Active shooter now 20 plus injured in Florida school

[Ostatedchi]

All in all, the video claims that people, who are opposed to the AR-15, only feel that way because they are ignorant and think it looks scary. I would say that the video is misleading and that there is a difference. There is a reason that the overwhelming majority of modern day mass shootings are being perpetrated by the same/similar weapon.

I agree there is a reason that the majority of modern day mass shootings use that platform. It is because that's the firearm designed for a target like that.
Your statement would also be true if you said that the majority of modern day mass explosions use diesel and ammonium nitrate. It is because that's the most effective tool for the job.
It is also true to say that the majority of long range kills use a 50 caliber sniper platform. It's the tool designed for that type of environment.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I agree there is a reason that the majority of modern day mass shootings use that platform. It is because that's the firearm designed for a target like that.
Your statement would also be true if you said that the majority of modern day mass explosions use diesel and ammonium nitrate. It is because that's the most effective tool for the job.
It is also true to say that the majority of long range kills use a 50 caliber sniper platform. It's the tool designed for that type of environment.

And before you say that platform should not be available to citizens because it is the tool for the job, realize that people will just change their targets to fit the tools they have. The tool isn't the problem. Never has been.

Everything we do today is more efficient than yesterday. Faster computers, communications, knowledge transfer, everything. Why do you expect the ability to progress the art of killing to stand still too? That's just not realistic.

 

[Cowpoke]

IMO semi auto is fine for hand guns, having to manually chamber a new round after every shot while defending your house is no bueno. Semi auto on rifles is fine for hunting, but I think there needs to be a limit on clip sizes for that. No clue what size clip different types of AR's use, but it seems like we can find a balance that allows hunters to fire off a few shots in a row, but limits how many a madman can put through a crowd quickly.

We need better non lethal home defense options as well. How many families would eliminate a gun from their house if they had something that could immediately incapacitate multiple intruders far easier and more effectively that today's tasers and mace. Seems like that would reduce the number of guns available to kids, reduce accidental shootings in the household, and yet not compromise the household's safety.

I haven't read through all of this thread, but has there been any talk about holding parents or guardians responsible in these situations? In this case it sounded like the guardian knew he had an AR15, and that he was unstable, yet allowed him to keep it. Would parents be more apt to not let their troubled kids close to guns if they feared going to prison for 20 years? Didn't the sandy Hook mom also give her unstable kid his guns? Would the Columbine parents have checked their kid's rooms better etc?

 

[Been Jammin]

I agree there is a reason that the majority of modern day mass shootings use that platform. It is because that's the firearm designed for a target like that.
Your statement would also be true if you said that the majority of modern day mass explosions use diesel and ammonium nitrate. It is because that's the most effective tool for the job.
It is also true to say that the majority of long range kills use a 50 caliber sniper platform. It's the tool designed for that type of environment.

Right. But, after the OKC bombing, changes were made to make the ammonium nitrate bomb much less easier to acquire. It seems like those changes made a difference.

You have made it clear that you are opposed to new gun laws, because Constitution. I think that changes to current laws could be made to reduce the likelihood that those weapons fall into the hands of would be shooters.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Right. But, after the OKC bombing, changes were made to make the ammonium nitrate bomb much less easier to acquire. It seems like those changes made a difference.

You have made it clear that you are opposed to new gun laws, because Constitution. I think that changes to current laws could be made to reduce the likelihood that those weapons fall into the hands of would be shooters.

And people changed their targets. Nothing changed but the object of the attack. You change the tools available,you are also changing the targets. That's my point.

What target is going to be next if you enact what you want?

 

[Been Jammin]

people will just change their targets to fit the tools they have.

Cite an example please.

Let's say I am an 18 year old kid, who has no friends to speak of. I have been bullied by my peers since middle school. I decide that I am going to kill a bunch of people. I can't get an AR-15 because they can not be legally sold to someone under age 21, or they are too expensive. What do you think I am going to do next.

 

[Been Jammin]

And people changed their targets. Nothing changed but the object of the attack. You change the tools available,you are also changing the targets. That's my point.

