What does "gun control" mean at this point?

Passing similar bills in other states to the HB 1857 bill?

Washington State Gun Violence Survivors, Mental Health Experts, Moms Testify in Support of HB 1857, Extreme Risk Protective Orders Legislation Extreme Risk Protective Orders Bill

—Which Would Allow Families, Law Enforcement to Ask a Judge to Temporarily Remove Guns from Those Proven to Pose Danger to Themselves and Others—is Key Component of Moms Demand Action’s 2015 Gun Safety Agenda

OLYMPIA – Today Washington State gun violence gun violence survivors, mental health experts and moms testified in support of HB 1857, Extreme Risk Protective Orders legislation, which would allow family members and law enforcement to ask a judge to temporarily suspend a person’s access to firearms if they have evidence the person poses a serious threat to themselves or others. Yesterday, over 80 volunteers delivered more than 10,850 petitions to state legislators in support of Extreme Risk Protective Orders, demanding that lawmakers do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Source


Could this have stopped the killer, maybe, unless he sought another gun after the fact/ was not under mental health care. Though, it could stop someone somewhere from acting. This bill was written due to school and other shooting in the state. Only a few states have a similar bill.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: network dude

who do I ask?

The kids who saw their friends and peers murdered in school.

I just want to know what they want. Hell, I might agree.

Listen to them. They aren't silent about it.

But I don't know who to ask and hope some who share their cause might know.

Ask them.

It's OK to just say you don't know. But pretending you do, then posting garbage like this, looks just like you have zero clue.

WHAT DO THEY WANT? if you don't know, just say that. I haven't heard what changes they wish to make.

a reply to: network dude

I got similar when i asked what NFL players wanted. I listened and heard crickets.


With the kids i listen and hear them parroting each others (and their parents) irrational rage.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Like I have said, I might agree with them, but when you say you want "change", you kind of have to define that. We found out leaving "change" ambiguous is a bad idea.

I think they have a better chance to be heard right now, than ever before, so I sure hope they get some leadership and solidify their goals. I just want to see some changes that will save kids.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I just want to see some changes that will save kids.

Do you think there is any kind of gun control that even staunch 2nd amendment supporters could accept? I can't think of something that couldn't be construed as a limit to the 2nd amendment in some roundabout fashion.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
What does "gun control" mean at this point?

Not letting it jump around in you're hands while your firing at the target.

Considering that the "target" in this particular context is a teenage high school kid, I don't think that's very funny. It does, however, exemplify the degree of disconnect.
Here's how the rest of the world reacts. Warning...potty mouth alert! Do not click if swearing offends you!

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

Considering that the "target" in this particular context is a teenage high school kid, I don't think that's very funny.

Considering the adult who committed this crime obtained his firearm due to a breakdown in the system i don't see the benefit of creating new laws when the enforcement of existing ones would have precluded him from purchasing the firearm.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

Considering that the "target" in this particular context is a teenage high school kid, I don't think that's very funny.

Considering the adult who committed this crime obtained his firearm due to a breakdown in the system i don't see the benefit of creating new laws when the enforcement of existing ones would have precluded him from purchasing the firearm.

So let's laff about "Not letting it jump around in you're hands while your firing at the target." No worries...kids can't outrun a bullet. Sorry...your comment is beneath you.

I am hoping that since the spotlight is on saving the children, that this opportunity will not be wasted.

School shootings are a problem but if the concern is the unnecessary deaths of children, then those issues that cause more deaths and are far more frequent, should get top billing.

Motor vehicle accidents is the leading cause of deaths among teens. Accidental deaths, often associated with just being at that stage of life where the feelings of immortality, curiosity and daring, rank very high on the list, even when you take out the numbers for motor vehicle accidents. I live in the country and the number of close calls I have had with children on ATVs and dirt bikes, surprises me that the number is not higher. Drug overdoses and suicides run a close third and fourth.

Anything that puts a child a risk should be of a concern. We can't put them in plastic bubbles and protect them from everything, but addressing those issues that take the "most" lives can significantly reduce those numbers. The media hijacking the situation to make a push for their agenda should be used to our advantage. Maybe dealing with the issues that cause the most of amounts of deaths among children, will save the most amount of lives.

I think that social media plays a huge part in the death of children. Viral videos, challenge videos, and many societal trends have caused many more deaths than school shootings but they are going unnoticed and unaddressed. If we are going to save the children we can't make gun control the only issue.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck


I'm not laughing at anyone, I'm letting you know that 'gun control' is the quintessence of dead horses to beat, enforce the existing laws and leave us law-abiding owners alone, we're frankly tired of everyone else's emotional appeal bull****.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I just want to see some changes that will save kids.

Do you think there is any kind of gun control that even staunch 2nd amendment supporters could accept? I can't think of something that couldn't be construed as a limit to the 2nd amendment in some roundabout fashion.

I don't know. Right now, these kids are angry, the country is angry, the world is angry. If there is no cohesion, this will end up like all the rest of the gun debates. I honestly want those who would speak the loudest, realize that guns aren't the big issue, as much as mental health IS. And as Augustus said, enforcing the existing laws, would sure go a long way to limiting bad people from gaining access easily to guns.

