What law would've prevented this?

[j brown's body]

Bring back mental institutions for the criminally insane. Keep them locked up until they pose no danger to themselves and others.

50% of Americans are prone to mental illness at one time or another, so it better be some big institutions.

Normal people with hair trigger tempers or impulsiveness with easy access to guns are a greater danger.

 

[swing_voter]

A law that require an extensive mental health check before the applicant could purchase weapons, ammunition or reload supplies.

This would be done by a psychiatrist.

You've got crazy people buying guns cause the little green men are telling them to kill everyone.

And you've got suicidal people who want to take out as many others as possible before the cops shoot them or they blow their brains out. Many of the latter have some kind of grudge.

A good shrink would screen out both of those defects.



.

 

[j brown's body]

FFL’s, aka gun sellers are required to run background checks on persons buying guns now. Probably is the result is only as good as the data.

My understanding is that they only have to wait so long for a report and then they are free to sell the gun whether they have a background report or not. And how thorough is that data base they're using?

 

[j brown's body]

A law that require an extensive mental health check before the applicant could purchase weapons, ammunition or reload supplies.

This would be done by a psychiatrist.



.

Mental health restrictions are liable to take guns out of the hands of far more Americans than gun affectianatos will tolerate.

 

[Bullseye]

My understanding is that they only have to wait so long for a report and then they are free to sell the gun whether they have a background report or not. And how thorough is that data base they're using?

True, IF the report doesn’t come back in three days the sale is completed. extremely rare, by the way.

 

[trixare4kids]

50% of Americans are prone to mental illness at one time or another, so it better be some big institutions.

Normal people with hair trigger tempers or impulsiveness with easy access to guns are a greater danger.

If you want to be intellectually dishonest, have at it.
Context is important and you appear to be dodging it. Everyone knows we are talking about those who have been proven to be violent, those who have been proven to pose a threat to themselves and/or others. If you think this category needs to be in society I question your judgment.

Gun owners with tempers, impulsiveness and haven't shown a propensity for violence to themselves or others is of no concern of mine.

 

[Schism]

If the law criminalizes peaceful, non-violent behavior, then the law by definition is tyrannical.

Embezzlement is peaceful and non-violent. So is stuffing election ballots.

 

[CLAX1911]

Note: This isn't a gun control thread.

Is asking "What gun control law(s) would've prevented this shooting?" a legitimate question?

Note: This isn't a gun control thread.

My information is none I don't think any laws can control the mind of a murder.

The only thing that could have stopped this is probably not worth doing anyway. And that's preparedness. Most people are going to be prepared for much more common occurrences like floods or fires.

 

[j brown's body]

If you want to be intellectually dishonest, have at it.
Context is important and you appear to be dodging it. Everyone knows we are talking about those who have been proven to be violent, those who have been proven to pose a threat to themselves and/or others. If you think this category needs to be in society I question your judgment.

Gun owners with tempers, impulsiveness and haven't shown a propensity for violence to themselves or others is of no concern of mine.

"According to a study published in April in the journal Preventive Medicine, people who have access to a gun are more than 18 times as likely to threaten someone, compared with those without gun access. And certain personality traits, including impulsivity and excessive anger — especially when a person displays outbursts of anger in public settings or at work — could make a person who has access to a gun more likely to use it in a violent crime.

The research, from the University of Texas Medical Branch, found that people who are prone to hostility were more than three times more likely to threaten someone with a gun.

The study also looked at how mental health symptoms relate to gun violence. “The majority of mental health symptoms we examined, including anxiety, depression, stress, PTSD, and borderline personality disorder, were unrelated to gun violence,” said lead study author Yu Lu, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Texas Medical Branch."

Mental illness isn’t a major risk factor for gun violence, but here’s what is

People who have a history of risky or dangerous behavior are far more likely to commit gun violence than a person diagnosed with mental illness.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[j brown's body]

True, IF the report doesn’t come back in three days the sale is completed. extremely rare, by the way.

But happens. No reason to really allow it, is there? And how good is the data base?

 

[Bullseye]

But happens. No reason to really allow it, is there? And how good is the data base?

The data base IS the problem - unless a person’s data is inputted it will never “pop” on a background check.

 

[j brown's body]

The data base IS the problem - unless a person’s data is inputted it will never “pop” on a background check.

