135 replies to this topic

[DeathMerchant]

Rand0m her0, you need to take a deep breath and tone it down a notch.

 

Parts of the IRON Forum are now Publicly Viewable.

 

If you can't act civil I'm going to start censoring out sexually offensive sections of your posts.

 

Consider this your only warning.

[Lysistrata]

This issue, in our over politicized time, will aggravate raw nerves, and incite uncomfortable responses. I didn't start this thread because I saw it coming from miles away. I knew where it would end up.

 

If we didn't have the safety of anonymity, I do believe more respect would be shown. I always try to talk here, the same as I would talk at a table with friends... I would like the same courtesy, even if it gets a little hot. I am unharmed. I know Foxy pretty good from our years on these pages, and I know she can hold her own in any environment. In my opinion, things have not reached the point of moderation threats, so I will appeal on behalf of Random Hero... everything's cool DM. Thank you my friend.

[DeathMerchant]

I know trash talk was bound to happen, and that is acceptable to an extent.

 

We've always tried to keep the forums PG-13 but since Samus publicly opened up parts of the Forum, there has to be a line between what we consider appropriate for public viewing, especially when taking into account younger users.

 

My theory has always been this, if it gets personal then take it through Private Messages.

[Lysistrata]

My theory has always been this, if it gets personal then take it through Private Messages.

I see your point... I will adjust my own language accordingly

[Fox Fire]

Oh just shut the hell up. A SRO is not  in way trained or equipped to deal with an active shooter. Dude would have had a cotton shirt and a side arm. Jumping in with an unknown number of shooters, in unknown locations, with zero back up in a crowded and chaotic environment would have more likely than not resulted him getting killed and the next responding officer conga-lining in after him with no knowledge of the situation. An officers job isn't to be fucking dirty harry, no PD worth a damn expects an officer to run in like that, and there is a massive stack of court precedent that boils down to "no, this is not in anyway shape or form something that can be required".

 

JFC could you two be bigger pricks?

That's literally part of his job. Why do you think he has a gun?

Not only is he the only other person with a gun, he has training with that gun. Not only is his job to protect civilian lives, but anyone who refuses to do anything to save lives when they know they can do something is a coward. If he didn't want to risk his life he should have chose a different job. 

I don't think I'm being a prick. I think I'm being perfectly reasonable. 

 

 

 

 

An officers job isn't to be fucking dirty harry

In this situation he had a choice. Try to save lives and come out a hero, or wait for back up and resign. He waited for back up and resigned. Anyone who would attack a school with an AR-15 and kill 14 kids and 3 teachers is a shit stained coward. This "Deputy" was bested by a 19 year old shit stained coward. He had the training, and a responsibility to take action. Even the Sheriff said he "should have went in, addressed the killer, and kill the killer". He had to resign, because no one would ever respect him.

 

 

could you two be bigger pricks?

We've not even begun to get large.

 

 

 

The sheriff is a fuckhead who's  PD's response pissed over fucking everything in a dozen different ways and is going out of his way to deflect blame.

 

If you think a School resources officer, who's main job is to hrumph at teenagers and make noises about how serious fighting in the halls is, is in anyway equipped or trained to deal with that shit your absolutely delusional. At best he took a three day course at some point in the past 20 years. Maybe. While some PDs give the responding officer the ability to conduct a solo entry if they feel it should be done, fucking no on requires it. And the ones that allow it mostly do so because they're small PDs in the middle of bugfuck nowhere and it might be half an hour before backup gets there. Set up a perimeter, gather and relay information, wait for other responding officers to arrive so you can get together a contact team for entry is exactly what should be done, and is exactly what he did.

 

Something like 1/3 of all officers who do a solo entry into an active event like this end up shot. Half of the time, they fail to accomplish anything. 25% of the time the shooter  commits suicide. If you're to lazy to do the math, that means in the average case with a persistent shooter who doens't off themselves, it's a coin filp on if they get shot or accomplish something. Except in the average case the shooter is armed with a pistol, not a rifle, which kinda tilts the odds more.

 

Seriously, the fact you're sitting here wanking yourself off over this is just fucking vile.