What target is going to be next if you enact what you want?

Well, 168 people died in OKC. If your contention is that people changed their targets and chose to commit mass shootings, then none have killed that many people yet, so we have made progress.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Well, 168 people died in OKC. If your contention is that people changed their targets and chose to commit mass shootings, then none have killed that many people yet, so we have made progress.

No, they are just more frequent now.

 

[Cowpoke]

And before you say that platform should not be available to citizens because it is the tool for the job, realize that people will just change their targets to fit the tools they have. The tool isn't the problem. Never has been.

Everything we do today is more efficient than yesterday. Faster computers, communications, knowledge transfer, everything. Why do you expect the ability to progress the art of killing to stand still too? That's just not realistic.

Of course the tool is part of the problem. You just keep going down the "well bad people will always find a way so we shouldn't limit their options" path. You will never STOP bad guys from doing bad things, but you can remove their tools that make their jobs much easier. 26 men killed about 3000 civilians and started a 15 year war because they gained way too easy of access to airliners. We took steps to prevent those TOOLS from being as easy to gain by them and now it would be much, much more difficult for that scenario to happen again. Should we have not stepped up airport security since terrorist also have access to trucks and bombs?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Cite an example please.

Let's say I am an 18 year old kid, who has no friends to speak of. I have been bullied by my peers since middle school. I decide that I am going to kill a bunch of people. I can't get an AR-15 because they can not be legally sold to someone under age 21, or they are too expensive. What do you think I am going to do next.

Ummm, get a 'high powered hunting rifle' and shoot a football stands from a distance.
Get a pressure cooker and put it under the bleachers at a basketball game.
Chain the door to a bus closed and throw a Molotov cocktail in a window.
Drive your pickup through the quad and mow down everyone.
Put antifreeze in people's drinks.
Whatever the hell else they can think of to enact their revenge.

You change the tools, you change the vector of attack.

I'm a security analyst. Part of my job is to think like a bad guy and try to understand the consequences of the mitigating controls I put in place. Sometimes it would be safer for me to require something that I choose not to because I can foresee the ramifications that would be worse. Sometimes, doing nothing is the most difficult decision to defend.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Of course the tool is part of the problem. You just keep going down the "well bad people will always find a way so we shouldn't limit their options" path. You will never STOP bad guys from doing bad things, but you can remove their tools that make their jobs much easier. 26 men killed about 3000 civilians and started a 15 year war because they gained way too easy of access to airliners. We took steps to prevent those TOOLS from being as easy to gain by them and now it would be much, much more difficult for that scenario to happen again. Should we have not stepped up airport security since terrorist also have access to trucks and bombs?

I don't disagree with you at all. You run into a problem when your solutions collide with the constitution. I don't have a constitutionally protected right to fly. So you can pass laws that abridge my ability to fly.

I'm okay with narrowing some options. Some are inviolate.

 

[Been Jammin]

I don't disagree with you at all. You run into a problem when your solutions collide with the constitution. I don't have a constitutionally protected right to fly. So you can pass laws that abridge my ability to fly.

I'm okay with narrowing some options. Some are inviolate.

How would you feel about...

1). Minimum age to purchase "assault weapons" 21

2). $500, one time tax on said weapons (thus making it less likely for them to be purchased by someone who just wanted a "big" gun). Anyone who wants one can still have one, just like anyone who wants a car can have one. Some people just need to save up their money until they can afford one.

Personally, I would be pretty happy with those two changes, along with better screening and enforcement of laws already in place. I think it would make a difference, but admit that I might be proven wrong.

 

[Ostatedchi]

"Been Jammin, post: How would you feel about...

1). Minimum age to purchase "assault weapons" 21
Ummmm, not a fan. If you are an adult,you have rights. I'd be okay with that if we redefined being an adult as 21. So in conjunction with not buying an assault weapon (your term) you can't vote either.

