Let's discuss gun restriction using logic and reason

First off, sorry if this is wrong forum... Still pretty new here.

I grew up around guns. Own guns, and will always own guns. That being said, I personally believe things DO need to change.

Some ideas include:

When someone purchases a long-arm for the first time, they attend a general safety, use and proper storage technique.

The people that run that course should also be trained to observe individuals and look for any obvious red flags. It is fairly easy to discern mentally unfit people through a few conversations. Obviously this won't work all the time, but it would uncover SOME crazies.

All children's curriculum should include, at some point a week or so of gun safety and what to do if you find a gun etc..

Every school should also have at least one teacher, preferably with some sort of firearms knowledge, undergo vigorous training and crisis management training, and after that be given a firearm inside a lockbox, and bullets that he hides in a separate place only be knows about. Not only is this a good last resort option, but if a potential shooter knows there is a "good guy" with a gun nearby, this should deter them.

I personally hate this one myself, but I find it unfortunately necessary with societies growing crazies...
A recent (within a couple weeks or so) clean bill of mental health for anyone purchasing a handgun. I know I know, it sucks but it should happen.

I could go on, but just wanted to get the ball rolling. I welcome all opinions and arguments so long as you use logic. You don't have to be Spock to see things like "take all them guns!!" Is well... "Simply illogical captain".

Much love and good vibes!!!

a reply to: seaswine

Good luck actually attempting to solve the problem you guys have but expect lots of selfish "shall not be infringed" points because at the end of the day many don't care as long as they can keep their guns.
Better mental health screening and education about mental health should be a start to be honest.

Could we just start by banning gun free zones?

a reply to: seaswine

The first 2 points on perhaps some training and teaching kids at school what to when you see a gun as a kid are fine and probably could be merged so as they get older they can learn how to handle weapons safely..plus it'd be a nice day out to the local range.

The problem with having a designated 'combat' teacher is that its not what they signed up for...like joining the army to knit jumpers and what happens if they're off sick or on holiday so suddenly you need multiple levels of backup as sods law will also say that things will fails when needed and quite a few of the shooters in school know the staff/layout so their first thought would be to get in between the teacher and the firearm locker.

a reply to: Bluntone22

So arming the kids that is your answer? a school full of armed kids?.
Or am I wrong with my assumption?.

a reply to: seaswine

I agree but the anti-gun crowd is not reasonable.

They will simply declare as many people as possible "unfit".

If you ever were prescribed "anything" to sleep, anxiety, high blood pressure, pain reliever, whatever they will consider that "mentally unfit".

a reply to: Bluntone22

These are the areas that I,
a. Avoid or
b. Make sure I'm armed.

Sadly. .....

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

Why don't we start with getting governments to give up their guns first?

If we're trying to find a solution to violence, we should start with the biggest offenders.

a reply to: seaswine

As you say, you are still pretty new here so you had better brace yourself.

There will be the knee jerk 'pry it from my cold dead hands' responses, the 'it's my right' responses, and the somewhere in between responses.

Guns and rights are like the chicken and the egg.

Logic and reason and guns restriction debates is a oxymoron on ATS.

Both sides will just descend into kneejerk reactions and hacky mottos and slogans plus the useal BS. Not to mention the insecure and paranoid turn up to descend into ranting and personal attacks.

Then you will get the normal group as well who will turn this into a place to star bait and back pat each other, normaly to validate there own insecuritys.

a reply to: Maxatoria

This was discussed in depth on a pervious thread. As good as it sounds, weapons hormones facebook & bullying don't mix well . . . . .

originally posted by: crazyewok
Logic and reason and guns restriction debates is a oxymoron on ATS.

Both sides will just descend into kneejerk reactions and hacky mottos and slogans plus the useal BS. Not to mention the insecure and paranoid turn up to descend into ranting and personal attacks.

The you will get the normal group as well who will turn this into a place to star bait and back pat each other, normaly to validate there own insecuritys.

Oh my! Ouch. You're too funny, but I like you.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bluntone22

So arming the kids that is your answer? a school full of armed kids?.
Or am I wrong with my assumption?.

There where shotguns all over the parking lot of my high school, and nobody got shot.
The point is that these shooters go to places that have no guns. I call that a target rich environment.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

#truestory !!!!!

a reply to: seaswine
From the psychological standpoint who decides whats a dangerous state of mind and what isn't? What's one mans nutter is another mans freedom fighter. Yes there are the clear cut schizophrenics, but there are far more borderline cases and then there are those that successfully hide their mental states.
Also there was a proven study not too long ago that proved the majority of successful business people, CEO s and such like, had the same psychological make up as cold blooded killers ie. pathalogical tendencies.
There is always a fine line between genius and mental illness, it's just how you define either.
Here's a silly question for you. Why is there no call to dis-arm the police first? I would think the majority of cases the police attend there are no fire-arms involved so why carry permanently? Could the answer be just in case, for that one case that the criminal is armed. Then that same answer could be used for the ordinary citizen, Just in case.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bluntone22

So arming the kids that is your answer? a school full of armed kids?.
Or am I wrong with my assumption?.

I don't know how old you are but in the 80's it was common that high school kids had their rifles and shotguns in their cars and trucks during hunting season.

a reply to: seaswine

OK , i will start with a Logical Explanation as to the Need of the American People to have in their Possession Personal Legal Firearms . Besides the Second Amendment Constitutional Right to do so , a Gun can Insure an American Citizens Personal Response to a Threat to their Person caused by others with the Intent of doing them Bodily Harm with said Weapons . This could entail Threats such as , Rouge Government Agencies , Invading Foreign Nationals , Armed Criminals , Wild Beasts , or Personal Family and Acquaintances who have a Hostile Intent to your Person . Other than those Instances , a Firearm would Theoretically have no Useful Purpose to possess .

a reply to: boymonkey74

No. Just because someone takes away the Gun Free Zone doesn't mean that every person then starts packing heat. Talk about hyperbole. It just means that those who follow the law can choose if they want to carry or not, and that means that cowards who want a field full of easy marks to take with them to the grave won't know for sure if today is the day they'll encounter that one citizen who decided to bring his or her sidearm along.

People who follow the law will tend to follow it which means they won't carry in a gun free zone, so it makes it pretty certain you won't encounter any guns there on the other patrons. People who don't follow the law look for places like that because it's easier for them to do what they came to do - kill as many as possible.

But even without the gun free zone, people who can carry legally may still not carry everywhere just cause they can. It just makes it less certain the guy packing will have the only gun in the house.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Guns in the parking lot? so you going to have time to run out get one and start shooting?.
They are not armed kids if they are all in the trunks of the car.
You just can not arm kids in schools nor teachers for that matter...It may stop one person but cause a whole load more deaths If everyone is armed.
Could you tell who the active shooter is If everyone pulls out a gun at the sound of a bang?.
It isn't the good ole days anymore guns don't kill folk I know but letting everyone carry a gun to me just is silly because it will make everyone carry a gun because of the fear it will make of just each other.

Maybe better security at schools? like air marshalls do we need school marshals?.

a reply to: infolurker

We had ours in all seasons. There were no mass or even single shootings. ... but then again..... all we had was Pong