Active shooter takes hostages at Yountville (Napa) VA Home

[Schnellbandit]

As a huge supporter of the 2A, and a lover of the AR platform, AK platform and many semi-auto handguns... I have actually spent a little bit of time thinking about a compromise that I would be willing to make - if it was correctly written - which helps reduce the lethality of mass shootings as well as protects our 2A rights and our ability to defend ourselves against threats foreign and domestic.

• 1) Ban all semi-automatic firearms, including handguns.
  
  As I indicated in the main text of my response, semi-auto firearms are not more lethal than any other types. Many people have been shot numerous times with a semi-auto firearm and survived while many more have been shot once with a different type and been killed instantly.
  
  Furthermore, suicides involving the use of a gun would not be affected by a ban on seni-autos, few people killing themselves using a gun shoot themselves more than once.
  
• 2) Mandate a national buy-back. There is a 1 year period to turn them in.
  
  That is confiscation by another name. How is that in any way a compromise of anything? Can you see the fallacy you are presenting here? Remove the monetary consideration and what is left? A mandatory turn in of all semi-autos. Somehow, giving someone money changes it from confiscation? Mandatory means no choice, the money then becomes irrelevant
  
• 3) The federal government would issue $1000.00 tax CREDIT coupons for each firearm turned in. You can use the tax credit "coupon" anytime you file your taxes, they do not expire (one time use per coupon obviously). What this means is while a dirtbag could get a "coupon" for $1k per gun, they couldn't get the cash for it as a tax return until they actually become a useful member of society and file their taxes. No free loaders here.
  
  Now you also go down the road of saying what you can use the money for. Then you link this to filing taxes. The slippery slope comes full circle and now you've proved that your proposal has nothing to do with guns but instead is the control of a population through taxation and financial burdens along with the threat of penalties allowed in the tax code which have nothing to do with guns at all.
  
• 4) Make it mandatory 15 years in prison per semi-automatic firearm after the 1 year buy-back period ends. No exceptions. No plea bargains.
  
  Here you create a new class of person and remove all the protections of the US Constitution. You failed to mention a trial so is a trial even a consideration or is possession sufficient to dispense with justice and simply start imprisonment?
  
• 5) All other firearms must be purchased through an already-existing FFL, with a background check. No registration.
  
  If all purchased must be made through an already existing dealer then the obvious case you make is that there will be no new FFL dealers allowed. Once again you slide in collateral issues and impose other requirements. To your initial point however, if there is no registration, exactly how does the enforcement of this idea become reality, the honor system? Without registration is it simply impossible to enforce this idea.
  
• 6) Federal law that prohibits any city, state, fed agency or local jurisdiction from creating any law related to firearms or its components in anyway shape or form. In other words, part of the compromise of giving up a massive amount of firearms and banning them is that the "slippery slope" is ended. No state can loosen the law, or strengthen the law. It is what it is, and it is final. San Francisco doesn't get to say "Yeah but we want to ban shotguns too!" after someone goes nuts with a over-under. They don't get to do some round-about "well this bullet caused a fish in the stream to starve so now no more bullets." Basically, if a law affects the above amendment in any way (either stricter, or looser), it is presumptivly considered illegal and citizens who don't follow it can cite the law as an "active" defense. This part of the law could be up for vote for removal after 75 years.
  
  You entire post is about implementing a slippery slope. You started with a band on semi autos. Then you went down the slippery slope to mandatory turn-ins (confiscations), then went to mandatory without a trial imprisonment and tied the money from a buy back to filing taxes and you really expect anyone to believe there is no slippery slope? Somehow, the more I read your post the more I can't help but believe you are simply advocating gun control for reasons other than trying to reduce shootings and that the identity agenda strategy is just that.
  
• 7) Companies can also turn in their semi-automatics for the same tax credit, so yes, it will be expensive for the federal government.
  
  So, company can turn in their semi-autos but individuals turn in is mandatory? Please tell me that this isn't an intentional idea and a mistake. Now you give companies rights that individuals do not have? That makes zero sense on any day. Who is these companies will have access to those semi-autos?
  