2). $500, one time tax on said weapons (thus making it less likely for them to be purchased by someone who just wanted a "big" gun). Anyone who wants one can still have one, just like anyone who wants a car can have one. Some people just need to save up their money until they can afford one.
Again not a fan. I'm generally against regressive taxation. This is horribly regressive. I'd think as a progressive liberal,you too would be against regressive taxation.

Personally, I would be pretty happy with those two changes, along with better screening and enforcement of laws already in place. I think it would make a difference, but admit that I might be proven wrong.
I don't think either of those would really do much at all to curb mass casualty events. My followup question would be that after those were enacted and were shown to be ineffective, what class of firearm would you go after next?

 

[Been Jammin]

"Been Jammin, post: How would you feel about...

1). Minimum age to purchase "assault weapons" 21
Ummmm, not a fan. If you are an adult,you have rights. I'd be okay with that if we redefined being an adult as 21. So in conjunction with not buying an assault weapon (your term) you can't vote either.

2). $500, one time tax on said weapons (thus making it less likely for them to be purchased by someone who just wanted a "big" gun). Anyone who wants one can still have one, just like anyone who wants a car can have one. Some people just need to save up their money until they can afford one.
Again not a fan. I'm generally against regressive taxation. This is horribly regressive. I'd think as a progressive liberal,you too would be against regressive taxation.

Personally, I would be pretty happy with those two changes, along with better screening and enforcement of laws already in place. I think it would make a difference, but admit that I might be proven wrong.
I don't think either of those would really do much at all to curb mass casualty events. My followup question would be that after those were enacted and were shown to be ineffective, what class of firearm would you go after next?

You have to be 21 to legally purchase alcohol. I don't see a difference.

As to your last question...I don't know the answer. My answer might very well be, "We tried limitations to the AR-15 and it proved to be ineffective. Not much point in continuing down this road. Need to find other solutions".

 

[Ostatedchi]

You have to be 21 to legally purchase alcohol. I don't see a difference.

As to your last question...I don't know the answer. My answer might very well be, "We tried limitations to the AR-15 and it proved to be ineffective. Not much point in continuing down this road. Need to find other solutions".

Did I misread your reply to say that you would be okay with upping the voting age to 21 to coincide with drinking and purchasing a firearm?

 

[Been Jammin]

Did I misread your reply to say that you would be okay with upping the voting age to 21 to coincide with drinking and purchasing a firearm?

So, you are OK with the legal drinking age being 21, but not the age to purchase an AR-15 (or similar weapon), unless the voting age is also upped to 21? That doesn't make sense to me.

In my scenario, you would still be OK to purchase handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns at 18.

 

[Ostatedchi]

So, you are OK with the legal drinking age being 21, but not the age to purchase an AR-15 (or similar weapon), unless the voting age is also upped to 21? That doesn't make sense to me.

In my scenario, you would still be OK to purchase handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns at 18.

I'm saying if you are an adult in the eyes of the law then you are afforded your constitutional rights. If you get to vote, then you get to purchase firearms - including an AR-15. Either you are an adult or you aren't.

Drinking age is a state law. There is a federal law that says if a state chooses to have a drinking age below 21 that they lose 10% of their federal highway funds. But the states still decide. And... drinking isn't a constitutionally protected right.

 

[Been Jammin]

I'm saying if you are an adult in the eyes of the law then you are afforded your constitutional rights. If you get to vote, then you get to purchase firearms - including an AR-15. Either you are an adult or you aren't.

Drinking age is a state law. There is a federal law that says if a state chooses to have a drinking age below 21 that they lose 10% of their federal highway funds. But the states still decide. And... drinking isn't a constitutionally protected right.

Does the Constitution differentiate between adults/non-adults being allowed to vote/bear arms specifically? Does it specify 18 as the age of adulthood?

 

[Ostatedchi]

That's a good question. I'd defer to legal scholars for the Supreme Court precedents to answer that one.

 

[Been Jammin]

That's a good question. .

 

[Ostatedchi]

 

[okiemudman54]

Does the Constitution differentiate between adults/non-adults being allowed to vote/bear arms specifically? Does it specify 18 as the age of adulthood?

