AR-15 rifles
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:56:18 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They
cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception
thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do
something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay
closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be
of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15
and killed 17 people, most of them children.




The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting"
someone who might pose a danger.


Tell us about it, if you can, old wise one.

===

Good luck with that.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

AR-15 rifles
 

On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.Â* They
cannot be removed from the range.Â* Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault
weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.Â* It's a mental attitude and
perception thing and it needs to be addressed.Â* As a country, we need
to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims,Â* mental health professionals need to
pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report
anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat.Â* The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to
be of "no danger to himself or others."Â*Â* He then went out with an
AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children.






The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than
"reporting" someone who might pose a danger.


Yes Harry.Â* You've said that before.Â* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a
week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined
Cruz was not a "danger".

You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done".

You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how
a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am
very aware of those laws.Â* I engaged in a heated debate with a mental
health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated
that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my
opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that
he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he
had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going
through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended
up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to
himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting
state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others.

Stupid.



I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there
are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this
paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are
just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program.

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary
examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by
themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the
criteria:

"Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of
voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether
examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person
has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric
medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply
because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if
there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential
and present threat of substantial harm.

"The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial
likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious
bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample,
considerable, firm or strong.)

"To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be
evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of
serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an
individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not
qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close,
short, or draws near.)"

And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a
shortage of funds, facilities, and providers.

It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done.
But...I doubt it will.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They
cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception
thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do
something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay
closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be
of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15
and killed 17 people, most of them children.

Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto?
Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor
bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but
he can shoot in the forest behind his house?
This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you
are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you
store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw
away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get
the idea this should be a federal law.

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope
of thought.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:58:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/21/2018 5:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They
cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception
thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do
something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay
closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be
of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15
and killed 17 people, most of them children.


If that much infringement is to occur, then I'd say just outlaw the sale of the damn things. If
folks want to shoot them, rent them from the range and shoot the hell out of them. The range I use
will rent any rifle or pistol in their rental selection, and it's a good selection, for $10. And,
the weapons can be exchanged for other weapons at no extra charge.

I don't think that will stop the shootings as about 8 million of them have already been sold. But,
it would make the anti-gun crowd happy. I would even go along with raising the buying age of the
'assault style' firearms to 30 years old.



I was really impressed watching the meeting Trump had with kids who were
in the school when the shooting occurred and some parents of those
killed. Nobody was crying out to ban guns. Many ideas were presented
and discussed. The only person I disagreed with was the mental health
professional who ignored the reality of the situations and promoted
more "help" (funding) for those with issues.

Other ideas ranged from training and arming volunteer teachers and
administrators who could respond quickly while waiting the typical 5 to
7 minutes for the police to arrive. (all the killing in Florida took
place in 7 minutes). Others, like me, think a ban or semi-ban on
military type rifles should be considered. But the most impressive
thing was it was a civil discussion with respect for those with
different views.

Oh ... and Trump himself did an outstanding job. I don't recall any
previous president taking the time as he did to listen, ask questions
and solicit their ideas and views. He was visibly moved by some of the
comments.

The jerks we have in Congress could learn something by seeing how these
young people handled themselves.


Did you see the story about the high school in Indiana that is
actually taking real defensive precautions. They have marked out the
safe zones on the floor where you are safe from someone shooting from
the hall, the doors can be locked remotely, there is a **** load of
surveillance, linked to the cops, the teachers carry panic fobs and
they have smoke cannons in the hall that the cops can control for a
dynamic entry.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:27:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting"
someone who might pose a danger.

But if they don't get "reported" they won't get any treatment, will
they?
I really think the problem is deeper but right now it is not being
addressed at all.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:33:51 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.Â* They
cannot be removed from the range.Â* Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault
weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.Â* It's a mental attitude and
perception thing and it needs to be addressed.Â* As a country, we need
to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims,Â* mental health professionals need to
pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report
anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat.Â* The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to
be of "no danger to himself or others."Â*Â* He then went out with an
AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children.






The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than
"reporting" someone who might pose a danger.


Yes Harry.Â* You've said that before.Â* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a
week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined
Cruz was not a "danger".

You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done".

You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how
a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am
very aware of those laws.Â* I engaged in a heated debate with a mental
health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated
that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my
opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that
he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he
had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going
through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended
up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to
himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting
state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others.

Stupid.



I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there
are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this
paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are
just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program.

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary
examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by
themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the
criteria:

"Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of
voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether
examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person
has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric
medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply
because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if
there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential
and present threat of substantial harm.

"The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial
likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious
bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample,
considerable, firm or strong.)

"To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be
evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of
serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an
individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not
qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close,
short, or draws near.)"

And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a
shortage of funds, facilities, and providers.

It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done.
But...I doubt it will.

I have been trying to say this for years and you always tell me I am
wrong. The other side of it is even if you do get someone "baker
acted" the chances that they can talk their way out the next morning
is better than 50:50 and the more often they get hauled in, the better
they get in getting out.
If a person can act lucid for 20 minutes, off they go.
It is still clear we have more of a mental illness problem than a gun
problem., The shootings are just a symptom of a bigger problem.
What makes a kid want to go kill a bunch of his fellow students?
The same can be said for adults. Why do people think this is a
solution for any problem? Until we answer those questions we will just
be playing Whack a Mole with every way to kill someone.

AR-15 rifles
 

On 2/21/2018 9:33 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.Â* They
cannot be removed from the range.Â* Owners should be required to
store the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also
be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the
people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type
assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.Â* It's a mental attitude and
perception thing and it needs to be addressed.Â* As a country, we
need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of
politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims,Â* mental health professionals need to
pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report
anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat.Â* The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to
be of "no danger to himself or others."Â*Â* He then went out with an
AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children.






