I'm in NJ. It's easier to have a rifle here than a handgun.Hunting guns in most countries have licenses. Get one. it’s not that hard.
So, how do you deal with a few insane cats?
I'm in NJ. It's easier to have a rifle here than a handgun.
Learn gun laws if you're going to debate about them.
wo things, first, it is impossible for one knife wielding person to kill six people and wound 24 or more from a roof top in just 24 seconds. Trying to compare the two is apples and elephants. Second, the same people who want to keep from any restraints on guns are the same ones who want to cut down the first amendment.Constitutional rights must be protected. The 2A is not a right to shoot (or shoot at) anyone.
Why isn’t knife control advocated to prevent stabbing deaths? More people are killed with knives than with rifles of any type.
Again, NJ.Both should be a little harder than they are now. Obviously. At least as hard as getting a drivers license. This class of potentially hazardous equipment is not any less dangerous than driving a car. The laws concerning them should match.
Both should be a little harder than they are now. Obviously. At least as hard as getting a drivers license. This class of potentially hazardous equipment is not any less dangerous than driving a car. The laws concerning them should match.
So how do you identify them? Reagan's administration emptied the psychiatric hospitals. Says it is illegal to institutionalize people without their consent.. So they will continue to roam freely and be legally able to purchase a gun.Identifying them and institutionalizing them would seem to be prudent. The (current) plan to allow them to roam freely among us with the hope that ever more “gun control” laws will (somehow) prevent them from becoming armed (thus even more dangerous) is obviously not working.
The idea that ‘red flag’ laws will work seems to ignore the obvious. If “Crazy Joe” is known to be dangerous (and armed) then “temporarily” taking away his (known to be available) gun(s) and limiting his ability to legally rearm himself is not likely to help calm him down, it is much more likely to enrage him further.
wo things, first, it is impossible for one knife wielding person to kill six people and wound 24 or more from a roof top in just 24 seconds. Trying to compare the two is apples and elephants. Second, the same people who want to keep from any restraints on guns are the same ones who want to cut down the first amendment.
So how do you identify them? Reagan's administration emptied the psychiatric hospitals. Says it is illegal to institutionalize people without their consent.. So they will continue to roam freely and be legally able to purchase a gun.
In the mental health community, involuntary commitment is considered a “last resort” option and is mainly issued when an individual is unable to care for him or herself and have demonstrated behaviors indicating they are a danger to themselves or others.
how “small” is small enough in your opinion?All you need for self defense is a small handgun.
Not true.They are scamming you. They are selling dangerous products to the public with no liability,
You’re reaching on this one ^. Any list of “potentially hazardous equipment” could reach into the hundreds, or even thousands of products, and within that list, many of the hazardous equipments are not extensively regulated.Rarely? ALL potentially hazardous equipment have extensive regulations on their manufacturer, sale, and use.
Regulation isn’t the only issue. Enforcement of existing laws is also a big problem.It’s unpreventively, before people get hurt. The regulations on this particular class of potentially hazardous equipment is obviously not enough.
Comparing the United States to other countries makes for interesting debate, but because of the many differences between other countries constitutions, histories/traditions, etc., arguments using direct comparisons aren’t sustainable.How much is enough? Obviously, all the other developed nations in the planet have figured it out, one way or the other. We are the ones with the most lax laws, and therefore are dealing with the most hazard to the general public. Whatever these things are doing, they’re obviously not making us safer.
True that you must prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, but unless they have done something to prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, then how will you identify them. You say red flag laws won't work. Isn't that a way of identifying them? And what would qualify them as a danger? Would it be a threat to someone or themselves, a social media page? What?
how “small” is small enough in your opinion?
So? Cigarettes are also manufactured to make sure there are no defects in their products too. Doesn't make them safe.Not true.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not exempt firearms manufacturers from liability for defective products or knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product (the provision Sandy Hook parents successfully sued under)
Text - S.397 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
Text for S.397 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Actwww.congress.gov
You’re reaching on this one ^. Any list of “potentially hazardous equipment” could reach into the hundreds, or even thousands of products, and within that list, many of the hazardous equipments are not extensively regulated.
Regulation isn’t the only issue. Enforcement of existing laws is also a big problem.
Comparing the United States to other countries makes for interesting debate, but because of the many differences between other country’s constitutions, histories/traditions, etc., arguments using direct comparisons aren’t sustainable.
When it comes to discussing/debating firearms issues in 1st world countries, the United States is a one off.
True that you must prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, but unless they have done something to prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, then how will you identify them. You say red flag laws won't work. Isn't that a way of identifying them? And what would qualify them as a danger? Would it be a threat to someone or themselves, a social media page? What?
