School shootings

[LA Ute]

How can anyone not be heartsick over the Florida shootings — or any school shooting? 3 years ago my own daughter was senior in a high school very much like the one in Florida. My wife and I were talking this morning about how we’d feel if our daughter were texting us from a closet in her high school while a shooter was rampaging on that campus. It’s horrifying to contemplate.

I’m not a gun owner or enthusiast. I don’t belong to the NRA. I’m open-minded about ways to deal with this problem. (“Problem” seems too small a word.). As I was browsing the related commentary today, I found this view persuasive.


Without exception, these school shooters are notorious lost causes. Their families failed them. EVERYONE around them knows what’s going to happen, or at least very likely to happen. In this case, the shooter’s story sounds familiar including a very strange home life. Are we really going to blame guns for our communities’ abrogation of responsibility to do something about killer kids? Because it’s easy? Grief always takes the easy road, and there are plenty of self-interested politicians hanging around and more than willing to take advantage of it. But that’s hardly an acceptable response if we’re actually serious about stopping these school shootings.
Let’s consider another option for a change: we need to commit these kids.

Before you jump down my throat, here’s an uncontroversial newsflash: we’ve got a national mental health crisis on our hands which consists of legions of children and young adults lacking religion, parents, community anchors, or any of the other things which could ordinarily help compensate for a broken or absent internal moral compass. These kids are medicated, relegated, and reshuffled in the deck; sometimes they’re expelled, like the young man at issue in the Parkland shooting, but kicking a likely killer to the curb – and leaving him there to brood – seems like an objectively risky move.

https://savejersey.com/2018/02/school-shooting-florida-student-teacher-mental-health-gun-control/

(I don’t agree with everything this writer says here. For example, this is no time to be referring to “leftists that run our schools.“ I think we should have a holiday from name-calling, if only for one day.)

What we cannot do is simply throw up our hands and say “Oh well, these things are going to happen, we can’t do anything to stop them.“

[Scorcho]

How can anyone not be heartsick over the Florida shootings — or any school shooting? 3 years ago my own daughter was senior in a high school very much like the one in Florida. My wife and I were talking this morning about how we’d feel if our daughter were texting us from a closet in her high school while a shooter was rampaging on that campus. It’s horrifying to contemplate.

I’m not a gun owner or enthusiast. I don’t belong to the NRA. I’m open-minded about ways to deal with this problem. (“Problem” seems too small a word.). As I was browsing the related commentary today, I found this view persuasive.



https://savejersey.com/2018/02/school-shooting-florida-student-teacher-mental-health-gun-control/

its frightening to consider that we have simply accepted this as life today in the United States. I recall Columbine and how shocked everyone was. Yesterday's shooting will be old news in a few days.

My fear is that there are so many guns in the system currently that any new gun legislation will only help slightly.

[concerned]

My daughter is a senior in high school Sandy Hook and Aurora happened when she was in the sixth grade or so. She has lived in fear of mass school shootings ever since, including the sound of a fire alarm, and it gets worse with each occurence. This morning she told me that things wont change until her generation votes, because they all have the same fear.

I said I hoped she was right, but that the biggest problem is that about 30% of the population votes for 70% of the Senate, and 70% of the population votes for 30%. The distortion is expected to get more extreme over the next 20 years. As long as the 30% tends to congregate in small, red states, I have little optimism.

[LA Ute]

Here is what interests me about this issue: What if we just left the gun-control issue to the side for a while and talked about other things we can do? Surely there is something we can do collectively, as a society, to stand up and say “No more.” I don’t know what it is, but we put people on the moon and explored the solar system and the galaxy. Surely we can figure this out, or at least make it better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

Here is what interests me about this issue: What if we just left the gun-control issue to the side for a while and talked about other things we can do? Surely there is something we can do collectively, as a society, to stand up and say “No more.” I don’t know what it is, but we put people on the moon and explored the solar system and the galaxy. Surely we can figure this out, or at least make it better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that is like saying "putting aside the cigarette issue, what can we do about lung cancer." The famous Onion headline comes to mind once again.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

How can anyone not be heartsick over the Florida shootings — or any school shooting? 3 years ago my own daughter was senior in a high school very much like the one in Florida. My wife and I were talking this morning about how we’d feel if our daughter were texting us from a closet in her high school while a shooter was rampaging on that campus. It’s horrifying to contemplate.

I’m not a gun owner or enthusiast. I don’t belong to the NRA. I’m open-minded about ways to deal with this problem. (“Problem” seems too small a word.). As I was browsing the related commentary today, I found this view persuasive.



https://savejersey.com/2018/02/school-shooting-florida-student-teacher-mental-health-gun-control/

What we cannot do is simply throw up our hands and say “Oh well, these things are going to happen, we can’t do anything to stop them.“

My feeling is that the problem needs to be approached from two angles. 1. Mental health. Yes, mental health is a major ingredient to these mass shooting events. We have to do better in our funding, response and treatment to those with mental health challenges. News this morning is that authorities had been at least alerted of this kid at some point and that I thought that I read he actually had a small history/diagnosis regarding his mental health. He was an orphan, twice. Adopted as a young child who then lost both his adoptive parents to death. So yeah. It does seem that we have some sort of mental health crisis on our hands. But, I'm doubtful that it's any worse today (percentage wise) than at other times in history. The difference is we just used to throw all of these people in an institution to live out their days in the comfort of cold cement. I think blaming these events on a lack of religion and/or parents is WAY too simplistic. But that's just me.

Since the mental health situation is a tough and complex problem and won't be solved for many years, especially while Republicans are in power, that leaves us opportunity to address the second angle. (I apologize for the dig, but they've shown no evidence that investing in this problem is a priority for them.) Given the long term outlook of that, we also need to look at doing what we can to make these events as least catastrophic as possible. Bump stocks. It was a no brainer after 1 Oct. Seemed to have lots of momentum and even support from the NRA and yet, so far, nothing. This kid bought an AR-15 legally as an 18 year old. This blows my mind. He isn't able to legally purchase a hand gun until he's 21, but since the AR-15 is a rifle, he could buy it at 18, no questions asked. This seems like an opportunity to do SOMETHING and at least bump up the age to 21. Would it make a difference? I don't know. Could have made a different to one of the 17 families who have an empty chair at the breakfast table this morning. I don't see any reason for a normal citizen to need to own an AR-15, but putting a ban on such weapons is a longer discussion. Politicians can do SOMETHING now. Today. I'm so tired of the argument that "well, if they can't get access to a weapon of war designed to kill as many people as possible, they'll just find some other way to hurt people." Sure. And they'll be less effective. And that's something. I have a FB friend who teaches CCP classes who like to post news stories from other countries when a crazy person has used something other than a high powered weapon to try hurt as many people as possible. He always introduces the article with "But they say the answer is gun control." And the article typically says that one of two people were killed with a few other injuries. He never seems to grasp the irony.

I was in the field yesterday for work and turned to AM radio to expand my exposure. Las Vegas' own Wayne Allyn Root. He started his hour with the shooting and pointing out the important details. 17 dead, ex classmate, registered Democrat and Facebook and Instagram were quietly deleting the kid's accounts that showed that he was a liberal while leaving up the picture of him in a MAGA hat. He then moved onto "the most important story of the day." A legal case out of New York where a property owner was ordered to pay several graffiti artists millions of dollars for painting over their work. The ruling was described as a constitutional crisis and an attack on Republicans, because they're property owners. In what I would describe as an odd juxtaposition of the previous owner, Mr. Root then when on an epic rant that if he were to ever catch someone vandalizing his property, his first reaction would be to stick a gun to the person's head and tell them to leave immediately. And if that person tried anything suspicious, he would shoot them in self defense. Blame kids with their violent video games and lack of respect for human life all you want, but this is the go to conflict resolution to many in our society. I find that alarming.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

its frightening to consider that we have simply accepted this as life today in the United States. I recall Columbine and how shocked everyone was. Yesterday's shooting will be old news in a few days.

My fear is that there are so many guns in the system currently that any new gun legislation will only help slightly.

I used to wonder what it would be like to live in Iraq or Afghanistan and have to worry about going about your normal day when there are car bombs in the market or suicide bombers at the mosque. After 1 Oct. I found myself asking, are our situations much different? If you live in Europe or Australia where these things just don't happen, they probably look pretty comparable.

[UTEopia]

Here is what interests me about this issue: What if we just left the gun-control issue to the side for a while and talked about other things we can do? Surely there is something we can do collectively, as a society, to stand up and say “No more.” I don’t know what it is, but we put people on the moon and explored the solar system and the galaxy. Surely we can figure this out, or at least make it better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there are many important questions to ask and study in each of these cases. I would suggest we start with the basics of every criminal investigation: First, Motive - what drove this kid to this action and what can we do as a society to address those issues and hopefully prevent similar actions. Second, Means - how did he access the means for taking this action (guns, ammo, whatever) and how do we address the access issues consistent with the 2nd Amendment. A corollary to this is, who facilitated him accessing the means for taking this action and is there something we can do to address their actions. Third, Opportunity - is there something we can do to take away the opportunity. I guess we could take deploy 4 or 5 National Guard members to patrol every school, every day in their community on a daily basis as part of their duties.

[LA Ute]

Republicans could take the lead on this. (Sort of like “only Nixon could go to China.”) It would have to be someone who’s politically safe or who doesn’t care about the political consequences. (There must be someone who doesn’t.) Even one significant step in the right direction would help.

Concerned, I was just trying to ask whether we can find SOMETHING that’s do-able. Wholesale restrictions on access to guns doesn’t seem feasible right now. It’s an intractable debate.

How about some creative approach to mental health that helps authorities identify dangerous people and prevent them from getting guns, without creating disincentives to seeking treatment?

How about armed security in schools? Is compromise possible on that? It’s everywhere in Israel.

Bump stocks? There’s consensus on those.

I don’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Here is what interests me about this issue: What if we just left the gun-control issue to the side for a while and talked about other things we can do? Surely there is something we can do collectively, as a society, to stand up and say “No more.” I don’t know what it is, but we put people on the moon and explored the solar system and the galaxy. Surely we can figure this out, or at least make it better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking of mental health. Have you ever known someone with severe mental health issues? It's terrifying. Several years ago, I was FB friends with someone from an old singles ward. He was going crazy. Right there on social media for all of us to watch. He changed his name to Michael the Archangel. He'd have posts with more than a hundred comments. You open the comments and their all from him. Some where just innocuous gibberish. Some were angry. A couple were directed at specific people. My wife was disturbed and wanted me to unfriend him. I felt like I needed to keep an eye on him because I didn't know if any one else was. When his posts got specific about people, I felt I needed to do something. He seemed like so many of these kids that become a tragic news story. But what do you do? I was 500 miles away from a kid I hadn't had direct contact with in 10 years, who I had no idea where he even lived. I called SLPD on multiple occasions to report the activity hoping that someone could check in on him as a well check. I'm not sure if anything ever happened. It's terrifying. For the first time in years, I looked up his profile last night. He's apparently in Los Angeles these days.

[LA Ute]

Speaking of mental health. Have you ever known someone with severe mental health issues? It's terrifying. Several years ago, I was FB friends with someone from an old singles ward. He was going crazy. Right there on social media for all of us to watch. He changed his name to Michael the Archangel. He'd have posts with more than a hundred comments. You open the comments and their all from him. Some where just innocuous gibberish. Some were angry. A couple were directed at specific people. My wife was disturbed and wanted me to unfriend him. I felt like I needed to keep an eye on him because I didn't know if any one else was. When his posts got specific about people, I felt I needed to do something. He seemed like so many of these kids that become a tragic news story. But what do you do? I was 500 miles away from a kid I hadn't had direct contact with in 10 years, who I had no idea where he even lived. I called SLPD on multiple occasions to report the activity hoping that someone could check in on him as a well check. I'm not sure if anything ever happened. It's terrifying. For the first time in years, I looked up his profile last night. He's apparently in Los Angeles these days.

I’ve never known anyone who’s that ill, but I’ve known a lot of bipolar and severely depressed people. I know one woman who’s a smart, delightful person but who, when under stress and not taking her meds (the latter is critical) has suffered from psychotic delusions. When she’s in that state she thinks people are spying on here through the electrical cables in her house (among other delusions). She didn’t trust anyone but our bishop and me, and it took the bishop a month to persuade her to start taking her medication again. We were constantly worried that she’d hurt herself in some way, but she never met the legal standard, “a danger to herself or others,“ that would have allowed her to be committed for a few days and to receive medications. Even when people are in that delusional condition, giving them medications against their will requires a court order.

So yeah, mental illness can be very scary and hard to address. But someone like her should never be able to buy a gun, and in California she can’t, at least not legally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

One year ago.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221)



President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.
The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.
Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.
President Barack Obama recommended the now-nullified regulation in a 2013 memo following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 first graders and six others dead. The measure sought to block some people with severe mental health problems from buying guns.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-suspect-bought-gun-legally-authorities-say/340606002/


The suspect in a Florida school shooting bought the AR-15-style rifle used in the attack legally a year ago, authorities said Thursday.
Nikolas Cruz, 19, is charged with murdering 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where he had been expelled for fighting, according to authorities.
Cruz legally bought the semiautomatic rifle at a Broward County gun shop last February, law enforcement officials who weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly told the Associated Press. The gun, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 .223, was purchased at Sunrise Tactical Gear, according to AP.

I'm pissed.

[Rocker Ute]

The problem with this is that people act like since there is no perfect solution we should do nothing. That is like saying, "Well, I can't cure cancer, so let's just not fight it..." So a proposal that everyone will hate, but just might do something:

1. It is probably agreed that there are so many guns out there that we aren't going to get rid of them, and also that people feel strongly enough about the 2nd amendment that currently to ban guns in the US would lead to massive rioting. So why not limit the amount of guns and type of guns you can own before you need to get a license. Frankly I think any gun owner should have to get a license and register, but a place to compromise. Want to own more than three guns? Okay you can but you need to get licensed.