• 8) Well-regulated, trained, and audited militias ran by citizens will be made legal. No, not the national guard.
  
  It is already legal. Now you are trying to trade something that already exists in exchange for taking something away. That is not compromise, that is more of the slippery slope. Have you even read the US Constitution/Bill of Rights? I can't help but believe you've never done so or have in great detail and want to trade something already in existence for the promise of something that can be taken away.
  
• 8a) These militias will be allowed to have semi-automatic rifles and other firearms related to the security of the people as the 2A intended. The firearms will be required to remain on site, can be inspected, and if the audit doesn't match what is supposed to be on hand, the militia's armory is shut down and everything removed. In other words, an honest well regulated and trained militia is legal. A loophole to avoid the above regulations, are not.

Who will do the inspecting? Who will conduct the confiscation? Who gets to decide who is part of the militia? The slippery slope is complete.

The idea here being gun nuts, like myself, can still genuinely feel that if push came to shove we could use the 2A as it was intended. On top of that, we can still defend our families and loved ones from criminals. It also stops the slippery slope that we here in California, and many others in many other states, have seen. Where it's "never enough" for the left, so to speak. With that feeling, comes the feeling from the "right" that they won't give "another inch," because you know.. "they'll just ask for more next year." This hopes to stop that slide, and in doing so, promotes compromise. And make no mistake, walking away from semi-auto's is a huge compromise for gun owners.

Sorry, I can't believe you like guns, know much about them, support their ownership by private individuals nor that you support the foundations of our country.

It would take time, a lot of time, to see a reduction but overtime I believe you would. It would not stop mass shootings, kills, terrorism or crazy people from murdering people. It would simply help limit the amount of damage that they could actually do.

Nothing you have brought forth accomplishes the goal of reducing crime, shootings or violence where guns are used.

When I read the identity qualification, sorry, that sets up a red flag. Its the "I am..." as if that automatically lends strength to your proposal and that without it, it can't really stand on its own. This is such an over used strategy that it dilutes much of what you propose.

You state you want to avoid the slippery slope yet your entire post is just that.

You started with a ban.
You continue to confiscation
You link no choice compensation to taxes
You follow with imprisonment

and then claim you want to prevent a slippery slope. I have to say that so far, the slope you've presented is by far the most slick posted here.

However, you took time to post in a considerate way so consideration is deserved and so is a response. I responded in blue using the quoted text so that this doesn't become one of my infamous walls, if you know what I mean and if not, others surely do.

There is a serious flaw in the concept of reducing the lethality of mass shootings, you consider the type of firearm being used as a primary factor when that isn't the factor at all, it is the capability of the shooter (how well they have trained and planned). A person with a bolt action rifle can kill as many people from a great distance as someone using an AR-15 or other semi-auto firearm. All it takes is some planning. The shooter in vegas shot from a considerable distance and for all the cycling rate of the firearms he had available to him, he managed to kill very few people. A well trained shooter with a bolt action rifle could easily have killed far more people that he did and many at greater distances. That is not to say he couldn't have killed many more but the fact remains, for all the weapons he had, what limited his effectiveness wasn't that he had a semi-auto rifle or a bolt gun but that he wasn't nearly as highly trained as it was made out to be.

Sorry, the entire foundation of your post isn't a plan, its tyranny, the very thing the 2ndA was designed to protect against. All you've done is wrapped up tyranny in a warm blanket and offered it up while hoping the cold of recent events will give cover to your real agenda.

 

[My900ss]

Dr. Piney,
The issue you should find with Hammer Hanks 'plan' is how by design it creates criminals where none existed prior. Let's say I own 10 semi auto handguns and rifles. I turn in 7, keeping 3. 1 year and 1 day later I get caught with one, a probable cause search turns up two more and off I go for 45 years mandatory time in the Federal pen.

It's not a plan, it's rambling as part of a larger discussion that should be simply dismissed. Similar to flat earth and fake moon landing claims. People should have the ability to believe what they believe but rational people should not spend energy engaging in the discussion of folly.

Respectfully,

T

 

[Climber]

Serious question. Should veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD get put on the no-gun list? If not, who would you put on that list, what diagnosis would you put on the list?

