Should churches change security in wake of recent events?

[LSUmiss]

seems like every suggestion has a comeback, so 33,000 a year and there is nothing we can do to lower the number.

Nope b/c of riots & rights.

 

[LSUmiss]

Mental incompetence is in fact a disqualifier for firearms purchases. But, one must be declared so by a judge.

Sadly, that was the case with the VA Tech shooter, but the state of Virginia failed to alert the BATF.

Yes but that’s different from ppl who have mental health issues. It takes A LOT to get that from a judge. I have seen some severely mentally ill ppl who were not sick enough to be declared mentally incompetent.

 

[longboard55]

here are the rules in Hawaii, basically you need to apply at the police department to buy a gun and they have access to medical records. Nothing I see here would interfere with any legitimate owners rights. Plus in Hawaii you just can not jump across the border to buy a gun.

So what does that buy them, safest state in the country, 75% below national average, 85% below the open carry states

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-gun-laws-in-hawaii-972123

 

[LYSE]

I thought you were referring to legal due process like in a court of law. That’s why I asked about mental illness. So let’s say this, if a person is deemed dangerous enough to be on the no fly list, then that should also be enough to begin the due process required to restrict their ownership of a gun.

What I’m saying is ridiculous is that there seems to be no compromise. Why not ban assault rifles to make it not as easy to inflict as much damage as quickly like in LV? Just b/c there may a rare instnsce that someone may find these weapons useful? I bet machine guns would be even more effective in those scenarios you mentioned, but those are banned.

Bolded: The problem is the way people get added to the no fly list, you could be added over night and be unaware, appealing it could be extremely difficult. If the no Fly list had a better procedure then I'm pretty sure we would all agree that being on that list should mean you cannot own a firearm.

The Rest: First you would have to define "assault rifle" which can get tricky as someone earlier pointed out, secondly you have to overcome the fact that we have those pesky RIGHTs that you aren't a fan of, this is where the legal battle takes place.
Machine guns shouldn't be banned like they are now, however that is an even bigger uphill battle and actually in (most) self defense scenarios would simply lead to wasted ammo and low accuracy so it's something that has been given up to your side.

here are the rules in Hawaii, basically you need to apply at the police department to buy a gun and they have access to medical records. Nothing I see here would interfere with any legitimate owners rights. Plus in Hawaii you just can not jump across the border to buy a gun.

So what does that buy them, safest state in the country, 75% below national average, 85% below the open carry states

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-gun-laws-in-hawaii-972123

We've already touched on over simplifying things, there are plenty of states and area's with lax laws that are "safe"

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

here are the rules in Hawaii, basically you need to apply at the police department to buy a gun and they have access to medical records. Nothing I see here would interfere with any legitimate owners rights. Plus in Hawaii you just can not jump across the border to buy a gun.

So what does that buy them, safest state in the country, 75% below national average, 85% below the open carry states

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-gun-laws-in-hawaii-972123

I'm actually interested in understanding the correlation further. Where was the 75% and 85% coming from? And what is the term 'safest' mean in this context?

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

I'm actually interested in understanding the correlation further. Where was the 75% and 85% coming from? And what is the term 'safest' mean in this context?

And to get to Hawaii, you have to take either a plane or a boat. It's not like getting in your car and driving from Washington DC to West Virginia. More dealing with security with that plane and boat than your car = less opportunities to bring in illegal weapons.

 

[BadPinkTink]

I am always curious what people from other countries mean when they say we need gun control.

better regulation, gun control does not equal take everyone's guns away, it means tighten regulation and make them harder for the average Joe or Josephine to own them.

Those who have a genuine need, not a "cos I want a gun and I will have one no matter what" reason will still be able to own a gun. People like veterinarians, and licenced gun clubs etc will still be able to, BUT they will have to have a far higher level of checks and certification.