2. Once licensed you need to submit mental health evaluations every two years. Fail an evaluation or don't submit one, your license and guns are revoked. Also you need to demonstrate that your guns are secured properly and that access to them is limited to you and other approved licensed people. So, if you have a gun safe, only you can get into it, or if you want your family to get into it too, they need to get licensed and go through the same mental health screening.

3. Also, make it so that a person whose gun is used in a shooting has liability associated with it. I'm not saying they get convicted of murder, but perhaps a steep fine and loss of access to guns. That will cause some significant self-policing I think. Got a kid struggling with mental health issues? Lock up your guns.

4. Ban high capacity clips, bump stocks, etc. basically things that make it easier to kill humans and don't show any purpose to improve hunting etc.

It is far from perfect but it is a start. Let's try things, see what works and what doesn't and adjust from there. I also know that nobody will go for this, even though it allows you to own guns without registering etc. Nobody wants to bend in the least on this stuff.

[LA Ute]

The problem with this is that people act like since there is no perfect solution we should do nothing. That is like saying, "Well, I can't cure cancer, so let's just not fight it..." So a proposal that everyone will hate, but just might do something:

1. It is probably agreed that there are so many guns out there that we aren't going to get rid of them, and also that people feel strongly enough about the 2nd amendment that currently to ban guns in the US would lead to massive rioting. So why not limit the amount of guns and type of guns you can own before you need to get a license. Frankly I think any gun owner should have to get a license and register, but a place to compromise. Want to own more than three guns? Okay you can but you need to get licensed.

2. Once licensed you need to submit mental health evaluations every two years. Fail an evaluation or don't submit one, your license and guns are revoked. Also you need to demonstrate that your guns are secured properly and that access to them is limited to you and other approved licensed people. So, if you have a gun safe, only you can get into it, or if you want your family to get into it too, they need to get licensed and go through the same mental health screening.

3. Ban high capacity clips, bump stocks, etc. basically things that make it easier to kill humans and don't show any purpose to improve hunting etc.

It is far from perfect but it is a start. Let's try things, see what works and what doesn't and adjust from there. I also know that nobody will go for this, even though it allows you to own guns without registering etc. Nobody wants to bend in the least on this stuff.

Clearly you are a communist sympathizer who wishes to arrange for the overthrow of our government and to facilitate that treasonous plan by disarming the public.

[U-Ute]

Clearly you are a communist sympathizer who wishes to arrange for the overthrow of our government and to facilitate that treasonous plan by disarming the public.

He's not nearly conservative enough to be labeled like this.

[LA Ute]

This is a pretty decent column:

How to Reduce Shootings

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html

The chart is very interesting.

[LA Ute]

I just linked to a Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times. Now here’s an LA Times op-ed by a guy who apparently writes often at National Review:


Every solution to mass shootings inevitably involves a serious trade-off

The answers are not easy, and they inevitably involve a trade-off: accepting the unacceptable, or restricting our freedoms. The three big ones are freedom of the press (publicity gives oxygen to these kinds of acts, so restricting coverage will reduce copycats); the right to bear arms (guns don't cause human evil, but of course they make it easier to carry out); and due process (targeting potential mass shooters, or mentally ill people in general, is possible, but requires us to curtail Americans' civil rights before they have actually committed a crime)....

As always, human beings are the real weapons of mass destruction, and the tools they choose are not the causes of violence. If we want to weed out people who might commit violent acts in the future, we need to scale back due process protections and incarcerate more people on less evidence.

Although that too is a trade-off many of us would find it hard to make, we could plausibly target privacy laws that make it difficult to compile records on people with a history of threatening behavior.


I’m glad to see some serious thinking going on about various facets of this issue.

[Diehard Ute]

As it stands right now if I encounter someone on the street with a gun it’s very difficult for me to determine if they can legally have it.

I have no access to records which, if checked, would preclude someone from buying a gun. So if they’ve purchased it illegally and I happen to encounter them, I would have no idea.

I can check for felony convictions that make someone a restricted person, but it is a difficult and complicated.

Our gun laws are poorly written, as we’ve got 50 states with 50 different sets of rules.

We even go so far as to restrict where law enforcement can be armed, and make it difficult for law enforcement to travel with their weapon

My honest best suggestion is to implement a national license. All it would verify is your ability to legally own guns. It wouldn’t track what you own, but it would require a check every 2 years to verify criminal history and mental status. That would allow law enforcement a much better chance to intervene if someone who should not have a weapon is encountered with a weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

I fear the only way to make any real progress on some of the epidemics facing our youth (gun violence, drug abuse, drunk driving, anti-social behaviors and other issues......) is for a dramatic cultural shift, otherwise, we're just tinkering on the edges of the problem. The federal government is of limited use IMO. The real change has to begin at a much smaller point -- namely, with stronger families -- then stronger neighborhoods, communities, cities etc....

I know this sounds pollyanna'ish and straight out of sunday school, but, unless we can improve family life, I just don't see how any federal laws will reverse this trend. Even if these disturbed kids don't have access to guns, they'll have access to a large van and mow down a bunch of innocent people at large gatherings. In Paris a couple of years ago, 86 people were killed and 450+ injured in half the time it took the Las Vegas killer to kill 58 and injure 450 -- and with a lot less planning.

I'm not saying we don't take a multi-pronged approach to this and adopt strong laws, but, as a culture, we need to strengthen our families to reverse our current trajectory. I think we're miles away from anything that will work. Seems to me we're still in the finger pointing and playing the blame game stage of addressing our nations biggest problems. When was the last time we all came together to work on something? September 2001? And it didn't last long.

[LA Ute]

FBI’s near-brush with suspect in Florida school shooting draws scrutiny (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/fbis-near-brush-with-suspect-in-fla-school-shooting-draws-scrutiny/2018/02/15/e4d09b92-1275-11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html?undefined=&utm_term=.83549d315297&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1)

This is interesting and not reassuring. Then again, there are only a certain number FBI agents and resources.


Cruz seemed to leave warning signs wherever he went. Everybody saw something. Everybody said something. It was not enough.

“The kid was definitely a problem,” said Malcolm Roxburgh, who lives three doors down from the home in Parkland, Fla., where Cruz lived with his mother until last year. Roxburgh said Cruz threw coconuts into his back yard, slammed a book bag into the back door of his daughter’s car and threw eggs at another neighborhood resident. “He was always getting into trouble.”

Jevon Cange, 21, grew up near Cruz and recalled that he exhibited strange behavior from the time they were little boys. He was prone to angry outbursts — he once threw a large rock at a neighborhood kid while they were fighting — and through high school he was morose, often expressing antagonism toward classmates.

“He would always say how much he hates everyone,” said Cange. In a school where cliques were common, Cruz never seemed to find his crowd.

Math teacher Jim Gard said that administrators had warned staff via email not to allow Cruz to carry a backpack on campus. Cruz was later expelled for unspecified discipline problems, according to local law enforcement officials.

Neighbors said Cruz had been spotted shooting at backyard chickens and trying to kill a squirrel to feed to his dog. Police visited the teenager’s home frequently, they said.

And an Instagram account that appeared to belong to Cruz featured photographs of firearms, including one showing a gun’s laser sight pointed at a neighborhood street. Another showed at least a half-dozen weapons laid out on a bed with the caption “arsenal.” A third appeared to show a dead frog’s bloodied body.

But the YouTube threat about becoming a “professional school shooter” appears to have offered the clearest sign that Cruz was contemplating violence against people.

Bennight, 36, who posts videos online about his bail bond business in D’Iberville, Miss., noticed the comment in late September. The father of seven school-age children, he found it disturbing enough that it didn’t feel sufficient to simply flag it as inappropriate.

First, he tried to email an image to the FBI. When that bounced back, he called the local FBI field office.

[U-Ute]

2334

[U-Ute]

I fear the only way to make any real progress on some of the epidemics facing our youth (gun violence, drug abuse, drunk driving, anti-social behaviors and other issues......) is for a dramatic cultural shift, otherwise, we're just tinkering on the edges of the problem. The federal government is of limited use IMO. The real change has to begin at a much smaller point -- namely, with stronger families -- then stronger neighborhoods, communities, cities etc....

The Millenials are driving social change.

[Rocker Ute]

The bottom line is this: if the inalienable rights or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are indeed correct, and an amendment like the second one take those inalienable rights away for innocent people then that amendment needs to be adjusted or repealed.

I’m not anti gun but I am done with the do nothing approach to stopping school shootings.

Changes HAVE to happen. The time for debate and action is now. Congress needs to do something or be removed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

The bottom line is this: if the inalienable rights or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are indeed correct, and an amendment like the second one take those inalienable rights away for innocent people then that amendment needs to be adjusted or repealed.

I’m not anti gun but I am done with the do nothing approach to stopping school shootings.

Changes HAVE to happen. The time for debate and action is now. Congress needs to do something or be removed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet there are still millions who think the 2nd amendment is a right. Always will be a right. Regardless of any other right.

I can’t drive a car without a license. I can’t drive a car without insurance. I can’t get many jobs without a license.

Those who feel the 2nd amendment is set in stone will tell you everything is is a privilege. Guns are a right. If after all these deaths that hasn’t changed, I honestly don’t know what will. (And strangely, they’re all convinced that the free access to guns is all that keeps us free)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

I’m not anti gun but I am done with the do nothing approach to stopping school shootings.

Changes HAVE to happen. The time for debate and action is now. Congress needs to do something or be removed.



There's a new dynamic, this time. School children attacking politicians via social media for doing nothing.

We'll see where this goes, but this dynamic will join the acute anxiety suburban moms have on sending their kids to school each morning, whether they'll return, or be on CNN.

It just might be the children that lead us out of this ongoing national standoff.

[NorthwestUteFan]

We aren't even so far removed from times when we actually did things to stop shootings. After the school shooting in California in 1989 we banned foreign-made AK-47 and SKS type semiauto rifles, and Colt voluntarily stopped selling the AR-15 (they still sold them to police and military). Even the Brady Bill with all it's flaws was effective, as evidenced by the nearly 200% increase in Mass shootings and greater increase in gun deaths after it ended.

Both of those laws were strongly supported by Republican legislators. But the ones we have today are not brave enough to stand up to the very small percentage of the population who resists all attempts to restrict guns. Perhaps they believe they will need their guns to 'stand up against tyranny' (Cliven Bundy-style?).

Maybe everybody (particularly politicians) needs to see the damage a .223 round from an AR-15 does to a human body as it tumbles through flesh. Somehow, the people who can actually make a difference need to be horrified into action.

The disturbing parallels between the recent Mass shootings (Pulse nightclub, the church in Texas, Vegas, this one, and most others) are the fact that the guns were purchased legally, and the shooters all had a previous history with domestic violence or animal cruelty. Removing guns (at least temporarily) from people with those in their history needs to a starting point in the conversation.

[Rocker Ute]

Yet there are still millions who think the 2nd amendment is a right. Always will be a right. Regardless of any other right.

I can’t drive a car without a license. I can’t drive a car without insurance. I can’t get many jobs without a license.

Those who feel the 2nd amendment is set in stone will tell you everything is is a privilege. Guns are a right. If after all these deaths that hasn’t changed, I honestly don’t know what will. (And strangely, they’re all convinced that the free access to guns is all that keeps us free)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there is a fear that having to license or register guns with the government is an opportunity for them to seize them at some point. So why not set up citizen panels that don't report to government agencies but the people who do the licensing and mental health monitoring? Fund it through the licensing fees.

But I agree with what you said 100%. I listened to some yahoo here locally saying that the reason there haven't been school shootings in Utah is because teachers are allowed to conceal carry on school grounds. First of all... bwah ha ha ha, you can't make this stuff up. Secondly, I've sent three kids to my local elementary school. My wife substitute teaches there. We know about every teacher there, not a single one is packing, I guarantee.

Ma'ake said there is a different dynamic now. I sure hope so.

[Diehard Ute]

I think there is a fear that having to license or register guns with the government is an opportunity for them to seize them at some point. So why not set up citizen panels that don't report to government agencies but the people who do the licensing and mental health monitoring? Fund it through the licensing fees.

But I agree with what you said 100%. I listened to some yahoo here locally saying that the reason there haven't been school shootings in Utah is because teachers are allowed to conceal carry on school grounds. First of all... bwah ha ha ha, you can't make this stuff up. Secondly, I've sent three kids to my local elementary school. My wife substitute teaches there. We know about every teacher there, not a single one is packing, I guarantee.

Ma'ake said there is a different dynamic now. I sure hope so.

You don’t register the guns. You just get a license that says you pass the background check. If you buy a new one you just show your license, no check needed other than to verify it’s still valid.

Doesn’t matter what guns you own, the license merely says you’re good to own them.

As for schools, the idea that teachers are the key is just ignoring basic tactical considerations. Giving someone a gun doesn’t mean they’re capable of responding. We wash people out because they can’t respond, they realize it. Without that kind of intense training weapons mean little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

You don’t register the guns. You just get a license that says you pass the background check. If you buy a new one you just show your license, no check needed other than to verify it’s still valid.

Doesn’t matter what guns you own, the license merely says you’re good to own them.

As for schools, the idea that teachers are the key is just ignoring basic tactical considerations. Giving someone a gun doesn’t mean they’re capable of responding. We wash people out because they can’t respond, they realize it. Without that kind of intense training weapons mean little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

As long the 2nd Amendment is in place, I don’t know how serious limitations on gun ownership are possible. Repealing the Amendment would be virtually impossible, so gun control activists would have to hope for a Supreme Court decision that guts it. At best that would probably be a 5-4 decision and would cause a near civil war in the country.

I think we need to take incremental steps. There seems to be a consensus that mentally unstable people should not be able to own guns. I think we can work with that and get somewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

I think we need to take incremental steps. There seems to be a consensus that mentally unstable people should not be able to own guns. I think we can work with that and get somewhere.