The 26th amendment gave the right to vote to 18 year olds and they had been sent to war long before that was passed so I think adulthood is fairly well defined in the constitution!

 

[okiemudman54]

The 26th amendment gave the right to vote to 18 year olds and they had been sent to war long before that was passed so I think adulthood is fairly well defined in the constitution!

 

[Been Jammin]

The 26th amendment gave the right to vote to 18 year olds and they had been sent to war long before that was passed so I think adulthood is fairly well defined in the constitution!

OK.

So, does the constitution clearly state that the right to bear arms applies only to adults? Because, if not, then we are already applying an arbitrary rule by not allowing people under 18 to purchase them. There is no reason that the arbitrary line can't be moved, IMO.

 

[Pancreek1]

So, you are OK with the legal drinking age being 21, but not the age to purchase an AR-15 (or similar weapon), unless the voting age is also upped to 21? That doesn't make sense to me.

In my scenario, you would still be OK to purchase handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns at 18.

I will weigh in here.

First, If you change to 21, then you MUST change the military age to 21. You can't ask 18 year old boys to go fight and die for our country with the exact same weapon you also tell them they are not allowed to own because they aren't mature enough to be using that weapon (I guess unless the dead person is determined to be a bad foreign enemy guy...in which case I guess an 18 year old military boy/man not being allowed to kill a school shooter in progress is ok with you because of age). I feel the same way about alcohol. A kid can get blown up by an IED but not buy a beer? History has treated 18 year olds as adults for centuries. Yet, you want to hold them to a different standard? Once again, it is not the 18 year old boy.......it is the upbringing and parenting and expectations and accountability and discipline of that boy. People need to figure out a way to fix societal problems leading to these deranged SOB's and stop trying to legislate everything with a simple law change. Mexico eliminated personal ownership of firearms (OF ANY KIND). They confiscated any and all of them. Today, corruption is rampant from the President of the country all the way down to every mayor and every city counsel. They ALL are on the take from the drug cartels because it is either that or be killed (with the same weapons we are discussing here)......and the only people who have weapons are the drug lords, who now run the country. If you think that is far fetched and can't happen I believe there is a lot of misguidance of reality.

Second, let's get all age and ID verification equal across ALL aspects of society, and then I would agree with you. If you have to show US "Federal" Gov't "approved" ID (a new concept that Okla is yet to comply with) to buy beer, get on an airplane, get a driver's license, cash a check, check into a hotel, use a credit card (the list is actually almost endless), then you should also have to show the very same thing to vote. If anyone gets caught defrauding the US Gov't approved ID system should be deported immediately if not a US citizen and if they are, it should be a felony. THEN, I say do your background checks and waiting period......go for it.

Third, let's look at Israel, where their enemies have tried to target schools since the 60's. No school child deaths in that period. Why? The schools are heavily guarded.....AND.....in order to be in school admin (teachers AND admin), you have to be fully trained and qualified in defending the students with semi-automatic weapons. And guess what? There have been several instances where attempts were made by Palestinians on school children and they were blown away by the teachers before one single child got a scratch on them. Again, after 9-11 we changed society about "access" to airports, gov't buildings etc.....but not schools after multiple mass murders at schools. I would ask why? It's because the left would rather have a straw-man (boogie man) to argue their anti gun lobby than to ACTUALLY fix the problem. If Israel had taken this approach there would be a whole lotta dead jewish children

 

[Rulz]

I will weigh in here.