The bigger question should be why a veteran with PTSD and serious mental issues was kicked out of the program that was supposed to help him.

Granted, that they are human and he probably seemed like a hopeless case to them, but where the fuck is he supposed to go if they refuse to continue trying to help him?

Seems like there was a breakdown there with no safety net and he took a few with him.

 

[Schnellbandit]

The bigger question should be why a veteran with PTSD and serious mental issues was kicked out of the program that was supposed to help him.

Granted, that they are human and he probably seemed like a hopeless case to them, but where the fuck is he supposed to go if they refuse to continue trying to help him?

Seems like there was a breakdown there with no safety net and he took a few with him.

This was brought up before.

No one wants to talk about that because the ability to hold those accountable for those failures aren't tolerated and it shifts the discussion away from gun control. The followup excuse is that gun control should be a part of that discussion. It always comes back to the same thing, the single minded emphasis on gun control.

What no one wants to even begin to deal with:

Guy was in treatment
He gets kicked out
End of problem
Guy gets gun
4 people dead
Lets talk about gun control.

 

[wazzuFreddo]

The bigger question should be why a veteran with PTSD and serious mental issues was kicked out of the program that was supposed to help him.

Granted, that they are human and he probably seemed like a hopeless case to them, but where the fuck is he supposed to go if they refuse to continue trying to help him?

Seems like there was a breakdown there with no safety net and he took a few with him.

He was kicked out for making threats against the very people he killed

 

[SFMCjohn]

The bigger question should be why a veteran with PTSD and serious mental issues was kicked out of the program that was supposed to help him.

... threats of violence against staff ...?
staff was in fear for their physical safety ...?

 

[Snaggy]

He was kicked out for making threats against the very people he killed

Absolutely. Violence is a constant concern in mental health facilities. Death and suicide threats are not rare, and mental health providers are assaulted at four times the rate of workers in general. They're soft targets too. In the VA system, armed Federal Protection System officers are sometimes available but not always close at hand.

PTSD is a can of worms at the VA. Properly worked, it's a guaranteed paycheck for life, though these vets can work as LEO's and own guns and the vast majority function just fine. Even in vets with PTSD, it's substance abuse that correlates with violence far more than a mental health diagnosis. That's true of all impulse killings. This is not true of unicorn mass killers.

A gun ban on everybody with any substance use history, including any interaction with the legal or medical system makes much more sense than a witch hunt for people with DSM diagnoses.

As far as treatment, what's really the difference between incarceration in a lockdown facility and a jail? Another thing ignored when mental health treatment is brought up is how really ineffective it is. People that take their meds and participate in treatment feel better more often than not, but they are a minority.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Schnel,

I didn't wanna quote cause it woulda got huge.

All good points. And some that would make me NOT VOTE for my own idea. Good stuff.

Just to clarify though; The plan had nothing to do with suicides or any gun violence other than mass shootings. I don't care about suicides in the terms of how it affects public safety - it doesn't. I've written entire posts about how gun violence breaks down and quite honestly, to the law abiding citizen, gun violence has almost no impact on them. A suicidal person or a gang member? Sure, but that doesn't deserve to be a part of the discussion.

Second, of course any crime committed would be judged by a jury of their peers. Nothing would change there. O

Next, yes it's compulsory for companies as well. Maybe I should have wrote "shall", but considering I'm not a lawyer and this is BARF, I'd kindly offer up the maybe we don't read every single word as if it's legalese. It isn't. It was an idea to start a discussion.

Next, onto registration. Yes, I guess it would be - similar to as it is now. Thing is, I do not believe registration does anything to reduce any kind of violence what so ever so it should not exist. Period.

Onto confiscation. I wasn't trying to sugar coat what it is. It is absolutely confiscation of a specific type of firearm. The tax idea was just an idea to help reduce the ability for a criminal to steal 50 guns and make $50,000+ off of them.

As to the militias? Actually no, it is illegal to have and train a militia "for the purpose of overthrowing the government." That would obviously need to be rewritten or removed.