I know first hand how awful the mental health system is at least in NC. They treat you like a criminal, transport you by way of sheriff deputy, throw you in a jail like environment, and pump you full of pills until you smile, then they toss you back out into the world. And a lot of the ones who are thrown back, just sell the drugs they were given to get back to whatever their drug of choice is. (yes, I think drug abuse and mental illness are related to a degree)

If there were a genuine system in place to talk to the patient, find out what they believe, what they need, and then try to help them with some longer term care, it might go a long way, as opposed to how it goes now.

How do other countries deal with Mental Health? Canada claims to be the greatest evah, what do they do? The UK?
I want to know.

Reading news articles and some comments it seems that to a lot of folks gun control is binary and means either there isn't any or no guns are allowed.

Of course most in this thread realise that's not the case - even only allowing revolvers, bolt-action rifles and shotguns doesn't have to be seen as an infringement of the 2nd Ammendment - which is so vaguley worded that one could argue that not being allowed to own an ATGM to destroy government armored vehciles is a violation...

The simplest way forward as I see it woudl be to buy-back and ban semi-automatics - pistols and rifles. Whilst this would not have stopped recent mass shootings, you can't argue that the absence of semi-automatics would have reduced the death tolls considerably. Slower rates of fire, and longer reload times allows more people to either escape or potentially fight back.

A semi-automatic is not needed for hunting, a bolt-action rifle or shotgun is a perfectly adeqaute tool. A semi-automatic isn't needed for self defense, a revolver or shotgun will get the job done. I bet there are very few cases where someone defending themself actually needed to fire more than 6 rounds.

Since most mass-shootings are done with legally owned semi-automatics removing them is a possible solution to that problem. Get the numbers down and the number of victims of mass shootings will also drop over time. Armed good guys will still be able to kill bad guys and the 2nd ammendment is no more violated than it already is...

...I'd expect we'll have to argue through the edge cases of "what-about the bad guys that are a little further away?" to validate semi-auto's really aren't needed first though.

EDIT: removed blocked youtube link and spelling.

originally posted by: network dude
What does gun control mean to the kids who are going to march on Washington?
What is it that everyone wants? This discussion usually ends before it starts, as with anything gun related.

I am genuinely interested in what people are thinking here.

The Cabsl desperately wants to take away the guns so they can get on with their NWO. Unfortunately these kids don't know that's what this is really about. Even ATS is behind the curve on the real deal and the world hates Trump so they just blame him. It's the Deep State(enter any word here)

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck


I'm not laughing at anyone, I'm letting you know that 'gun control' is the quintessence of dead horses to beat, enforce the existing laws and leave us law-abiding owners alone, we're frankly tired of everyone else's emotional appeal bull****.

Sorry, we're still a mite perturbed by seeing children massacred in their classrooms. But I'd like to stay that way.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Sorry, we're still a mite perturbed by seeing children massacred in their classrooms.

So am I, it would have been nice if the FBI did its goddamn job.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: network dude

I got similar when i asked what NFL players wanted. I listened and heard crickets.


With the kids i listen and hear them parroting each others (and their parents) irrational rage.

And they just hate Trump and it's all the fault of the GOP... that's what I heard yesterday. Because the GOP won't cave to destroying the Second Amendment which this younger generation do not understand and they haven't been taught what the Revolutionary War was about. This is why I talk about Values Clarification because it was designed to replace parents values with those of the State

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Sorry, we're still a mite perturbed by seeing children massacred in their classrooms.

So am I, it would have been nice if the FBI did its goddamn job.

Sure. That fixes everything. It's all better now.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Sure. That fixes everything. It's all better now.

The assignation of blame for dropping the ball on this is completely on the law enforcement side of the picture, you know, actually enforcing 'gun control'.

I'm tired of hearing about people who should not have been able to procure firearms doing so, then shooting a place up only to find it was all preventable. Adding more laws on top of the ones that aren't being properly enforced doesn't do doodley squat.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
What does "gun control" mean at this point?

Not letting it jump around in you're hands while your firing at the target.

I see you've heard about Mexican jumping guns? They've been having problems with those in San Francisco.

Why the heck does everyone want to blame the tool. If I cut my finger should I blame the knife? If I burn the steak do I blame the grill? Here's an idea, stop trying to use laws to raise your kids. Stop the "My child would not do that" because they would. A couple of years ago a teenage girl killed her boyfriend for cheating on her, or something like that. Regardless of what or why but how. Her parents were shocked because she had good grades. They had a deal with her. She could do what she wanted as long as she kept her grades up. Then had the nerve to blame TV and video games, REALLY? They had no idea that she was going to party's, drinking, using drugs, and hooking up with half the boys in her age group. Maybe if you were paying better attention, and not let her do whatever, whenever you would know. If you don't raise your kids someone else will.

No law has ever, in the history of man, prevented crime. Stop trying to use laws to get out of your duties as a parent. I should not have to pay for you being lazy. It's your kid so it's your job.

Jobs
Schools - Teach them to read and write
TV/Games - Entertainment
Parents - Raise and teach right from wrong

It's just that simple. Then if they do something wrong you punish THEM not everyone else but them.