 

A coin toss is better than standing there with your dick in your hand while innocent children are being slaughtered. Who cares if the shooter offs himself? That would just solve the problem. If I was the only other person with a gun in that situation there is no way I in hell I wouldn't take advantage of that to save people. I couldn't possibly sit around and let children be gunned down. I would never forgive myself. I would rather die trying to save lives than live knowing I could have and didn't. Especially if there is a literal social responsibility on me to do so. 

You can call that vile. I think his inaction is vile. 

You can think I'm asking too much of a police officer, but many other police officers have done much braver things because they know that in some situations, you can't just sit around waiting for backup. A few seconds is a long time when people are getting shot at. 

 

(EDIT: That being said, we can agree to disagree. I don't think any less of anyone for their opinions here. I   all you guys. Me and Lys have had some pretty heated debates with insults n all. But it's nothing personal. Just a heated exchange. There have certainly been worse things spoken here).

[ccabal86]

I completely agree with FoxFire. This is akin to a fireman standing in front of a burning building with children in it, and refusing to enter because it's generally ill-advised to attempt rescues alone. There are certain expectations that come with the job, that nobody is forced to take BTW. If that is unacceptable for him, he should have become an accountant.

[Rand0m her0]

I completely agree with FoxFire. This is akin to a fireman standing in front of a burning building with children in it, and refusing to enter because it's generally ill-advised to attempt rescues alone. There are certain expectations that come with the job, that nobody is forced to take BTW. If that is unacceptable for him, he should have become an accountant.

You can agree, but it doesn't make you not wrong. While im disinclined to say so entries should never be done, there is a reason many PDs explicitly forbid it as a option in cases. I'm not spouting hypotheticals, thisbis a well studied topic. Whay he did is litteraly what cops are trained to do in many places. The places that do train for solo entry, and not many provide adequate training( seriously three day course with minimal training) o, do so because the nearest backup maybe 30 minutes away. Even then it's not considered a good option. And usually the officers have better equipment avallibe than a service pistol and a blue shirt. 30% chance of being shot per a 200 to 2010 study. 46% of being a casualty per the FBI. And that's all active scene solo entries, which wiill include a large number of best case scenario for a solo entry Wich this most definitely was not. That sort of danger is never what someone is expected to confront. Those who chose to do so tend to end up heavily commended for courage and action far above any call of duty. Often posthumously.

This is no more what a police officer is expected to do than it is for your hypothetical fire fighter to run into that building with a fire extinguisher and some safety squints for protection. JFC the military wouldnt expect that out of a solider, explicitly trained to deal with that kind of shit. You think it's something to be routinly expected of a glorified hall moniter old enough to be a grandfather?

Calling the dude a coward is a vile and crass attempt to foist the blame for this onto him; for doing exactly what s expected of police officers all around the country. Its an attempt to make what happened his fault and pretend that it only happened because of him. It is absolutely disgusting.

[Lysistrata]

You can agree, but it doesn't make you not wrong. While im disinclined to say so entries should never be done, there is a reason many PDs explicitly forbid it as a option in cases. I'm not spouting hypotheticals, thisbis a well studied topic. Whay he did is litteraly what cops are trained to do in many places. The places that do train for solo entry, and not many provide adequate training( seriously three day course with minimal training) o, do so because the nearest backup maybe 30 minutes away. Even then it's not considered a good option. And usually the officers have better equipment avallibe than a service pistol and a blue shirt. 30% chance of being shot per a 200 to 2010 study. 46% of being a casualty per the FBI. And that's all active scene solo entries, which wiill include a large number of best case scenario for a solo entry Wich this most definitely was not. That sort of danger is never what someone is expected to confront. Those who chose to do so tend to end up heavily commended for courage and action far above any call of duty. Often posthumously. This is no more what a police officer is expected to do than it is for your hypothetical fire fighter to run into that building with a fire extinguisher and some safety squints for protection. JFC the military wouldnt expect that out of a solider, explicitly trained to deal with that kind of shit. You think it's something to be routinly expected of a glorified hall moniter old enough to be a grandfather? Calling the dude a coward is a vile and crass attempt to foist the blame for this onto him; for doing exactly what s expected of police officers all around the country. Its an attempt to make what happened his fault and pretend that it only happened because of him. It is absolutely disgusting.