In terms of a "solution." Of course it's not a solution. There is no single solution to solve bad behaving free people. That is a part of freedom - that some act inappropriately. I wouldn't for a millisecond be so naive as to think there's any solution to that, let alone a single thing one can do. Murderers will murder, that's a fact.

And finally, on me. You assume that because I'm
Willing to offer up my own ideas which include stuff that I would very much dislike doing - and in fact openly admit may not do - that I must be uneducated or really have no idea about guns. That's just 1) unfair and 2) ridiculous.

In any case. Thanks for actually replying. I agree there would need to be A LOT worked out before it'd be even something that I'd consider.

The biggest issue for ME with my own damn idea is that I don't trust that the left would stop there. They've shown they don't ever stop so I'm not sure that anything could ever be writtten clean enough that some crooked 9th circus judge wouldn't somehow interpret "shall not" to mean "except and unless."

Again what I'm saying is whether we like it or not - people and legislative bodies ARE having discussions about guns. And I personally think it's important that the people who actually know a thing or two about guns, are able to separate emotion and objective fact, and are willing to use them if the time was necessary, should be the primary driving force in that conversation - not some idiot politician who has armed security and doesn't know jack, or some 14 year old kid who learned everything he knows from his anti-gun liberal teacher.

 

[Climber]

Absolutely. Violence is a constant concern in mental health facilities. Death and suicide threats are not rare, and mental health providers are assaulted at four times the rate of workers in general. They're soft targets too. In the VA system, armed Federal Protection System officers are sometimes available but not always close at hand.

PTSD is a can of worms at the VA. Properly worked, it's a guaranteed paycheck for life, though these vets can work as LEO's and own guns and the vast majority function just fine. Even in vets with PTSD, it's substance abuse that correlates with violence far more than a mental health diagnosis. That's true of all impulse killings. This is not true of unicorn mass killers.

A gun ban on everybody with any substance use history, including any interaction with the legal or medical system makes much more sense than a witch hunt for people with DSM diagnoses.

As far as treatment, what's really the difference between incarceration in a lockdown facility and a jail? Another thing ignored when mental health treatment is brought up is how really ineffective it is. People that take their meds and participate in treatment feel better more often than not, but they are a minority.

So, what's the solution when it isn't working out?

Obviously, kicking him out of the program didn't work out, should there be another option where he is put into a facility where they have more security and can watch these kinds of ticking time bombs closer and try to figure out a way to make them better?

 

[Schnellbandit]

There are more than 3 million new cases of PTSD each year. Are we going to lock them all up? Who is going to evaluate them and just as important continue to review their cases in more than a factory assembly line fashion while just keeping them away from the rest of society?

Not everyone with PTSD is a vet so we should really not focus on vets only. While many vets do suffer from PTSD others also suffer from it.

So far, the suggestions are to lock them up and try to find some solution to the affliction but lock them up nevertheless. Is that what the fix is, essentially medical prisons while we reduce other crimes to misdemeanors, empty prisons of drug addicts and other offenders wholesale?

Who thinks that faced with being locked, they will ever report their symptoms in the hopes of preventing over decades, 95 people out of over 320,000,000 from engaging in a mass shooting?

95 out of 325,000,000 (over decades) and we're going to start locking up people with PTSD (and not all of them had it)? That is the battle cry in case no one hears it.

 

[byke]

I give Hammerin'Hank a for coming up with a plan.
Don't much LIKE it, but it's better than what I've come up with

It's interesting in that it's a very generous concession, but also a little sad. The sad part being that he recognizes the unstoppable incrementalism and is willing to make a huge sacrifice to put an end to it, but it would never happen because they think...no, they *know*...that they can do better over the same period, incrementally.

 

[budman]

Christine Loeber, Jennifer Golick and Jennifer Gonzales.

Shattered lives now cascading unto friends and family.

 

[NorCalAthlete]

1. Beltway sniper

2. Texas tower shooter

3. Semi-Autos are the vast majority of guns because it describes a function not a type. There are semi-auto handguns, shotguns, rifles. On this basis alone I disagree with function being the defining feature for a ban.