First, If you change to 21, then you MUST change the military age to 21. You can't ask 18 year old boys to go fight and die for our country with the exact same weapon you also tell them they are not allowed to own because they aren't mature enough to be using that weapon (I guess unless the dead person is determined to be a bad foreign enemy guy...in which case I guess an 18 year old military boy/man not being allowed to kill a school shooter in progress is ok with you because of age). I feel the same way about alcohol. A kid can get blown up by an IED but not buy a beer? History has treated 18 year olds as adults for centuries. Yet, you want to hold them to a different standard? Once again, it is not the 18 year old boy.......it is the upbringing and parenting and expectations and accountability and discipline of that boy. People need to figure out a way to fix societal problems leading to these deranged SOB's and stop trying to legislate everything with a simple law change. Mexico eliminated personal ownership of firearms (OF ANY KIND). They confiscated any and all of them. Today, corruption is rampant from the President of the country all the way down to every mayor and every city counsel. They ALL are on the take from the drug cartels because it is either that or be killed (with the same weapons we are discussing here)......and the only people who have weapons are the drug lords, who now run the country. If you think that is far fetched and can't happen I believe there is a lot of misguidance of reality.

Second, let's get all age and ID verification equal across ALL aspects of society, and then I would agree with you. If you have to show US "Federal" Gov't "approved" ID (a new concept that Okla is yet to comply with) to buy beer, get on an airplane, get a driver's license, cash a check, check into a hotel, use a credit card (the list is actually almost endless), then you should also have to show the very same thing to vote. If anyone gets caught defrauding the US Gov't approved ID system should be deported immediately if not a US citizen and if they are, it should be a felony. THEN, I say do your background checks and waiting period......go for it.

Third, let's look at Israel, where their enemies have tried to target schools since the 60's. No school child deaths in that period. Why? The schools are heavily guarded.....AND.....in order to be in school admin (teachers AND admin), you have to be fully trained and qualified in defending the students with semi-automatic weapons. And guess what? There have been several instances where attempts were made by Palestinians on school children and they were blown away by the teachers before one single child got a scratch on them. Again, after 9-11 we changed society about "access" to airports, gov't buildings etc.....but not schools after multiple mass murders at schools. I would ask why? It's because the left would rather have a straw-man (boogie man) to argue their anti gun lobby than to ACTUALLY fix the problem. If Israel had taken this approach there would be a whole lotta dead jewish children

Well said.

 

[Been Jammin]

First, If you change to 21, then you MUST change the military age to 21. You can't ask 18 year old boys to go fight and die for our country with the exact same weapon you also tell them they are not allowed to own because they aren't mature enough to be using that weapon.

Disagree. We already ask 18 year old boys to go fight and die using hand grenades, which they are not mature/responsible enough to own and carry around with them as citizens.

It is all arbitrary, and can be rationalized to support anyone's argument. I can say that 18 year old citizens are not mature enough to handle an assault weapon legally, but that an 18 year old soldier receives military training so that he/she knows how to safely/properly handle said weapon at an earlier age.

 

[Been Jammin]

Third, let's look at Israel, where their enemies have tried to target schools since the 60's. No school child deaths in that period. Why? The schools are heavily guarded.....AND.....in order to be in school admin (teachers AND admin), you have to be fully trained and qualified in defending the students with semi-automatic weapons. And guess what? There have been several instances where attempts were made by Palestinians on school children and they were blown away by the teachers before one single child got a scratch on them.

Where are you getting this information? Some NRA propaganda site?

First of all, as far as I can tell, there have been no terrorist attempts on Israeli schools in decades.

Secondly, Israel is a completely different animal from the U.S. Every 18 year old is required to spend a minimum of 2 years in the Israeli army, and is trained to safely/effectively handle weapons.

I have been to Israel, and there are armed soldiers everywhere you go. Riding a public bus....soldiers riding next to you with handguns on their waist and an assault weapon leaning against their leg. Same thing while sitting in a movie theater.

Security at airports, and on the border, is intense. Terrorists are rarely able to sneak in with weapons. If they are able to, and decide to target a school, all of the teachers are current/ex-military, and are far from soft targets.

You are comparing apples to bowling balls in an attempt to put forth you pro-NRA argument.

 

[Pancreek1]

Im not a member of NRA. Never have been and never will be. The information I posted is readily available and not from the NRA. And you are making my argument for me. This should be about protecting the schools AND I fully agree with 2 years of mandatory service for every single US citizen that turns 18. You call it apples to bowling balls. I call it common sense and not only doable, but SHOULD be done.