I think this is what Scot Peterson was saying as they were escorting him out of the department. I think he was rambling this to the cops that were sent to protect him from angry families. Maybe he will include this in his resume for his next career. Nobody cares... and no one is listening to the excuses.

[iSocialism]

I would actually like to see the links for stats about the armed officers getting shot and killed after entering on an active US school shooting.

[Fox Fire]

 

I completely agree with FoxFire. This is akin to a fireman standing in front of a burning building with children in it, and refusing to enter because it's generally ill-advised to attempt rescues alone. There are certain expectations that come with the job, that nobody is forced to take BTW. If that is unacceptable for him, he should have become an accountant.

You can agree, but it doesn't make you not wrong. While im disinclined to say so entries should never be done, there is a reason many PDs explicitly forbid it as a option in cases. I'm not spouting hypotheticals, thisbis a well studied topic. Whay he did is litteraly what cops are trained to do in many places. The places that do train for solo entry, and not many provide adequate training( seriously three day course with minimal training) o, do so because the nearest backup maybe 30 minutes away. Even then it's not considered a good option. And usually the officers have better equipment avallibe than a service pistol and a blue shirt. 30% chance of being shot per a 200 to 2010 study. 46% of being a casualty per the FBI. And that's all active scene solo entries, which wiill include a large number of best case scenario for a solo entry Wich this most definitely was not. That sort of danger is never what someone is expected to confront. Those who chose to do so tend to end up heavily commended for courage and action far above any call of duty. Often posthumously.

This is no more what a police officer is expected to do than it is for your hypothetical fire fighter to run into that building with a fire extinguisher and some safety squints for protection. JFC the military wouldnt expect that out of a solider, explicitly trained to deal with that kind of shit. You think it's something to be routinly expected of a glorified hall moniter old enough to be a grandfather?

Calling the dude a coward is a vile and crass attempt to foist the blame for this onto him; for doing exactly what s expected of police officers all around the country. Its an attempt to make what happened his fault and pretend that it only happened because of him. It is absolutely disgusting.

 

Because the officers life is more important than those of our kids....

You say this isn't what's expected of a police officer except even the local sheriff agrees with me here, as does the superintendent and the students. The school staff decided to sacrifice their lives to protect students, but not the officer. Is that expected of them? No, it's not. But they weren't cowards. He should have gone in and confronted the killer. 

Armed officers are in schools for this exact reason. They don't carry guns to break up fights in the hallway. They carry guns to protect students from psychos with guns. 

[ccabal86]

Yeah, in the end it all goes down to a moral choice. I very much agree that the odds are pretty bad, and solo entries are far from an ideal situation. But there is a shooter in there and more children die every minute, and a choice has to be made. Take those bad odds and maybe save a few lives, or leave them to their fate. I don't know what I would do, but then again I don't carry a gun and I never considered a career in law enforcement where the ultimate goal is to protect & serve the citizens.

[Rand0m her0]

I would actually like to see the links for stats about the armed officers getting shot and killed after entering on an active US school shooting.

 

A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013 is the FBI study. I'll have to hunt for the others, but that's also the more recent one i know of.

 

 

 

I completely agree with FoxFire. This is akin to a fireman standing in front of a burning building with children in it, and refusing to enter because it's generally ill-advised to attempt rescues alone. There are certain expectations that come with the job, that nobody is forced to take BTW. If that is unacceptable for him, he should have become an accountant.

You can agree, but it doesn't make you not wrong. While im disinclined to say so entries should never be done, there is a reason many PDs explicitly forbid it as a option in cases. I'm not spouting hypotheticals, thisbis a well studied topic. Whay he did is litteraly what cops are trained to do in many places. The places that do train for solo entry, and not many provide adequate training( seriously three day course with minimal training) o, do so because the nearest backup maybe 30 minutes away. Even then it's not considered a good option. And usually the officers have better equipment avallibe than a service pistol and a blue shirt. 30% chance of being shot per a 200 to 2010 study. 46% of being a casualty per the FBI. And that's all active scene solo entries, which wiill include a large number of best case scenario for a solo entry Wich this most definitely was not. That sort of danger is never what someone is expected to confront. Those who chose to do so tend to end up heavily commended for courage and action far above any call of duty. Often posthumously.

