After Orlando: Do you want stricter Gun Control?

[LetsGoBrandon]

I wouldn't object to putting speed governors on all vehicles. When the technology allows for the implementation of auto pilot for cars and trucks I'd be for the vehicles being designed to not exceed the posted speed limit. We should always do the most we can to deter harm done to others by those carrying out inherently dangerous behaviours.

I would object to that. It woul cause far more motor vehicle accidents then it would prevent.. Just enforce the damn existing laws.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I live in California south central l.a. to be exact. we have about the strictest gun laws in usa. but I have all the guns I want because I am a law abiding citizen. I have 1 gun for protection( pump Mossberg) colt ar15 and 2 target rifles 30.06 and a 308. I don't feel in this country it should be a right to have a gun but a privilege just like driving. the thing about some people is that they are crazy about having the power of being able to kill someone at the touch of their finger. are they really so afraid to live in the best country in the world. but I do see their side because everyone should have the right to protect themselves/ home,, but I feel anyone that can put their hand on a gun should have a background check and their should be a data base for mentally disturbed people that all sellers of guns must check before selling a gun to anyone. and if you are on the list and still want a gun get clearance from a doctor and submit it to court to get it taken of the list. and of course no fly no buy.

Possessing firearms is a right for law abiding citizens....not a privilege. Background checks already exist, as do laws where the mentally ill are supposed to be added to that national background check database. The latter is simply not enforced.

 

[Thrilla]

I live in California south central l.a. to be exact. we have about the strictest gun laws in usa. but I have all the guns I want because I am a law abiding citizen. I have 1 gun for protection( pump Mossberg) colt ar15 and 2 target rifles 30.06 and a 308. I don't feel in this country it should be a right to have a gun but a privilege just like driving. the thing about some people is that they are crazy about having the power of being able to kill someone at the touch of their finger. are they really so afraid to live in the best country in the world. but I do see their side because everyone should have the right to protect themselves/ home,, but I feel anyone that can put their hand on a gun should have a background check and their should be a data base for mentally disturbed people that all sellers of guns must check before selling a gun to anyone. and if you are on the list and still want a gun get clearance from a doctor and submit it to court to get it taken of the list. and of course no fly no buy.

interesting... a gun owner that doesn't belive it's a right to own a gun... there's something you don't see everyday.

i recently got in to purchasing AR's and variants ( I'm a bolt action guy, and i caried an M-16 or too many years to like the AR platform).... how long have you had a hold of yours?

 

[The Mark]

I want the laws dealing with guns to make sense.


It makes sense to require a background check every time you purchase a gun, perhaps even every time your purchase ammunition (if, for example, someone acquired a gun illegally or acquired one in another way that would not show up in any system..and needed ammo.).
That said, background checks need to be reasonable as well - a brief check of available records, if nothing odd shows up you are allowed to purchase the weapon and/or ammunition. If something questionable shows up, you have to wait while they check further.

Edit: In the background here are things I know little about - how good the interaction between local, state, and federal law enforcement is, how well record sharing works, if at all... Whether it is even possible, currently, to look up all available records and see if there is reason to dig deeper...

The intent and goal being, to prevent people who are or might be a threat from easily acquiring a weapon they can use to kill others - while at the same time allowing people who are just out to go hunting or target shooting to do so without unreasonable paperwork.

The main issue is not whether we need to have background checks, but how we determine who is "a potential threat" - who needs checked more closely. Without some way of restricting and/or monitoring the process that marks individuals as potential threats, it could be abused or mishandled.
And has been already, in some cases, if I understand the history of the current "no fly list".


For all I know, things already work this way in most cases of gun purchase - but it needs to be all cases.


On to the topic of capability restrictions - magazine capacity limits and banning of, or additional paperwork required for, certain weapons.

In some ways, it makes sense to limit the the types and maximum magazine capacity of weapons someone can purchase easily - but at the same time, I think there needs to be a provision (probably more in-depth background check, etc) allowing someone to purchase such things.
You can argue that magazine size and weapon type aren't really going to stop someone from killing people - and you'd be right. But it might at least slow them down a bit.