What about bump-stocks? How could they possibly help in deer hunting? What about 50+ round clips? I rarely find deer hunters where I hike (they seem to prefer ATV trails and dirt roads where large 4x4 trucks can be driven), but if I ran into a deer hunter with a 50 round clip on an AR-15, I would seriously question if that guy needed to be deer hunting, to begin with.

We have a legal precedent in Utah, where a guy was found guilty in federal court just a few months ago of manufacturing and distributing kits that turn AR-15s into fully automatic machine guns. Bump-stocks seem to a very close cousin.

We need to try and find some common sense consensus that isn't too aggressive, then both sides need to ignore their extremes and have patience, understanding that with as many guns as we have, any incremental moves probably won't show up in the stats for a long time, and know up front there are so many strong opinions and anecdotal stories that will push us to extremes.

Hearing that teenagers from Florida are planning a march in DC to demand Congress do something about this is encouraging. (Maybe the children will lead the way on this issue, as the adults are hopelessly paralyzed.)

Reading that Trump was shook up by his visits to teenagers recovering in the hospital is also encouraging.

[Ma'ake]

There seems to be a consensus that mentally unstable people should not be able to own guns. I think we can work with that and get somewhere.

I've already seen this point on Facebook, from one of my HS classmates who is an educator, along with his spouse. He got immediate pushback from another classmate, who asked who will decide if somebody is unfit to own a gun? Under criteria developed by left-wing university professors?

Sigh...

Trying to get buy-in from gun owners is going to be really tricky.

There is already a fair amount of (non-psychiatric) paranoia that the government is going to come to take their guns away.

Anticipating a situation where one of their own has gone off the ranch mentally, maybe it would be good for local gun clubs to be involved in (gently) getting weapons removed from the home of a gun owner who has clearly deteriorated mentally. Let the local gun club be involved, let them help talk some sense into their fellow member, in addition to local law enforcement.

ATF and the FBI need to not be involved, at all.

Baby steps.

[LA Ute]

I've already seen this point on Facebook, from one of my HS classmates who is an educator, along with his spouse. He got immediate pushback from another classmate, who asked who will decide if somebody is unfit to own a gun? Under criteria developed by left-wing university professors?

Sigh...

Trying to get buy-in from gun owners is going to be really tricky.

There is already a fair amount of (non-psychiatric) paranoia that the government is going to come to take their guns away.

Anticipating a situation where one of their own has gone off the ranch mentally, maybe it would be good for local gun clubs to be involved in (gently) getting weapons removed from the home of a gun owner who has clearly deteriorated mentally. Let the local gun club be involved, let them help talk some sense into their fellow member, in addition to local law enforcement.

ATF and the FBI need to not be involved, at all.

Baby steps.

We should expect that type of reaction, but surely there is a way to develop a process that most people will have confidence in. For example, in most states already, if a person has been placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold for being a danger to himself or others, that person does not get to own a firearm thereafter. In fact, if the individual makes threats while in that state, the police go to the individual’s home and remove any firearms there. That’s in California, which is a very liberal state. Probably too much for many other states, but still, everybody recognizes that mentally ill people should not have guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Here is a bunch of ideas that I saw on a web site. Some may be a bit difficult to implement but they're worth considering. Why not?


1. Metal Detectors In Every School: This maintains such common sense it's impossible to believe that it doesn’t already happen. This is a bigger failure in the era of post-Columbine than the popularity of the AR-15. How do the largest schools in our nation (Stoneman Douglas is one of the largest at over 3,000 students) not have access points controlled through a metal detector daily? Our courts, government buildings, airports, sports stadiums, conventions, and plenty of other public gatherings demand them.


2. Enforce Everything: Oddly those calling for more laws to be added to the already overly tufted books of law regarding firearms may not realize just how many laws already exist. Simple enforcement of existing laws would cut down on uncounted numbers of people owning guns, possessing guns, and utilizing guns. This is particularly true in the area of those with mental health issues. Begin doing what laws already state must be done, and do so like our children’s lives depend on it.


3. Perform Active Shooter Drills: In many school districts in the nation earthquake drills are performed. No children have died in earthquakes at an American school in years but the drills go forward. “Sequester and Hide” (and then get your cell phone out and begin "facebook-LIVE-ing”) should be replaced with “Barricade, Attack, & Survive.” Young people should be aware of how quickly they can move a teacher’s desk and their own to protect against a shooter. These should be practiced and drilled at minimum in comparison to earthquake drills.

4. Reinforce Doors, Windows, Buses, Locks: Though these things left to themselves were installed and still did not stop the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, they are able to stop some of the carnage. At the Stoneman Douglas high school, the shooter attempted to shoot through the reinforced glass of the classrooms in an attempt to shoot victims outside the building, but was unable to because of the technology of the glass. That piece of hardened, thickened glass saved lives.


5. Recruit Retired Military & Law Enforcement: The number of qualified public safety professionals that live in our communities is surprising. These friends and neighbors have already received certification and weapons training. Most of them (unless they become criminals) are already allowed to own, possess, and carry firearms. Having them operate the access points at all schools, check every backpack and bag carried onto the premises, and engage every threat be it a firearm, a pocketknife or any other form of contraband — would not only ensure a safer school campus, but also a more rule following, law abiding one. Drugs, porn, and other forms of disruptive materials would be filtered out of the school campus environment on the threat of being discovered every day by the school security professional.

6. Arm All Appropriate Personnel: Giving teachers, coaches, and administrators (only the ones who wish to) the right to protect themselves on campus is a backstop to all other methods. But it is a genuine deterrent nonetheless. If only 5-10% of staff were also armed, certified, and properly trained, there would be no threat that first got through the detectors, security professionals, and the hallways that would still be allowed complete and utter access to the student body. Instead of a coach taking bullets, giving up his life to protect his students, numbers of teachers and coaches would be ready to confront any threat that made it to their area of the campus.


7. Publicize Consequence: The mere knowledge of this list of obstacles to any attacker may not completely dissuade them. But since it was readily apparent that this list of steps would have actually saved some if not all of the lives in Florida this week, one thing can be easily understood. Any individual who decides to try something under these guidelines runs a much larger threat of being caught, captured, and killed if he tries it. So talk about it openly. Do the drills, teach the kids to fight for their own survival, tell the predators in advance that if they choose to attack a school it is open war on them, and before they ever have the chance to enter the facility the daunting challenge they will face will likely be a price too steep for them to be willing to pay.


Israel has already put some of these steps into practice and the nation has seen almost zero school attacks since adopting them.


None of these steps infringe upon law-abiding people’s Second Amendment rights.


All of these steps attempt to stop and engage mentally ill or deliberately belligerent attackers.


This list would make an immediate impact on every school that adopts them.


No common sense American can deny their effectiveness.


Our kids are worth it!

[Ma'ake]

We should expect that type of reaction, but surely there is a way to develop a process that most people will have confidence in. For example, in most states already, if a person has been placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold for being a danger to himself or others, that person does not get to own a firearm thereafter. In fact, if the individual makes threats well in that state, the police go to the individual’s home and remove any firearms there. That’s in California, which is a very liberal state. Probably too much for many other states, but still, everybody recognizes that mentally ill people should not have guns.


Here's how "the talk" might go to an audience of gun enthusiasts: "How many here think it's a good idea for somebody like Charles Manson to have as many guns as he wanted to buy? OK, how about Steven Powell (before he blew up his house with the kids inside)? Now, what about your friend at the gun range with 8 kids, whose business is failing and he's talking about ending it all?"

This is going to take a long, long time, multiple generations.

[Ma'ake]

Here is a bunch of ideas that I saw on a web site. Some may be a bit difficult to implement but they're worth considering. Why not?


Getting "TSA-lite" security in schools would mean a TON of new jobs and metal detector / explosives detection equipment... but would also mean a fairly serious increase in taxes.

But it also means we might be able to attract a wider pool of teacher candidates, which is already a serious problem, especially with stories like this: http://fox8.com/2018/02/19/teacher-killed-in-florida-massacre-left-fiancee-funeral-instructions-for-if-he-were-to-die-in-a-school-shooting/

Arming teachers, custodians, librarians and staff inside the school would necessitate tactical training like Diehard has mentioned, and might result in a bump up in school-based suicides and murder-suicides (good people who run into acute personal crises and decide that's the way out).

But this list is a start of a conversation that has been mostly avoided, to this point.

[LA Ute]

Getting "TSA-lite" security in schools would mean a TON of new jobs and metal detector / explosives detection equipment... but would also mean a fairly serious increase in taxes.

But it also means we might be able to attract a wider pool of teacher candidates, which is already a serious problem, especially with stories like this: http://fox8.com/2018/02/19/teacher-killed-in-florida-massacre-left-fiancee-funeral-instructions-for-if-he-were-to-die-in-a-school-shooting/

Arming teachers, custodians, librarians and staff inside the school would necessitate tactical training like Diehard has mentioned, and might result in a bump up in school-based suicides and murder-suicides (good people who run into acute personal crises and decide that's the way out).

But this list is a start of a conversation that has been mostly avoided, to this point.

Your comment about TSA-lite reminded me of a school in our general vicinity in LA. It has a high fence around it and does have metal detectors, because of all the gang activity among the student population, many of whom are bused in. It is a very secure campus. Ironically, and very sadly, I’ve heard a number of kids who go there say they feel much safer on campus then they do at home. An interesting insight into our times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Republicans are totally going to support a hundred billion dollars annually of increased school funding. Metal detectors, bulletproof glass, armed and trained teachers and staff, etc. We would be lucky to get away with ONLY a hundred billion a year for that level of upgrades. As it is now schools can barely afford to fix a leaking roof and replace textbooks, and still face across the board cuts at every level for being 'too expensive'.

Every conversation needs to include who should be excluded (permanently or temporarily) from ownership at the federal level (e.g. domestic violence, stalking, animal cruelty, or familiar violence charges; making credible threats to others - current laws usually don't allow law enforcement to do much until after a shooting actually begins; people with mental health issues, etc). Certain other guns need to have severe restrictions (e.g. high capacity rapid rifles like AR-15, H&K 91) etc, for use at a licensed range only and only after extensive state and federal background checks by all law enforcement, not just local sheriff, and including psych evals. All funded by the purchaser.

[Rocker Ute]

The problem is these mass shootings are not just at schools, but at any place where people are gathered en masse. Night clubs, concerts, workplaces, public gathering places... So amping up security at a school is no doubt important, but will not reduce the number of mass shootings we are experiencing.

Also, and I bet Diehard can weigh in on this (and has) but arming teachers is a foolish idea. First can they do the right thing under that kind of pressure, and secondly, when LEOs get on scene, how do they identify who is the active shooter and who is defending? How do those being defended identify them too? Read the stories of the latest shooting from the surviving kids and naturally the police as they began clearing and securing the school trained their guns on the kids, had them put their hands in the air and had them drop their bags for inspection. Until the smoke clears, LEOs really don't know who is friend and who is foe.

It seems ridiculous to me that we can't come to a consensus about what is really just a mild stepping back but would seem to make a big difference:

1. No assault type rifles
2. No high capacity clips
3. No gun modifications that allow them to fire faster and easier than designed (like bump stocks)
4. Mental health screenings at regular intervals
5. Requiring gun owners to secure their own guns and assume liability insurance for their guns
6. License gun owners in relation to 4-5 points

That is barely stepping anything down.

I get people are afraid of the government and what they do, so make citizen councils that enforce and review these sort of issues. Are we going to cover every mental illness? No, but certainly there are some illnesses that we can check for and state that they can't own guns anymore.

I'm not much for my kids stepping out of class or protesting, but come April 20th if no laws have been changed (they won't be) and the students step out, I am going to tell my kids it is okay for them to do so.

[Diehard Ute]

A few things.

1) At least in Utah the idea of a “72 hour” mental health hold is a fantasy. Most people who are forcibly committed stay a few hours at most.

2)Unless the person who is forcibly committed is at home when that occurs, weapons aren’t going to be seized. Even when they are seized they’re for safekeeping and once the person is released they often have to be returned

3) The “enforce laws already on the books” idea is great. But it ignores all the reasons those laws aren’t enforced now. It’s rarely because officers don’t want to, but I rather because they can’t.

4) The idea that people with guns are a deterrent In mass shootings is really somewhat incorrect. Most people who are willing to do this are just fine dying. The only reason it might be a deterrent is a lower casualty count.

5)Metal detectors etc are great. Until the guy shows up with the AR and shoots up the access point.

6) Hardening schools is a good idea....until someone pulls a fire alarm. But it’s a good way to try and help.

Frankly we should spend more time teaching people to think in a calm manner. Teach them good combat medical skills and (they’re very easy and would save a lot of lives) stock classrooms with good medical supplies.

And, stop and think about this for a minute. It’s harder to buy sudafed or iodine than it is ammunition and firearms accessories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A few things.

1) At least in Utah the idea of a “72 hour” mental health hold is a fantasy. Most people who are forcibly committed stay a few hours at most.

2)Unless the person who is forcibly committed is at home when that occurs, weapons aren’t going to be seized. Even when they are seized they’re for safekeeping and once the person is released they often have to be returned

I don’t know about Utah but in CA and other states I’ve worked in 72 hours is the outer limit, until the individual is no longer a danger to self or others. So yes, the holds can be shorter. They shouldn’t be any longer than absolutely necessary. When a mental health pro says the danger is over then the hold ends. Holds can be extended to longer periods but the longer the hold becomes, the greater the due process that’s required. Here, if you make violent threats while on a hold the police can get a warrant and can take your guns. Good luck getting them back, or ever getting another one legally.


3) The “enforce laws already on the books” idea is great. But it ignores all the reasons those laws aren’t enforced now. It’s rarely because officers don’t want to, but I rather because they can’t.

A problem. I don’t blame LEOs for it.


4) The idea that people with guns are a deterrent In mass shootings is really somewhat incorrect. Most people who are willing to do this are just fine dying. The only reason it might be a deterrent is a lower casualty count.

Of all the ideas listed this one (arming more people on campus) leaves me most skeptical. It makes sense that without serious training, merely having more guns around won’t help much. I think the hope is that an armed person could stop or kill the gunman, not deter him. But how effective is the average citizen in a gunfight?


