much equally accountable as if they were the shooter themselves when something like this happens, etc. Very long prison sentences for them if necessary, etc. And enforce that when something like this happens, etc.

Either keep your firearms very, very securely secured from all of the people under the age limit, or face the same kinds of consequences as the shooter themselves if they get ahold of yours and do something like this with it. It's either that, or let the government completely take away all of your firearms completely if you can't do that, or if it's too inconvenient for you to do that, or you just don't want to be bothered with it, etc.

Currently the age limit is 18 ( for long guns and 21 for hand guns. Which is ironic in a way this particular shooter used an AR-15 style weapon, but most gun deaths are actually committed by hand guns which not only is the type of guns with the highest age minimum, but is also the type of guns people are least likely to want banned or anything like that

How secured is secured I mean there is a difference in a 14 year old getting a gun and a four year getting a gun. There are cases where a minor say 12 years old has actually shot someone breaking into the family home when the children are home alone they could not do that if they could not access the gun. If that would be a case should a parent face a charge because their child used a gun in self defense?

Before you say do not leave your children home alone again consider what is a child by that logic should teenage minors not be trusted at home alone just because they are teenage minors? I mean what if you have a 17.5 year old should that "child" not be left alone with guns in the house? If you were to raise the age to 21 for everything should a 20 year old college junior ar home for Christmas break not be allowed to be home alone with unsecured guns. ( Assuming that the parents do not have reason to believe they are a risk to themselves or others?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Of all the takes on school shootings, that is sure one of them.

What part of that post do you ave an issue with?

 

[Bradskii]

Currently the age limit is 18 ( for long guns and 21 for hand guns.

They should be secured from everyone except the owner(s). Period. Zero access to everyone else. Period.

 

[dogs4thewin]

They should be secured from everyone except the owner(s). Period. Zero access to everyone else. Period.

so by that logic my sister should be able to have access to her husband's handgun to defend their home if he is away at night shift for 12 hours?

 

[Bradskii]

so by that logic my sister should be able to have access to her husband's handgun to defend their home if he is away at night shift for 12 hours?

If she's old enough, ticks all the boxes required for owning a gun and is registered as a joint owner, then yes. But the gun is always secured.

 

[Larniavc]

and one of them has NOTHING to do with gun laws

One have the media NOT report on them When a say this I do not mean literally say nothing about them, but instead to not talk about it for hours, days, and weeks on end. It may even be helpful to not name a suspect at least not every ten minutes after they know who he or she is.

Two enforce the current laws on the books. Here I am mostly talking about charges with weapons enhincments that end up being plea bargained down. Admottedly this one is tricky and a double edged sword in a way The reason it is is that there are so many cases ( in general whether they be gun cases, drug cases ect that without plea bargains the system would not work the state simply cannot afford to take every case to trial and it takes too long with the speedy trial rule would result in many cases being dismissed as the state would not get them to trial on time. HOWEVER, maybe a law saying that enhincments for guns could not be dropped ( unless the guns were found illegally or the case for the gun process part of the charge was weak

This of course with more fouce on mental health and encouraging people to see something say something ( that has stopped many attacks by the way as well. I would agrue would work better thanmore laws trying to restrict access.

The reason for this is because with so many guns the people who mean harm with them who usually have no business with them anyway ( case and point yesterday's shooter was 14 Seven years too young to buy a handgun in most states and four years too young to buy a long gun would get them anyway or either they would come up with other ways to do their damage

I find the above bizarre when the answer really boils down to making there be fewer guns in civilian hands. If it take 30 years it takes 30 years. But if Americans are not willing to embrace change in their need to be an armed population nothing with change.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If she's old enough, ticks all the boxes required for owning a gun and is registered as a joint owner, then yes. But the gun is always secured.

There is no registeration in this state. However, in fact S does check all the boxes of which there are not many she is at least 21 years old with no felony crinimal convictions nor any other criminal convictions that would preclude her from owning or proccessing a gun. She has also not been found to be mentally ill nor admitted to a mental hospital Nor is she a drug addict or user of illegal drugs. Those are the main boxes there are a couple more but they are mostly related to less common issues like citizenship.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I finds the above really bizarre when the answer really boils down to making there be fewer guns in civilian hands. If it take 30 years it takes 30 years. But if Americans are not willing to embrace change in their need to be an armed population nothing with change.

The problem is as I said before 30 years a long time and really that action would have very little impact in the next ten to twenty anyway. Plus very few gun deaths are like yesterday's shooting in that most gun deaths are either suicide, targeted, or related to some other crime very few deaths of which would be prevented by fewer guns legally in civilian hands.

 

[Bradskii]

There is no registeration in this state.

Then there should be. It's no big deal.

However, in fact S does check all the boxes of which there are not many she is at least 21 years old with no felony crinimal convictions nor any other criminal convictions that would preclude her from owning or proccessing a gun. She has also not been found to be mentally ill nor admitted to a mental hospital Nor is she a drug addict or user of illegal drugs. Those are the main boxes there are a couple more but they are mostly related to less common issues like citizenship.

Then she gets access. Again, no big deal.

 

[Bradskii]

The problem is as I said before 30 years a long time and really that action would have very little impact in the next ten to twenty anyway.

That's less than a generation. Why wouldn't you do something to protect the next generation?

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's less than a generation. Why wouldn't you do something to protect the next generation?

30 years is maybe a generation and a half actually

What good would 30 years from now do NOW though people are always complaining about NOW not 30 years from now.

Moreover, like I said there are really very few shootings like this one most are either suicide, targeted, or in the commission of another crime ( often among gangs very few of which would actually be prevented by having fewer guns in civilian hands specially legally