In the end, all laws of this type will do is make it more difficult for someone who is mentally ill to kill a bunch of people. Attacks like Orlando will still happen. We might be able to reduce them by improving mental healthcare and awareness, but that's an entirely different, if directly related, topic....I digress.

For myself, that is enough for me to support improved gun laws - but they must be done right.

 

[blackjack50]

I live in California south central l.a. to be exact. we have about the strictest gun laws in usa. but I have all the guns I want because I am a law abiding citizen. I have 1 gun for protection( pump Mossberg) colt ar15 and 2 target rifles 30.06 and a 308. I don't feel in this country it should be a right to have a gun but a privilege just like driving. the thing about some people is that they are crazy about having the power of being able to kill someone at the touch of their finger. are they really so afraid to live in the best country in the world. but I do see their side because everyone should have the right to protect themselves/ home,, but I feel anyone that can put their hand on a gun should have a background check and their should be a data base for mentally disturbed people that all sellers of guns must check before selling a gun to anyone. and if you are on the list and still want a gun get clearance from a doctor and submit it to court to get it taken of the list. and of course no fly no buy.

All those gun laws don't help you there. And then you say background checks and a database for mentally disturbed? Problem:

1) The system to subvert a background check already exists: straw purchasing and theft and homemade firearms (a big industry in your backyard actually...shipped in from the Philippines...search Danao).

2) In order for their to be a system, you have to be able to diagnose. We don't have that ability. We don't even provide quality coverage for mental health.

 

[cabse5]

nm...

 

[cabse5]

All you have to do is read the history of the passage of the second amendment in 1789. The second amendment was a militia right to keep and bear arms not an individual right. The fact that most militia weapons were made up of individuals' weapons had no bearing on the individual right.

Besides, we don't have militias anymore. We have federal standing armies that were first talked about during Sam Adams' presidency to defend the US against the possible incursions of France.

That wasn't Sam Adam's presidency, it was his cousin John's. I must've been thirsty when I posted this.

 

[Mycroft]

I want the laws dealing with guns to make sense.


It makes sense to require a background check every time you purchase a gun, perhaps even every time your purchase ammunition (if, for example, someone acquired a gun illegally or acquired one in another way that would not show up in any system..and needed ammo.).
That said, background checks need to be reasonable as well - a brief check of available records, if nothing odd shows up you are allowed to purchase the weapon and/or ammunition. If something questionable shows up, you have to wait while they check further.

Edit: In the background here are things I know little about - how good the interaction between local, state, and federal law enforcement is, how well record sharing works, if at all... Whether it is even possible, currently, to look up all available records and see if there is reason to dig deeper...

The intent and goal being, to prevent people who are or might be a threat from easily acquiring a weapon they can use to kill others - while at the same time allowing people who are just out to go hunting or target shooting to do so without unreasonable paperwork.

The main issue is not whether we need to have background checks, but how we determine who is "a potential threat" - who needs checked more closely. Without some way of restricting and/or monitoring the process that marks individuals as potential threats, it could be abused or mishandled.
And has been already, in some cases, if I understand the history of the current "no fly list".


For all I know, things already work this way in most cases of gun purchase - but it needs to be all cases.


On to the topic of capability restrictions - magazine capacity limits and banning of, or additional paperwork required for, certain weapons.

In some ways, it makes sense to limit the the types and maximum magazine capacity of weapons someone can purchase easily - but at the same time, I think there needs to be a provision (probably more in-depth background check, etc) allowing someone to purchase such things.
You can argue that magazine size and weapon type aren't really going to stop someone from killing people - and you'd be right. But it might at least slow them down a bit.



In the end, all laws of this type will do is make it more difficult for someone who is mentally ill to kill a bunch of people. Attacks like Orlando will still happen. We might be able to reduce them by improving mental healthcare and awareness, but that's an entirely different, if directly related, topic....I digress.

For myself, that is enough for me to support improved gun laws - but they must be done right.

You see...this is at the core of your rationalizations and it is in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[The Mark]

All those gun laws don't help you there. And then you say background checks and a database for mentally disturbed? Problem:

1) The system to subvert a background check already exists: straw purchasing and theft and homemade firearms (a big industry in your backyard actually...shipped in from the Philippines...search Danao).

2) In order for their to be a system, you have to be able to diagnose. We don't have that ability. We don't even provide quality coverage for mental health.

It seems to me that if we want to address the underlying issue behind mass shootings - poor mental healthcare and understanding - we almost have to have some form of social program that provides it to everyone.
And combine that with the need to educate everyone on seeing the early signs so it can be addressed before it becomes a bigger issue...we're talking a major social program here, or an extension of one that already exists.

The idea is...daunting.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Oh give me a break, over 30,000 people die every year in this country by gunshot. Airplane hijacking no so much.

And your guns have never shot up a place...good. Now support the doing of something to limit those which do.

over half of whom are people who decided to end their own lives, leaving 11 thousand by homicide, not all of which is criminal homicide, you're talking maybe 9500 criminal homicides by firearm each year, which is not a large percentage, in fact it's not even one fiftieth of one percentage point of all causes of death in this country

 

[The Mark]

You see...this is at the core of your rationalizations and it is in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment protects a person's right to keep and bear arms, if memory serves.

I think you are misunderstanding my point here - I'm not saying we prevent people from buying weapons and/or ammunition, I'm saying we need to check whether they are likely to commit a crime before we allow the sale.
That doesn't seem like a violation of the 2nd A to me - just a reasonable precaution.


We already ban former criminals from purchasing weapons, in some areas. Which, now that I mention it, I have a problem with - if there's a former criminal who has no intention of committing a crime again, they should be able to get a job, purchase a gun, and do anything else the average person can do.

The key problem is determining whether they are unlikely to commit a crime again.
Just as with the Orlando attacker - he appears to have had mental health problems - frankly, if you've committed a mass shooting, the act alone proves you have mental health issues, IMO.

But, I digress - recognizing and treating mental health issues. We need a major improvement in that area. Actually, I think it would do more good than any increase in gun law restrictions...

 

[blackjack50]

Demanding you obey stop signs and speed limits does not equate to punishment. They are the rule of operation

Not what I'm stating. I could have been more clear though. Driving is a privilege. And if the government wants to add rules...it has a much lower burden than adding rules to a right. Especially when said "rules" impact everyone regardless of guilt.

Rights are not the same. Rights are limits on the governments authority. Not the other way around. The government has the burden to prove their case. This case? They are limiting people WITHOUT conviction. The list is a secret. We have no idea how someone gets on the list. It is a removal of rights without conviction. Period.

All other drivers on the road represent a threat. The mere fact that they are a heavy object in the act of moving makes them a threat. You would be wise to drive defensively with that fact in mind. They don't have to prove they are a threat, they are by default. Collectively all those vehicles on the road are a danger to everyone using the roadways

They DO have to prove YOU are a threat in order to remove YOUR privilege. And you have to convicted. They do not take your license based on suspicion. This current batch of proposed laws does remove a RIGHT based on suspicion

300,000,000 guns also represents a threat to us all.

No. Actually it doesn't. Less than .09% of the legal gun owning population represents ANY threat to anyone. That is people. The guns are not the problem. And the laws proposed impact ME. They raise the price. They cost ME money. I can be placed on an arbitrary list based on suspicion, the laws being introduced already have ways of subversion...AND...current laws are not even enforced. Hell...your government is letting guns be taken by drug cartels and then LOSING them.

So tell me...if we are talking about threats? What about the threat of not enforcing laws and then losing guns to criminals?

I demand that there be rules for gun ownership and use to limit that threat just as there are for drivers.

And I demand you leave my rights alone. So does the majority. Hence your demands are not infringing on my rights.

It's only common sense.

Common sense says enforce current legislation. It is illegal for a felon to own a gun. It is illegal to straw purchase a firearm. It is illegal to own a gun if you have been mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others. Mass shooters show warning signs and nothing is ever done. We have limited to non existent mental health care coverage. Even for violent offenders and convicted felons.

You want to talk common sense? Stop demanding my rights be violated with arbitrary legislation when current legislation is unenforceable due to government inaction and incompetence.

 

[Mycroft]

The 2nd Amendment protects a person's right to keep and bear arms, if memory serves.