This is no more what a police officer is expected to do than it is for your hypothetical fire fighter to run into that building with a fire extinguisher and some safety squints for protection. JFC the military wouldnt expect that out of a solider, explicitly trained to deal with that kind of shit. You think it's something to be routinly expected of a glorified hall moniter old enough to be a grandfather?

Calling the dude a coward is a vile and crass attempt to foist the blame for this onto him; for doing exactly what s expected of police officers all around the country. Its an attempt to make what happened his fault and pretend that it only happened because of him. It is absolutely disgusting.

 

Because the officers life is more important than those of our kids....

You say this isn't what's expected of a police officer except even the local sheriff agrees with me here, as does the superintendent and the students. The school staff decided to sacrifice their lives to protect students, but not the officer. Is that expected of them? No, it's not. But they weren't cowards. He should have gone in and confronted the killer. 

Armed officers are in schools for this exact reason. They don't carry guns to break up fights in the hallway. They carry guns to protect students from psychos with guns. 

 

 

You say this isn't what's expected of a police officer except even the local sheriff agrees with me here, as does the superintendent and the students. 

 

Really, the students?  gonna need to source that. The students and their families and the teachers  have criticized the shit out of the PD for utterly failing to respond or take action on the initial information *before* the shooting. But on this guy? Very few people have said anything about him. well know, there is this:

 

“There is no one that is going to tell you a negative thing about Deputy Peterson, He was an Eagle, and he was committed to our school. I don’t know what he could have done other than literally died.”

 

Feel free to google the quote yourself and pick a source you like. 

 

People who are criticizing him? Media talking heads with an axe to grind, folks like the sheriff playing a game of CYA, politicians with an axe to grind...

 

 

Hey on the topic of criticism, know who aren't being lambasted in the media? The other three officers who showed up....and did exactly the same thing. 

 

 

What you want and seem to expect is for a random sheriff's deputy to have IARD training or something equivalent. Which can be done. but  IARD requires that the officers be equipped in a way that makes them effective (ie, rifle or carbine and body armor), it requires continual training (which PDs rarely provide), and requires a massive overhaul of fire arms training and practice from the usual PD standards (Shot accountability is a BFD when shooting in a crowded environment). 

 

 

four officers from the BSO, none of them equipped with ballistic protection or a patrol rifle, none of whom enter the building. Oh and this is after two other officers completely fail to take any worthwhile action despite more than enough information and credible reason to do so.  Do ya really think that's reflective of a PD that trains and equips for that? If that's the standard you wana have? Fine. But you are in for one hell of a surprise if you think the shit show that is the average PD manages to do that effectively right now. Three day course, max,; often two days with only one day of physical training, not continuing training, no performance standards  and they maybe get a refresher every 5 years. Many don't do it. other's might want to do it, but don't get the funding. and a few get the funding and then quietly misappropriate the cash . 

 

 

If you think broward county does it in the light if a half dozen different officers failing to take appropriate action by that standard...I've a bit of waterfront property in Brooklyn to sell ya, real easy to get to Manhattan from there. There's a reason Scott Isreal is being so very shocked and appalled at everything. 

 

 

Oh as for the superintendent: yea this was made worse by the utter shitshow that was the school distircts active shooter response training. It was not only not proper by all indications, but was flawed sufficiently that the bastard actually exploited it in order to kill more people. Dude's looking to spread the manure around cause he's gonna have a lot of it dumped on him soon.  

[Lysistrata]

Right decision, wise decision, moral decision, wrong decision, by the book decision... it doesn't matter.

 

In reality he had two decisions... to go in and try to make a difference, or not go in because it's too dangerous for himself. Both decisions are what they are... and the decision he made has the effect we have.

