Idea regarding "Gun-Control".

I don't think so, no. I think progress can be made in research and training.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8573719&postcount=125

 

That sounds reasonable. I'm not sure how hunter safety or CCW training (many states do not, and should not, require CCW "training") will incorporate this -- or what we'd be telling average Joe hunter or CCW-er to DO if he meets someone he suspects is dangerously unstable, but it isn't an onerous suggestion on its face.

Is this sort of a "see something --- say something" plan? Encouraging people to alert authorities and so forth?

 

To a degree. For me it's also about responding directly when you or someone you know is involved in a situation that is escalating. When a neighbor friend or family member conveys stories or worries about their situation we can recognize if this could be going down a bad path and recommend tactical steps to reduce the likelihood of guns being involved. That may be recommend or helping them securing or removing guns from the home, involving le, or other steps or do nothing. I guess the point is I do not know.

My state requires training for both ccw and obtaining a hunting license. I considered both training programs helpful. However neither talked about tactical escalation (street encounter) nor did they talk about the more long term progression of escalation that can lead to domestic violence or mass shooting. I've been lucky that my uncle is involved in corporate and institutional security and works with retired security experts so he's given me some basics about the continuum of escalation.

But I'm still underprepared to recognize a threat or reasonably help someone who may need it.

 

I have to disagree. The gun is only the tool that they use, if they could not use a gun they would simply use another tool. Maybe a far worse one.

This is about a person, regardless if they were mentally ill or perhaps just violent, or evil using a tool to carry out their work. You could replace "guns" in that sentence with a lot of other "tools" and the outcome would have been the same or perhaps even worse.

What if he would have poisoned the towns water supply? Maybe he would have taken some gasoline and set an entire block on fire during the middle of the night? Made some bombs? Etc.

The real danger is the people, not the tool.


Now there are things we can do to lessen these happenings, but I don't believe it has anything to do with guns.

 

But they didn't, they used guns. Therefore, it absolutely has something to do with guns.

This isn't a game of rhetoric where one can replace one word with another and pretend the event didn't occur the way it did. The perpetrator didn't employ rhetoric, he didn't employ a poison, he didn't employ a tire iron. He employed guns. As a community dedicated to securing our 2A rights in total, we have an obligation to the Second Amendment to be honest about what happened and not engage in rhetorical manipulation to deflect from the truth.

He didn't, he used guns.

He didn't, he used guns.

He didn't he used guns.

Maybe I would have written "Hey Jude" since it's an easy song to play and sing and I have the tools, but I didn't, Lennon and McCartney did. Saying "I could have just as easily . . . " isn't putting those royalty checks in my bank account. I believe my dad used to say "hypothesize in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first."

No. There is no one singular danger here. There are millions of people in this country who are mentally ill or violent or evil or all of the above who do not go and shoot two dozen innocent women and children. It is a multi-faceted problem with many many inputs that leads to very VERY rare violent outcomes.

In the cases where these violent outcomes employ the tool I am dedicated to upholding the right to use, I refuse to accept that I cannot help mitigate or reduce the impact in my community.

There is no legislation about to come before our government seeking to limit people's rights to be mentally deranged. There IS legislation seeking to restrict the rights that this group is dedicated to upholding.

We have the option of being just like the antis, of saying "but it could have been any tool" and leaving it at that. Pretending this one thing will change the very multi-faceted reality that these tragedies are about huge equation with many variables.

We have an obligation to admit that history proves that one of those variables is, in fact, guns.

We also have the alternate option of recognizing that the source of our interest has been employed in horrendous ways. We can admit that reality and offer our expertise, experience, thoughtfulness and caring to develop methods of helping our communities to prevent or mitigate the effects of these disasters while securing our interests in total.

 

He used guns for one and only one reason, he had access to them. Are you suggesting that if he did not have access to them that nobody would have been harmed?

People killed long before guns were even a dream. Of course the problem is multifaceted, but if there was not a single gun on the entire planet people would still kill people. Like an experiment, if you take guns out of the equation and things do not change then the gun is not the factor.

 

Originally posted by gossamer

This the flawed logic in your hypothesis. There is no need for any of us to even consider making "reasonable" changes. Let me make this point as clear as I can. There is no action required on your part.

An argument could be made that the media coverage of these type of events causes more people to copycat and do the same thing. Maybe we should just make some reasonable restrictions on the media so they won't cover it that way. What's that you say? Doesn't the first amendment cover that. Well, yes it does. Just the same as the second amendment covers the right to bear arms.

If you live in a free society, then you have to give up certain government protections. I'm perfectly willing to protect myself. How about you?

 

As an American, you are free to ****. You are not free to trample others rights.

BULL CRAP, all of our founding fathers are rolling in their graves and all rational people are rolling their eyes at you.

At what point does transportation counter the tens of thousands of people killed in car accidents every year? Your reasoning is about as ridiculous as that.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or self defense. It is about protecting our freedom from tyrants and "do gooders" like yourself.

Let's increase taxes on churches and people speaking their mind as well.

Obviously you are not at all....

Yet just a couple of years ago another knife wielding man in China KILLED 8 children.

Yeah, and quite frankly, you and most of the antis haven't done any research on the thoughts of those who wrote the amendment, and you are interpreting it incorrectly.

You all, also seem to be content that we will never need our firearms to "secure a free state", and content that the National Guard and our standing military are our Militias (here is a hint you are DEAD WRONG)

Call it naivite, or call it ignorance. It doesn't matter, it is still WRONG

And they LAZY, INCOMPETENT and INEFFECTIVE response is gun control......

One of the most ignorant and hateful strawman statements made by the antis in the past few days.

 

Back to the basics :

I own a AR-15 rifle in semi-automatic with magazines that hold up to 30 rounds.

1.) I am NOT the probem
2.) My 30 round magazines are NOT the problem
3.) My Rifle is Not the problem

I own these items for sporting reasons as well as for self protection. They are objects, and only function as I command them to do. I am NOT alone, there are millions of us who own these objects and behave in a respectable, responsible, and safe manner.

I am NOT responsible for the insane and their mis-use of objects. I see no reason to restrict millions of responsible people because of the act of a few insane persons. I am willing to , and presently do, reasonable things to keep the insane from obtaining these objects, and mis-using them.

I am just as appauled at the acts of those few insane people, as those who do not like to, or believe in, owning firearms. If you believe you are on the moral high road because you do not own such a rifle, you are wrong.

 

I'm not presuming to have the slightest clue as to what would have happened had any of these circumstances changed.

Have I stated otherwise? Read post 125, and post 151 and 153.

You cannot test that experiment. The shooter is dead. The victims are, tragically, dead. The events are over.

 

Part of my right to keep and bear firearms is that you do not get to make those ^^ decisions for me. I decide where there is a need for me to consider making reasonable changes. I decide whether there is action required on my part.

In response to the OPs question, I am here spelling out what I feel is reasonable action on my part while "protecting my RKBA rights in total. See post #125

I also addressed this issue in post 125.

My personal opinion is that if the media cannot find the balancing point in their field of expertise, then they have no business telling us where our balancing point should be. I will engage with my community and government in the process of deciding if that balancing point needs to move at all, and if so, to where.

I would never presume to doubt or question whether you are willing to protect yourself and apologize if I ever even implied such a thing. My willingness to protect does not begin and end with myself or my family. It extends to a willingness to protect my community. If a greater understanding of the continuum of escalation that leads to instances of gun violence can help me better protect not only myself, my family, but my community then I am willing to do it. I would personally support legislation in my state or county that stipulates the training we are already required to undertake include a component about various forms of threat escalation and assessment.