Remove and ban the sale of ALL kinds of ammunition from supermarkets, grocery stores etc. Remove and ban gun shops from shopping malls and downtown areas. Ammunition only allowed for sale at police stations or at licenced gun clubs.

and remove and ban these horrendous carry and conceal rules, like ***, why do you take a gun to get milk from the grocery store???

oh and the reason other countries can and have done something about gun control is because its only in America that there is a NRA lobby group pumping huge amounts of money into politics.

Yes I know, all kinds of a beeping storm will follow, but seriously someone needs to have the balls to stand up and say something has to be done, Im guessing my suggestions are unworkable but its a start, a base for discussion, to find a way to solve this problem.

Also I fully understand that change has to come from within, that like an heroin addict, you can force an intervention, you can put someone into rehab, but unless THEY want to change, they will eventually overdose and kill themselves.

 

[LSUmiss]

Bolded: The problem is the way people get added to the no fly list, you could be added over night and be unaware, appealing it could be extremely difficult. If the no Fly list had a better procedure then I'm pretty sure we would all agree that being on that list should mean you cannot own a firearm.

The Rest: First you would have to define "assault rifle" which can get tricky as someone earlier pointed out, secondly you have to overcome the fact that we have those pesky RIGHTs that you aren't a fan of, this is where the legal battle takes place.
Machine guns shouldn't be banned like they are now, however that is an even bigger uphill battle and actually in (most) self defense scenarios would simply lead to wasted ammo and low accuracy so it's something that has been given up to your side.


We've already touched on over simplifying things, there are plenty of states and area's with lax laws that are "safe"

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think you have the right to bear any kind of arm & there are obviously ppl who agree on that interpretation or machine guns would not be banned. But, if you are someone who believes they should not be banned & we need even less regulation than we currently have, then it is doubtful that we can have a meaningful conversation b/c I don’t see how you can consider any compromise.

 

[Hikergirl]

Ok then....

Everyone should have to apply for a license for a firearm whether they buy from a private owner or from a store. There should be a federal registry of those that are approved to get a license and also a list of those on the "no buy" list. There needs to be federal minimum regulations (no assault weapons, silencers, bump stocks, etc.) If the problem is mental illness, as so many adamant second amendment supporters suggest (guns dont' kill people, people kill people), then there needs to be periodic mental evaluations of licensed gun owners.

Will it stop all mass murders? Of course not. But it is a start and is doing something. You would think that the law abiding gun owners would want regulations.


Better?

I agree with this except for the bolded. I have no problems with requiring doctors and therapists to report their patients with mental issues (that would disqualify them for ownership) to a national database so it can be cross referenced with registered gun owners.
Patients would have to agree though to have their medical info made "public" like that. Not sure how many would.
I do not support testing all registered gun owners and keeping a "mental evaluation" database on all of them.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And to get to Hawaii, you have to take either a plane or a boat. It's not like getting in your car and driving from Washington DC to West Virginia. More dealing with security with that plane and boat than your car = less opportunities to bring in illegal weapons.

True true plus in order to leave the country by at least plane I had to have my luggage scanned and marked as clear by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which was before I could even go to my airline's counter to check my luggage. Carry on luggage is also checked for agriculture.

 

[LSUmiss]

better regulation, gun control does not equal take everyone's guns away, it means tighten regulation and make them harder for the average Joe or Josephine to own them.

Those who have a genuine need, not a "cos I want a gun and I will have one no matter what" reason will still be able to own a gun. People like veterinarians, and licenced gun clubs etc will still be able to, BUT they will have to have a far higher level of checks and certification.

Remove and ban the sale of ALL kinds of ammunition from supermarkets, grocery stores etc. Remove and ban gun shops from shopping malls and downtown areas. Ammunition only allowed for sale at police stations or at licenced gun clubs.

and remove and ban these horrendous carry and conceal rules, like ***, why do you take a gun to get milk from the grocery store???

B/c there might be riots & looters.

oh and the reason other countries can and have done something about gun control is because its only in America that there is a NRA lobby group pumping huge amounts of money into politics.

And pushing propaganda that ppl swallow as facts.

Yes I know, all kinds of a beeping storm will follow, but seriously someone needs to have the balls to stand up and say something has to be done, Im guessing my suggestions are unworkable but its a start, a base for discussion, to find a way to solve this problem.