 

[Ostatedchi]

BJ, I sit next to an immigrant coworker. Originally he was from Croatia but had to escape from the war. He went to Germany and eventually to America and is now an American citizen. He was conscripted into the army and eventually to help in the refugee camps.

His stories about how the government confiscated guns in his country and then proceeded with ethnic cleansing are chilling. They are a case study in why the American citizen's right to own firearms that are in fact 'weapons of war' are required as a safeguard to our freedoms. It isn't just a cliche that without the 2nd amendment, we wouldn't have the first. They are there to prevent just that story from happening over here. And I'll never buy the argument that 'it could never happen here'. It can.

 

[LouKY Poke]

I will weigh in here.

First, If you change to 21, then you MUST change the military age to 21. You can't ask 18 year old boys to go fight and die for our country with the exact same weapon you also tell them they are not allowed to own because they aren't mature enough to be using that weapon (I guess unless the dead person is determined to be a bad foreign enemy guy...in which case I guess an 18 year old military boy/man not being allowed to kill a school shooter in progress is ok with you because of age). I feel the same way about alcohol. A kid can get blown up by an IED but not buy a beer? History has treated 18 year olds as adults for centuries. Yet, you want to hold them to a different standard? Once again, it is not the 18 year old boy.......it is the upbringing and parenting and expectations and accountability and discipline of that boy. People need to figure out a way to fix societal problems leading to these deranged SOB's and stop trying to legislate everything with a simple law change. Mexico eliminated personal ownership of firearms (OF ANY KIND). They confiscated any and all of them. Today, corruption is rampant from the President of the country all the way down to every mayor and every city counsel. They ALL are on the take from the drug cartels because it is either that or be killed (with the same weapons we are discussing here)......and the only people who have weapons are the drug lords, who now run the country. If you think that is far fetched and can't happen I believe there is a lot of misguidance of reality.

Second, let's get all age and ID verification equal across ALL aspects of society, and then I would agree with you. If you have to show US "Federal" Gov't "approved" ID (a new concept that Okla is yet to comply with) to buy beer, get on an airplane, get a driver's license, cash a check, check into a hotel, use a credit card (the list is actually almost endless), then you should also have to show the very same thing to vote. If anyone gets caught defrauding the US Gov't approved ID system should be deported immediately if not a US citizen and if they are, it should be a felony. THEN, I say do your background checks and waiting period......go for it.

Third, let's look at Israel, where their enemies have tried to target schools since the 60's. No school child deaths in that period. Why? The schools are heavily guarded.....AND.....in order to be in school admin (teachers AND admin), you have to be fully trained and qualified in defending the students with semi-automatic weapons. And guess what? There have been several instances where attempts were made by Palestinians on school children and they were blown away by the teachers before one single child got a scratch on them. Again, after 9-11 we changed society about "access" to airports, gov't buildings etc.....but not schools after multiple mass murders at schools. I would ask why? It's because the left would rather have a straw-man (boogie man) to argue their anti gun lobby than to ACTUALLY fix the problem. If Israel had taken this approach there would be a whole lotta dead jewish children

Absolutely not true that teachers and admins in Israel are armed in the classrooms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.e9732795dc5e

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx

 

[Been Jammin]

The information I posted is readily available

Show me.

 

[Been Jammin]

Absolutely not true that teachers and admins in Israel are armed in the classrooms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.e9732795dc5e

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx

@Pancreek1

Looks like @LouKY Poke pretty much blew your entire argument out of the water by doing some actual research into the topic. If you want the U.S. to be more like Israel, you must be in favor much stricter gun control laws, including a minimum age of 27, and a significant reduction in the number of armed civilians and the number of guns each of them can legally possess.

 

[Pancreek1]

Funny. It says 27 unless you served in military and in that case you are automatically licensed and leave with your gun.

Since military service is mandatory, everyone (95%) has a gun. The other 5% have to wait until 27.