5)Metal detectors etc are great. Until the guy shows up with the AR and shoots up the access point.

6) Hardening schools is a good idea....until someone pulls a fire alarm. But it’s a good way to try and help.

I guess the idea is to discourage the bad guys. But this type of equipment and the personnel to run it will be expensive.


And, stop and think about this for a minute. It’s harder to buy sudafed or iodine than it is ammunition and firearms accessories.

The only way to address this is to either repeal the Second Amendment or get a different SCOTUS interpretation of it. Just looking for small steps we can take now.

[Diehard Ute]

I don’t know about Utah but in CA and other states I’ve worked in 72 hours is the outer limit, until the individual is no longer a danger to self or others. So yes, the holds can be shorter. They shouldn’t be any longer than absolutely necessary. When a mental health pro says the danger is over then the hold ends. Holds can be extended to longer periods but the longer the hold becomes, the greater the due process that’s required. Here, if you make violent threats while on a hold the police can get a warrant and can take your guns. Good luck getting them back, or ever getting another one legally.

I think you can get such a warrant anywhere. I don’t think in my entire career anyone has done that. If you look at most of the recent shooters there’s little to no contact with our legal system. I honestly believe our medical system is more likely to encounter these guys, but who knows as most of that info is private (the Trolley Square shooter had no red flags)



A problem. I don’t blame LEOs for it.

It’s a problem that probably needs to be addressed in Congress. The laws on the books need to be standardized and streamlined


Of all the ideas listed this one (arming more people on campus) leaves me most skeptical. It makes sense that without serious training, merely having more guns around won’t help much. I think the hope is that an armed person could stop or kill the gunman, not deter him. But how effective is the average citizen in a gunfight?

And that’s the rub with this idea. We don’t really have any reason to believe it would change anything. A citizen with a gun has that gun as a last resort, to protect themselves or someone else. They’re not going to seek out the shooter. Nor should they. I guarantee there were armed citizens in Trolley Square.



I guess the idea is to discourage the bad guys. But this type of equipment and the personnel to run it will be expensive.

Very. Criminals do go for easier targets. But many also seem to be attracted to places that have some personal significance. (Las Vegas is an exception, one I doubt we ever understand)


The only way to address this is to either repeal the Second Amendment or get a different SCOTUS interpretation of it. Just looking for small steps we can take now.

I agree. It’s just unfortunate we’re so far down this road that even having a good conversation on this topic is often impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I agree. It’s just unfortunate we’re so far down this road that even having a good conversation on this topic is often impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen, brother.

[LA Ute]

The DesNews Editorial Board:


Could the nation do more to identify and treat mental illnesses? Could more be done to recognize warning signs and mandate mental health screening without violating a person’s civil rights? Could background checks required for firearms purchases be more effective at weeding out people with mental illnesses, keeping in mind that many such illnesses are not diagnosed before they manifest themselves in dangerous ways? Are there reasonable gun-control measures that could preserve Second Amendment rights while reducing the ability to cause mass casualties? Are schools employing the best safety measures to guard against mass casualties?

Americans cannot continue to allow diseased minds to view mass murder as a viable alternative for appeasing their own sense of injustice. Parents should never again have to endure the horrors of not knowing whether their children are safe at school.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900010610/in-our-opinion-in-the-wake-of-tragic-shootings-does-the-country-ask-the-tough-questions.html

[concerned]

So I mentioned last week that might daughter, a high school senior, hopes that gun laws will change when her generation, the Columbine generation gets to vote. I guess I did not realize until last week how deeply affected she is by all the mass shootings--especially school shootings--that she has grown up with.

so this weekend she wrote something for Vox that was printed today.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/2/20/17032364/parkland-florida-school-shooting-teens-protests


She was also quoted and pictured in a Trib article this morning

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2018/02/20/utah-students-are-planning-to-march-for-new-gun-laws-in-the-wake-of-the-florida-school-shooting/


She--and a lot of her firends--are extremely determined. I personally hope it gets somewhere.

[sancho]

So I mentioned last week that might daughter, a high school senior, hopes that gun laws will change when her generation, the Columbine generation gets to vote. I guess I did not realize until last week how deeply affected she is by all the mass shootings--especially school shootings--that she has grown up with.

so this weekend she wrote something for Vox that was printed today.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/2/20/17032364/parkland-florida-school-shooting-teens-protests


She was also quoted and pictured in a Trib article this morning

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2018/02/20/utah-students-are-planning-to-march-for-new-gun-laws-in-the-wake-of-the-florida-school-shooting/


She--and a lot of her firends--are extremely determined. I personally hope it gets somewhere.

I also hope it gets somewhere. Also, go West High!

[LA Ute]

Better Background Gun Checks

[I]One way to help keep guns from the ill and dangerous.[/I{

By The Editorial Board
Feb. 20, 2018 6:56 p.m. ET

The Parkland, Fla. high school massacre has ignited another gun-control debate, and amid the usual polarization there may be room to compromise. To wit, the House could quickly move a version of a bill it passed last year to improve background checks.

As we’ve learned since Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the 19-year-old was a known threat. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office responded to at least 20 complaints about his behavior, and the FBI received a tip in January with specific information about his social-media posts and overt threats. The school had sent out an email about the expelled student, asking to be notified if he showed up with a backpack.

This latest FBI failure needs a full investigation, but Parkland also highlights an inadequate system for identifying high-risk individuals and denying them firearms. Congress addressed this failing after a gunman last year killed 26 people at a church in Sutherland, Texas. The Air Force failed to submit the shooter’s history of domestic assault and a bad-conduct discharge to the FBI and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Texas Senator John Cornyn’s “Fix NICS” bill would require every federal agency to outline how it will ensure that relevant information gets to NICS; penalize federal agencies that fail by stripping appointees of potential bonuses; encourage states to maintain background databases to inform NICS; and beef up reporting on domestic violence.

The bill would tighten an imperfect background-check system and is supported by the National Rifle Association, police associations and the White House. The House passed the legislation last year, but it also added a provision requiring reciprocity for owners of concealed firearm permits across state lines. Democrats oppose the reciprocity provision, which can’t pass the Senate.

Republicans would be wise to let that reciprocity provision die and send a clean Fix-NICS bill to the Senate. The House can throw in a ban on so-called bump stocks, which let an AR-15 rifle fire more rapidly. That also has bipartisan support, and President Trump on Tuesday directed the Justice Department to propose a regulation banning bump stocks.

These ideas might not have stopped Nikolas Cruz, but then neither would the oft-proposed ban on AR-15s. He could as easily have bought handguns, which is how Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. But one consequence of Parkland should be a debate on how American society can deny the dangerous mentally ill access to guns of any kind. That will require a rethinking of privacy laws and state mental-health statutes.

Democrats keep saying they merely want “common sense” gun laws, not a ban, and the Cornyn bill is a test of their sincerity.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/better-background-gun-checks-1519170972

[Ma'ake]

Some other details about the FBI failure that add some context:

- FBI agents used to take turns fielding calls in their field offices. Recently, to save money, they consolidated to a call center in West Virginia, which takes calls for the nation. (The information transfer failure apparently happened between WV and the Miami office).

- The issue technically was outside FBI jurisdiction, as it became a local homicide case. (This doesn't excuse the FBI's failure to inform local law enforcement in Broward County.) While the FBI is the current scapegoat, how often has the FBI been accused of trampling on states rights?

- The students had complained multiple times to school authorities, local police, their parents... and called the FBI as well.

This was unquestionably more than an FBI failure.

[Ma'ake]

... he could as easily have bought handguns

This is erroneous. Florida requires a minimum age of 21 to purchase handguns, but for rifles / shotguns / AR-15s/AK-47s, the minimum age is 18.

Cruz is 19. He would have had to travel to another state to get handguns, or possibly just go to a gun show, or buy them from off the street, etc.

[LA Ute]

This was unquestionably more than an FBI failure.

True. There are too many failures to count.

[LA Ute]

I am looking for feedback. It is my understanding that the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16, a military rifle. It seems to me that the primary purpose of that rifle is to kill people, at distance, possibly many people in a single incident. I would like to hear from gun enthusiasts. Why should such a weapon be widely available? Why should there not be significant restrictions on a person‘s ability to acquire one? I get the need for a handgun, for personal protection. I’m just talking about military-style rifles. I really want to know what people think.

[concerned]

I am looking for feedback. It is my understanding that the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16, a military rifle. It seems to me that the primary purpose of that rifle is to kill people, at distance, possibly many people in a single incident. I would like to hear from gun enthusiasts. Why should such a weapon be widely available? Why should there not be significant restrictions on a person‘s ability to acquire one? I get the need for a handgun, for personal protection. I’m just talking about military-style rifles. I really want to know what people think.


Well, I am not a gun enthusiast and I only know what I read in the papers, but I did read this the other day--the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting, because of the way its bullets tear up the flesh of the animal. As you say, it is designed to kill large numbers of people quickly. I saw some interviews with AR-15 enthusiasts, and what seems to be the overwhelming reason for owning one is that they are a lot of fun to shoot at ranges, and people want to preserve the right to do that. FWIW.

[LA Ute]

Well, I am not a gun enthusiast and I only know what I read in the papers, but I did read this the other day--the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting, because of the way its bullets tear up the flesh of the animal. As you say, it is designed to kill large numbers of people quickly. I saw some interviews with AR-15 enthusiasts, and what seems to be the overwhelming reason for owning one is that they are a lot of fun to shoot at ranges, and people want to preserve the right to do that. FWIW.

I have actually shot one, and they are a lot of fun to shoot, and very easy to use. The one I had included a laser sight, which made it incredibly easy to hit a target, even for a novice like me. (That raises a different question.) Still...Can’t we at least make them difficult to get?

[sancho]

This paragraph in Maureen Dowd's NYT editorial reminded me of what Brother Wilcox at the U of U institute used to say about the last days:


When societies try to protect a malevolent status quo, they become warped. The most chilling sign of this is when people look the other way as the most vulnerable members of society are preyed on.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/sunday/appeasing-the-trigger-gods.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It fits here with gun control, but it also fits so much of the rest of our societal selfishness.

[U-Ute]

So I mentioned last week that might daughter, a high school senior, hopes that gun laws will change when her generation, the Columbine generation gets to vote. I guess I did not realize until last week how deeply affected she is by all the mass shootings--especially school shootings--that she has grown up with.

so this weekend she wrote something for Vox that was printed today.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/2/20/17032364/parkland-florida-school-shooting-teens-protests


She was also quoted and pictured in a Trib article this morning

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2018/02/20/utah-students-are-planning-to-march-for-new-gun-laws-in-the-wake-of-the-florida-school-shooting/


She--and a lot of her firends--are extremely determined. I personally hope it gets somewhere.

Very well written. Good for her!

[chrisrenrut]

I have actually shot one, and they are a lot of fun to shoot, and very easy to use. The one I had included a laser sight, which made it incredibly easy to hit a target, even for a novice like me. (That raises a different question.) Still...Can’t we at least make them difficult to get?

I am no expert, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the main differences from normal hunting rifles, other than the cool/macho appearance are:


Ability to shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger (hunting rifles usually require cycling a bolt, lever, or pump to chamber the next round)
Higher capacity magazines, so less time lost reloading
Smaller caliber but high energy bullets. Most use .223 or 5.6mm ammo. I don't know about the tearing of flesh thing. I think that most hunters would consider the caliber to be too small for big game, but good for small game


I think it is accurate to say that these are weapons designed for shooting other people, since they are based on weapons of war. But they can be a lot of fun to shoot for practice or small game. I think a lot of enthusiasts see them as excellent home defense weapons as well. It would probably be overkill (no pun intended) in a home invasion scenario. But in an apocalyptic scenario, it would be good for defending life and home from mass marauders. But what makes them good for that, also makes them good for these mass killings where time and volume of bullets is what is most important to the user.

[LA Ute]

Here’s an interesting point of view that I do not necessarily endorse. These seem like do-able things that shouldn’t provoke screaming from gun rights people. (But who knows?)

________________________________

Real Solutions for Curtailing Gun Violence

The most predictable fallout from last week’s school shooting in Florida is the impassioned reactions from both sides of the gun divide, which guarantee nothing will change. Gun-control supporters demonize firearms and Second Amendment supporters, blaming the National Rifle Association for mass murder. Conservatives see their critics as caring little about the Constitution and knowing next to nothing about firearms.

But people of good faith can find common ground and help reduce gun violence in the U.S.

Let’s begin with a statistic: The number of guns in America rose nearly 50% between 1993 and 2013. During the same period, gun homicides fell by nearly 50%. The notion that more guns mean more crime is simplistic and false.

Yet we still see frightening outbursts of armed violence—whether sudden, as in 17 dead within minutes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, or in slow motion, as in 20 dead during January in Chicago—an improvement from last year.

A University of Chicago study found that only 3% of Windy City gun crimes were committed with legally purchased guns. A federal study in 2004 put the percentage of gun crimes committed with legal guns at 11%. By and large the problem isn’t guns—it’s that people who shouldn’t have them are getting them and using them.

As for mass shootings, almost all of them have involved mentally ill young men. Some used pistols, some used rifles, some had both—but as with street crime, people who shouldn’t have weapons got them.

So, what to do? Here are three suggestions.

First, to reduce street violence, dramatically increase penalties for stealing a firearm. According to FBI statistics, in the four years from 2012-15, 1.2 million guns were stolen from people, and another 22,000 were stolen from gun stores. Criminals respond to incentives like everybody else. A mandatory four-year prison term for illegally possessing a firearm, and a six-year term per gun for selling stolen firearms, would, if seriously enforced, escalate the risk of the crime past the point of anticipated benefits. Sentences should be so severe that a burglar would avoid taking the victim’s guns rather than face the consequences of being caught with them. Similarly harsh sentences should apply to felons carrying firearms. We don’t need a war on guns, but we do need a war on illegal guns. This will save more lives than any other single policy change.

