Don't click or your IP will be banned

Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: My proposal to address mass shootings and potential violent persons

A Peach Supreme

Posts: 2709
(2708 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/22/2018 at 09:03 PM
Some good ideas here. I would like to stop law enforcement from focusing on weed and other low level alcohol and drug offenses, and consensual prostitution, use those resources wasted on incarceration, surveillance, prosecution, and local kangaroo courts and shift them to school security and mental health and drug treatment. Use the death penalty for drug money laundering . Improve border security. Deport illegals. Work with the NRA to crack down on illegal gun sales or fake paperwork.

[Edited on 2/23/2018 by OriginalGoober]




Maximum Peach

Posts: 8850
(8875 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/22/2018 at 10:48 PM
I don't know what was different this time, I think for me it was just building towards it. I started feeling it after the Las Vegas shooting and then the Texas church shooting and then this one, each cut got deeper and I was done just moving on and hoping it wouldn't happen again. So I used this forum, the original now deleted thread to throw a bunch of stuff up on the wall, and then focused more seriously in this thread. And I'm glad to read thoughts and ideas of others because that has helped me too. This weekend I hope to write several representatives at the state and national level. What I hope to accomplish is to make those Republicans realize how many reasonable things could be done to move in the right direction and I'm fairly reasonable and calling out for it. And what I hope to make those Democrats realize is how many effective things can be done instead of just focusing on a new gun ban. I really want to read further into how some of the states in the NYT article handles the issue with mentally disturbed people. I'll post my letter here when I have it.

2112, short temper people obtaining guns? Unless there could've been some specific threat or some type of cause of concern data that maybe could've gone into a system flagging them. I do not think we are going to be able to drill down that far in trying to prevent violence before it happens.

Gina, as you say, in 5 minutes the shooting may be over. If that is how long it takes for police to get there. Again, arming teachers is problematic. It may work in some areas, in some cases districts may be able to do that. I would personally rather see it be a more general person at the school rather than a teacher responsible for a classroom of kids. Most coaches that are full-time are actually teachers themselves when they aren't coaching. Maybe an assistant coach who is around might be able to carry. This is really a very local decision for individual districts. It isn't all bad, but needs to be advanced with extreme caution. Better to have a dedicated security, assuming that person actually acts.

Sang, I have heard of the restraining order too and I also like it. Just like so many things, you scratch the surface and see what is being done here or there and it kind of opens up a whole collection of things that people are trying to do. If only there was some kind of way to pull it all together. Maybe this new northeast governor coalition sheds some light. I would think the hope from that is that other states get shown the way rather than relying on the feds. But it is tough. I may or may not support everything they support, but I think they have done alot of the right things to try and limit wrong people from obtaining guns legally and I certainly support as much of that as possible.

Bob, that story isn't your every day gun violence story, but it kind of just goes under the radar. Whether it is a school shooting, or anywhere, if we can make it less likely that the wrong people are able to obtain guns that is the goal. And then we do the best we can. Maybe there are further steps after that. Let's just clamp down on the errors in our current system as a strong starting point and continued improvement from there can always be had.

OG, I would like to think that maybe, some day, the NRA could evolve into a good partner in this. But after hearing clips from their CPAC comments we are a ways off from that ever happening. Their comments are what I hate most, the acidic us vs them position that has ruined reasonable conversations in this country. The NRA has some good platforms. They have grants for local public shooting ranges. I have used one of these, free, open to the public thanks to NRA money. It is very clean and well designed. In the sport of competitive target shooting they sponsor many events. They also sponsor training programs. Marksmanship is a sport, we just saw some of it in the Olympics. And actually, with what happened with this latest school shooting, perhaps this is an area where participant evaluation can help law enforcement identify troubled individuals. There is a place for a good national firearms "club". But their legislative branch and their political agenda makes me glad I left their organization. At some point down the road, after the NRA has lost on their agenda to fight against most legislation they lay eyes on, at some point I can perhaps envision a nonpolitical NRA that does good, but for now it's like "all I'm trying is up and all you're bringing is down". Otherwise, I agree, I think that local law enforcement can be even more proactive in trying to identify these threats, but they are still going to have to do all that other stuff unless a whole bunch of laws change.