The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than
"reporting" someone who might pose a danger.


Yes Harry.Â* You've said that before.Â* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed
a week ago in a high school after mental health professionals
determined Cruz was not a "danger".

You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done".

You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and
how a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I
am very aware of those laws.Â* I engaged in a heated debate with a
mental health professional a few years ago regarding a person who
demonstrated that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not
just in my opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly
recommended that he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him
some help because he had refused to get any voluntarily for a number
of years. Without going through all the details, the psychotherapist
who interviewed him ended up agreeing with me that the person *was* a
potential danger both to himself and to others but "nothing could be
done" as far as getting state help for him until he actually harmed
himself or others.

Stupid.



I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there
are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this
paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are
just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program.

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary
examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by
themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the
criteria:

"Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of
voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether
examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person
has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric
medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply
because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if
there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential
and present threat of substantial harm.

"The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial
likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious
bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample,
considerable, firm or strong.)

"To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be
evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of
serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an
individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not
qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close,
short, or draws near.)"

Â*And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a
shortage of funds, facilities, and providers.

It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done.
But...I doubt it will.



It can start by changing the regs. John's point was a good one.
"Reporting" is not the same as initiating mandatory treatment.

If you are driving down the road and notice the car in front of you is
weaving back and forth, putting other drivers or pedestrians in danger
and you suspect the driver of the weaving vehicle is drunk as a skunk
do you ignore it and hope he doesn't kill someone or do you call the
police to notify them of the danger?

My frustration is that it often takes a tragedy to occur before anything
can be done. Prevention is far more effective than debates.

Oh, and also, unfortunately I think that *some* in the mental health
profession have a self serving motivation to keep what they do private.
Not saying all ... but it's a business too.

AR-15 rifles
 

On 2/21/2018 9:51 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They
cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception
thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do
something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay
closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be
of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15
and killed 17 people, most of them children.

Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto?
Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor
bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but
he can shoot in the forest behind his house?
This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you
are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you
store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw
away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get
the idea this should be a federal law.

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope
of thought.



No, I am not talking about any box, magazine fed SA auto rifle used for
hunting or recreational target practice.

I am talking about the models that are basically copies of military
style weapons. For some reason people, including some mentally unstable
people have a fascination with them as evidenced by the number of times
they are used in these mass shootings. Maybe it's because we've see
newscasts and videos of military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan using
them on a daily basis for the last 17 years or maybe it's because we
see police departments being supplied with surplus military weapons and
gear. It's a cultural thing, not a gun thing.

Think back. When you were a kid how many policemen did you see walking
around in helmets, bullet proof vests and carrying a military style
weapon? You didn't. Cops wore blue uniforms, twirling a night stick
and carrying an inconspicuous sidearm.

AR-15 rifles
 

On 2/21/2018 9:55 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:58:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/21/2018 5:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They
cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception
thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do
something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay
closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be
of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15
and killed 17 people, most of them children.


If that much infringement is to occur, then I'd say just outlaw the sale of the damn things. If
folks want to shoot them, rent them from the range and shoot the hell out of them. The range I use
will rent any rifle or pistol in their rental selection, and it's a good selection, for $10. And,
the weapons can be exchanged for other weapons at no extra charge.

I don't think that will stop the shootings as about 8 million of them have already been sold. But,
it would make the anti-gun crowd happy. I would even go along with raising the buying age of the
'assault style' firearms to 30 years old.



I was really impressed watching the meeting Trump had with kids who were
in the school when the shooting occurred and some parents of those
killed. Nobody was crying out to ban guns. Many ideas were presented
and discussed. The only person I disagreed with was the mental health
professional who ignored the reality of the situations and promoted
more "help" (funding) for those with issues.

Other ideas ranged from training and arming volunteer teachers and
administrators who could respond quickly while waiting the typical 5 to
7 minutes for the police to arrive. (all the killing in Florida took
place in 7 minutes). Others, like me, think a ban or semi-ban on
military type rifles should be considered. But the most impressive
thing was it was a civil discussion with respect for those with
different views.

Oh ... and Trump himself did an outstanding job. I don't recall any
previous president taking the time as he did to listen, ask questions
and solicit their ideas and views. He was visibly moved by some of the
comments.

The jerks we have in Congress could learn something by seeing how these
young people handled themselves.


Did you see the story about the high school in Indiana that is
actually taking real defensive precautions. They have marked out the
safe zones on the floor where you are safe from someone shooting from
the hall, the doors can be locked remotely, there is a **** load of
surveillance, linked to the cops, the teachers carry panic fobs and
they have smoke cannons in the hall that the cops can control for a
dynamic entry.



Sad.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:09:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/21/2018 9:51 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They
cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception
thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do
something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay
closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be
of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15
and killed 17 people, most of them children.

Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto?
Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor
bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but
he can shoot in the forest behind his house?
This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you
are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you
store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw
away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get
the idea this should be a federal law.

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope
of thought.



No, I am not talking about any box, magazine fed SA auto rifle used for
hunting or recreational target practice.

I am talking about the models that are basically copies of military
style weapons. For some reason people, including some mentally unstable
people have a fascination with them as evidenced by the number of times
they are used in these mass shootings. Maybe it's because we've see
newscasts and videos of military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan using
them on a daily basis for the last 17 years or maybe it's because we
see police departments being supplied with surplus military weapons and
gear. It's a cultural thing, not a gun thing.

Think back. When you were a kid how many policemen did you see walking
around in helmets, bullet proof vests and carrying a military style
weapon? You didn't. Cops wore blue uniforms, twirling a night stick
and carrying an inconspicuous sidearm.


I'd have no problem with some laws being changed military style weapons. Yeah, the NRA, of which
I'm a member (which I suppose makes me a racist terrorist) may have to swallow a small pill, but
they've done it before.