Second, enforce the law against straw purchases of handguns. A straw purchase happens when someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun walks into a store, completes the required paperwork, takes possession of the firearm—and then gives it or sells it to someone who isn’t allowed to own one. Federal law makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

But those laws are rarely enforced. In the eyes of the federal government (and straw purchasers) it’s a low priority. If that changed, illegal guns from straw purchases would start to dry up. This requires no change in laws, only priorities. The president and attorney general could make it happen immediately.

Third, find practical, legal ways of preventing seriously mentally ill people from acquiring firearms. Nikolas Cruz, the confessed killer of 17 in Florida last week, had been investigated by Florida’s child-protective agency in late 2016 after cutting himself in an online video. He stated he was going out to buy a gun (which he did). The investigating agency “found him stable enough not to be hospitalized.”

Two months later, Mr. Cruz, a chronic troublemaker who had been repeatedly suspended from school, was referred for a “threat assessment.” Records show he attended half a dozen schools, including one for students with emotional problems. The FBI received a tip from someone who knew Mr. Cruz, cited concerns about his behavior and guns, and expressed concerns he could attack a school. The FBI has confirmed that it did not follow protocol in handling the reports. Nor did it follow up on a tip from a YouTube blogger after Mr. Cruz left a comment declaring: “Im [sic] going to be a professional school shooter.” The local sheriff said his office had received more than 20 calls about Mr. Cruz. Police had been called out to his house more than three dozen times.

And he was able to buy a gun.

Pre-emptively denying someone a constitutional right requires navigating a social, legal and political minefield. It is a tough job that needs to be done. The president should announce a task force to make clear recommendations to Congress on where that line should be drawn. Attempts to deny some Social Security Disability recipients gun rights recently ran afoul not only of Congress and the president, but also the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of disability-rights groups as well. But conservatives and liberals can agree that someone like Nikolas Cruz shouldn’t be allowed to legally buy a gun.

All Americans want less gun violence. The way to get there is to keep guns away from people who have no business owning them, and punishing them when they do obtain or possess guns illegally.

Mr. Carlson is a morning radio host on KVI in Seattle. He was a co-author of Washington state’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” and “Hard Time for Armed Crime” ballot initiatives in the 1990s.

_________________________

Appeared in the February 21, 2018, print edition.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/real-solutions-for-curtailing-gun-violence-1519168921

[Diehard Ute]

I’ll give a brief rundown of the “AR-15”.

It is the semi automatic version of the M-16. The actual M-16 is a select fire weapon that has multiple options on the safety switch. Safe, semi auto, burst or full auto

There are actually AR-15’s chambered in .22, 9mm etc, although most are chambered in .223 or 5.56

One that is chambered in 5.56 can also shoot .223. One chambered in .223 should not shoot 5.56 it’s dangerous.

The weapon can be used at distances up to 600 meters or so, but that is not what it was designed for.

It’s designed for combat inside 100 yards. It’s a very accurate weapon system. The round is only slightly bigger than a .22LR. The key is kinetic energy

The round is traveling well over 2000 feet per second. The 9mm round most police departments use is about 1,200 feet per second.

Because of this energy the round will go through walls, car doors etc without any trouble. It will also go through the soft body armor every police officer wears. Doesn’t even slow down.

With things such as electronic or holographic sights they’re very accurate and easy to acquire a target very quickly.

Most police officers carry a version in their vehicle. They’re only deployed in select situations.

Now the round could be used for hunting, but it wouldn’t be the first choice of anyone really.

The Las Vegas shooter used 100 rounds magazines and “bump stocks” to increase fire rates. Some of his rifles had aftermarket sights, most did not.

The average AR comes with a 20 round magazine. Most police officers carry 30 round magazines (which really only hold 28 but that’s another story)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

I have actually shot one, and they are a lot of fun to shoot, and very easy to use. The one I had included a laser sight, which made it incredibly easy to hit a target, even for a novice like me. (That raises a different question.) Still...Can’t we at least make them difficult to get?

I work with a guy whose current interest is long range target shooting with a .50 caliber long barrel rifle. Quarter mile, half mile. You have to account for wind direction, gravity, etc, but it gives him a sense of calm after a stressful day at the office to be able to hit targets from half a mile.

[LA Ute]

I work with a guy whose current interest is long range target shooting with a .50 caliber long barrel rifle. Quarter mile, half mile. You have to account for wind direction, gravity, etc, but it gives him a sense of calm after a stressful day at the office to be able to hit targets from half a mile.

I have no problem with hobbies like that.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Smaller caliber but high energy bullets. Most use .223 or 5.6mm ammo. I don't know about the tearing of flesh thing. I think that most hunters would consider the caliber to be too small for big game, but good for small game
[/LIST]


.

An interesting aspect of that round is the combination of speed, accuracy, and the fact that physics cause it to tumble as it strikes flesh, but punches straight through doors and armor as Diehard said. It does as much damage to a target as a hollow point bullet, which are illegal in warfare.

The same international law that requires full metal jackets on bullets precludes the use of hollow point or fragmenting bullets. So the .223 bullet in a way is a method to bypass the law and get the same outcome. The larger 7.62 mm round (30-06) in FMJ hits with far more energy, but will typically pass through flesh in a more stable manner and won't tumble the way a .223 will.

So in effect the round used by the AR-15 and M-4 (military version with the semiauto/tri-burst/full auto switch) is extremely easy to fire, is foolproof, and is extremely accurate. And the bullet tumbles through a target which incapacitates the target, allowing the shooter to pick off all the target's buddies when they come to save him.

The gun is not useful for hunting because of the tumbling bullet. It is only good for killing large numbers of people, punching holes in paper targets, and for plinking non-game animals. But that first purpose is pretty glaring at this point.

[concerned]

An interesting aspect of that round is the combination of speed, accuracy, and the fact that physics cause it to tumble as it strikes flesh, but punches straight through doors and armor as Diehard said.

I think the "tumbling" of the bullet is what I read makes it unsuitable for hunting, because it rips the flesh.

I cant remember where, but I saw an analysis the other day by a pathologist who reviewed many of the autopsies of the Las Vegas victims, and described how horrible their injuries were. He repeatedly described very large wounds in the chest cavity, or explosions in the head or skull, caused by a "tumbling" bullet. He attributed the tumbling to the overheating of the barrel from the extreme rapidity of the shots (accentuated by bump stocks) but it sounds as if the tumbling may be inherent in the AR-15 to some extent.

From the way you all describe it, it sound as though the AR-15 would not be a weapon of choice at long range, such as sniper fire or deer hunting.

[Diehard Ute]

I think the "tumbling" of the bullet is what I read makes it unsuitable for hunting, because it rips the flesh.

I cant remember where, but I saw an analysis the other day by a pathologist who reviewed many of the autopsies of the Las Vegas victims, and described how horrible their injuries were. He repeatedly described very large wounds in the chest cavity, or explosions in the head or skull, caused by a "tumbling" bullet. He attributed the tumbling to the overheating of the barrel caused by the extreme rapidity of the shots (accentuated by bump stocks) but it sounds as if the tumbling may be inherent in the AR-15 to some extent.

From the way you all describe it, it sound as though the AR-15 would not be a weapon of choice at long range, such as sniper fire or deer hunting.

So let me clarify this.

The bullet only tumbles once it’s inside something like flesh. It flies straight and true until it enters something like flesh. (Unlike say a .45 handgun round that travels at slow speeds and tumbles through the air)

To understand why bullets kill we need to go back to what causes the damage.

A round that just punches a hole and goes through and exits isn’t likely to cause a lot of damage unless it happens to hit a critical organ.

But a bullet that causes cavitation will do severe damage especially in the chest. Cavitation is the damage caused by the energy waves leaving the round. When a bullet “tumbles” it increases that wave and thus causes more damage.

Now the type of ammunition can play a large role in this. (There are rounds law enforcement uses which are made to dissipate energy to avoid “over penetration” to keep the round from exiting a target and striking an unintended target).

I don’t have enough info to argue with the medical examiner in Vegas, but i doubt barrel heat played a role.

As for a sniper weapon, with some sight/scope accessories you can use a well built AR-15 at distances of several hundred yards.....it’s a very accurate weapon in the right setup


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

So far I've learned a lot. Thanks, and keep it coming!

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Frankly we should spend more time teaching people to think in a calm manner. Teach them good combat medical skills and (they’re very easy and would save a lot of lives) stock classrooms with good medical supplies.

And, stop and think about this for a minute. It’s harder to buy sudafed or iodine than it is ammunition and firearms accessories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was watching the news with my kids a couple of days ago and we started talking about school shootings. I asked them if they ever do lock down drills. They said yes. I asked what they did during those drills. I was told that they lock the door, turn off the lights and lie on their stomachs and put their hands over their heads.That seems crazy. I have to take active shooter training every year for work. We are not instructed to lie on the floor with our hands over our heads. Are we failing our kids even in their preparation?

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

An interesting aspect of that round is the combination of speed, accuracy, and the fact that physics cause it to tumble as it strikes flesh, but punches straight through doors and armor as Diehard said. It does as much damage to a target as a hollow point bullet, which are illegal in warfare.

The same international law that requires full metal jackets on bullets precludes the use of hollow point or fragmenting bullets. So the .223 bullet in a way is a method to bypass the law and get the same outcome. The larger 7.62 mm round (30-06) in FMJ hits with far more energy, but will typically pass through flesh in a more stable manner and won't tumble the way a .223 will.

So in effect the round used by the AR-15 and M-4 (military version with the semiauto/tri-burst/full auto switch) is extremely easy to fire, is foolproof, and is extremely accurate. And the bullet tumbles through a target which incapacitates the target, allowing the shooter to pick off all the target's buddies when they come to save him.

The gun is not useful for hunting because of the tumbling bullet. It is only good for killing large numbers of people, punching holes in paper targets, and for plinking non-game animals. But that first purpose is pretty glaring at this point.

The important assumption here is that people are hunting for the meat. I know that isn't always the case. One of the most popular hunting experiences in Texas is hanging out of a helicopter with your AR-15 and chasing pigs. There doesn't seem much concern about preserving the meat.

[U-Ute]

The important assumption here is that people are hunting for the meat. I know that isn't always the case. One of the most popular hunting experiences in Texas is hanging out of a helicopter with your AR-15 and chasing pigs. There doesn't seem much concern about preserving the meat.

All in the name of solving the pig overpopulation I'm assuming.

I weep at all the lost bacon tho.

[Rocker Ute]

So to sum it up, an AR-15 is designed to kill people and in a rapid and brutal manner. And the general public needs it because???

Guns are fun, I'm not against them at all. At my work we used to have a team building activity where we'd go to the range. But my entertainment is not even secondary to the safety of our nation. The logic behind this is like if going to the movies meant that people have to die to provide you the entertainment, but you are like, "Yeah, but I've got to see Black Panther!"

[Rocker Ute]

In fact, I bet I could deter a home intruder better with an iphone app that imitates the sound of a shotgun pumping, than I could with an actual gun.

[LA Ute]

In fact, I bet I could deter a home intruder better with an iphone app that imitates the sound of a shotgun pumping, than I could with an actual gun.

Maybe you could post outside your door your own version of this:

https://www.utahby5.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2338&stc=1

Except it might say "Protected by iOS."

[sancho]

Guns are fun, I'm not against them at all.

Are they really that fun, though? There are so many things that are more fun.

So I'm kinda against them as toys. I understand their value as tools.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The important assumption here is that people are hunting for the meat. I know that isn't always the case. One of the most popular hunting experiences in Texas is hanging out of a helicopter with your AR-15 and chasing pigs. There doesn't seem much concern about preserving the meat.I can't even imagine a neck so deep a shade of red.

But to be fair, the wild pigs are an enormous problem. Kill 'em all.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I can't even imagine a neck so deep a shade of red.

But to be fair, the wild pigs are an enormous problem. Kill 'em all.

Why waste your imagination when YouTube is packed full of the action? Although, I guess you could always try and imagine that each pig is a 16 year old high school student.

https://youtu.be/sx66ys4JG5o


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Why waste your imagination when YouTube is packed full of the action? Although, I guess you could always try and imagine that each pig is a 16 year old high school student.

https://youtu.be/sx66ys4JG5o


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not watching that. Sick people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

Well, I am not a gun enthusiast and I only know what I read in the papers, but I did read this the other day--the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting, because of the way its bullets tear up the flesh of the animal. As you say, it is designed to kill large numbers of people quickly. I saw some interviews with AR-15 enthusiasts, and what seems to be the overwhelming reason for owning one is that they are a lot of fun to shoot at ranges, and people want to preserve the right to do that. FWIW.
I heard one "expert" say on NPR that he uses an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, ground squirrels and other pests. Good for that. He also said that a pistol is much better for home protection-the aim is truer in close quarters, and it is easier to wield. An AR-15 is not his first choice.

[Rocker Ute]

So some interesting stats... a Facebook share of an image I saw today was actually true...

In 2016 - 267 people were killed by assault riffles, of over 11,000 gun related homicides.

Now what I think is misguided about that graphic is that it is comparing all gun violence with the matter of today which is mass shootings. AR-15s were used in Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, and the Texas church mass shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

I heard one "expert" say on NPR that he uses an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, ground squirrels and other pests. Good for that. He also said that a pistol is much better for home protection-the aim is truer in close quarters, and it is easier to wield. An AR-15 is not his first choice.

So the aim issue isn’t that a pistol is more accurate. It’s phenomenon known as “sight parallax”. Because the sights on a rifle are usually a couple inches above the barrel the sight picture changes depending on distance.

A rifle sighted at 100 yards will also be accurate at 50 and 25. But at 10 yards the parallax means the round
will impact 1-2” lower than where you aim. It’s something law enforcement and military personnel train for

By definition a handgun is a defense weapon. A rifle is an offense weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

I heard one "expert" say on NPR that he uses an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, ground squirrels and other pests. Good for that. He also said that a pistol is much better for home protection-the aim is truer in close quarters, and it is easier to wield. An AR-15 is not his first choice.

