- Messages
- 69
- Reactions
- 244
A provocative topic title, yes? Well it got you here!
First and foremost, I feel we need to do whatever we can to prevent the radical left from using every mass shooting as political ammunition to further their agenda of disarming the population, or banning certain specific tools they deem "evil".
And as for the latest target of the media (AR-15s), you know the statistics: Rifles as a whole are the least abused firearms in America. According to the FBI all rifles combined (that's everything from a .22 lever action, to grandpa's hunting rifle, to AR-15s) account for less than 2% of all homicides and less than 3% of all firearms related homicides. (Expanded Homicide Data Table 8)
Why, then, are firearms like the AR-15 always the target of left-wing political gun control proposals? That is a serious question. In my eyes it's because it was a weapon used the last few publicized mass shootings, and mainstream media likes to increase hype and vilify devices, but this topic probably warrants its own separate discussion.
Now it is absolutely true that the violent tragedies you hear about on the news are something that deeply affects all of us. It hits every one of us very emotionally, regardless of being liberal or conservative, or left or right.
There are those on the anti-gun side that try to leverage the latest school shooting for furthering their gun control agenda, but for most Americans that aren't part of a political agenda machine, I assert the following is true:
* For those that lean left, there's a tendency to feel the government should do something to help prevent these types of tragedies, and it is easy for them to get duped by a liberal gun control argument. It satisfies their need to *feel* like they've "done something", and they miss out on any sort of productive dialog with the opposite side about what we REALLY should be doing about anything.
* For those that lean right, there's a tendency to immediately react to media reports with a "Keep your hands out off my guns!" attitude, get very defensive about our Constitutionally protected rights, and miss out on any sort of productive dialog with the opposite side about what we REALLY should be doing about anything.
We're stuck in the situation where there not only isn't a way to agree on anything, there doesn't even seem to be a way to discuss anything.
It is very common for most of us to make this argument: "Murders happen! A crazy madman will find tools to accomplish their evil goals, and the fact that a gun was an obtainable tool means it is often going to be used for their purposes. If not a gun, then a machete, a bomb, or a delivery truck."
The problem is, when you make that argument, the point of it is to stifle the progression of gun control measures, and it doesn't actually further the discussion around how to make society any safer. @Blackpowdrkeg said it in another thread regarding "why does anybody need an AR-15?": if your goal is to convince the gun-control advocates to change their minds, you will have to address THEIR concerns rather than your own. That sentiment rings true here as well.
People want to feel safe. For us gun owners, feeling safe has a lot to do with taking responsibility for our own safety. For non-gun owners, feeling safe for them seems to be a lot more complex; they find themselves having feelings like, "Well the police will protect me!", and "If people didn't have these semi-automatic weapons to begin with, they wouldn't be able to harm me!" (which is where the "Why does anyone *need* and AR-15?" question comes from), and "I don't want to have to worry about being a victim of gun violence!". That "gun violence" term has always puzzled me. I always figured all violence is equally as bad; being shot or stabbed or clubbed to death or run over by a vehicle are no different. Violence is violence! But I digress.
The point of this whole topic:
We need a path forward. If we want to curtail the constant threat of bans on specific devices or outright attacks on our Constitutionally protected rights, we better come up with a way to have a discussion about how to make public places like schools safer. Because none of us wants to hear that next news report about a school shooting. We need to brainstorm. We need to find common ground that can find support from the left and the right. No, we're not going to get support from the anti-gun coalition that are hell bent on disarming the population. But we just may be able to get support from those that are actually LOOKING for ways to increase security and safety of places like schools. Why can't we actually brainstorm, together, on ways to do this?
This is where the brainstorming starts:
* ELIMINATE GUN FREE ZONES - Gun free zones are dangerous, reckless and negligent. By saying you can't bring in a gun, all they do is make a defenseless victim zone, where criminals do what they want, and you law abiding honest decent people with a gun are banned. Mentally unstable law-breaking people who get their hands on a firearm and intend to do harm at a school obviously do *not* pay attention to a gun free zone policy. A school that is a gun free zone currently just prevents teachers, staff, and other law abiding citizens in a school zone from having a firearm themselves, and thus reduces their ability to properly intervene when a tragedy is unfolding before their very eyes. Gun free zones serve to lessen the security instead of increase it. Gun free zones are an example of Security Theater.
Now, am I advocating that we arm every teacher and require them to defend the kids in their classroom with their own firearm? No. There are teachers who have never touched a gun, would never want to touch a gun, and would never be comfortable with a gun. I am advocating, however, that the restriction be dropped. Do not make them a criminal because they simply are exercising their right to bear arms and are willing to defend others.
* INSTALL TOP-OF-THE-LINE SCHOOL SECURITY SYSTEMS - It took about $400,000 for the Southwestern High School in Shelbyville, Indiana to install a state of the art security system that actually has active countermeasures against an active shooter. (Read about it here: The 'Safest School in America' Has a $400K Security System) Now I'd take this even a step further. There's actually software out there that can analyze still photographic images (or frames from a captured security camera stream) that can positively identify a firearm on a person. That sort of software should be engineered and integrated into a security system such that the recognition of someone holding a firearm on school property can at least set off an alert. An early warning like this might just give that extra advantage.
* ARMED SECURITY - At the Great Mills High School in Maryland, a School Resource Officer intervened within one minute in an active-shooter situation and stopped a possible massacre from occurring. This didn't get much media coverage, but this is something that should be well understood and explored. There is no denying that having armed personnel on campus made a huge difference.
