Gun Legislation
 

So D-Barr suggested I highjacked my own thread, so let’s move it to one dedicated to the discussion. I guess the first question I have is how many here even feel this country has a serious gun problem?

I’d also be curious how many feel it is irresponsible for Mitch to not bring the House passed legislation to the floor for a vote. I don’t have the complete legislation, but I haven’t heard of anything in it that would cause the usual 2A argument.

I would also wonder why this administration killed all funding to research gun violence, is there something they don’t want the public to know?

Tied to the gun problem might be the question, why we don’t have laws to even recognize domestic terrorism?

Eventually it will go to John’s question, why should the sane gun owner be prevented from buying a semi automatic rifle. If that’s a line the senate will never cross, I’d like to see it illegal to have these large capacity magazines.

answer the quetion

Love how the focus turns to this administration,thus absolving previous administrations from being complicit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Feb. 28, 2017, 8:36 PM EST / Updated Feb. 28, 2017, 8:39 PM EST
By Ali Vitali
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.

The results in several countries of gun control

Over the next few years, gun-death totals were cut nearly in half. Firearm suicides dropped to 0.8 per 100,000 people in 2006 from 2.2 in 1995, while firearm homicides dropped to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006 from 0.37 in 1995.

The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides.

X, which has strict laws for obtaining firearms, seldom has more than 10 shooting deaths a year in a population of 127 million people.

Compared with the US, Y has about one-third of the number of guns per 100 civilians — and about one-tenth of the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people.

Love how many are so stuck living in the past, unless you have a time machine, we need to solve it in the present or the near future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Happy to, thought you would have read between the lines or had a recollection of my position from past discussions. I don’t see the need for assault style weapons, but I am also not stupid enough to believe this or even the next administration would ban them, my hope is much stricter regulations for purchase, closing loopholes and making these high capacity magazines illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's awfully generic and vague

I agree
I also know he has been busy erasing past mistakes and I am confident things are going to improve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is the issue: Overall Gun related deaths are down near 40% since the peak in the mid 90s (though rising again). The outliers of this are mass shootings and increased inner city violence in some places. Mental Health / Drugs and Gangs / Drugs.

The Right, Some moderate & Independents, and those that believe in the Constitution/2A believe the right to bear arms is absolute and that Self Defense is a Basic Right. Several courts from District to Supreme (Heller) have confirmed this.

The Left, Some moderate & Independents, (I would grant that far less on Left believe in the Constitution) and those that believe in legislating to a better society (rights be damned).

Dems believe that they can banish "Assault Weapons" and that this would do a lot of good. A lot of Dem legislators & Talking Heads that do not know how a firearm operates have done this massive dis/misinformation campaign and made a lot of good people out to be bad people. "You are in the NRA, you must be a racist". They put a lot of pressure on this and this basically target millions of good law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong. Wayne says nobody wants to take your guns but whether he is lying, naive, or foolish, I just don't know.

Then these same Dems complain that the Reps and Pro 2A won't work with them. Who would want to work with a Party that wants to take away your rights, against your core beliefs in the value of Self Protection, that don't know how a firearm operates, that really does not address the core problem or Mental Health?

Circle back to the top, the problem in Mass Shootings is usually mental health ( I linked this yesterday from a Renowned Never Trumper - bet most of you did not read it) and how that allows outside influences to channel these "Lost Boys". The El Paso guy might have been set off by some 8Chan/Trump and the Ohio guy was apparently and Antifascist hard left awkward incel - both lost boys with different paths to get where they did. Both would have been top candidates for Red Flag laws. MOST of the Mass Shooters over the past 20 years been candidates for Red Flag laws.

We already have very stringent background laws and checks. I cannot purchase a firearm over the counter or privately without having a legal background check from NICS (National Instant criminal Background Check System).

You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
Back to the next line same as the first line.

Some states have blocked what data can be submitted to NICS, particularly Mental Health records - items that would be a disqualification for passing an NICS check. Other state and Federal systems have screwed up data transfer which have failed to prevent some people with disqualifying items on their record from causing a NICS check fail. This has been pointed out in the past as allowing people that would have failed a NCIS Check to get firearms. The System Failed. The existing laws were sufficient, the application was not.