Yep. that is not hunting; it is vigilante animal control.

BTW, here is an article this morning about the wounds suffered by the Parkland victims.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/


also this on why the AR-15 bullet is so lethal


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/why-the-ar-15-is-so-lethal/545162/

[LA Ute]

U.S. Support For Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

As you all know - :p - I am a conservative Republican and no opponent of the Second Amendment. Still, like a lot of people, I see that a bunch of high school kids were murdered by someone who should not have had a gun. People (including me) are upset about that, and public opinion is clearly in favor of doing something. I’m just trying to understand what people think that “something“ should be. Simply enforce existing laws, or something different? Some gun enthusiast I know (not well) seem to be sticking with the old lines: Just enforce existing laws, no need to do anything more, yada yada yada. I think they are fooling themselves. The Quinnipiac poll results are quite remarkable.

:ostrich:

EDIT: Here's what Rasmussen Reports says. They lean conservative.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control

[LA Ute]

OK, these are interesting thoughts worth discussing:



The case against arming teachers, and/or armed personnel in school:



This seems like a prime candidate for local control, and the kind of idea that works a lot better if all the parties “buy in” from the beginning. If you can build a reasonable consensus among local law enforcement, the school board, the principal, the teachers and the parents of the children attending the school think it’s a good idea, go for it. If you don’t have a consensus, the decision is likely to spur a lot of enraged accusations and counter-accusations of endangering children.
Think of all the teachers you had as a kid, and all of the teachers of your children. You can probably recall ones you would trust with a gun in a crisis and probably some you would not.
Depending upon the size of the school, the armed officer may not be in the right place at the right time. There was an armed officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, but he was elsewhere on campus when the attack began and never encountered the gunman.
Accidental shootings are probably inevitable, and not just by teachers. Imagine there’s a school shooting, and a teacher gets his gun and starts looking for the shooter. The cops arrive and see a man with a gun.



The case for arming teachers, and/or armed personnel in school:

Forgive me for asking you to imagine every parent’s worst nightmare: there’s a man with a gun approaching your child’s school right now. How quickly will the local police get there? Maybe everyone will be lucky and the nearest patrol car is close, just a minute or two away. But maybe it’s five minutes, or closer to ten minutes.

In that interim, the only thing standing between the gunman and your child are some locked doors and any adult wiling to confront the gunman while unarmed.

If a teacher or security guard in that school has a gun, doesn’t that increase your child’s chances of survival? Suddenly the gunman doesn’t have impunity. He has to stop, he has to find cover, he has to retreat or refocus his attack from unarmed children and teachers to the person who’s shooting at him. That’s not a good situation, and there’s still danger to all of the innocent lives surrounding the gunman and the armed guard or teacher. But now the odds of the shooter being incapacitated are dramatically better.

I’ve wondered about the “shelter in place” policy practiced at most schools. Is that really the safest approach when someone has arrived with murderous intentions?

A 2013 report (https://rems.ed.gov/docs/REMS_K-12_Guide_508.pdf), put together by FEMA, the FBI, and the Department of Education, recommended, “If it is safe to do so for yourself and those in your care, the first course of action that should be taken is to run out of the building and far away until you are in a safe location.” It also recommended, “If neither running nor hiding is a safe option, as a last resort when confronted by the shooter, adults in immediate danger should consider trying to disrupt or incapacitate the shooter by using aggressive force and items in their environment, such as fire extinguishers and chairs.”

We can, and should, have a long and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental problems, endless rage, and malevolent motives. I keep pushing for a start with fixing the NICS background check system (https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/content/news/cornyn-murphy-scott-blumenthal-introduce-fix-nics-act-enhance-compliance-ensure) and more consistently prosecuting straw buyers (https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/if-you-see-something-say-something-only-works-if-authorities-do-something/). But a lot of the current debate features comments that amount to, “we shouldn’t be in this situation, our children don’t deserve this.” Indeed, we shouldn’t, and they don’t. But that doesn’t change what our situation actually is.

Asking a teacher to be ready to confront a school shooter with a firearm is an enormous, almost unthinkable request. But is it any better to ask a teacher to be ready to confront a school shooter with a fire extinguisher or chair?

[Diehard Ute]

OK, these are interesting thoughts worth discussing:


[/SIZE]

And this article is making my point without knowing it.

It’s not as simple as asking teachers to be armed. Combat isn’t about the weapon, it’s about the mind

And there is nothing about a killing in progress that isn’t combat.

I spent 5 months being trained to do my job. The last two days of the academy are scenarios, using domination guns. (Real guns that fire paint bullets. They hurt like hell). Even with all the training I was still nervous doing it.

3 years later we did an active shooter training in a junior high that was being torn down, less stressful due to experience but still stressful (yes they’re shooting sims at us and there are people firing AR-15’s with blanks throughout the school)

In those stressful situations what kept me on track and able to deal with the threats was the hours of ingrained training. Your body goes to muscle memory under stress. Your fine motor skills are diminished, you get tunnel vision, auditory exclusion and many other things. There are ways to combat this, but you have to first train it, and then test it.

I don’t have a huge issue with arming select teachers, but it would have to be select teachers who are willing to undergo a lot of training.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Had a church meeting last night where we reviewed the LDS Church policy for agitators or active shooters. The person reviewing it noted with an active shooter the standard, "Run, Hide, Fight" protocol and I said, "At my house we call that the home teacher drill, and practice it every time they knock on the door..." Stake President wasn't impressed.

[Brian]

Had a church meeting last night where we reviewed the LDS Church policy for agitators or active shooters. The person reviewing it noted with an active shooter the standard, "Run, Hide, Fight" protocol and I said, "At my house we call that the home teacher drill, and practice it every time they knock on the door..." Stake President wasn't impressed.


:rofl:

Nice one.

[LA Ute]

Concerned, I was just trying to imagine Hugh Rush packing heat around the halls of Highland High. Couldn't do it.

[concerned]

Concerned, I was just trying to imagine Hugh Rush packing heat around the halls of Highland High. Couldn't do it.
Dr. Scanland, otoh

[Diehard Ute]

Had a church meeting last night where we reviewed the LDS Church policy for agitators or active shooters. The person reviewing it noted with an active shooter the standard, "Run, Hide, Fight" protocol and I said, "At my house we call that the home teacher drill, and practice it every time they knock on the door..." Stake President wasn't impressed.

Did they mention in Utah there’d be no one to defend them?

The LDS church bans weapons on their property, including permit holders (and, depending on the interpretation, possibly bans law enforcement officers as well)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

Did they mention in Utah there’d be no one to defend them?

The LDS church bans weapons on their property, including permit holders (and, depending on the interpretation, possibly bans law enforcement officers as well)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is also the case for most places of business (except for maybe the LEO part). I work for a large bank, and there is a strict no weapon policy. Probably more strict than the church, since I doubt Bishop Smith would be strict about enforcing the church policy if he saw a bulge on the waist of brother Wesson.

[LA Ute]

Did they mention in Utah there’d be no one to defend them?

The LDS church bans weapons on their property, including permit holders (and, depending on the interpretation, possibly bans law enforcement officers as well)

Interesting. We had a bishop who was a Los Angeles PD sergeant and he carried while on the premises when we had a guy making threats. Not sure if he got permission or if he just did it. There are a ton of LAPD officers who are LDS in L.A.

I think if LEOs were called to a church building there'd be no problem with them bringing weapons.

[Diehard Ute]

That is also the case for most places of business (except for maybe the LEO part). I work for a large bank, and there is a strict no weapon policy. Probably more strict than the church, since I doubt Bishop Smith would be strict about enforcing the church policy if he saw a bulge on the waist of brother Wesson.

In Utah the LDS Church actually registered with Utah to ban weapons, which legally defeats the concealed carry law.

Businesses haven’t been given the same statutory ability to ban weapons. Churches are unique in Utah in that regard.

As an aside, the only other church to do this is Kol Ami Jewish Synagogue. When I went to church our church specifically avoided registering as they did not want to ban off duty law enforcement from carrying

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Did they mention in Utah there’d be no one to defend them?

The LDS church bans weapons on their property, including permit holders (and, depending on the interpretation, possibly bans law enforcement officers as well)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually LEOs can carry their weapons. "The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within [church] walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law." HB1 8.4.5

The officers in my ward always carry.

Given the amount of LDS people who have conceal carry permits, I fully support that they can't bring their guns to church. That is a recipe for disaster.

[Diehard Ute]

Interesting. We had a bishop who was a Los Angeles PD sergeant and he carried while on the premises when we had a guy making threats. Not sure if he got permission or if he just did it. There are a ton of LAPD officers who are LDS in L.A.

I think if LEOs were called to a church building there'd be no problem with them bringing weapons.

In Utah on duty vs off duty have different rules in state law. If we’re on we can carry anywhere, save federal court, but that’s a whole different ball of wax


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Actually LEOs can carry their weapons. "The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within [church] walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law." HB1 8.4.5

The officers in my ward always carry.

Given the amount of LDS people who have conceal carry permits, I fully support that they can't bring their guns to church. That is a recipe for disaster.

We also have the perfect defense, if an active shooter did come into the chapel, we'd just ask the high councilor to just start his talk over and lull the shooter to sleep. Sorry Brian.

[Rocker Ute]

Interesting. We had a bishop who was a Los Angeles PD sergeant and he carried while on the premises when we had a guy making threats. Not sure if he got permission or if he just did it. There are a ton of LAPD officers who are LDS in L.A.

I think if LEOs were called to a church building there'd be no problem with them bringing weapons.

Yes, there is no problem in that regard. As mentioned, the LEOs in my ward almost always carry.

[LA Ute]

Given the amount of LDS people who have conceal carry permits, I fully support that they can't bring their guns to church. That is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, high priests group discussions can get pretty heated.

[Rocker Ute]

Yes, high priests group discussions can get pretty heated.


Since I can't carry a weapon in church I carry a Book of Mormon over my heart. Not because I believe it would provide divine protection, or even that I want it to be close to my heart, but because were I to be shot there the bullet would undoubtedly be stopped. Nothing gets through 2 Nephi.

[U-Ute]

Since I can't carry a weapon in church I carry a Book of Mormon over my heart. Not because I believe it would provide divine protection, or even that I want it to be close to my heart, but because were I to be shot there the bullet would undoubtedly be stopped. Nothing gets through 2 Nephi.

You should take your material on the road man. Great stuff.

:rofl:

[U-Ute]

My general feeling about teachers and guns:

1. I have a hard time thinking of any teachers who would want to carry a gun in school. That's just not them. So even if you allow it, very few will do it.

2. Who is going to pay for all the training and guns? Teacher's can't even afford to have art supplies.

3. Along the same lines as #2, if you're going to add security, who is going to pay the salary for the added security?

[Diehard Ute]

My general feeling about teachers and guns:

1. I have a hard time thinking of any teachers who would want to carry a gun in school. That's just not them. So even if you allow it, very few will do it.

2. Who is going to pay for all the training and guns? Teacher's can't even afford to have art supplies.

3. Along the same lines as #2, if you're going to add security, who is going to pay the salary for the added security?

In Utah most high schools have an officer assigned to them already. Granite district has its own police force as well.

Honestly, I don’t think there’s much that can change on the response and deterrent end. Unfortunately those looking at this with the “guns deter people” think that way because the average person doesn’t want to get shot. Someone going in to shoot in a school is long past the point where they care what happens to them. Most are already planning to die in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

In Utah most high schools have an officer assigned to them already. Granite district has its own police force as well.

Honestly, I don’t think there’s much that can change on the response and deterrent end. Unfortunately those looking at this with the “guns deter people” think that way because the average person doesn’t want to get shot. Someone going in to shoot in a school is long past the point where they care what happens to them. Most are already planning to die in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose by now everyone has seen the news that the Parkland officer took a defensive positon outside the school and never went inside or tried to confront the shooter. He has resigned.

[Diehard Ute]

I suppose by now everyone has seen the news that the Parkland officer took a defensive positon outside the school and never went inside or tried to confront the shooter. He has resigned.

Which is what cops 20 years ago were trained to do. Cops now days are trained to go towards the gunfire. Have been for over a decade.

Lt Oblad went in to Trolley Square by himself. That’s what we’re supposed to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Which is what cops 20 years ago were trained to do. Cops now days are trained to go towards the gunfire. Have been for over a decade.

Lt Oblad went in to Trolley Square by himself. That’s what we’re supposed to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always kind of assumed that the shining stars of the police force aren't being assigned as school resource officers (unless maybe they are getting to the end of their career)?

[mUUser]

[QUOTE=U-Ute;110424]My general feeling about teachers and guns:

1. I have a hard time thinking of any teachers who would want to carry a gun in school. That's just not them. So even if you allow it, very few will do it........./QUOTE]


I'm not an NRA member. I don't own a gun. Never have.

Perhaps it isn't a good idea, but, I wonder if the idea isn't worth exploring further before dismissing out of hand. We've been in an active war of some kind for the past 16 years. That's a shatload of veterans that have gone through basic training, received extensive firearm training, are of sound mind, and work in school systems around the country. I have to wonder if many of them might voluntarily bring their training up to date and be willing to carry a firearm in a lockbox in their classroom.

Still, the question remains, once on the scene, how will uniformed police identify the teachers from the murderers.

[Diehard Ute]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always kind of assumed that the shining stars of the police force aren't being assigned as school resource officers (unless maybe they are getting to the end of their career)?

Depends on the department.

With us it’s an application, we have some squared away guys in some schools.

The schedule is one cops like. Weekends off, flexible hours....but that’s just us. Who knows how other departments work it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Arming teachers will lead to hundreds of stories, "A teacher shot a student today because (fill in the blank)". What does that look like from a liability standpoint? Arming teachers is one of the stupidest ideas floating around. People have been watching too many movies.