 

 To me, it's the teachers that died probably trying to save the kids, and the kids that died they couldn't save, and the kids that got away that are now asking why no one would come to help them, and the parents that would have given anything to have the opportunity to take his gun and go in there themselves. That's what it's all about.

[Fox Fire]

 

I would actually like to see the links for stats about the armed officers getting shot and killed after entering on an active US school shooting.

 

A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013 is the FBI study. I'll have to hunt for the others, but that's also the more recent one i know of.

 

 

 

I completely agree with FoxFire. This is akin to a fireman standing in front of a burning building with children in it, and refusing to enter because it's generally ill-advised to attempt rescues alone. There are certain expectations that come with the job, that nobody is forced to take BTW. If that is unacceptable for him, he should have become an accountant.

You can agree, but it doesn't make you not wrong. While im disinclined to say so entries should never be done, there is a reason many PDs explicitly forbid it as a option in cases. I'm not spouting hypotheticals, thisbis a well studied topic. Whay he did is litteraly what cops are trained to do in many places. The places that do train for solo entry, and not many provide adequate training( seriously three day course with minimal training) o, do so because the nearest backup maybe 30 minutes away. Even then it's not considered a good option. And usually the officers have better equipment avallibe than a service pistol and a blue shirt. 30% chance of being shot per a 200 to 2010 study. 46% of being a casualty per the FBI. And that's all active scene solo entries, which wiill include a large number of best case scenario for a solo entry Wich this most definitely was not. That sort of danger is never what someone is expected to confront. Those who chose to do so tend to end up heavily commended for courage and action far above any call of duty. Often posthumously.

This is no more what a police officer is expected to do than it is for your hypothetical fire fighter to run into that building with a fire extinguisher and some safety squints for protection. JFC the military wouldnt expect that out of a solider, explicitly trained to deal with that kind of shit. You think it's something to be routinly expected of a glorified hall moniter old enough to be a grandfather?

Calling the dude a coward is a vile and crass attempt to foist the blame for this onto him; for doing exactly what s expected of police officers all around the country. Its an attempt to make what happened his fault and pretend that it only happened because of him. It is absolutely disgusting.

 

Because the officers life is more important than those of our kids....

You say this isn't what's expected of a police officer except even the local sheriff agrees with me here, as does the superintendent and the students. The school staff decided to sacrifice their lives to protect students, but not the officer. Is that expected of them? No, it's not. But they weren't cowards. He should have gone in and confronted the killer. 

Armed officers are in schools for this exact reason. They don't carry guns to break up fights in the hallway. They carry guns to protect students from psychos with guns. 

 

 

You say this isn't what's expected of a police officer except even the local sheriff agrees with me here, as does the superintendent and the students. 

 

Really, the students?  gonna need to source that. The students and their families and the teachers  have criticized the shit out of the PD for utterly failing to respond or take action on the initial information *before* the shooting. But on this guy? Very few people have said anything about him. well know, there is this:

 

“There is no one that is going to tell you a negative thing about Deputy Peterson, He was an Eagle, and he was committed to our school. I don’t know what he could have done other than literally died.”

 

Feel free to google the quote yourself and pick a source you like. 

 

People who are criticizing him? Media talking heads with an axe to grind, folks like the sheriff playing a game of CYA, politicians with an axe to grind...

 

 

Hey on the topic of criticism, know who aren't being lambasted in the media? The other three officers who showed up....and did exactly the same thing. 

 

 

What you want and seem to expect is for a random sheriff's deputy to have IARD training or something equivalent. Which can be done. but  IARD requires that the officers be equipped in a way that makes them effective (ie, rifle or carbine and body armor), it requires continual training (which PDs rarely provide), and requires a massive overhaul of fire arms training and practice from the usual PD standards (Shot accountability is a BFD when shooting in a crowded environment). 

 

 

four officers from the BSO, none of them equipped with ballistic protection or a patrol rifle, none of whom enter the building. Oh and this is after two other officers completely fail to take any worthwhile action despite more than enough information and credible reason to do so.  Do ya really think that's reflective of a PD that trains and equips for that? If that's the standard you wana have? Fine. But you are in for one hell of a surprise if you think the shit show that is the average PD manages to do that effectively right now. Three day course, max,; often two days with only one day of physical training, not continuing training, no performance standards  and they maybe get a refresher every 5 years. Many don't do it. other's might want to do it, but don't get the funding. and a few get the funding and then quietly misappropriate the cash . 

 

 

If you think broward county does it in the light if a half dozen different officers failing to take appropriate action by that standard...I've a bit of waterfront property in Brooklyn to sell ya, real easy to get to Manhattan from there. There's a reason Scott Isreal is being so very shocked and appalled at everything. 

 

 

Oh as for the superintendent: yea this was made worse by the utter shitshow that was the school distircts active shooter response training. It was not only not proper by all indications, but was flawed sufficiently that the bastard actually exploited it in order to kill more people. Dude's looking to spread the manure around cause he's gonna have a lot of it dumped on him soon.  

 

Look dude, it's really simple. Children are being slaughtered by a gunman. You are the only other person with a gun. What do you do?

I know what I'd do. 

 

Screw the training, screw the overall PD, screw all the prior warning signs, that's all a completely different discussion. Relevant to the actions of the SRO himself: The fact is, unarmed teachers sacrificed themselves to protect those kids, but the one asshole with a gun chose to hide. If that doesn't seem wrong, if that doesn't seem like cowardice to you, then IDK what would. 

[Lysistrata]

I'm kicking around another idea on how to prevent guns from being sold to dangerous people. Earlier I said that it would be a good idea to inform more people that are close to those buying the weapons. Maybe require two people close to a gun buyer, to endorse their purchase. If I was to want to buy an AR-15 and 1000 rounds... I would actually be required to have 2 other people with me, that are a wife, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, sister, employer... all adults of course, to vouch for my intentions, and go through background checks as well. Co-buyers required. I'm sure something could be called out on it, but I wouldn't mind going through it.

[SeaBeeGipson]

I'm kicking around another idea on how to prevent guns from being sold to dangerous people. Earlier I said that it would be a good idea to inform more people that are close to those buying the weapons. Maybe require two people close to a gun buyer, to endorse their purchase. If I was to want to buy an AR-15 and 1000 rounds... I would actually be required to have 2 other people with me, that are a wife, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, sister, employer... all adults of course, to vouch for my intentions, and go through background checks as well. Co-buyers required. I'm sure something could be called out on it, but I wouldn't mind going through it.

I'm not 100% against stricter rules to purchasing a gun, but in some cases it seems the rules we currently have aren't even being 100% enforced. It doesn't bother me as my record is clean and I can pass a background no problem. When I bought my first gun, I used my military ID, Texas DL, and had an FBI background check done within an hour. Problem seems to be people are slipping by these background checks WITH a prior history. For example, the Texas gunmen who entered a church was able to pass just as easy as I was. Except, he had a domestic violence charge from the Air Force that was never reported to the national database. Just my take, we gotta fix the current system before we add more.

What I am 100% against is restricting qualified individuals from purchasing items, or having harsher backgrounds with no added benefit.
If I can pass a strict background, mental evaluation, and even have referrals as you suggested, I should be allowed to conceal carry across state lines. If I can be trusted in one state, why not the next? 


As for the 4 officers refusing to enter the building, I'm split on it. I can't say I endorse his actions as a person. I served with guys that did amazing things, well beyond what their "training" would entail. I can't understand the idea of standing outside the school, hearing gun shots realizing every time that gun goes off, there is a kid practically being executed. All while I have a side arm, and can potentially do something. Could he save all those kids? No. But he might've saved a few. A few less funerals. A few less parent's having to bury their child. It is one of those things, where training and protocol go against moral values.

On the flip side, we have the lack of police training. Police are nowhere near as training for these situations as SWAT, other tactical units, or even your combat arms military. I would NEVER force someone without tracking to go into an active shooter situation. A buddy of mine teaches self-defense (armed and unarmed), as well as survival information to people. One thing he always stresses is "Don't try to be a hero." I would never expect someone with no or inadequate training to randomly string into action in the middle of a mall if shots rang out. 

I don't see this as these officers failing the kids. I see it as their entire department failing them, and in turn, failing these families. I see it as these officers failing themselves. They have to return home at the end of the day, realizing they had a side arm, could have potentially done something. The department failed to train these guys properly to respond. The department failed to have proper protocols in place. FOUR officers staged outside, and protocol didn't exist for at least two to conduct an entry? At the same time, not one of these four officers realized this, yet an off-duty officer in shorts put just a vest on and grabbed an extra weapon and went in. It's a moral issue at that point. While we, again, can't force those guys to enter a situation like that. I fully agree with them resigning, I believe the sheriff needs to be replaced, and I sure as hell would never want one of them watching my six.
Our local sheriff department here put an internal memo out letting officers know if there is an active shooter situation, and they are not comfortable entering the building, to talk to their supervisor and the Sheriff will reassign them. There are expectations of a public service officer that seemed to fail in this situation. It's a iffy subject because there is no true answer. It's a mix of issues. It's a moral issue, a training issue, a protocol issue, and more. With all that going on, people expect me to believe we should put 100% faith in our government agencies to operate properly?

[onbekende]

I'm not 100% against stricter rules to purchasing a gun, but in some cases it seems the rules we currently have aren't even being 100% enforced. It doesn't bother me as my record is clean and I can pass a background no problem. When I bought my first gun, I used my military ID, Texas DL, and had an FBI background check done within an hour. Problem seems to be people are slipping by these background checks WITH a prior history. For example, the Texas gunmen who entered a church was able to pass just as easy as I was. Except, he had a domestic violence charge from the Air Force that was never reported to the national database. Just my take, we gotta fix the current system before we add more.

.
Definatly, but you will find both opponents and allies on both sides for a more all encompassing database(s). Note that it would mean more regulations towards gun sellers (be it professional or not).
.

What I am 100% against is restricting qualified individuals from purchasing items, or having harsher backgrounds with no added benefit.
If I can pass a strict background, mental evaluation, and even have referrals as you suggested, I should be allowed to conceal carry across state lines. If I can be trusted in one state, why not the next?

.

You have this already, it can become this.

[Lysistrata]

I'm not 100% against stricter rules to purchasing a gun, but in some cases it seems the rules we currently have aren't even being 100% enforced.

You nailed it. Existing law failed on every level. Progressives first reaction is to excuse the failure, politicize the tragedy, exploit the victims, amplify the anger, use the children, blame everyone except themselves, and smear anyone who disagrees. Everyone will fight for a couple weeks, and when the ratings start collapsing, the lamestream media will move on to some other distraction.

 

They might try enforcing the current law. Raising the age to buy guns wouldn't do anything without raising the age of majority, and prohibiting the right of possession... which would be unconstitutional. Let's fight over Obamacare... it's fun to fight over laws that everyone knows is already unconstitutional.

[Fox Fire]

We shouldn't raise the age to own a gun. At 18 you should have the right to make all your own adult decisions. Including buying a gun, voting, screwing whoever you want and even drinking. The 21 year age limit for owning a handgun I suppose I can agree with.

[Alf Red]

I will just sat here and go back to a post on the first page talking about the fact that owning guns at home are rare, giving switzerland in the list of examples.

 

In switzerland, it is part of the history that all citizents are soliders able to defend the country, today, after having a military service, they have duty to be able for mobilisation, from 18 years old to max 50 years old. All males are concerned. And they have to keep their personal material at home to keep it in order. It contains guns.

So theorically, there schould be arround a gun per home in switzerland.

 

And in France, gun-wearing license exist but is made to disencourage people as it costs a lot to maintain in order, and laws about using them are very stricts.

I remember two different cases :

- one of a jewelry, where the seller shot a thief walking toward him and get inprisoned because it wasn't shure that the thief was willing to kill him. (as he had only a gun-wearing license and not a gun-firing license, and wasn't in the "I shoot to save my life" case)

 

As I'm not belonging to the USA weapon wearing debate, I hope I won't bother anyone posting this.

 

(I tried to produce short sentences explaining complex things, say it, if it is unreadable or barely understandable)

- one of a guy shooting a thief at night in his home and called for "right to protect home and goods security" and wasn't charged.