So where do we start? IMO we need Red Flag laws that can identify (with just cause) these Lanzas, Roofs, Johnsons, Cruz types that all were on someone's radar. We need to do it in a way that protects their individual rights (due process) and if deemed a risk, prevented from Firearm access and gotten help.

We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.
We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.
We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.
We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.


How do we help the Urban Violence, where most of the tragedy to our our kids happens? No idea.

At no place in that oped does Tom Nichols say that mental health has anything to do with it. In fact, those words are not in that article. Lost Boys are an issue, but for some reason largely in this country.

WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association, in reaction to President Trump’s statements today regarding gun violence and mental illness:

“Blaming mental illness for the gun violence in our country is simplistic and inaccurate and goes against the scientific evidence currently available.

“The United States is a global outlier when it comes to horrific headlines like the ones that consumed us all weekend. Although the United States makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, we are home to 31% of all mass shooters globally, according to a CNN analysis. This difference is not explained by the rate of mental illness in the U.S.

Two different problems, mass shootings and gang violence.

For mass shootings, i’m completely fine with banning large capacity magazines, and i’m fine with restrictions on guns in homes where someone lives who is mentally ill. The second amendment is not absolute, the same guys who wrote it also founded the university of virginia and banned weapons on campus. So it clearly wasn’t intended to be absolute. these measures will not eliminate mass shootings, no lawnis perfect, but they might reduce the overall body count. we also need to make it easier to commit the mentally ill.

we also need to somehow reverse fatherlessness, a good start would be saying out loud that toxic
masculinity is a moronic liberal myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you've always insisted that liberalism is a mental disorder....soooo...

Define "Restrictions" and define "Mentally Ill"

they like to be vague.....ask him about the University of Virginia...WAIT!! don't

that’s the obvious question! i don’t think i can. i won’t lose any sleep trusting that to doctors, or to judges, or to whoever we entrust to grant restraining orders. we let fellow citizens decide if another citizen should go to prison, and in some cases, if that person should
be executed. if we’re comfortable with that responsibility, i can be comfortable with some
kind of hearing to determine if a home has a mental health issue significant enough to remove guns, or maybe only allow guns with fingerprint recognition so that he impaired person can’t hurt anyone else. if that makes me a gun grabbing commie totalitarian, i can live with that characterization if it prevents one single 4 -foot casket from going into the ground.

at some point we have to try something. obviously it won’t solve the problem. might save some
innocent lives, without necessarily trampling on basic rights. just my opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah yeah yeah.

i brought my golden retriever, a certified pet therapy dog, to Newtown. I’m sure what i saw there, is affecting my judgment here scott. but i won’t lose any sleep if paranoid schizophrenics aren’t allowed access to firearms. we take the right to bear arms away from felons, from those who fail background checks, and from those who have restraining orders against them, right? is this so different from
that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well that's a little more specificity...probably shouldn't have access to any sharp objects either

it’s hard scott, we should be a little better than this. i’m not saying i have any meaningful
answers. but every time this happens, the right circles their wagons around guns, the left can’t talk about anything other than guns. and nothing gets better.

Well, now they can blame Trump too, which is astounding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Issue adjusting to the world, not growing up, visions of heroism as adults, sure is some symptoms of mental illness. Now look at Lanza, Roof, Johnson, Cruz, and they all have Mental Illnesses, right? Delusional personalities, threats of shooting places and people up, a history of violence - those are not indicative mental illnesses?

I think the APA has valid reasons for not agreeing with your diagnosis.
However they did not say do nothing.
I didn't post the entire statement because I didn't want to drag this tread down the Trump rabbithole.
But I will.
Blaming mental illness for gun violence is simplistic, inaccurate — and prevents us from solving the problem

WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association, in reaction to President Trump’s statements today regarding gun violence and mental illness:

“Blaming mental illness for the gun violence in our country is simplistic and inaccurate and goes against the scientific evidence currently available.

“The United States is a global outlier when it comes to horrific headlines like the ones that consumed us all weekend. Although the United States makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, we are home to 31% of all mass shooters globally, according to a CNN analysis. This difference is not explained by the rate of mental illness in the U.S.