[LA Ute]

Arming teachers will lead to hundreds of stories, "A teacher shot a student today because (fill in the blank)". What does that look like from a liability standpoint? Arming teachers is one of the stupidest ideas floating around. People have been watching too many movies.

It's an idea that some schools might want to try. I agree it would take a big investment and isn't perfect. But it might be part of the solution in some places (and already is, I hear). if your solution is, simply take away the guns, I don't think that is realistic.

[Diehard Ute]

It's an idea that some schools might want to try. I agree it would take a big investment and isn't perfect. But it might be part of the solution in some places (and already is, I hear). if your solution is, simply take away the guns, I don't think that is realistic.

Yup. And we’ve also had a teacher blast a hole in a toilet in a Utah school because she wasn’t well versed in weapon handling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

So the aim issue isn’t that a pistol is more accurate. It’s phenomenon known as “sight parallax”. Because the sights on a rifle are usually a couple inches above the barrel the sight picture changes depending on distance.

A rifle sighted at 100 yards will also be accurate at 50 and 25. But at 10 yards the parallax means the round
will impact 1-2” lower than where you aim. It’s something law enforcement and military personnel train for

By definition a handgun is a defense weapon. A rifle is an offense weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not how we explained it, but my effort to clarify what he said would probably be a disaster.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Concerned, I was just trying to imagine Hugh Rush packing heat around the halls of Highland High. Couldn't do it.

Dean Collette, though. Always packing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Well, now, here’s an alternative point of view:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.293a57517dbd

Very interesting and thoughtful, and empirically based, but I’m still thinking more needs to be done. I think we need to come out the problem from every direction possible.

[sancho]

Well, now, here’s an alternative point of view:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.293a57517dbd

Very interesting and thoughtful, and empirically based, but I’m still thinking more needs to be done. I think we need to come out the problem from every direction possible.

Completely misses the point as only a statistician can. Suicides, gang-related murder, and domestic violence are all tragic, and they are all not what this conversation is about. Did she do any statistical analysis related to mass shootings? Maybe, but she doesn't discuss it here.

So, if not gun control, what? She has nothing to offer here, unless you count the same vague "gotta help people with mental illness somehow" plan.

Forget numbers for a moment. There is strength is symbols. A strong, immediate response to a mass shooting sends a message that we care and that we are interested in solutions. Instead, we talk about what will and won't work for week and move on without doing a thing. We have nothing to lose with tighter restrictions - it's all upside.

[LA Ute]

The poor guy ought to be on suicide watch.

Armed police are guarding the home of the deputy who resigned over his lack of action in the Parkland school shooting

http://businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-officer-resigns-deputies-sent-to-protect-his-family-2018-2?utm_source=facebook&utm_content=top-bar&utm_term=desktop

[NorthwestUteFan]

It's an idea that some schools might want to try. I agree it would take a big investment and isn't perfect. But it might be part of the solution in some places (and already is, I hear). if your solution is, simply take away the guns, I don't think that is realistic.Taking away guns is a solution that approaches maybe 5% of ever getting passed, and full compliance would never, ever be a reality. Very few serious people are even discussing grabbing a guns.

Off the top of my head I can think of the following changes that would have substantial impact and would be acceptable to a majority of gun owners, most of whom are very responsible with their firearms:

Set up a Nationwide database that includes state and local records plus mental health cues (similar to Interpol). Use this database for ALL gun purchases (including at gun shows/private sales) and for large ammo purchases (say over 100 rounds). We already have coalitions of states who share a database like that. This really should be at a national level.

License gun owners, just like getting a driver license. States can decide what criteria to use.

Register all guns. Feed the data into the Nationwide database, but actually hire excellent IT people and hack-proof the database. (FOUO/PII info, with severe penalties for disclosure). Require the background check and licensing processes to be complete prior to allowing the purchaser to take possession.

Carry liability insurance for guns. Let the private insurance industry figure out risk and rates. Include 'failure to secure weapon in a safe' into the liability calculation.

Beef up federal gun trafficking laws. The laws in this area are nearly non-existent.

All gun transfers must be handled through a bonded dealer, and full background check completed before the transfer.

I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas. But we need to have a serious conversation without distraction from manufacturers' lobbyists.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Also, if teachers are carrying guns then perhaps the mass shooter will just wear body armor. It is cheap and readily available.

[LA Ute]

Taking away guns is a solution that approaches maybe 5% of ever getting passed, and full compliance would never, ever be a reality. Very few serious people are even discussing grabbing a guns.

Off the top of my head I can think of the following changes that would have substantial impact and would be acceptable to a majority of gun owners, most of whom are very responsible with their firearms:

Set up a Nationwide database that includes state and local records plus mental health cues (similar to Interpol). Use this database for ALL gun purchases (including at gun shows/private sales) and for large ammo purchases (say over 100 rounds). We already have coalitions of states who share a database like that. This really should be at a national level.

License gun owners, just like getting a driver license. States can decide what criteria to use.

Register all guns. Feed the data into the Nationwide database, but actually hire excellent IT people and hack-proof the database. (FOUO/PII info, with severe penalties for disclosure). Require the background check and licensing processes to be complete prior to allowing the purchaser to take possession.

Carry liability insurance for guns. Let the private insurance industry figure out risk and rates. Include 'failure to secure weapon in a safe' into the liability calculation.

Beef up federal gun trafficking laws. The laws in this area are nearly non-existent.

All gun transfers must be handled through a bonded dealer, and full background check completed before the transfer.

I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas. But we need to have a serious conversation without distraction from manufacturers' lobbyists.

Those look like good ideas to me. I’m a bit worried about a huge centralized bureaucracy with mega powers but that issue can be addressed in the planning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Those look like good ideas to me. I’m a bit worried about a huge centralized bureaucracy with mega powers but that issue can be addressed in the planning.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkA background check is useless if it is incomplete, or takes too long. Too easy to miss telltale signs otherwise.


Also all of this data exists in various databases. But those databases don't always communicate with one another.

[U-Ute]

Wow. I wonder how the local flock will react to this statement. Especially the last line.

967382215351992320


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Wow. Big Russ bringing the heat!

[LA Ute]

Wow. Big Russ bringing the heat!

GBH said pretty much the same thing in 1999 and we didn't see much impact.

LDS leader says limit gun access
Arms, mental illness don't mix, he says (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/692491/LDS-leader-says-limit-gun-access.html)
Might be different this time. Our favorite Utah legislator is on the case!

House Speaker Hughes: Utah lawmakers plan to hit accelerator on bills to prevent school shootings (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/24/house-speaker-hughes-utah-lawmakers-plan-to-hit-accelerator-on-bills-to-prevent-school-shootings/)

[USS Utah]

Apologies if this has been posted before on this thread:


We are not the only wealthy, stable country with broad gun ownership, though it’s a small club. Switzerland provides a useful comparison, since it is the only place that comes close to our levels of gun ownership, with about half of our per capita firearm ownership. Their experience demonstrates the obvious realities.

Though gun ownership among the Swiss is relatively common, regulations are tight by American standards. All guns are tracked. Many of the guns in private hands are issued by the government. Sale and possession of ammunition is tightly controlled. With a few exceptions for less-lethal weapons, every private gun sale is recorded.

Thanks to careful regulation and lower rates of gun ownership, the Swiss suffer lower rates of gun related deaths and injuries than the US. Despite these constraints, Switzerland experiences much higher rates of gun death than their less-armed neighbors. In other words, regulation can help, but the connection between gun ownership and gun deaths is unavoidably linear.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/10/06/ten-lies-distort-the-gun-control-debate/#4709695c1fad

[NorthwestUteFan]

The church is also very liberal and common sense on immigration, particularly DACA and family migration. Hopefully this will also lead to positive changes.

[NorthwestUteFan]

GBH said pretty much the same thing in 1999 and we didn't see much impact.

LDS leader says limit gun access
Arms, mental illness don't mix, he says (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/692491/LDS-leader-says-limit-gun-access.html)
Might be different this time. Our favorite Utah legislator is on the case!

House Speaker Hughes: Utah lawmakers plan to hit accelerator on bills to prevent school shootings (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/02/24/house-speaker-hughes-utah-lawmakers-plan-to-hit-accelerator-on-bills-to-prevent-school-shootings/)Also, GBH said he would do away with sports at byu. Too bad he couldn't fulfill that goal..

[Diehard Ute]

Since this is due to the Fallout with the NRA

Yowza (he’s the Lt Governor of Georgia)

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180227/0838a64006c0f2545cca1879bea98c4d.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

if I were running for Gov. of Georgia (which he apparently is), I would not pick a fight with Delta.

He should just do it the Utah way. Call for an audit.

[U-Ute]

968264232776192000

[U-Ute]

Lol

968220791178280960

[NorthwestUteFan]

if I were running for Gov. of Georgia (which he apparently is), I would not pick a fight with Delta.

He should just do it the Utah way. Call for an audit.Delta, a private company, brings billions to Georgia in tax revenue every year, and this bonehead thinks he can strongarm them over $50M/year in tax breaks?

Delta don't even need to respond. This guy is done politically, and Delta will still be in Atlanta in 50 years.

[LA Ute]

This is a thoughtful piece from The Atlantic -- at least to me, a non-gun owner.

What Critics Don't Understand About Gun Culture (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/gun-culture/554351/)

[Ma'ake]

This is a thoughtful piece from The Atlantic -- at least to me, a non-gun owner.


"
In just the last five years, we’ve faced multiple threats—so much so that neighbors have expressed concern for our safety, and theirs."

How is it that some people can attract so many spy-thriller like hitmen?
There really needs to be some kind of citizen registry, so people can pass along the word when these characters move into their neighborhoods.

[LA Ute]

"
In just the last five years, we’ve faced multiple threats—so much so that neighbors have expressed concern for our safety, and theirs."

How is it that some people can attract so many spy-thriller like hitmen?
There really needs to be some kind of citizen registry, so people can pass along the word when these characters move into their neighborhoods.


I know him and his wife. He’s a writer and conservative pundit and vocally anti-Trump. Also they are white, live in rural Tennessee, and adopted a black African baby about 8 years ago. His family has been threatened. He didn’t go into all that in this piece, but that’s the backstory.

[LA Ute]

I think the effort to find a single “bad guy“ to blame the shooting on is really unfortunate and unproductive, but this is an interesting article about part of the overall patchwork of failures that led to the murders in Florida.

Behind Cruz’s Rampage: Obama’s School-Leniency Policy

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_ the_parkland_shooting.html

[LA Ute]

“But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects. These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.”

— Retired Army officer and conservative pundit Ralph Peters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/amp/

[Diehard Ute]

“But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects. These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.”

— Retired Army officer and conservative pundit Ralph Peters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/amp/

And this is the debate that never gets a resolution.

For this argument second amendment supporters will always say “it doesn’t matter what we’ve developed”.

But I have a very hard time believing those who wrote the second amendment had any clue we’d develop a gun that can fire thousands of rounds a minute. Or guns and ammunition that can penetrate armor like butter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

I think the effort to find a single “bad guy“ to blame the shooting on is really unfortunate and unproductive, but this is an interesting article about part of the overall patchwork of failures that led to the murders in Florida.

Behind Cruz’s Rampage: Obama’s School-Leniency Policy

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_ the_parkland_shooting.html

It's pretty clear this particular kid was disturbed enough he shouldn't have been in school. And he wasn't. Then he loaded up on entirely legal military grade weaponry and came back, armed to the hilt.

But the "leniency strategy" has been quite effective in turning around lots of kids who've been labeled as problems, whether it's because their parents work 2-3 jobs and don't speak English, or kids who are at risk for going the "Tupac route" vs finding some traction in more achievement-oriented after school programs, etc.

My wife teaches math at a Title I school where most of the kids qualify for subsidized school breakfast / lunch / early dinner. (Suffice it to say the traditional Utah assumption that stay-at-home moms can take turns augmenting the teacher in 35+ student classes like I grew up with doesn't apply well when 5-8 of parents out of 175 students show up for parent-teacher conferences, but that's another topic.)

My wife has become expert at "flipping" kids who act out, expecting to be punished or expelled, and instead find a respectful, encouraging, challenging response, from a person who looks more like them than most of the teachers fresh out of college who are looking for easier teaching jobs at schools where the demographics provide kids who don't really need much teaching, let alone mentoring.

Does her approach work all the time? Of course not. But she regularly gets kids who come back from the high school (and college) and thank her for helping them go in a different direction.

The leniency approach is intended to break the cycle of kids self-segregating into the gangsta track, or the "I wanna baby in 9th grade" track.

[LA Ute]

Another perspective:

By ditching the NRA, companies are dividing Americans

https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/by-ditching-the-nra-companies-are-dividing-americans/

[Applejack]

Another perspective:

By ditching the NRA, companies are dividing Americans

https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/by-ditching-the-nra-companies-are-dividing-americans/

LOL. I just read the headline, but what a headline! The onion is awesome.

[Ma'ake]

Another perspective:

By ditching the NRA, companies are dividing Americans

https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/by-ditching-the-nra-companies-are-dividing-americans/

The NRA has 5 million members, in a nation of 315 million. It's hard to imagine an organization with more outsized power than they wield. (Perhaps Israel's lobby in the US Congress.)

There were 15 individuals who took advantage of Delta's NRA member discount, and Delta just got handed a $40 million penalty from the State of Georgia, who revoked their jet fuel tax break.

On paper, this was a massive miscalculation by Delta.

But multiple states have quickly responded with friendly offers to have Delta relocate from Atlanta, including NY and Virginia, whose public pitch was "Virginia is for lovers... and for airline hubs".

Now, seriously, Delta is highly unlikely to uproot from Atlanta.

But Delta is hardly rookies in the national political circus, have already been dragged into the fray by Trump seeking to slap a 300% tariff on Delta's one hundred new CS-300 jetliners they bought from Bombardier... just in the past several weeks.