[Edited on 2/23/2018 by nebish]


World Class Peach

Posts: 5180
(5179 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/23/2018 at 12:20 PM
Thanks for all the thought you have put into this nebish. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Myself, I would like to see a ban on AK-15's and guns like them. Make them available at gun ranges for those that just have to feel that power, but keep them out of society.

I understand guns for hunting and guns for protection. I have some friends that love to target shoot. I have seen then go from 'I need a handgun' to needing 4 or 5 guns of increasing power .... which may be why 30% of the population have guns, but there are more than 1 for every person.

I read something yesterday (not sure where) that suggested that similar to a restraining order, if people thought someone was unstable and a threat, they could get an order with the police to have that person's guns taken away temporarily. There would be due process for the person to get them back. This seems like something that could have been useful in the Florida case, since there were so many signs ahead of time. Of course, if the guy could just walk into Walmart and get another gun right away, this wouldn't work. I agree with you that there needs to be some kind of national database, or else people will be able to find all kinds of loopholes.

As Nebish said, please get items and facts straight before posting.
Just correcting, not fussing, but Sang it's the AR-15, and the AK-47.

Unfortunately right now I haven't had much time to get in the forum. I'm going through tests for back surgery.
Recently completed a never connectivity test to make sure the nerves from my back down my legs haven't gone through too much degradation. That wasn't fun at all, took a couple of days to get back over it.

It's going to take a while to digest all the posts, do some research, and return.


All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.


True Peach

Posts: 10127
(11267 all sites)
Registered: 1/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/23/2018 at 12:31 PM
Really hope the couple of days of misery prove out in the long run to have been beneficial Jerry as far as the proper medical course to pursue -- hoping the discomfort subsides, recall your post "my back hurts" from sevrl mos. ago -- it's not fun & all the best


"I know y'all came to hear our songs, we like to play 'em for you but without Gregg here it's really hard for us to do. He sings & plays so much & does such a good job. He's really sick, 103* He might've come, but no one would let him." Duane


Maximum Peach

Posts: 8850
(8875 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/25/2018 at 12:30 PM
Hoping for the best for you Jerry.

I live in Ohio, Ohio requires adjudicated mentally ill persons or persons involuntarily admitted to a hospital be reported to Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. This information is utilized when someone applies for a concealed weapons permit, but there is no law requiring it gets submitted to the the federal background check system. So Ohio could reject such a person for a CCW permit, but they could likely legally purchase a firearm!!! So the state is saying "this person should not carry a concealed gun, but we aren't going to go the extra step to prevent them from purchasing a gun" That data must be submitted to the NICS. Ohio CCW permit background checks are actually more detailed than the federal system due to more information available. The Sheriff can revoke the CCW if more data becomes available after issuing. Would be nice if we had a licensing process for everyone wishing to purchase a firearm similar to the CCW process.

I've long been against gun registration, but I am changing on that. You have to register a drone with the FAA if it is over a certain size, but you don't have to register a firearm in most states. I think there should be some date where any purchases after a certain date goes into a database. I still do not support any registration of currently owned, pre-date firearms. That would rely upon voluntary registration and alot of people would ignore it and I really don't want to see penalties and such for people who ignore it. But it would be easy to implement registration on new purchases when they go through the back ground check - assuming back ground checks were universal in nature. This database would help law enforcement know what firearms a criminal or mentally ill person, assuming they were not a criminal or mentally ill person when they legally obtained their gun, if they become such later there should be a mechanism whereby law enforcement can remove all known/registered firearms for safe keeping pending court reviews. Law enforcement currently has some authority to temporarily take a suspect's firearms, having a registration log just allows them to fully know what the suspect should have.

The high school I graduated from just had a 14 year old arrested for making a threat about shooting at school. After arrest the kid said he wasn't going to actually do it. He is being charged with inducing panic. A local catholic school got a threat of a shooting that is to take place tomorrow. Police will have a heavier presence at that school. Kids are going to say stuff just because they are kids, but they will quickly learn that people are going to take them as if they are serious and will face charges. Same as with bomb threats, which there has always been bomb threats made here or there, you know, kids think it is funny, maybe get school canceled for a day. This isn't any difference, threats will be taken seriously whether they are or aren't.