What other ideas are there?
First and foremost, I feel we need to do whatever we can to prevent the radical left from using every mass shooting as political ammunition to further their agenda of disarming the population, or banning certain specific tools they deem "evil".
And as for the latest target of the media (AR-15s), you know the statistics: Rifles as a whole are the least abused firearms in America. According to the FBI all rifles combined (that's everything from a .22 lever action, to grandpa's hunting rifle, to AR-15s) account for less than 2% of all homicides and less than 3% of all firearms related homicides. (Expanded Homicide Data Table 8)
Why, then, are firearms like the AR-15 always the target of left-wing political gun control proposals? That is a serious question. In my eyes it's because it was a weapon used the last few publicized mass shootings, and mainstream media likes to increase hype and vilify devices, but this topic probably warrants its own separate discussion.
Now it is absolutely true that the violent tragedies you hear about on the news are something that deeply affects all of us. It hits every one of us very emotionally, regardless of being liberal or conservative, or left or right.
There are those on the anti-gun side that try to leverage the latest school shooting for furthering their gun control agenda, but for most Americans that aren't part of a political agenda machine, I assert the following is true:
* For those that lean left, there's a tendency to feel the government should do something to help prevent these types of tragedies, and it is easy for them to get duped by a liberal gun control argument. It satisfies their need to *feel* like they've "done something", and they miss out on any sort of productive dialog with the opposite side about what we REALLY should be doing about anything.
* For those that lean right, there's a tendency to immediately react to media reports with a "Keep your hands out off my guns!" attitude, get very defensive about our Constitutionally protected rights, and miss out on any sort of productive dialog with the opposite side about what we REALLY should be doing about anything.
We're stuck in the situation where there not only isn't a way to agree on anything, there doesn't even seem to be a way to discuss anything.
It is very common for most of us to make this argument: "Murders happen! A crazy madman will find tools to accomplish their evil goals, and the fact that a gun was an obtainable tool means it is often going to be used for their purposes. If not a gun, then a machete, a bomb, or a delivery truck."
The problem is, when you make that argument, the point of it is to stifle the progression of gun control measures, and it doesn't actually further the discussion around how to make society any safer. @Blackpowdrkeg said it in another thread regarding "why does anybody need an AR-15?": if your goal is to convince the gun-control advocates to change their minds, you will have to address THEIR concerns rather than your own. That sentiment rings true here as well.
People want to feel safe. For us gun owners, feeling safe has a lot to do with taking responsibility for our own safety. For non-gun owners, feeling safe for them seems to be a lot more complex; they find themselves having feelings like, "Well the police will protect me!", and "If people didn't have these semi-automatic weapons to begin with, they wouldn't be able to harm me!" (which is where the "Why does anyone *need* and AR-15?" question comes from), and "I don't want to have to worry about being a victim of gun violence!". That "gun violence" term has always puzzled me. I always figured all violence is equally as bad; being shot or stabbed or clubbed to death or run over by a vehicle are no different. Violence is violence! But I digress.
The point of this whole topic:
We need a path forward. If we want to curtail the constant threat of bans on specific devices or outright attacks on our Constitutionally protected rights, we better come up with a way to have a discussion about how to make public places like schools safer. Because none of us wants to hear that next news report about a school shooting. We need to brainstorm. We need to find common ground that can find support from the left and the right. No, we're not going to get support from the anti-gun coalition that are hell bent on disarming the population. But we just may be able to get support from those that are actually LOOKING for ways to increase security and safety of places like schools. Why can't we actually brainstorm, together, on ways to do this?
This is where the brainstorming starts:
* ELIMINATE GUN FREE ZONES - Gun free zones are dangerous, reckless and negligent. By saying you can't bring in a gun, all they do is make a defenseless victim zone, where criminals do what they want, and you law abiding honest decent people with a gun are banned. Mentally unstable law-breaking people who get their hands on a firearm and intend to do harm at a school obviously do *not* pay attention to a gun free zone policy. A school that is a gun free zone currently just prevents teachers, staff, and other law abiding citizens in a school zone from having a firearm themselves, and thus reduces their ability to properly intervene when a tragedy is unfolding before their very eyes. Gun free zones serve to lessen the security instead of increase it. Gun free zones are an example of Security Theater.
Now, am I advocating that we arm every teacher and require them to defend the kids in their classroom with their own firearm? No. There are teachers who have never touched a gun, would never want to touch a gun, and would never be comfortable with a gun. I am advocating, however, that the restriction be dropped. Do not make them a criminal because they simply are exercising their right to bear arms and are willing to defend others.
* INSTALL TOP-OF-THE-LINE SCHOOL SECURITY SYSTEMS - It took about $400,000 for the Southwestern High School in Shelbyville, Indiana to install a state of the art security system that actually has active countermeasures against an active shooter. (Read about it here: The 'Safest School in America' Has a $400K Security System) Now I'd take this even a step further. There's actually software out there that can analyze still photographic images (or frames from a captured security camera stream) that can positively identify a firearm on a person. That sort of software should be engineered and integrated into a security system such that the recognition of someone holding a firearm on school property can at least set off an alert. An early warning like this might just give that extra advantage.
* ARMED SECURITY - At the Great Mills High School in Maryland, a School Resource Officer intervened within one minute in an active-shooter situation and stopped a possible massacre from occurring. This didn't get much media coverage, but this is something that should be well understood and explored. There is no denying that having armed personnel on campus made a huge difference.
What other ideas are there?
Last Edited: