So Very Sad....

[Reacher]

From what I have seen, we have plenty of gun regulations. Could there be some enhancements? Sure. I don't see that doing much good though as criminals, by definition, are going to ignore the law and commit crimes. I live outside of Chicago and see and hear about felons getting out of jail early and being re arrested within days. A Gun free zone is not going to deter a twisted individual. 

That leaves me as a pro gun choice? proponent. Guns are not for everybody but this is a free country and the second amendment does allow for owning firearms. I believe that it is a priviledge and not a right- just like driving. With that said, there are plenty of people who can responsibly use a firearm for the protection of themselves and others.

Here's an article with of all sorts of (mass) shooters stopped by private gun owners- https://crimeresearch.org/2016/09/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/  The church shooter in TX was stopped by a private citizen. How much longer would it have been before police arrived? 

I've seen all sorts of (often quite moving) stories where rape survivors now carry to feel safer, elderly people in bad neighborhoods have a gun to protect themselves and on and on.

Kenesaw, GA requires all head of households to own a gun and has minimal crime- https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership/index.html

Cities like Chicago with the strictest gun laws often have the most crime so laws don't seem to be the answer. 

Crime at the the University of Kansas decreased after campus carry was allowed- http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/04/university-of-kansas-campus-carry/

Around me, I think most schools are hardened to some extent. I'd be for responsible, trained teachers / administrators having access to a locked gun(s) on school grounds. I know plenty of Chicago schools have police officers on site.  Not saying that small, older, female teachers should be carrying but rather that people in a school have the OPPORTUNITY to defend/ protect themselves before waiting on a police response (which Parkland shows us can't always be counted on). Thinks like biometric triggers can insure students don't use a gun. I wish the HS my kids attend had guns on the premises as I would feel better. 

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, rico said:

There is more to it than just those two.  

His points could be summed up as no guns for teachers, gun restrictions, more money for education and more resources for those who need help. You just said you agreed with his posts, right? What else did I miss in his post?

[rico]

27 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

His points could be summed up as no guns for teachers, gun restrictions, more money for education and more resources for those who need help. You just said you agreed with his posts, right? What else did I miss in his post?

You didn't miss anything in his post.  I simply said there is more to it than that.

[mrflynn03]

One thing I think stalls the debate is what each side thinks is "common sense" regulations. Most everyone has a different idea of what common sense is. 

Also missing from the debate is what constitutes compromise? The pro gun control side only wants to take and forces the pro gun side to dig in. 

So what are some opinions on trading say universal background checks, waiting periods, age limits for national reciprocity.  

I asked KoB2011 a bit ago about what should be done .  One of the things was controlling storage and usage as reasonable. And I do not think that is reasonable.  So I use this as an example of the disconnect between what is seen as reasonable. 

But offer up what I think is an actual start to compromise . 

[Leathernecks]

6 hours ago, Reacher said:

Thinks like biometric triggers can insure students don't use a gun.

I didn't know that was a thing.  I'd be all for that being available to someone trained to use it.  I can't think of a way that could be used by a student.

Outside of that, I would still be worried about employees having access to guns.  Even if they are trained and the guns are locked up, it would still be fairly easy for a maniac killer to get access to it.  They would have nothing to lose, so punching someone or pulling a knife on a staff member would mean nothing to them.  They grab the key, and go wild.

Part of my thinking for that might be because I live in a rural area, so there isn't much violence around us.  Maybe if I was exposed to violence more, I might think differently.

[Reacher]

10 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

I didn't know that was a thing.  I'd be all for that being available to someone trained to use it.  I can't think of a way that could be used by a student.

Outside of that, I would still be worried about employees having access to guns.  Even if they are trained and the guns are locked up, it would still be fairly easy for a maniac killer to get access to it.  They would have nothing to lose, so punching someone or pulling a knife on a staff member would mean nothing to them.  They grab the key, and go wild.

Part of my thinking for that might be because I live in a rural area, so there isn't much violence around us.  Maybe if I was exposed to violence more, I might think differently.

I think a "maniacal killer"  will have no trouble getting a gun. Where there is a will there is a way. I doubt it would be overpowering a teacher to get it though.

Granted, if every school had multiple guns, it could happen someday. I'd wager a hundred fold more lives would be saved than lost in such a scenario. 

I agree with Mr Flynn that there is lot of misinformation / misunderstanding out there. There are many examples in this thread. Both sides are good at playing to emotions rather than finding common ground.  Then there is the group that will never agree to anything other than their extreme views. 

In a rural area, I'd imagine there are hunters and people with gun experience. I'd also think the police wouldnt be to close. Many teenagers probably have access to firearms

. My line of thinking is that it would be nice to have an armed policeman on the grounds or maybe a retired military guy. Depending on the budget, it's probably more cost effective to train a handful of people at the school and have some guns secured in various locations. The students wouldn know where and who could use them but a determined would be there. In the event of an emergency, chances would be better of stopping something earlier. 

Just like there are fire extinguishers. Might help before fireman can get there

[Leathernecks]

@KoB2011 @rico

I wouldn't classify myself as being on either side of the gun debate.  I don't know if stricter gun restrictions would make any change, but there's a chance that it could.  Because of that, I think its worth a shot as a band aid.  I definitely don't think that it is the be all end all of this issue (and I don't think anybody else does either).

I also totally get the recreational side and protection side of things.  I would have a hard time telling someone they couldn't have a semi automatic weapon in their house if they feel safer having one.  Hunting is also a major recreational hobby that is enjoyed by tons of people, including a lot of people in my family.  I think making people jump through a few more hoops to get guns is a fair compromise.  It might help pick up on crazy people who shouldn't own guns, but it still makes it possible for responsible people to get access to guns.  Obviously some crazies will slip through the cracks, but if it helps save a few lives, I think most people would be up for the compromise.

Looking through a handful of different rankings and statistics, there appears to be a decent correlation between educational adequacy and lack of gun violence.  Almost all of the countries that rank highly on the lists of best school systems rank very low on violent gun deaths.  It would be great to see an overhaul of our educational system.  Not to get too political, but I hope it doesn't come with the current secretary of education.  I would rather endure the next few years than let her try to lead the country's education.  I really think her trying to reform education would set the country back.

Having said that, we are definitely overdue for an educational reform (and not No Child Left Behind, Charlotte Danielson, etc. Those suck.).  I don't know exactly what that would mean, but I would love to see us try something new and different.  Personally, I think we need to get on the STEM train (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), but that's a topic for a different thread.

[Leathernecks]

6 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I think a "maniacal killer"  will have no trouble getting a gun. Where there is a will there is a way. I doubt it would be overpowering a teacher to get it though.

Granted, if every school had multiple guns, it could happen someday. I'd wager a hundred fold more lives would be saved than lost in such a scenario. 

I agree with Mr Flynn that there is lot of misinformation / misunderstanding out there. There are many examples in this thread. Both sides are good at playing to emotions rather than finding common ground.  Then there is the group that will never agree to anything other than their extreme views. 

In a rural area, I'd imagine there are hunters and people with gun experience. I'd also think the police wouldnt be to close. Many teenagers probably have access to firearms

. My line of thinking is that it would be nice to have an armed policeman on the grounds or maybe a retired military guy. Depending on the budget, it's probably more cost effective to train a handful of people at the school and have some guns secured in various locations. The students wouldn know where and who could use them but a determined would be there. In the event of an emergency, chances would be better of stopping something earlier. 

Just like there are fire extinguishers. Might help before fireman can get there

Lots of these points could totally be correct.  I just know at the school I work at, I would be much more worried about someone gaining access to a gun at the school than bringing one in.  Maybe I'm totally off base with that, but I've seen many students get crazy when something happens during the day.  Ripping water fountains off the wall, punching everything in sight, screaming that they want to kill someone.  My worry is those kids who get crazy emotional like that.  Maybe it wouldn't be an issue, but that's just where I'm coming from with it.

[Reacher]

14 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

Lots of these points could totally be correct.  I just know at the school I work at, I would be much more worried about someone gaining access to a gun at the school than bringing one in.  Maybe I'm totally off base with that, but I've seen many students get crazy when something happens during the day.  Ripping water fountains off the wall, punching everything in sight, screaming that they want to kill someone.  My worry is those kids who get crazy emotional like that.  Maybe it wouldn't be an issue, but that's just where I'm coming from with it.

An out of control kid like that needs some counseling. I'm no expert on mental health issues but think that is an area that needs some major attention.  Sounds like your school needds tasers

As far as regulations, for the most part, that only impairs the law abiding citizens. As I mentioned earlier, criminals, by definition, are not going to obey whatever laws are put in place. If they can't buy one, they will steal one.

Nothing to do with the gun debate, but I recently saw where some states require 600 hours of training (or something crazy like that) to be a cosmetolgist. That is regulations run amok. 

FKIM has already hit on some of the existing gun regulations. Are their loopholes? I'm sure there are. I am not convinced where more regulations will help and, in fact, I think often (the law of unintended consequences) hurt more than they help. 

As far as educational reform, i think there should be 3D printers in every classroom, computer programming should be a core class being taught starting in 3rd grade, and IL should cut the number of school districts by at least a half. No reason a medium size town needs 3 or 4 school districts. How about no more than 5 school districts per county? I bet some counties in IL have close to 100!

 

[Leathernecks]

9 hours ago, Reacher said:

An out of control kid like that needs some counseling. I'm no expert on mental health issues but think that is an area that needs some major attention.  Sounds like your school needds tasers

As far as regulations, for the most part, that only impairs the law abiding citizens. As I mentioned earlier, criminals, by definition, are not going to obey whatever laws are put in place. If they can't buy one, they will steal one.

Nothing to do with the gun debate, but I recently saw where some states require 600 hours of training (or something crazy like that) to be a cosmetolgist. That is regulations run amok. 

FKIM has already hit on some of the existing gun regulations. Are their loopholes? I'm sure there are. I am not convinced where more regulations will help and, in fact, I think often (the law of unintended consequences) hurt more than they help. 

As far as educational reform, i think there should be 3D printers in every classroom, computer programming should be a core class being taught starting in 3rd grade, and IL should cut the number of school districts by at least a half. No reason a medium size town needs 3 or 4 school districts. How about no more than 5 school districts per county? I bet some counties in IL have close to 100!

 

I'm not too worried about the gun aspect of this. That's only about 1% of the issue, so I'll let others deal with that.

I got a 3d printer for my room. They are pretty awesome. Maybe we should have a thread about education.

[KoB2011]

11 hours ago, Reacher said:

An out of control kid like that needs some counseling. I'm no expert on mental health issues but think that is an area that needs some major attention.  Sounds like your school needds tasers

As far as regulations, for the most part, that only impairs the law abiding citizens. As I mentioned earlier, criminals, by definition, are not going to obey whatever laws are put in place. If they can't buy one, they will steal one.

Nothing to do with the gun debate, but I recently saw where some states require 600 hours of training (or something crazy like that) to be a cosmetolgist. That is regulations run amok. 

FKIM has already hit on some of the existing gun regulations. Are their loopholes? I'm sure there are. I am not convinced where more regulations will help and, in fact, I think often (the law of unintended consequences) hurt more than they help. 

As far as educational reform, i think there should be 3D printers in every classroom, computer programming should be a core class being taught starting in 3rd grade, and IL should cut the number of school districts by at least a half. No reason a medium size town needs 3 or 4 school districts. How about no more than 5 school districts per county? I bet some counties in IL have close to 100!

 

I will leave the gun part of this alone, I've said my thoughts plenty already. With regards to mental health, I totally agree we need to give that attention. It's in the best interest of the public to give everyone access to health care (mental or not). 

I would love to see the reach of special interest pushed way back as it is a major negative on our health. Food and pharma are major lobbying arms and they're not in it for our health, it's to make money. They don't just spend money lobbying politicians either, it's a constant spread of misinformation to doctors and to the general public. We are one of the least healthy developed countries in the world and have terrible health care; that's simply unacceptable. 

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, Leathernecks said:

I'm not too worried about the gun aspect of this. That's only about 1% of the issue, so I'll let others deal with that.

I got a 3d printer for my room. They are pretty awesome. Maybe we should have a thread about education.

I think an education thread would be very interesting, would love to see you start that. 

[milehiiu]

1 hour ago, Leathernecks said:

 

I got a 3d printer for my room. They are pretty awesome. Maybe we should have a thread about education.

Go for it.   Anyone ! Lot's of teachers and former teachers are members of HSN 3.0.  Just remember to abide by our rules, and keep it civil.

[5fouls]

I find it interesting that few, if any, of the mass school shootings have taken place in what would be described as high crime or high risk school districts.  Is it because of complacency (it can't happen here), or are the social impacts of things like bullying greater in certain environments?

[milehiiu]

14 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I find it interesting that few, if any, of the mass school shootings have taken place in what would be described as high crime or high risk school districts.  Is it because of complacency (it can't happen here), or are the social impacts of things like bullying greater in certain environments?

When I went back to Gary for my Lew Wallace 40th class reunion.... I was told over and over by members of the reunion committee.... not to go by the school, or even come close to it.  The Glen Park section of Gary had turned into a very high crime area.  Following Branden Dawson's recruitment, I recall seeing one You Tube video.  All entrances were monitored, with metal detectors.  So... to answer your question, based on what I saw.... at least in the case of my old high school.... schools just take a higher degree of protection, in high crime areas. 

[rico]

18 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I find it interesting that few, if any, of the mass school shootings have taken place in what would be described as high crime or high risk school districts.  Is it because of complacency (it can't happen here), or are the social impacts of things like bullying greater in certain environments?

You know I have thought of that myself.  And is one thing that everyone needs to take a look at(hear me media).

[Seeking6]

46 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I find it interesting that few, if any, of the mass school shootings have taken place in what would be described as high crime or high risk school districts.  Is it because of complacency (it can't happen here), or are the social impacts of things like bullying greater in certain environments?

Very good point and one that I've been saying for years. Every single kid in school at one time or another is faced with bullying. Today especially with access to social media it's just plain cruel. The problem is most parents don't think their kids ever do it so it usually goes unpunished. 

I can't say bullying causes these shootings. But I do think it would be very naive to think it doesn't play a part in it. Some of the stories I hear about what kids say, post,etc....about other kids? Just plain brutal. 

[Leathernecks]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

I think an education thread would be very interesting, would love to see you start that. 

 

59 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Go for it.   Anyone ! Lot's of teachers and former teachers are members of HSN 3.0.  Just remember to abide by our rules, and keep it civil.

We have our first baseball game today, so I'm pretty busy right now.  Maybe once the weekend rolls around I'll start one.  If somebody starts one before then, I'll try to jump in here or there when I get a couple minutes.

[Reacher]

39 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

When I went back to Gary for my Lew Wallace 40th class reunion.... I was told over and over by members of the reunion committee.... not to go by the school, or even come close to it.  The Glen Park section of Gary had turned into a very high crime area.  Following Branden Dawson's recruitment, I recall seeing one You Tube video.  All entrances were monitored, with metal detectors.  So... to answer your question, based on what I saw.... at least in the case of my old high school.... schools just take a higher degree of protection, in high crime areas. 

This has been my observation for many years. These schools know they have problems and so have been "hardened" for many years. In addition, a quick Google search showed Chicago has approx 250 police stationed IN schools. Obviously, no need to arm teachers when you already have armed police there.

[Reacher]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

I would love to see the reach of special interest pushed way back as it is a major negative on our health. Food and pharma are major lobbying arms and they're not in it for our health, it's to make money. They don't just spend money lobbying politicians either, it's a constant spread of misinformation to doctors and to the general public. We are one of the least healthy developed countries in the world and have terrible health care; that's simply unacceptable. 

This deserves a special thread as well. With what we spend on Healthcare, we should have much  better results. Something is not working.

[Reacher]

This is why regulations are not the answer.

California has every gun control pushed in the wake of the February 14 attack on Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The state’s gun controls include an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, firearm confiscation laws (Gun Violence Restraining Orders), firearm registration requirements, firearm owner safety certification requirements, a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, and “good cause” limitations on the issuance of concealed carry licenses.

The state also has ammunition controls which require Californians to buy ammunition from state-approved vendors and bar residents from buying ammo out-of-state.

None of these gun controls prevented the attack on the Veterans Home of California in Yountville that resulted in 3 people being shot and killed.

The shooter had had his firearm ownership revoked last year.

[rico]

2 minutes ago, Reacher said:

This is why regulations are not the answer.

California has every gun control pushed in the wake of the February 14 attack on Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The state’s gun controls include an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, firearm confiscation laws (Gun Violence Restraining Orders), firearm registration requirements, firearm owner safety certification requirements, a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, and “good cause” limitations on the issuance of concealed carry licenses.

The state also has ammunition controls which require Californians to buy ammunition from state-approved vendors and bar residents from buying ammo out-of-state.

None of these gun controls prevented the attack on the Veterans Home of California in Yountville that resulted in 3 people being shot and killed.

The shooter had had his firearm ownership revoked last year.

I said this stuff from the get go.  Guns aren't the problem.  It is the people behind them.  Sure, make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them.  But the people that want to do harm will continue to do so.  

[Hoosierhoopster]

3 hours ago, Reacher said:

This is why regulations are not the answer.

California has every gun control pushed in the wake of the February 14 attack on Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The state’s gun controls include an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, firearm confiscation laws (Gun Violence Restraining Orders), firearm registration requirements, firearm owner safety certification requirements, a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, and “good cause” limitations on the issuance of concealed carry licenses.

The state also has ammunition controls which require Californians to buy ammunition from state-approved vendors and bar residents from buying ammo out-of-state.

None of these gun controls prevented the attack on the Veterans Home of California in Yountville that resulted in 3 people being shot and killed.

The shooter had had his firearm ownership revoked last year.

Reacher, I'm trying (hard) not to get too involved in this thread as a mod, but this says nothing, other than hey, let me show you an example of a situation where a regulation didn't stop the crime, and, therefore, regulations don't work.

So let's pull up the countless examples of drunk drivers, and say there shouldn't be laws restricting drunk driving. I could go on with countless other types of examples -- it means nothing. Of course people are going to find a way to evade restrictions, limitations and laws. Did you go to a bar in college, did you buy or drink alcohol when below the legal age limit? Does that mean we should do away with age limitations on drinking?? Of course not. This kind of discussion is not discussion, all it does is completely skew the issue in order to reach your desired point.

At the end of the day, no one is saying there shouldn't be legal, reasonable access to firearms, and no one is saying that they will always work, or be an end all cure. Of course they won't. The question is simply what sorts of regulations, restrictions, policies and/or enforcement efforts can help LIMIT or MINIMALIZE these kinds of crimes. Why do you think an 18-year old (non-military) should be able to go out and buy one of these weapons when he is too young to buy alcohol? Would imposing a 21-year old age restriction, where there isn't one, help? Maybe. Would that erode gun rights? No, it wouldn't. Do you understand how extremely easy it is to buy all kinds of guns at roadside gun shows? (I live in Texas, if you want a gun all you have to do is walk into a roadside gun show, it's very, very easy, licenses etc. be damned.) I could keep going but my objective here is not to argue (although it sounds like I'm doing just that), it's to try to spur the dialogue on what sorts of limitations, compromises, enforcement mechanisms, etc. at least might help this awful situation of annual school shootings and mass shootings. The drawing lines in the sand thing does not help anyone 

[Reacher]

2 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Reacher, I'm trying (hard) not to get too involved in this thread as a mod, but this says nothing, other than hey, let me show you an example of a situation where a regulation didn't stop the crime, and, therefore, regulations don't work.

So let's pull up the countless examples of drunk drivers, and say there shouldn't be laws restricting drunk driving. I could go on with countless other types of examples -- it means nothing. Of course people are going to find a way to evade restrictions, limitations and laws. Did you go to a bar in college, did you buy or drink alcohol when below the legal age limit? Does that mean we should do away with age limitations on drinking?? Of course not. This kind of discussion is not discussion, all it does is completely skew the issue in order to reach your desired point.

At the end of the day, no one is saying there shouldn't be legal, reasonable access to firearms, and no one is saying that they will always work, or be an end all cure. Of course they won't. The question is simply what sorts of regulations, restrictions, policies and/or enforcement efforts can help LIMIT or MINIMALIZE these kinds of crimes. Why do you think an 18-year old (non-military) should be able to go out and buy one of these weapons when he is too young to buy alcohol? Would imposing a 21-year old age restriction, where there isn't one, help? Maybe. Would that erode gun rights? No, it wouldn't. Do you understand how extremely easy it is to buy all kinds of guns at roadside gun shows? (I live in Texas, if you want a gun all you have to do is walk into a roadside gun show, it's very, very easy, licenses etc. be damned.) I could keep going but my objective here is not to argue (although it sounds like I'm doing just that), it's to try to spur the dialogue on what sorts of limitations, compromises, enforcement mechanisms, etc. at least might help this awful situation of annual school shootings and mass shootings. The drawing lines in the sand thing does not help anyone 

I'm with you in having reasonable regulations and debate on the issue. And closing loopholes. Not familiar with gun shows, but I'm for everyone having a background check. Consider my last post in connection with my other posts on this. 

As I tried to point out earlier, excess regulations primarily harm law abiding citizens- the same citizens that have prevented many mass shootings. I have no idea where the proper balance is, but I believe saying more regulations would help- even a little- is not necessarily the case. That is why I thought the CA veterans home incident was relevant. Regulations did nothing. Maybe with less regulations a concealed carry holder there (or in San Bernadino?) could have saved lives. Neither one of us knows. 

I'm just trying to bring some different viewpoints to the discussion and in no way "drawing a line in the sand". My only point is to counter people saying we need more regulations  by showing that places with lots of regulatiions (CA, Chicago) are not safer than places with liberalized regulations (contrary to many expectations) seem to be. 

Comparing this to drunk driving is not a valid comparison. Who is saying there should be no laws or no regulations? Not I. I'm for closing loopholes and background checks. I think that is common sense. 

Lastly, just to play devils advovate, (and I have never hunted, don't own a rifle and so have no vested interests here) why shouldn't a 19 year old in rural TX or WY who has been hunting for 10 years, not be able to buy a hunting rifle, or be given one on his birthday? I can't object to that. Should they be subject to a more thorough background check? I think that is reasonable. Should society infringe on someones priviledge to own a firearm in hopes of preventing a tragedy? How about having the FBI, Sheriff, Schools, mental health professionals do their job? It seems to me the blame is being misplaced here. It wasn't a NRA member doing the killing, the NRA member was stopping the shooting at the TX church.

You bring up "limitations, compromises, enforcement mechanisms" as a solution. You assume "regulations, restrictions, policies and/or enforcement efforts can help LIMIT or MINIMALIZE these kinds of crimes".  I tried to show that not only does that not help but that greater to access to firearms does seem to help. I think a multi faceted approach of letting schools do what they feel is necessary (different for inner city, suburban, rural) to better protect our kids, with more involvement among students, parents and teachers to identify and work with potential problematic individuals. I see jails being emptied in Chicago only to see crimes being committed by the same people within days / weeks. Criminal justice reform needs to addressed. Along with mental health issues. I have no idea what % of crime is committed by ex felons, mentally ill, drug users, illegal aliens etc but I bet it is the overwhelming majority so lets address those issues. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

48 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I'm with you in having reasonable regulations and debate on the issue. And closing loopholes. Not familiar with gun shows, but I'm for everyone having a background check. Consider my last post in connection with my other posts on this. 

As I tried to point out earlier, excess regulations primarily harm law abiding citizens- the same citizens that have prevented many mass shootings. I have no idea where the proper balance is, but I believe saying more regulations would help- even a little- is not necessarily the case. That is why I thought the CA veterans home incident was relevant. Regulations did nothing. Maybe with less regulations a concealed carry holder there (or in San Bernadino?) could have saved lives. Neither one of us knows. 

I'm just trying to bring some different viewpoints to the discussion and in no way "drawing a line in the sand". My only point is to counter people saying we need more regulations  by showing that places with lots of regulatiions (CA, Chicago) are not safer than places with liberalized regulations (contrary to many expectations) seem to be. 

Comparing this to drunk driving is not a valid comparison. Who is saying there should be no laws or no regulations? Not I. I'm for closing loopholes and background checks. I think that is common sense. 

Lastly, just to play devils advovate, (and I have never hunted, don't own a rifle and so have no vested interests here) why shouldn't a 19 year old in rural TX or WY who has been hunting for 10 years, not be able to buy a hunting rifle, or be given one on his birthday? I can't object to that. Should they be subject to a more thorough background check? I think that is reasonable. Should society infringe on someones priviledge to own a firearm in hopes of preventing a tragedy? How about having the FBI, Sheriff, Schools, mental health professionals do their job? It seems to me the blame is being misplaced here. It wasn't a NRA member doing the killing, the NRA member was stopping the shooting at the TX church.

You bring up "limitations, compromises, enforcement mechanisms" as a solution. You assume "regulations, restrictions, policies and/or enforcement efforts can help LIMIT or MINIMALIZE these kinds of crimes".  I tried to show that not only does that not help but that greater to access to firearms does seem to help. I think a multi faceted approach of letting schools do what they feel is necessary (different for inner city, suburban, rural) to better protect our kids, with more involvement among students, parents and teachers to identify and work with potential problematic individuals. I see jails being emptied in Chicago only to see crimes being committed by the same people within days / weeks. Criminal justice reform needs to addressed. Along with mental health issues. I have no idea what % of crime is committed by ex felons, mentally ill, drug users, illegal aliens etc but I bet it is the overwhelming majority so lets address those issues. 

Thanks for your reasoned response and conversation, that is consistent with your many posts throughout the years here. As an aside, I think you know I respect your posting, but to the extent my post implied otherwise, I'll emphasize that.

I agree we should avoid "excess regulations" but defining what is excessive and what more may be needed is part of the issue. Consider this a quick aside -- When you point out an example of a situation where laws/regulations failed to stop a crime, you're ignoring the, of course, many situations where the laws in place did prevent or dissuade other crimes. Think about it for a minute -- the regs out there, particularly the more strenuous ones, clearly limit semi-automatic weapon purchases and avoid such incidents in various situations.  It's pretty easy to document examples of people NOT being able to buy a semi-automatic, or a guy with a felony conviction being prevented from buying a gun, etc. But the fact that we have all kinds of incidents of people under 21, or with a history of psychological problems or confinement, etc., getting semi-automatic rifles, including with high capacity magazines, etc., reflects that what we have in place is inadequate. 

Educational reform, criminal justice reform, are huge topics that are absolutely important, and should be addressed -- but that are not going to result in any near-term fixes or help in addressing school shootings and mass shootings. Those are huge program-wide and long-term policy discussions. Trying not to get political here, but illegal aliens? We're talking school shootings and mass shootings. Illegal aliens are outside of this topic. "Drug users" really are as well. You're veering into a significantly different topic -- how should drug users and illegal aliens be treated in our criminal justice system, in our immigration policies, etc. Building a wall isn't going to address school shootings -- let's stay on topic!

I'm also for closing loopholes and better background checks and/or background check enforcement, etc. I'm not going to be popular among hunters, though-- that is what it is -- but why does a 19-year NEED a semi-automatic rifle (whichever of the ones we're discussing), or those easily susceptible to adding high-capacity magazines, etc., to hunt deer (or groundhogs)? There is certainly room for regulating what KIND of rifle a kid can use to hunt, and for that matter what KIND of rifle the average adult hunter can use (or what modifications are available). I mean the bump stock is still out there, what on Earth does that have to do with hunting? Even leaving aside the point made at one point in this thread, that the "sport" of hunting might better be served by using guns actually developed or suited to hunting (how sporting is it to gun down a deer with a semi-automatic loaded with a high capacity magazine??). While I'm sure that comment will aggravate the hunters out there, I am not, at all, opposed to hunters being able to buy hunting rifles, generally, but I do think it's reasonable, in the context of trying to limit school shootings and mass shootings, to start thinking about restrictions on the types of rifles that are readily accessible (just walk into an Academy store) to the average joe, and his kid, because that ready accessibility plays a role in our current environment of fairly regular, annual, school shootings.