Also I fully understand that change has to come from within, that like an heroin addict, you can force an intervention, you can put someone into rehab, but unless THEY want to change, they will eventually overdose and kill themselves.

 

[cabanafrau]

Just so there's a little bit of understanding of some of the ideas that are being thrown around:

Generally if someone is declared mentally incompetent by a court it refers to a person's inability to understand and conduct themselves according to the laws, or an inability to participate in their own defense in a legal proceeding when they have been charged with a crime. As a general rule people who are designated as such are placed under mandatory hospitalization per court order. (I think an example here would be John Hinckley.)

People are designated incapacitated by a court for physical and mental reasons. In those cases a guardian is appointed to oversee their daily living arrangements and needs. Sometimes a conservator will also be appointed to handle their financial needs. A designation of incapacity is commonly sought in cases of dementia, traumatic brain injury, strokes, cognitive or mental injury or defect, etc. Obviously, depending on circumstances some people who are incapacitated are hospitalized, some are in nursing homes, some in assisted living and some live independently or semi independently depending on the situation. (I think an example here should have been the Sandy Hook shooter, although I'm unclear whether that was in fact his actual status.)

As a rule of thumb people who suffer from mental disorders such as OCD, anxiety, depression, etc. don't necessarily fall into either of the two legal designations outlined above, even if they are not receiving treatment.

Incompetence and incapacity are serious legal designations because they strip an individual of some liberties, something that cannot and should not be done without due process.

 

[sam_gordon]

True true plus in order to leave the country by at least plane I had to have my luggage scanned and marked as clear by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which was before I could even go to my airline's counter to check my luggage. Carry on luggage is also checked for agriculture.

Unless you are a pilot (or hire your own). Then no one checks luggage, carry on or otherwise.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

I believe the right to bear arms does NOT extend to an individual owning guns, yet realize the supreme court does not agree with me.
And the constitution is not infallible - you can make amendments.
Negros were valued at 3/5 of a person for representation purposes for example.

Why has Congress prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence? What is Congress afraid of them finding?
The statistics on US gun deaths are staggering when compared to other industrial nations - murders, suicides.

I own handguns - and would gladly participate in a registry, or give them up. There are more guns in the US than people - the government is inept - do you really think they will be able to make a concentrated attempt to come get our guns? lol
We cannot fix issues yet somehow want to make mental health a priority - ok - so then what - you have mental issues? No guns?
I have a friend who has served three tours in the middle east and has PTSD - he should be NO WHERE near weapons - yet owns a ton. Who is going to say the soldier who defended us isn't allowed his protection. Not a politician. So for everyone who says better mental health is the solution - please explain how you think that would work.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Unless you are a pilot (or hire your own). Then no one checks luggage, carry on or otherwise.

For leaving Hawaii??

I'm meaning Hawaii's requirement that your luggage pass inspection by the agriculture department prior to even going to your airline's counter or getting through security for carry on.

They most def. checked our luggage when we were coming home from Hawaii last September.

 

[LSUmiss]

I agree with this except for the bolded. I have no problems with requiring doctors and therapists to report their patients with mental issues (that would disqualify them for ownership) to a national database so it can be cross referenced with registered gun owners.
Patients would have to agree though to have their medical info made "public" like that. Not sure how many would.
I do not support testing all registered gun owners and keeping a "mental evaluation" database on all of them.

I don’t think ppl w/ mental illness should have a gun at all; however, talk about violating rights. Then you would essentially have a database of mentally ill ppl. Not sure if you ever met a person with paranoid schizophrenia, but it’s hard enough to get them to agree to seek treatment much less to agree to be added to a database of mentally ill ppl.

 

[LSUmiss]

I believe the right to bear arms does NOT extend to an individual owning guns, yet realize the supreme court does not agree with me.
And the constitution is not infallible - you can make amendments.
Negros were valued at 3/5 of a person for representation purposes for example.