My local school district has a three full time resource officers for our two middle schools and high school (3 separate buildings/campuses). Another resource officer is responsible for our 4 elementary schools, spending time divided between the four. Our police department also has uniformed patrol officers do walk throughs at the schools so the officers become familiar with building layouts and also so the students become used to seeing officers in their hallways.

It might work for some districts who want to have armed teachers or front office administrators with guns, but I really would rather see this done through a professional security or law enforcement professional instead. More school resource officers.


Zen Peach

Posts: 18714
(19180 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/26/2018 at 07:37 PM
Nebish has identified part of the problem. The states and the federal systems are inconsistent. Not deliberately, but that is the reality. The reality allowed Mr. Cruz to buy the weapon he slaughtered people with. If as the news reported he was being treated for emotional illness, sorry, no weapon. Someone who cannot handle their emotions without pharmaceutical support cannot be tasked with responsible gun ownership. Doesn't matter how many hundreds of millions of other people also take the same thing and have weapons currently. Grandfather anybody who currently has weapons, but has not created problems. We need to stop dancing around the issue.

"I live in Ohio, Ohio requires adjudicated mentally ill persons or persons involuntarily admitted to a hospital be reported to Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. This information is utilized when someone applies for a concealed weapons permit, but there is no law requiring it gets submitted to the the federal background check system. So Ohio could reject such a person for a CCW permit, but they could likely legally purchase a firearm!!! So the state is saying "this person should not carry a concealed gun, but we aren't going to go the extra step to prevent them from purchasing a gun" That data must be submitted to the NICS. Ohio CCW permit background checks are actually more detailed than the federal system due to more information available. The Sheriff can revoke the CCW if more data becomes available after issuing. Would be nice if we had a licensing process for everyone wishing to purchase a firearm similar to the CCW process. "

People are afraid of witchhunts, people being labelled and stigmatized. Then there is the financial incentives. Certain gun lobbyists pay into politicians coffers. It should not be that complicated. Reason and sound judgment should be able to prevail.

[Edited on 2/27/2018 by gina]


"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213


Zen Peach

Posts: 46338
(46339 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2018 at 12:09 PM
The noise is starting to soften. The fervor after the latest incident was a little more intense and longer lasting than usual, but it won't be too long before it too shall pass.

Nothing will happen at the Federal level. This much is clear. Having a president that doesn't fear saying outrageous things is an immense help to the dedication of the do nothing cause. He can set the entire noise machine off course for three or four days at a time. Before long, the next crisis of social issue will come to the forefront.

Actions at a state level will most likely occur in Florida, perhaps some things have happened already. Enacting bans on things like bump stocks are compromises of residue from the larger issue.

To make it clear, Scott, I'm not disrespecting you or the spirit of this thread by not offering what I think about what preventative actions society could take on this issue. I just truly believe that nothing will ever change. We have accepted the risk of death either by shooting or mass shooting along the same lines as being hit by a drunk driver or dying in an industrial accident. Heck, even on the same level as dying of pneumonia or the flu.

Nothing will change, until it does. At this rate, it never will.


"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan


Maximum Peach

Posts: 8850
(8875 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2018 at 05:47 PM
No disrespect taken Jerry. I understand your pessimism. I do think the biggest potential for changes will take place at the state level.

To your point, we've heard alot of talk from people, but not much from McConnell or Ryan that I heard. I did hear Ryan tout their NICS-fix / CCW reciprocity bill, which is a good idea coupled with a controversial one.

Things like the NICS-fix, bump stocks, and even the age change. That is the easy stuff that only makes a difference around the edges. They are good changes, but more needs done. Those alone don't go far enough to really impact the issue. Plus the NICS-fix and bump stock issue aren't even new to the discussion post Parkland.

I can't remember, what state do you live in? Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma? I can understand your doubt on getting changes that you think are needed. I think the likelihood of states acting more, but that depends on where you live.