4. Semi-autos are more accurate and easier to shoot for weaker people. Yes, this includes young adult school shooters, but it also includes women, handicapped people, or just someone who's fighting off an attacker with one hand while drawing their gun with their other hand. Nowhere did I see you mention or discuss any of the benefits of gun ownership - namely, self defense - in your "compromise" (which, by the way, I strongly disagree with and would vehemently speak out against if ever actually proposed in legislation). Guns are not only for hunting or overthrowing a government. They serve a societal purpose and benefit as well. Just as there's a herd immunity for vaccines, there's a herd deterrent in legal concealed carry. If someone doesn't know who's armed and who's not, they're less likely to pick a target at random. Note that I don't say it won't still happen, because it does, but there is a net benefit not net loss.

5. Schnell, not sure where you're getting your numbers. While I get your point and do agree with the overall percentage being low, the last I checked it's about 32% of the US, not 25%. Minor point but yeah. ~107,000,000 gun owners in the US since we have a population of 323,000,000.

However, when you take into account that out of that total population, 22.8% are under the age of 18 (73,000,000 give or take) that means that it's 107,000,000 out of 250,000,000. In other words, damn near every other adult.

Factor in how many people - especially in this day and age - would answer truthfully to a random phone call asking them if they owned a gun and I'd be willing to bet that enough are still in the closet about their gun ownership that it really is 1/2 of the adult population. Now obviously, there are concentrations in major cities where perhaps the majority do not own guns, but in terms of making sweeping legislation criminalizing aspects of a lifestyle, I am not willing to demonize or punish half the population of the United States because of some bad actors. I will reiterate - just as we should not be demonizing immigrants, Muslims, etc because of the evil actions of an exceedingly small subset of that population, neither should be ok with doing it to half the damn adult population of the country.

edit - I should clarify, my numbers are estimates as are those from any of the surveys / polls studying gun ownership. Furthermore, the numbers in some polls do clarify "own or live with someone who owns" so that would affect numbers a bit as well. It may indeed be a far lower rate of gun ownership. However, I would like to point out that even half that number at say, 17% of the population, is still a greater number of people and greater portion of our population than those that identify as some form of LGBTQ; it's a greater number of people and portion of the population than immigrants; etc.

 

[nbean16]

The problem with hanks plan is it would likely cause more death, imprisonment and ruined lives than all mass shootings combined which is what I assume the plan is trying to curb, so it makes no sense.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

The problem with hanks plan is it would likely cause more death, imprisonment and ruined lives than all mass shootings combined which is what I assume the plan is trying to curb, so it makes no sense.

Didn't think about that. Good point.

Again though, if we don't become the defining part of the discussion, "they" (anti-gun left) will. So again, I think it's important that we are driving the discussion.

What other solutions does anyone have? Are there any? None? I agree that statistically it's actually a non issue - but to the general uneducated public and to our legislators, it is an issue....

 

[bojangle]

***snip***

It would take time, a lot of time, to see a reduction but overtime I believe you would. It would not stop mass shootings, kills, terrorism or crazy people from murdering people. It would simply help limit the amount of damage that they could actually do.

That's a pretty drastic violation of the rights of all Americans for something that wouldn't stop mass shootings, kills, terrorism, or crazy people from murdering people. What evidence is there that this drastic confiscation scheme would limit the amount of damage? How much damage can a bomb do?

I think someone hacked your account. I'm a bit surprised seeing this idea from you, even just as a discussion starting point. A statistical non-issue is certainly no reason to ban semi autos. But you are correct that gun owners and those who recognize the value of the 2A need to be driving the discussion, otherwise "those non-riders who hate all things motorcycle" will keep at it because they believe they have nothing to lose. (Even though reality is different.)

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Hahah. Not a hack. Just a discussion starter. We can have our heads in the sand and say"no" all day but the fact is people ARE making laws and having discussions without us. We need to be the defining voice not the secondary.

And does what I wrote actually violate the 2nd as it's written and been ruled on by the Supreme Court? Im not so sure. Assault weapon bans have been deemed legal. Magazine bans have been deemed legal. Banning of fully automatic firearms was deemed legal. My personal opinion of those laws doesn't matter here -- what the courts have said does.