I think you are misunderstanding my point here - I'm not saying we prevent people from buying weapons and/or ammunition, I'm saying we need to check whether they are likely to commit a crime before we allow the sale.
That doesn't seem like a violation of the 2nd A to me - just a reasonable precaution.


We already ban former criminals from purchasing weapons, in some areas. Which, now that I mention it, I have a problem with - if there's a former criminal who has no intention of committing a crime again, they should be able to get a job, purchase a gun, and do anything else the average person can do.

The key problem is determining whether they are unlikely to commit a crime again.
Just as with the Orlando attacker - he appears to have had mental health problems - frankly, if you've committed a mass shooting, the act alone proves you have mental health issues, IMO.

But, I digress - recognizing and treating mental health issues. We need a major improvement in that area. Actually, I think it would do more good than any increase in gun law restrictions...

Infringe means infringe...no matter what kind of justifications for such infringement you care to apply.

 

[Russell797]

over half of whom are people who decided to end their own lives, leaving 11 thousand by homicide, not all of which is criminal homicide, you're talking maybe 9500 criminal homicides by firearm each year, which is not a large percentage, in fact it's not even one fiftieth of one percentage point of all causes of death in this country

So all is just fine and dandy...Gotcha

 

[The Mark]

Infringe means infringe...no matter what kind of justifications for such infringement you care to apply.

So your position is that I or anyone else should be able to go to any weapon store in the country, pull out some money, and purchase anything they have for sale, without question.

 

[mak2]

Firearm wise. Yea. In fact, it anything is for sell to the public, why cant anyone buy it?

So your position is that I should be able to go to any weapon store in the country, pull out my wallet, and purchase anything they have for sale, without question.

 

[TurtleDude]

Infringe means infringe...no matter what kind of justifications for such infringement you care to apply.

so many low information voters and citizens really have no concept of the constitutional framework. ITs not the duty of a citizen to prove he can do somethig FREE of federal interference. RATHER the federal government is a government of limited powers even though FDR did every thing possible to give the federal government tons of powers it was never intended to have. That being said, the DUTY is on those who want the federal government to restrict what people do, to PROVE that the federal government actually has that power. So the issue is not what "INFRINGEMENTS" the second amendment stops (btw the correct answer is ALL at a federal level) but rather, what justification exists for ANY type of federal infringement

 

[TurtleDude]

So your position is that I or anyone else should be able to go to any weapon store in the country, pull out some money, and purchase anything they have for sale, without question.

at a federal level YES. at a state level-its more murky

 

[Russell797]

Not what I'm stating. I could have been more clear though. Driving is a privilege. And if the government wants to add rules...it has a much lower burden than adding rules to a right. Especially when said "rules" impact everyone regardless of guilt.

Rights are not the same. Rights are limits on the governments authority. Not the other way around. The government has the burden to prove their case. This case? They are limiting people WITHOUT conviction. The list is a secret. We have no idea how someone gets on the list. It is a removal of rights without conviction. Period.





They DO have to prove YOU are a threat in order to remove YOUR privilege. And you have to convicted. They do not take your license based on suspicion. This current batch of proposed laws does remove a RIGHT based on suspicion



No. Actually it doesn't. Less than .09% of the legal gun owning population represents ANY threat to anyone. That is people. The guns are not the problem. And the laws proposed impact ME. They raise the price. They cost ME money. I can be placed on an arbitrary list based on suspicion, the laws being introduced already have ways of subversion...AND...current laws are not even enforced. Hell...your government is letting guns be taken by drug cartels and then LOSING them.

So tell me...if we are talking about threats? What about the threat of not enforcing laws and then losing guns to criminals?



And I demand you leave my rights alone. So does the majority. Hence your demands are not infringing on my rights.



Common sense says enforce current legislation. It is illegal for a felon to own a gun. It is illegal to straw purchase a firearm. It is illegal to own a gun if you have been mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others. Mass shooters show warning signs and nothing is ever done. We have limited to non existent mental health care coverage. Even for violent offenders and convicted felons.

You want to talk common sense? Stop demanding my rights be violated with arbitrary legislation when current legislation is unenforceable due to government inaction and incompetence.