To me, there is the extreme one side (doing nothing or virtually nothing) and the extreme other side (gun bans), but there is a whole lot of things in the middle that matters to hash out that could bring reasonable people into agreement. Who is going to bring those people together? Trump? Depends on what day of the week, or what hour of the day. I didn't want a Republican President and I didn't think Trump would be a Republican President, as alot of people doubted if he really was or not. So we get glimpses into some of his non-rightwing-conforming train of thought, like "take guns away, then have due process" and other off-the-cuff remarks. And it makes me think, 'I think we can get something done here with most Democrats and enough Republicans'. Then he changes course or back tracks and I'm left feeling doubtful like yourself. I mean, McConnell and Ryan aren't going to take us there. I'm still going to write everyone that represents me or my district. Will it matter? Probably not, but what else do you do? It's like, all i can do is speak my mind and then what will be will be. I'm not going to protest. I'm not going to vote D blind up and down the ballot, just like I don't vote R up and down the ballot because neither side offers the full package of what I really want, and this gun issue doesn't jump ahead of any other particular issue that is also important to me. Lots of things are important. I want to try and get people to consider things they haven't considered before. So I play my role. They play their's. And in between we talk about it all.

I do appreciate this thread not getting off the rails because nothing sucks more than putting alot of time into spelling out ideas and thoughts only to have it break down into insults and potentially getting deleted.

More discussion would be good, but this is what we are left with. I appreciate the people we still have here who are willing to listen and respond with respect for the issue at hand and one another. I don't look for agreement really, if everyone agreed with me here I probably wouldn't be here because there is nothing to be gained if we all look at things the same way.


Maximum Peach

Posts: 8850
(8875 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/7/2018 at 11:31 AM
In the next day or two I will be emailing or mailing letters similar to the one I post below. This specific one was written for one of my Senators Sherrod Brown. The other letters will have the same overall message with some changes around the edges based on the intended recipient.

Everything stated in here has already been said throughout our thread. I submit it for your review.


Senator Brown,

Thank you very much for taking your time to read my thoughts and concerns. Before I get into that I briefly want to thank you for your continued efforts on trade and outsourcing issues negatively impacting American workers. It’s extremely important and I appreciate you not playing partisan politics on this.

I’m compelled to write you today concerning access to firearms in our country. Gun violence is an immense ongoing problem, but specifically it is these mass shooting events and the perpetrators involved that moves me.

I wanted to go through certain topics and areas I seek change:
• NICS-fix
• Mental health data
• Universal background checks
• Federal + State background checks
• Age restrictions
• School safety

One aspect I don’t necessarily support:
• Gun bans

Allow me to elaborate on each of the above topics.

The NICS-fix bill has passed the House. I am aware of the controversial concealed carry reciprocity aspect the House passed. I am a CCW license holder and while that law would benefit me, I do think it is best left to the states to determine who they do or do not want carrying concealed within their state. I don’t know your position on that singular issue; ultimately I do hope you will support the NICS-fix bill. It is my strong belief that we need more data on violent and criminal persons in our background check system and upon reading the NICS-fix bill I see that as an effective way to achieve that.

We must not stop there. I would like to see a similar bill that addresses documented mentally unstable people being entered into our federal background system. The states have some of this information, but there is no mandate to share it with the federal system. It has come to my attention that in Ohio, the back ground check process for a CCW license is more thorough than the federal system because of the type of information Ohio utilizes for the background checks isn’t always made available to the federal system. So please, let’s get more violent and criminals excluded from legally buying firearms AND let’s also do the same for those who lack the mental capacity to safely purchase and own firearms. It is just as important to populate an exclusion list for mentally unstable and ill persons as it is to have an accurate exclusion list for those with violent and criminal backgrounds. On a side note, I of course support you in adding terror-watch list / no-fly list names into the system as well.

Even with our best attempts, there is always potential for some information being left out of the federal system. So I see benefit in having a dual back ground check where a seller consults both the existing federal system and also a state administered system that many states already have in place. This will serve as a double-check in the event of inconsistent reporting to ensure no individual falls through the cracks who otherwise shouldn’t buy or own a firearm.