If “Crazy Joe” states or implies an intention to harm himself or others, the right thing to do isn’t to wait until he acts.The idea that ‘red flag’ laws will work seems to ignore the obvious. If “Crazy Joe” is known to be dangerous (and armed) then “temporarily” taking away his (known to be available) gun(s) and limiting his ability to legally rearm himself is not likely to help calm him down, it is much more likely to enrage him further.
So, you agree with red flag laws, but as an extra step, you want them put away?Red flag laws leave the dangerous person free, but even more mad that their gun was taken away. If due process was added then the ‘red flagged’ person (while still remaining free) would also know who accused them of being dangerous.
If “Crazy Joe” states or implies an intention to harm himself or others, the right thing to do isn’t to wait until he acts.
Factually, red flags can and have saved lives;
“In Campbell, California, a woman contacted the Campbell Police Department after her husband sent her a threatening text referencing a recent sniper attack in Dallas, then loaded his guns into his car and departed. After an order was issued, police removed seven weapons, including a scoped rifle, from the man’s place of work.
In Escambia County, Florida, a high school student was stalking his ex-girlfriend after she broke up with him. At one point he attempted to punch a boy who was with her. The student also threatened to post naked photos of the girl on social media, said he would kill himself if she didn’t get back together with him, and posted photos of an AR-15 online. Two resource officers submitted affidavits for a petition against him and all the firearms were removed from his home.
In Randolph, Massachusetts, a woman filed an extreme risk protection order against a Marine Corps veteran who she says had assaulted her and had a “pattern of self-harm, violence towards others and objects.” Handguns and ten semi-automatic rifles were removed by police.
In Roseville, Califonia, the Roseville Police Department responded to a relative’s call about a man armed with a handgun and threatening suicide inside his home. When the officers could not convince him to come out of the house after several hours, they returned later with a gun violence restraining order and removed his firearms.
In Osceola County, Florida, a janitor threatened to bring a gun to school, and was reported to police by a teacher at Parkway Middle School. He told the teacher his only regret would be that his targets would “run for their lives before [he] could get to them.” After an order was issued, deputies removed a handgun from the man.”
A janitor at an Osceola County middle school is facing a felony charge after deputies say he threatened to bring a weapon to school and attack his co-workers.
Red flag laws leave the dangerous person free, but even more mad that their gun was taken away. If due process was added then the ‘red flagged’ person (while still remaining free) would also know who accused them of being dangerous.
What caliber would work for you?Personally, I think a small snub nose revolver is the most anyone needs for self-defense purposes.
False comparison.So? Cigarettes are also manufactured to make sure there are no defects in their products too. Doesn't make them safe.
Firearms aren’t the problem. People that misuse firearms are.Sure. And the more dangerous, the more regualations there are. That's just natural. When the public is finding that they are creating too much death and injury, it becomes they are not regulated enough.
The number of firearms related murders has been unacceptably high for a long time, even with increased regulation.It's clear these things are not regualated enough. The body count in this country from leaving them so unregulated is getting unacceptably high.
Again, not a one for one comparison.All other developed countries have figured it out. It's not that hard.
Agreed.True. Just because you have drunk driving laws does not mean you don't enforce speed limits and traffic lights.
Sure.Cars are a big part of American culture too. Doesn't mean we don't have driver's licenses or tons of traffic laws.
What caliber would work for you?
False comparison.
Tobacco products are inherently harmful to users. Firearms are not.
Firearms aren’t the problem. People that misuse firearms are.
The number of firearms related murders has been unacceptably high for a long time, even with increased regulation.
Again, not a one for one comparison.
Agreed.
Sure.
Well, then figure out what we have to do- because what we currently have is unacceptable. It's easy to be a critic. Let's hear some positive, constructive ideas. Every single developed nation on the planet has figured it out. It shouldn't be this hard.
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded...www.theonion.com
If someone you know suffers from mental illness and is displaying these warning signs, you may consider applying for a mental health warrant to begin the involuntary commitment process. It is important to note that even though a “warrant” will be issued, the involuntary commitment process is civil in nature and not criminal.
When step one of your plan is to repeal (or ignore) the 2A or 14A then you need a new plan.
Here is a better plan than the ‘red flag’ plan.
How’s any of this ^ relevant to the fact that FL’s red flag law likely saved lives in this case?From your Osceola County, FL link:
Maybe setting a higher (than $5K) bail amount would be wise. Perhaps tossing in immediate termination of employment would help more than a ‘red flag’ spank to take away any gun(s) he was known to have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?