I dunno? I really don't - but I don't see what I wrote as being unlawful per current rulings - or lack of willingness to be heard - than what's already out there.

Quite honestly there's been enough good points on it - including my distrust that it would truly "end there" that I wouldn't even support it at this point. But again, we as gun owners need to be the drivers on this issue -- not passengers.

 

[72SBC]

one thing about the internet - you never quite know for sure who you are talking to.

Exactly so don't portray yourself as a knee jerk type who is going to be single issue voter, as you just did. You look one dimensional and not meeting you ever, you seem very emotionally charged in many threads.

Just sayin'

 

[Schnellbandit]

1. Beltway sniper

2. Texas tower shooter

3. Semi-Autos are the vast majority of guns because it describes a function not a type. There are semi-auto handguns, shotguns, rifles. On this basis alone I disagree with function being the defining feature for a ban.

4. Semi-autos are more accurate and easier to shoot for weaker people. Yes, this includes young adult school shooters, but it also includes women, handicapped people, or just someone who's fighting off an attacker with one hand while drawing their gun with their other hand. Nowhere did I see you mention or discuss any of the benefits of gun ownership - namely, self defense - in your "compromise" (which, by the way, I strongly disagree with and would vehemently speak out against if ever actually proposed in legislation). Guns are not only for hunting or overthrowing a government. They serve a societal purpose and benefit as well. Just as there's a herd immunity for vaccines, there's a herd deterrent in legal concealed carry. If someone doesn't know who's armed and who's not, they're less likely to pick a target at random. Note that I don't say it won't still happen, because it does, but there is a net benefit not net loss.

5. Schnell, not sure where you're getting your numbers. While I get your point and do agree with the overall percentage being low, the last I checked it's about 32% of the US, not 25%. Minor point but yeah. ~107,000,000 gun owners in the US since we have a population of 323,000,000.

.

I used the numbers often cited by gun control advocacies since as I said, they would be slanted in favor of those agendas and because had I used other numbers then the arguments that the actual number of gun owners being a smaller percentage, the percentage represented by shooters would be greater.

The fact remains that a very small percentage of gun owners engage in mass shootings, that percentage being so small it calls into the question the porportion of efforts to impose more gun controls on the law abiding.

What other group of people where such a small percentage engage in criminal behaviour do we go to the lengths we have gone to eliminate or infringe on the rights of the innocent remainder?

I can't think of one other than those hijacking airplanes.

If we take what is more likely, that a greater than 25% of the population owns guns, the percentage of those engaging in mass shootings goes down even further.

That leave me to believe that any attempts to use guns as something to be controlled when it comes to mass shooting has a completely different function and that it has little to nothing to do with trying to save lives and everything to do with controlling lives.

 

[bojangle]

Hahah. Not a hack. Just a discussion starter. We can have our heads in the sand and say"no" all day but the fact is people ARE making laws and having discussions without us. We need to be the defining voice not the secondary.

And does what I wrote actually violate the 2nd as it's written and been ruled on by the Supreme Court? Im not so sure. Assault weapon bans have been deemed legal. Magazine bans have been deemed legal. Banning of fully automatic firearms was deemed legal. My personal opinion of those laws doesn't matter here -- what the courts have said does.

I dunno? I really don't - but I don't see what I wrote as being unlawful per current rulings - or lack of willingness to be heard - than what's already out there.

Quite honestly there's been enough good points on it - including my distrust that it would truly "end there" that I wouldn't even support it at this point. But again, we as gun owners need to be the drivers on this issue -- not passengers.

How many shots are usually fired in police shootings before the threat is stopped? Seems banning semi autos would significantly limit my ability to stop a threat, Nevermind multiple threats.

Magazine bans and "assault" rifle bans have been ruled as Constitutional by SCOTUS? Have they? I don't think so. In fact, didn't SCOTUS rule that DC and Chicago handgun bans were unconstitutional? Some states (and cities) are successful for long periods of time in creating illegal laws. It takes a lot for them to be eventually overruled.