My hunch is Delta is counting on the very high polling numbers of Americans thinking *SOMETHING* needs to be done about guns, and the NRA's absolutist stance taking heat, from even buttoned down companies like Delta.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The NRA has 5 million members, in a nation of 315 million. It's hard to imagine an organization with more outsized power than they wield. (Perhaps Israel's lobby in the US Congress.)
.

The NRA is also the primary lobbyist for the consumer gun industry, which is worth around $50B in annual sales. The 'members' are just the justification for the organization's tax status.

[LA Ute]

LOL. I just read the headline, but what a headline! The onion is awesome.

Whoops. You just performed unintentional self-parody, AJ.

[LA Ute]

The NRA has 5 million members, in a nation of 315 million. It's hard to imagine an organization with more outsized power than they wield. (Perhaps Israel's lobby in the US Congress.)

There were 15 individuals who took advantage of Delta's NRA member discount, and Delta just got handed a $40 million penalty from the State of Georgia, who revoked their jet fuel tax break.

On paper, this was a massive miscalculation by Delta.

But multiple states have quickly responded with friendly offers to have Delta relocate from Atlanta, including NY and Virginia, whose public pitch was "Virginia is for lovers... and for airline hubs".

Now, seriously, Delta is highly unlikely to uproot from Atlanta.

But Delta is hardly rookies in the national political circus, have already been dragged into the fray by Trump seeking to slap a 300% tariff on Delta's one hundred new CS-300 jetliners they bought from Bombardier... just in the past several weeks.

My hunch is Delta is counting on the very high polling numbers of Americans thinking *SOMETHING* needs to be done about guns, and the NRA's absolutist stance taking heat, from even buttoned down companies like Delta.

I’m not an NRA member and think many of their positions are extreme and unhelpful. I would say the same about many anti-gun organizations and their lobbyists. I just don’t like the left’s habit of demonizing their ideological opponents. It doesn’t help rational discourse. Boycotts against members of lawful organizations that are engaged in political speech (NRA members, not the NRA itself) and the inevitable related virtue-signaling (like Delta’s) are just as unhelpful.

[LA Ute]

This is depressing:

“Those who advocate for gun control have an immediate answer — the prevalence of guns in the United States. Yet guns have been part of the fabric of American life for the entire history of our republic. Mass shootings — especially the most deadly mass shootings — are a far more recent phenomenon. Writing in 2015, Malcolm Gladwell wrote what I think is still the best explanation for modern American mass shootings, and it’s easily the least comforting. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex argument, essentially he argues that each mass shooting lowers the threshold for the next. He argues, we are in the midst of a slow-motion ‘riot’ of mass shootings, with the Columbine shooting in many ways the key triggering event.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[sancho]

This is depressing:

“Those who advocate for gun control have an immediate answer — the prevalence of guns in the United States. Yet guns have been part of the fabric of American life for the entire history of our republic. Mass shootings — especially the most deadly mass shootings — are a far more recent phenomenon. Writing in 2015, Malcolm Gladwell wrote what I think is still the best explanation for modern American mass shootings, and it’s easily the least comforting. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex argument, essentially he argues that each mass shooting lowers the threshold for the next. He argues, we are in the midst of a slow-motion ‘riot’ of mass shootings, with the Columbine shooting in many ways the key triggering event.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

If each mass shooting lowers a symbolic threshold, maybe a dramatic piece of gun control legislation could be a symbolic wake up call. Riots do end, people stop breaking windows and stealing stuff, and the threshold counter is re-set to 1. If we are in the midst of a slow motion riot, we need to figure out how to end the riot. Gun control laws are a natural place to start. I am not particularly optimistic about gun control, but it is ridiculous not to try.

[LA Ute]

If each mass shooting lowers a symbolic threshold, maybe a dramatic piece of gun control legislation could be a symbolic wake up call. Riots do end, people stop breaking windows and stealing stuff, and the threshold counter is re-set to 1. If we are in the midst of a slow motion riot, we need to figure out how to end the riot. Gun control laws are a natural place to start. I am not particularly optimistic about gun control, but it is ridiculous not to try.

I think we could start by making it much harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns, and making it harder for people generally to acquire military-style rifles. I don’t know how to achieve those goals, but an effort would be nice. The problem is that neither side trusts the other. It seems to me that the lack of trust on both sides is probably justified, because of the absolutist elements on both sides. So this is a bigger problem than just coming up with the right policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Interesting thoughts here.

After Texas school shooting, how can we inoculate ourselves against the next one?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/21/school-shootings-santa-fe-texas-columbine-stoneman-douglas-parkland-column/627183002/

[U-Ute]

I think we could start by making it much harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns, and making it harder for people generally to acquire military-style rifles. I don’t know how to achieve those goals, but an effort would be nice. The problem is that neither side trusts the other. It seems to me that the lack of trust on both sides is probably justified, because of the absolutist elements on both sides. So this is a bigger problem than just coming up with the right policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've had this discussion with my dad, and he's firmly against even either of those. He's not even a member of the NRA.

The way he sees it, the first is a slippery slope to denying anyone from getting a gun, and the second is a slippery slope to limiting guns in general.

[tooblue]

How School Shootings Changed Their Classrooms
By BARBARA MARCOLINI and NEETI UPADHYE

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000005911972/teachers-school-shootings-classrooms.html?action=click&gtype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs&region=title-area

[mUUser]

https://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/AP-Was-There-Teen-boys-unleashed-terror-chaos-13779827.php

Columbine wasn't the beginning, but, it kinda feels like it for those that don't remember the Texas tower shooting well. 20 years ago, tomorrow.

[concerned]

https://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/AP-Was-There-Teen-boys-unleashed-terror-chaos-13779827.php

Columbine wasn't the beginning, but, it kinda feels like it for those that don't remember the Texas tower shooting well. 20 years ago, tomorrow.

which means that today is the anniversary of Tim McVeigh OKC courthouse and David Koresh/Waco.

[DrumNFeather]

https://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/AP-Was-There-Teen-boys-unleashed-terror-chaos-13779827.php

Columbine wasn't the beginning, but, it kinda feels like it for those that don't remember the Texas tower shooting well. 20 years ago, tomorrow.

My kids were out of school on Wed because some loon obsessed with Columbine got on a plane from Florida, came here to CO and purchased a gun. The schools felt like it was enough of a threat to close until she was no longer a threat (killed herself in the mountains). Crazy though.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Lauren McCluskey’s parents filed a $56M wrongful death suit against the university today. If Diehard is still hanging around here, I would love to hear some of your thoughts on the whole story, how university police apparently dropped the ball as she had called a more than 20 times asking them to do something, and finally, the university’s utter lack of responsibility in the months following.

I realize that this only one side of the story so any insight for the other side would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

Lauren McCluskey’s parents filed a $56M wrongful death suit against the university today. If Diehard is still hanging around here, I would love to hear some of your thoughts on the whole story, how university police apparently dropped the ball as she had called a more than 20 times asking them to do something, and finally, the university’s utter lack of responsibility in the months following.

I realize that this only one side of the story so any insight for the other side would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can’t go into that case, sorry.

One thing of note however. They actually filed a Title IX lawsuit. So this is a federal case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LA Ute]

Lauren McCluskey’s parents filed a $56M wrongful death suit against the university today. If Diehard is still hanging around here, I would love to hear some of your thoughts on the whole story, how university police apparently dropped the ball as she had called a more than 20 times asking them to do something, and finally, the university’s utter lack of responsibility in the months following.

I realize that this only one side of the story so any insight for the other side would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't shake the feeling that if this goes to trial both sides will come out not looking great.

[LA Ute]

There's no real category here for this but I just learned that McKenzie Lueck was murdered -- horribly, it appears. She was a friend of my daughter's and this has left us all heartsick.

[LA Ute]

There's no real category here for this but I just learned that McKenzie Lueck was murdered -- horribly, it appears. She was a friend of my daughter's and this has left us all heartsick.

It looks like some very good police work was done here, although everything happened too quickly for anyone to save the girl. It’s impressive how quickly they apprehended this guy. Nice work, SLPD.

[UTEopia]

I can't shake the feeling that if this goes to trial both sides will come out not looking great.

Nobody wins in these types of lawsuits except the attorney who will get 33-45% of whatever settlement occurs. McCluskeys have decided to fight this battle in the public arena. It will be interesting to see how the U responds now that there is a legal proceeding. Will they continue their relative silence or will they be more aggressive in making public whatever their story is?

What is the current status of governmental immunity? At one time there was a cap of about $250,000 in Utah.

I am curious to see Lauren's phone records, how many phone calls and texts she made home about these events and the response of the parents. I would also like to see what she texted to friends during this same period.

[Scorcho]

There's no real category here for this but I just learned that McKenzie Lueck was murdered -- horribly, it appears. She was a friend of my daughter's and this has left us all heartsick.

Just horrific. I feel so bad for her friends and family.

[LA Ute]

She was in my daughter’s sorority, in her pledge class. Everyone loved her.

[Irving Washington]

Nobody wins in these types of lawsuits except the kattorney who will get 33-45% of whatever settlement occurs. McCluskeys have decided to fight this battle in the public arena. It will be interesting to see how the U responds now that there is a legal proceeding. Will they continue their relative silence or will they be more aggressive in making public whatever their story is?

What is the current status of governmental immunity? At one time there was a cap of about $250,000 in Utah.

I am curious to see Lauren's phone records, how many phone calls and texts she made home about these events and the response of the parents. I would also like to see what she texted to friends during this same period.
I assume the U's focus will be PR, and the matter will settle relatively quickly.

[Diehard Ute]

It looks like some very good police work was done here, although everything happened too quickly for anyone to save the girl. It’s impressive how quickly they apprehended this guy. Nice work, SLPD.

A lot of people worked a lot of long hours, the work was impressive all around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LA Ute]

A lot of people worked a lot of long hours, the work was impressive all around.

Love the dedication of LEOs.

[UTEopia]

I assume the U's focus will be PR, and the matter will settle relatively quickly.

The U will not be calling the shots on settlement. The U will be defended by the AG's office which might possibly hire outside counsel to do the heavy lifting. I was heavily involved in that process on a fairly high profile sexual harassment case in the late 80's early 90's. The money questions will decided by the State agency that handles insurance claims against the State. In the case I was involved with, the plaintiff (it was a female vs. female sexual harassment case) was determined to have her day in court and did not consider reasonable settlement offers. I recall we met with the Governor and some Legislators a couple of times to outline the case, what it was going to cost through various stages, and obtain some settlement authority. We had a bench trial. We won, but probably spent at least $1 mil on the defense.

A lot will depend on whether the McCluskey's like the public eye they have embraced so far and how long they want that to continue. When the case is settled, they lose that and for now, it seems like their anger at the U is what they have left that for them seems to keep their daughter in the forefront of their thoughts and actions.

[Diehard Ute]

The U will not be calling the shots on settlement. The U will be defended by the AG's office which might possibly hire outside counsel to do the heavy lifting. I was heavily involved in that process on a fairly high profile sexual harassment case in the late 80's early 90's. The money questions will decided by the State agency that handles insurance claims against the State. In the case I was involved with, the plaintiff (it was a female vs. female sexual harassment case) was determined to have her day in court and did not consider reasonable settlement offers. I recall we met with the Governor and some Legislators a couple of times to outline the case, what it was going to cost through various stages, and obtain some settlement authority. We had a bench trial. We won, but probably spent at least $1 mil on the defense.

A lot will depend on whether the McCluskey's like the public eye they have embraced so far and how long they want that to continue. When the case is settled, they lose that and for now, it seems like their anger at the U is what they have left that for them seems to keep their daughter in the forefront of their thoughts and actions.

And let’s be honest, the U’s attempts at caring about PR in this case have failed miserably.

Their hired gun PR firm made it worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

University Police Chief announced his retirement today. Hard to think that these aren't related to the current events.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900079949/university-of-utah-police-chief-dale-brophy-retirement-lauren-mccluskey.html

[Diehard Ute]

University Police Chief announced his retirement today. Hard to think that these aren't related to the current events.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900079949/university-of-utah-police-chief-dale-brophy-retirement-lauren-mccluskey.html

Strangely the U is giving him a year of salary and benefits as a severance package.

He’s the first person I know if in law enforcement to get a severance package upon retiring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[U-Ute]

So, I just recently learned that bullet proof backpacks for kids are a thing.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/02/bulletproof-backpacks-kids-florida-shooting.html

There's some irony in the name of the man who started the company.


Yasir Sheikh, president of Guard Dog Security, a Florida-based company that sells bulletproof backpacks and other protective items, began selling the bags five years ago, after 20 children and six adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

[LA Ute]

Strangely the U is giving him a year of salary and benefits as a severance package.

He’s the first person I know if in law enforcement to get a severance package upon retiring.

That means it was negotiated and it probably means both sides wanted to end the relationship quietly.

[Diehard Ute]

That means it was negotiated and it probably means both sides wanted to end the relationship quietly.

Oh we all know that. It just looks bad when they’re trying to claim he’s voluntarily retiring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Oh we all know that. It just looks bad when they’re trying to claim he’s voluntarily retiring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Don't worry guys, he's just taking a year off to spend time with his sick mother. :eek:

[LA Ute]

Oh we all know that. It just looks bad when they’re trying to claim he’s voluntarily retiring

Agreed. Yeah, it’s obvious what they were doing. I was just speculating that for both sides there must be plenty of dirty laundry to hide.

[LA Ute]

This is refreshing, criticizes arguments on both sides, and makes some reasonable suggestions:

The dumbest arguments about gun control

https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/03/the-dumbest-arguments-about-gun-control/"

[U-Ute]

1178990006574178304

[Rocker Ute]

1178990006574178304

How in the world is this a good idea. I'm sorry, but this is nuts. My kids are nervous enough about a shooting as it is - I don't see how this helps anyone. The kids get the principles: Run, hide, fight. The realities of this world are all too clear to them, without actually needing more reality added to it. How are actual gun shots supposed to further prepare them for such an event?

And "Social Emotional Activities" - so you traumatize kids and then are going to have a discussion on how to cope with it. I swear, this is the stupidest generation of all time.