The schools are heavily guarded. And don't say its because of terrorism. School shooters are terrorists, so not guarding schools is our own fault. You still haven't answered the post above about what changed post 9/11 re protecting airports and federal buildings. Why is that necessary but not for our school children. It seems you'd rather win the gun control argument than protect the kids.

 

[tlwwake]

@Pancreek1

Looks like @LouKY Poke pretty much blew your entire argument out of the water by doing some actual research into the topic. If you want the U.S. to be more like Israel, you must be in favor much stricter gun control laws, including a minimum age of 27, and a significant reduction in the number of armed civilians and the number of guns each of them can legally possess.

What would say about 25? Lots of scientific research says our brains (maybe it's just males? not sure) aren't fully developed until 25 so that makes sense right?

I don't even try to pretend to know a lot about guns. But, I haven't heard much discussion (CNN, Fox, etc) about extending wait periods. What about a 2-week wait? I think that makes a lot of sense, too. Just wanted some feedback on either

Just my opinion... I think extending wait periods significantly would be the best compromise.

 

[Pancreek1]

I think most people, including avid gun owners and collectors, would agree to a 2 week waiting period and aggressive vetting/background checking. But whatever age you set, you better be prepared to not accept military service before that age.

 

[tlwwake]

I think most people, including avid gun owners and collectors, would agree to a 2 week waiting period and aggressive vetting/background checking. But whatever age you set, you better be prepared to not accept military service before that age.

Oh yes! I think raising age could be counterproductive in some regards unless you allow an exception for military members. Wait periods should happen. Like i said, I think most would see this as a fair compromise

 

[Been Jammin]

Funny. It says 27 unless you served in military and in that case you are automatically licensed and leave with your gun.

Since military service is mandatory, everyone (95%) has a gun. The other 5% have to wait until 27.

That is absolutely not what it says. As a matter of fact, that is the opposite of what the article says.

If you are a citizen with no military experience, you have to wait until 27.

Soldiers on active duty (age 18-21) are armed.

If you leave the military at age 21, but are not yet 27, you are eligible to apply for a license to carry a firearm.

But....
According to data from Israel’s Ministry of Internal Security, which registers all gun owners, about 260,000 Israelis, or about 3.5 percent of the population, have permits to carry firearms. Half of the permit holders are private citizens, and the others work for security firms.

You don't get to keep your gun when you leave military service. Trust me.

 

[Been Jammin]

You still haven't answered the post above about what changed post 9/11 re protecting airports and federal buildings. Why is that necessary but not for our school children. It seems you'd rather win the gun control argument than protect the kids.

I don't see stricter gun control and better school security as mutually exclusive. It is not one or the other. At least not to me. We can do both.

Of course, we just saw what happened in Parkland. The one armed guy, who was assigned to the school, to protect the kids, hid outside instead of going in to confront Cruz. Why do you think that happened? I can't read minds, but one possibility is that he knows the sound of an AR-15, and was thinking, "I'm not going to take on one (or more) shooters who have assault weapons when I only have this handgun to fight with."

So, what is the solution to that issue? Arm the guards with AR-15's so that they think they are in for a fair fight? Why not make AR-15s more difficult to acquire, so that an armed officer is more likely to be able to make a difference.?

We can still add waiting periods, better background checks, limited number of entrances to a campus, metal detectors, armed guards at the entrance, etc. There are all kinds of ways to reduce the odds of this happening again.

 

[LouKY Poke]

That is absolutely not what it says. As a matter of fact, that is the opposite of what the article says.

If you are a citizen with no military experience, you have to wait until 27.

Soldiers on active duty (age 18-21) are armed.

If you leave the military at age 21, but are not yet 27, you are eligible to apply for a license to carry a firearm.

But....
According to data from Israel’s Ministry of Internal Security, which registers all gun owners, about 260,000 Israelis, or about 3.5 percent of the population, have permits to carry firearms. Half of the permit holders are private citizens, and the others work for security firms.

You don't get to keep your gun when you leave military service. Trust me.

Also, ALL Jews serve in the military there, men and women. That's roughly 75% of the population.