“The one stark difference? Access to guns.

“Americans own nearly half of the estimated 650 million civilian-owned guns in the world. Access to this final, fatal tool means more deaths that occur more quickly, whether in a mass shooting or in someone’s own home.

“As we psychological scientists have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. And there is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will resort to gun violence. Based on the research, we know only that a history of violence is the single best predictor of who will commit future violence. And access to more guns, and deadlier guns, means more lives lost.

“Based on the psychological science, we know some of the steps we need to take. We need to limit civilians’ access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We need to institute universal background checks. And we should institute red flag laws that remove guns from people who are at high risk of committing violent acts.

“And although the president called on the nation to do a ‘better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,’ that requires research to ensure we are making decisions based on data, not prejudices and fear.

“We agree with the president’s call to strengthen background checks. But this falls woefully short of what is needed. We must take a comprehensive public health approach and provide dedicated federal funding to agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, to better understand the causes, contributing factors and solutions to gun violence.

“The president clearly said that it is time to stop the hateful rhetoric that is infecting the public discourse. We ask that he use his powerful position to model that behavior. And we ask that the federal government support the research needed to better understand the causes of bigotry and hate, and their association to violence, so that we may devise evidence-based solutions.”

Thank goodness the liberals are not in charge and the Trump train will get us back on track.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny other countries have guns they have video games they have gangs they even have MH issues .. what they don't have is the Gun violence on the scale here in the USA

its all about availability and availability isn't an issue .. and thats the issues

And when I hear the excuse it's my constitutional right to own any Gun I want ...please your part of the problem

like many things in todays world not everyone should have the ability to own any firearms they want ..

even these simple ideas are unacceptable to the NRA and their supporters


a mandatory 48-hour waiting period to take possession of a purchased gun (including, apparently, for those who already own guns);

a ban on the private sale of firearms;

federal licensing and mandatory training to obtain a firearm;

a nationwide registry of every firearm, firearm owner, and firearm transaction in America;

You will penalize law abiding citizens. You can chose to trade away your right, I choose not to.

I am not part of the problem. I have no intention of being part of the problem. GS asked for us to provide solutions and have dialogue, we provide solutions and you attack me? I'm part of the problem?

You pull this crap all the time, You KNOW that someone cannot legally buy any gun they want.

In RI (and other states) you have to put private sales thru the systems.

No Registry. Nope, not happening.

Not if you go to a gun show. No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(Numbered for ease...)

1. Fair enough, there are limits on some weapons, but the Dayton kid killed 9 people and injured a couple dozen more in 30 #^&#^&#^&#^&ing seconds before LEO engaged and took him down because of the weapon he had access to and the capacity it had. I heard reports he had a handgun and shotgun. He grabbed the one he had to cause the most carnage. Jim and I agree on this, that should be more limits on that side of things. It won't stop nut jobs but it will limit the damage in many of these type of cases.

2. Every state?

3. You don't want a registry, how about universal background checks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go google AK style regulations state by state and there are tons of states with no regulations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

AK style?

I googled "ak style" and got some cool looking shotguns

I have not even read anything else you wrote or anyone posted after the first question.
We have a people problem in this country Bob, that is all. Guns are not a problem, they are an asset and their ownership by citizens is necessary for all the freedoms you enjoy in this nation. It really is that simple. Gun grabbers are simply wrong. They only want power and if we continue to give up our liberties then we are done for.
I would advise you to put your efforts towards limiting mental defectives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1 - Same issue, people with problems, not the magazines that do this. There was a case in California where a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff that her handgun with 10 round capacity put her at a disadvantage against criminals that disregarded CA law. For one week, larger capacity mags were legally sold, until the 9th court put a stay on the order pending further legal action.

Previous rulings against capacity (and rifles) have favored that these are used in self defense and that the owner should not be at a disadvantage against criminals.

Again, fight to keep these out of the hands of people with issues, not law abiding people. If you live in West Greenwich it can take 20 minutes for a cop to get there.