Next, we need universal back ground checks for private sales just like we have for sales at licensed dealers. Strengthening the background check system isn’t very good if that check can easily be circumvented by sales at gun shows or other individual-to-individual purchases. This is an extra burden and hurdle for me if I choose to sell one of my firearms; however I see it as a necessary layer of safety to ensure the buyer can lawfully purchase and own a gun.

I also think raising the age to purchase all semi-automatic weapons is wise. There are many hunting and sporting rifles that younger people can use for legitimate use that are not semi-automatic, I don’t want to shut off access to all young people for sporting or even self-defense purposes. I do however want to limit their access to the most dangerous and lethal weapons. I understand the argument of one being able to enlist and serve our country at 18, why should we limit others of the same age? With military service and commitment comes responsibility and maturity. Unless an individual is a member of our military, I think we should limit the purchase of semi-automatic weapons to 21.

A lot has been said on what schools should and shouldn’t do. I think arming teachers or administrators should be an individual school district decision, I do not see any role for the federal government to get involved with any requirement or program like that. What I do believe is we should have either more school resource officers or creation of a security professional, similar to a guidance counselor whereby they can monitor and report on any and all suspicious activity or threats from within their school or targeting their school. This person could coordinate all interested parties from law enforcement to school boards so everyone is in the loop on the issues at hand in order to react in the best manner possible. This would be something left to local districts, but I tell you about it in case you can see some way the federal government could help along the way. We know that troubled kids come through our school system and it seems that we end up with a lot of loose ends on properly accessing the danger such a person does or does not pose. We need to tie all that together and give somebody the responsibility to see that we are properly tracking and reporting suspicious and potentially dangerous individuals. I think local or even federal law enforcement could do more online at identifying threats and then setting up a means to catch somebody breaking the law before they get to the point of attacking others. I envision a program similar to what is currently used to catch child predators or potential terrorists uncovered online where they are engaged by undercover law enforcement in a manner to reveal their intentions or catch them in an unlawful act and can then be charged accordingly.

I plan to write a similar letter to my state representatives to highlight ways they could be effective in their capacity, such as how local schools should proceed or perhaps requiring some training and safety course or even requiring a licensing program for the buyers. Another issue I am not sure is best addressed at the local level or nationally is empowering law enforcement to confiscate weapons upon a court order, similar to a restraining order, under certain conditions. Many states do something similar currently and I think law enforcement’s ability to expand such programs can be an important tool when combined with all the other safe guards we will hopefully enact.

Finally, I wanted to touch on gun bans. I know that you support some kind of assault weapons ban similar to what we had in 1994 or what Senator Feinstein introduced. In the short-to-medium term, I do not see a ban having an impact on the availability of the guns due to the extraordinary amount of such firearms in circulation that always get grandfathered in. New or used, these guns will be available for a very long time in stores and private party sales. If your stated goal is more long-term reducing, or at least not expanding, the overall supply of these weapons, I wouldn’t argue with that point, but I think it is important to clearly state what the actions we take or don’t take will and won’t do. There is no doubt that for many mass shootings, assault weapons are the tool of choice. I also think if we take that one tool away from the perpetrator they will utilize another weapon to carry out their attack. I see a more effective route is limiting the people who can purchase not just assault weapons, but all firearms through a deeper and more effective screening in the back ground check process coupled with greater effort at the state and local level to better identify threats and act accordingly. I also believe the methods laid out here find more common ground with realistic potential of passage and real world results. I wouldn’t say I would directly oppose you if you strongly believed in the merit of gun bans, I just think there is a better, less controversial way to achieve the same end result in the final analysis.

I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to listen to my thoughts. I’m proud when I see my representatives check their party affiliation at the door and try to forge common ground for the greater good on important issues. No doubt your beliefs are strong, as are opposing views of others. Please always put the good of our state, our country and our people ahead of all other interests that might be at play and by doing so we will find the best way forward for everyone.

<<  1    2  >>  

Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement
site by Hittin' the Web Group with