Why has Congress prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence? What is Congress afraid of them finding?
The statistics on US gun deaths are staggering when compared to other industrial nations - murders, suicides.

I own handguns - and would gladly participate in a registry, or give them up. There are more guns in the US than people - the government is inept - do you really think they will be able to make a concentrated attempt to come get our guns? lol
We cannot fix issues yet somehow want to make mental health a priority - ok - so then what - you have mental issues? No guns?
I have a friend who has served three tours in the middle east and has PTSD - he should be NO WHERE near weapons - yet owns a ton. Who is going to say the soldier who defended us isn't allowed his protection. Not a politician. So for everyone who says better mental health is the solution - please explain how you think that would work.

These are all some great points.

 

[Colleen27]

Most of the reading I have done point to them not actually working but simply shifting what tools are used in violent crime..overall though many countries have either seen no improvement or an actual increase. Australia and UK included.

I also want to remind people that firearm ownership is a right here, rights are not to be confused with privlidges.

Shifting the tools to *less efficient means of killing*. That's an important difference. And plenty of rights in this country come with conditions - I can't hide behind free speech if I yell fire in a movie theatre or destroy someone's career with lies. I can't hide behind free assembly if I participate in a riot, or even if I'm just loitering with friends on private property. There is no reason why the right to bear arms shouldn't also be subject to restrictions aimed at upholding public safety.

Last week, it was a terrorist whose weapon of choice was a car. Plowed into a crowd of people, including school children, on a busy street in NYC. Nut job who decided to target people based on religion (i.e., his perception of their religion, or lack thereof).

Yesterday, it was a terrorist whose weapon of choice was a gun. Nut job who decided to target people based on religion.

Both were evil murderous villains who deserve to rot in hell for all eternity as far as I'm concerned.

Both of the murderers clearly planned out their crimes in advance. The NYC terrorist did practice driving runs in the truck that he rented repeatedly.

Yesterday's terrorist was a mental case. One of the biggest problems in this country is the lackluster mental health care. You can have all the laws you want, but when a really evil person is committed to doing evil acts, he or she will find a way one way or another in order to carry out his/her plan.

And look at the difference in outcome... One man planned for weeks, couldn't/didn't want to obtain guns, and killed eight. The other bought a couple of guns and wiped out an entire church congregation.

The problem with making this a mental health issue is two-fold. First, there is absolutely no evidence that this man had any sort of diagnose mental condition. "Angry ******" is not a diagnosis. Second, you can't force mental health care on someone who doesn't want it, especially if his pathology is not a diagnosable condition.

Besides, the same leaders who argue that we cannot impose restrictions on guns also say we should leave health care up to the free market. So talking about the need for mental health care is ridiculous because someone like this shooter - by most accounts, not someone who held a job for any length of time, much less a career-type position that would provide good benefits - is nothing more than a distraction.

Was he converted/radicalized or not????
From my limited info, I am not seeing that as a huge possibility?
A whole LOT of uncertain and conflicting info early on.

That theory seems to have originated with Infowars, so take it for what it is worth... that is to say, absolutely nothing.

He purchased his rifle at an Academy Sports store. Did they not run the check?
Do military court martials not show up like a civilian conviction?
I get lying on the form, but what is the point of running a check if they aren't catching the lie

I've heard a lot of discussion about that today with no definitive answer. The theory seems to be that the military court conviction may have showed up as assault rather than domestic violence, which wouldn't render him ineligible to purchase, but I have yet to hear anyone authoritative speak to that.

 

[sam_gordon]

The law uses the term reasonable all the time to define things.

Which gets determined by the courts. I think you missed my point. What you think is reasonable, *I* might not. What I think is reasonable, *you* might not. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Hikergirl]

I don’t think ppl w/ mental illness should have a gun at all; however, talk about violating rights. Then you would essentially have a database of mentally ill ppl. Not sure if you ever met a person with paranoid schizophrenia, but it’s hard enough to get them to agree to seek treatment much less to agree to be added to a database of mentally ill ppl.

Oh I know, I don't think there are any easy answers.