2. Every state requires a NICS check. Period. This is federal law.

3. I would be OK with better background checks (Universal is open for a lot of interpretation) provided we can agree in advance what they are and not available for Anti2A people to slip something in after. The problem is when ever pro 2A makes a deal, Anti2A moves the goal posts. Arguably the number one reason nothing gets done, and the Pro2A get the blame. Several shooters might have been prevented but States refused to give Mental Health records or the Military did not properly submit Dishonorable Discharges.


ALL Semi Automatic Rifles, particularly AR15 and "AK style" require a NICS check when purchasing. ALL.


Not sure what that is

Sorry Bruce the guns don’t kill people, people kill people is very convenient, but doesn’t address the ease at which these either mentally or socially bankrupt individuals can obtain weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. We have an equal number now bring killed by domestic terror than radical Islamic terror.

To suggest the evil Dems are coming for your guns is nuts, go count how many of those evil Dems are avid hunters or handgun owners. The number of nut jobs isn’t going down and making it more difficult if not impossible for troubled people or someone with an online agenda from being able to purchase makes sense.

I have no issue with legal gun ownership, but I also don’t see a need for assault rifles, or at least magazines with the capacity to kill so many in do little time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's what I said too...:huh: thought it was Alaskan fashion or something

A couple of problems with your statements. First, "weapons" (would that have included knives and swords?) were not banned. There was no infringement on the right to own arms. Nor, really, on the right to bear them as was meant by those who wrote the Constitution. They were banned solely on campus. Property owners have the right to ban most things, including arms, from being brought onto their property. It was never understood that the right to own and bear arms meant that the owner could use them to intimidate, threaten, or murder people. There were other laws and rights (including property rights, to life, etc.) that would curb how and where you could use and bear your weapons. It was understood that the right to own arms was for self defense (including, especially, defense against a tyrannical government) or for peaceful means to kill game for food or sport. Any absoluteness would be embodied in the PURPOSE for the right to own and bear arms. Your Virginia example does not infringe on the 2A in that respect.

Which leads to the second and greater problem with your statements. When you make an open-ended judgment on the lack of absoluteness of the 2A, you invite the total eradication of it. If you say that it is absolutely not absolute, you are not showing in what way it cannot be infringed, or even eliminated. If there is no absolute quality in the 2A, if it is subject to infringement by any supposedly rational or "reasonable" objection, it then lacks any unassailable power to exist.

To say that the 2A is not absolute is Progressive verbiage which is exactly intended as a step and rationale for eliminating it. This notion that there are no absolute rights is precisely a basic premise of Progressivism in which rights have no basis other than a grant from government.

this isn't that complicated right? banning guns from being brought on to a property is quite different from banning an individual's right of ownership....to make the leap using that example to then claim the right is therefore not absolute, is a bit confusing

yup. this is an issue
on which my side tends to
soumd like we wear the tin foil
hats. too many people
on both sides clinging to
ideological purity. so nothing, and i
mean NOTHING, gets done. it’s a national disgrace that we’ve done zip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you break the law, or are outside of the law in a way that is a threat to law abiding citizens, you forfeit many legal rights. Constitutional rights protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those who are not a threat to the rights of others.

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

it’s not dumb.

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.

so you’re opposed to such actions unless they are “after the fact”? Maybe it’s just by dumbness again, but isn’t it far superior to address these things before the fact? isn’t that the goal we should
be striving for?

restraining orders can be given before the fact, when there’s a reasonable threat. Meaning, a person who hasn’t actually done anything illegal yet, is sufficiently likely to do something wrong in the future, that we seriously limit his liberties and his freedoms - we tell him where he can and cannot go.

I’ll ask again, why are red flag laws so different from this principle? seems very similar to me. Are you opposed to granting restraining orders until after an assault has been committed against the person applying for the order? would
you tell her she had to wait until after the fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how is a registry going to penalize law abiding citizens

it always circles back to the myth there coming to take our Guns..

thinking people should not own AK 47 AR 15 ,FAMAS SCAR or any variant cosmetically changed to avoid the vague laws ..


is not wanting to take anyone's guns or remove your right to own a gun .. is a lie sold by the NRA ...only the gun lobby sees this issue as absolute... even the 1a has limits but 2a OMG