Guns

[woot]

Regarding the recent gun bill passed in New York, is there a buy-back program associated with the new laws?

I'm wondering because I see the creation of new "criminals" by banning/outlawing existing practices to be quite problematic.

[Surfah]

Here is a great website to pass on to your friends and acquaintances who want to ban assault weapons. Shocking to me how many otherwise reasonable people are so clueless on this issue.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=149

[Uncle Ted]

Here is a great website to pass on to your friends and acquaintances who want to ban assault weapons. Shocking to me how many otherwise reasonable people are so clueless on this issue.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Yes, clueless people like Feinstein think that any gun that is black and scary looking should be ban. Maybe the AR-15 should be painted pink...

[Pelado]

Must.............resist................joke....... ...........about.............the...........shaft.. ..........

[pellegrino]

Must.............resist................joke....... ...........about.............the...........shaft............

BARREL! It's a BARREL!

[Pelado]

BARREL! It's a BARREL!

Sorry, that was not properly explained at http://www.assaultweapon.info/

It's a good thing I didn't make any jokes about shafts - that would have been embarrassing.

Thank you for helping me overcome my ignorance.

[Devildog]

I'm glad (and would expect) that law enforcement response will change and improve, but that's a different issue from having one or two armed guards on a campus, which Columbine had. I admit I know little about armed response, but I don't see how the presence of one armed guard would be much of a deterrent to a demented killer hellbent on destroying lives. I'd expect him to begin with the guard.

PAC, Columbine is an interesting example. That incident was atypical of conventional active shooters in many ways. First, two shooters acted together in an attempt to kill many people. Interestingly, they eventually stopped killing in spite of the fact that they still had much remaining ammunition, many trapped victims left alive, and had not yet been confronted by SWAT.

Second, they had detailed planning of the shooting spree for months. This included a plan to confront the armed officer they knew to be present. They conducted staged rehearsals, they built many bombs and incendiary devices in an attempt to destroy and burn the entire facility, and they also set a diversionary large fire in a separate location to distract police response before they arrived at the school.

These guys acted more like an assault team on a suicide mission than what we have historically seen with active shooters in crowded places. Motives being what they are, who knows what the future holds.

Active shooter as a term will continue to be defined by future events. Response tactics will continue to develop and evolve. However, an armed guard is in my opinion, a much better first response than other alternatives, including running, locking down, and hiding.

A different example I could cite would be Trolley Square here in Utah. The shooter in that case never moved from the spot he was first confronted in. He never killed or injured another person after being confronted by the first off duty officer, and was killed in that spot by arriving SWAT officers who maneuvered to his flank, while he was held in place by fire from another police sergeant that had arrived to augment the off duty officer.

Incidentally, I attended Columbine High School about a decade before the shooting happened. I also went to High School with one of the first police patrol officers that arrived on the scene that morning.

I wanted to respond yesterday, but had to go to work.

[pellegrino]

Regarding the recent gun bill passed in New York, is there a buy-back program associated with the new laws?

I'm wondering because I see the creation of new "criminals" by banning/outlawing existing practices to be quite problematic.

What good is a buyback? The only people who sell guns back are law abiding citizens who for whatever reason have become uncomfortable with having a gun in their home.

[il Padrino Ute]

What good is a buyback? The only people who sell guns back are law abiding citizens who for whatever reason have become uncomfortable with having a gun in their home.

[YOUTUBE]xr8PQDoZXSo[/YOUTUBE]

[UtahDan]

What good is a buyback? The only people who sell guns back are law abiding citizens who for whatever reason have become uncomfortable with having a gun in their home.

Nancy Lanza for example?

[pellegrino]

Nancy Lanza for example?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[UtahDan]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Just that some people should be uncomfortable with who has access to their guns.

[pellegrino]

Just that some people should be uncomfortable with who has access to their guns.

I'll agree with that, but just because they should be doesn't mean they are.

[ERCougar]

Dan Carlin did a nice podcast on this. Essentially, he says the NRA has a huge PR problem, of their own making, because they've transformed from an organization dedicated to responsible gun use to a lobbyist for gun manufacturers. He says that instead of the "tone deaf" response that LaPierre provided, they should have gone in a problem-solving direction, and if they don't, gun rights stand to erode further. Here's his solution:
1) Make irresponsible gun use less "cool" by imposing huge penalties--he suggests automatic 30 yr sentences for any crime involving the use of a gun, including felons caught in possession of a gun. He argues that gun use and brandishing is glorified through songs about 9 mm's and the like, comparing this to how drunk driving was treated 40 years ago--as almost a lark. Drunk driving was severely cut by stiff penalties; do the same with gun crimes. Make room for these people by not incarcerating so many non-violent criminals. Pay for this with a gun tax (below)
2) Improve mental health services by both decreasing the obstacles blocking commitment of those dangerous to themselves or others and improving public funding of psychiatric services.
3) Pay for 1 and 2 with a 10% gun and ammunition tax. Using the analogy with alcohol, we allow people to use alcohol, realizing that most people responsibly use, but that there are some ill effects to society that necessarily result from its legalization--so we tax it, and fairly heavily. Do the same with guns. Yes, they're both already expensive (a lot of this is driven by increased demand from scare tactics), but it's a gesture that shows that the NRA is serious about solving the problem. Also, the alternative is further curtailing, more scare tactics, and higher prices anyway.

[DU Ute]

Dan Carlin did a nice podcast on this. Essentially, he says the NRA has a huge PR problem, of their own making, because they've transformed from an organization dedicated to responsible gun use to a lobbyist for gun manufacturers. He says that instead of the "tone deaf" response that LaPierre provided, they should have gone in a problem-solving direction, and if they don't, gun rights stand to erode further. Here's his solution:
1) Make irresponsible gun use less "cool" by imposing huge penalties--he suggests automatic 30 yr sentences for any crime involving the use of a gun, including felons caught in possession of a gun. He argues that gun use and brandishing is glorified through songs about 9 mm's and the like, comparing this to how drunk driving was treated 40 years ago--as almost a lark. Drunk driving was severely cut by stiff penalties; do the same with gun crimes. Make room for these people by not incarcerating so many non-violent criminals. Pay for this with a gun tax (below)
2) Improve mental health services by both decreasing the obstacles blocking commitment of those dangerous to themselves or others and improving public funding of psychiatric services.
3) Pay for 1 and 2 with a 10% gun and ammunition tax. Using the analogy with alcohol, we allow people to use alcohol, realizing that most people responsibly use, but that there are some ill effects to society that necessarily result from its legalization--so we tax it, and fairly heavily. Do the same with guns. Yes, they're both already expensive (a lot of this is driven by increased demand from scare tactics), but it's a gesture that shows that the NRA is serious about solving the problem. Also, the alternative is further curtailing, more scare tactics, and higher prices anyway.

I like this.