Law don't work perfectly because people break the law. Laws do not act as enough of a deterrent. This country's jails and prisons are filled to capacity as I understand it. Yet people still defiantly break laws. Even the death penalty will not deter some people. This is literally a life and death issue involving thousands of people every single year. If we can't stop this mayhem with laws after the fact of the crime then the remaining choice is to try to limit them before the fact. However, we can't do that either because you guys have your rights. So we are screwed I guess.

 

[Mycroft]

So your position is that I or anyone else should be able to go to any weapon store in the country, pull out some money, and purchase anything they have for sale, without question.

Yes..

 

[The Mark]

at a federal level YES. at a state level-its more murky

Hmm...

I suppose I can see that, in some ways...frankly I'm not sure how much good gun purchase restrictions do...sure, they probably stop some people who want to kill someone, but others will acquire an illegal firearm.
Gun purchase restrictions can slow them down, but that's about it.


Really, the underlying issue is lack of good (or even average) mental health care. And that most people (I think?) do not understand how much of an issue it actually is.
How many of the past few year's mass casualty events might have been prevented if the attackers had better mental health care? I think most...

 

[The Mark]

Oddly, the current discussion seems in some ways similar to the discussion in another thread about the recent SCOTUS decision that Texas's law regarding abortion clinics was unconstitutional.

It sounds like they applied a concept referred to as "undue burden" - basically the idea, in that specific case, that the requirements Texas's law placed on abortion clinics placed a burden on access to a right that outweighed any benefit.


Seems like the same idea could apply here...

Does restricting gun purchase based on some guideline provide enough benefit to outweigh the burden it places on people trying to exercise their right to own and use a firearm?
Probably depends on the specific guideline...

 

[Mycroft]

Hmm...

I suppose I can see that, in some ways...frankly I'm not sure how much good gun purchase restrictions do...sure, they probably stop some people who want to kill someone, but others will acquire an illegal firearm.
Gun purchase restrictions can slow them down, but that's about it.


Really, the underlying issue is lack of good (or even average) mental health care. And that most people (I think?) do not understand how much of an issue it actually is.
How many of the past few year's mass casualty events might have been prevented if the attackers had better mental health care? I think most...

Using "mental health care" as an excuse for infringing upon a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights might be acceptable to gun-grabbers...especially if they can somehow apply these restrictions willy-nilly to law-abiding citizens. To me, however, that is simply another tactic to violate the 2nd Amendment.

Look...if you REALLY want to prevent people from using guns in a violent manner, I see only three means:

1. Leave people alone so they can provide for their own defense.

2. Impose extreme punishment on those who commit crimes while using a firearm.

3. Attempt to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

 

[The Mark]

Using "mental health care" as an excuse for infringing upon a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights might be acceptable to gun-grabbers...especially if they can somehow apply these restrictions willy-nilly to law-abiding citizens. To me, however, that is simply another tactic to violate the 2nd Amendment.

Look...if you REALLY want to prevent people from using guns in a violent manner, I see only three means:

1. Leave people alone so they can provide for their own defense.

2. Impose extreme punishment on those who commit crimes while using a firearm.

3. Attempt to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

None of those means will completely prevent people from using guns in a violent manner, nor do anything to stop mass casualty events.


Which is why I started talking about mental health care - I was not thinking of it in terms of "how to determine who is a threat (and by extension, who to ban from gun ownership)", but rather "how to treat individuals mental health issues BEFORE they become a threat".

In other words, prevention.

 

[Mycroft]

None of those means will completely prevent people from using guns in a violent manner, nor do anything to stop mass casualty events.


Which is why I started talking about mental health care - I was not thinking of it in terms of "how to determine who is a threat (and by extension, who to ban from gun ownership)", but rather "how to treat individuals mental health issues BEFORE they become a threat".

In other words, prevention.

You will NEVER "completely prevent" people from using guns in a violent manner...even if you were to go so far as to abolish the 2nd Amendment, ban all firearms and ammunition and do a door to door search for all existing firearms...just like you cannot completely prevent people from committing suicide, engaging in dangerous behavior or completely prevent a host of other activities. But those steps I mentioned will do more than anything proposed by the gun-grabbers.

Dealing with mental health issues is all fine and dandy, but since this is a thread about gun control perhaps your discussion about mental health care belongs in another thread.