There are more NRA loopholes in gun regulations than there are holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

 

[Bullseye]

There are more NRA loopholes in gun regulations than there are holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

Got nothing to do with the NRA; legal authorities and mental health professionals are the miscreants.

 

[aociswundumho]

Embezzlement is peaceful and non-violent. So is stuffing election ballots.

No, fraud is morally wrong, and nobody disagrees with that.

 

[Schism]

No, fraud is morally wrong, and nobody disagrees with that.

Honestly, I doubt that you have anything to worry about; guns aren't going anywhere under this constitution.

The real threat? Is the left abolishing the constitution altogether. It's coming.

 

[trixare4kids]

"According to a study published in April in the journal Preventive Medicine, people who have access to a gun are more than 18 times as likely to threaten someone, compared with those without gun access. And certain personality traits, including impulsivity and excessive anger — especially when a person displays outbursts of anger in public settings or at work — could make a person who has access to a gun more likely to use it in a violent crime.

The research, from the University of Texas Medical Branch, found that people who are prone to hostility were more than three times more likely to threaten someone with a gun.

The study also looked at how mental health symptoms relate to gun violence. “The majority of mental health symptoms we examined, including anxiety, depression, stress, PTSD, and borderline personality disorder, were unrelated to gun violence,” said lead study author Yu Lu, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Texas Medical Branch."

Mental illness isn’t a major risk factor for gun violence, but here’s what is

People who have a history of risky or dangerous behavior are far more likely to commit gun violence than a person diagnosed with mental illness.

www.nbcnews.com

You post supports my previous points about the violent, antisocial mental cases that shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
And some of these people actually need to be removed from society and institutionalized for threatening others with guns or indicating that they could do harm to themselves.

 

[poweRob]

Honestly, I doubt that you have anything to worry about; guns aren't going anywhere under this constitution.

The real threat? Is the left abolishing the constitution altogether. It's coming.

Says the guy who aligns with those that attacked the capitol.

 

[Phys251]

Note: This isn't a gun control thread.

Is asking "What gun control law(s) would've prevented this shooting?" a legitimate question?

Note: This isn't a gun control thread.

The premise of your question is wrong.

The question isn't whether a specific law would prevent a specific act of violence, but whether that law would significantly reduce them. That's why we have drunk driving laws. It is not guaranteed that a drunk driver will kill an innocent person--most don't--but some do, and those thousands of senseless deaths every year justify DUI laws.

 

[Schism]

Says the guy who aligns with those that attacked the capitol.

You're lying, or you would have quoted and linked my support.

 

[j brown's body]

Got nothing to do with the NRA; legal authorities and mental health professionals are the miscreants.

Hmmm. I wonder where Republicans got the idea to repeal Obama's ban on gun sales to some people collecting Social Security disability benefits based on a mental health condition, or Trumpmgot the idea to cut millions for a program that awards grants to states to improve their NICS reporting.

 

[Bullseye]

Hmmm. I wonder where Republicans got the idea to repeal Obama's ban on gun sales to some people collecting Social Security disability benefits based on a mental health condition, or Trumpmgot the idea to cut millions for a program that awards grants to states to improve their NICS reporting.

Got the because both ideas were stupid.

 

[Outlook]

Note: This isn't a gun control thread.

Is asking "What gun control law(s) would've prevented this shooting?" a legitimate question?

Note: This isn't a gun control thread.

We need to do a better job in addressing mental health issues during background checks.
We need to have a serious discussion about illegal guns in urban areas.

We also need to address the importance of family in the urban areas as well as education and jobs.

 

[Craig234]

I don't know any laws that would have stopped this other than gun control laws that wouldn't be more harm than good. E.g., let's have a total surveillance society and police every 10 feet.

 

[Antiwar]

I don't know any laws that would have stopped this other than gun control laws that wouldn't be more harm than good. E.g., let's have a total surveillance society and police every 10 feet.

I was asking if it's a legitimate question. I should've put the question as the title. Maybe a few people would've answered the question.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Personally, I believe someone with balls will have to make a bold move, then let the lawsuits move through the courts.

I would ban all semi-autos, and only make revolvers, shotguns, and bolt action rifles available.

I believe this fulfills 2A. I wouldn't do a gun grab. I'd support a buyback program, and a 10-year sunset on grandfathered weapons.

Confiscate everything used in crimes, no serials, black market, gang weapons, etc.

Wow, Come on man. That's a great plan. We all know that revolvers, shotguns and bolt actions cannot kill anyone. What a wonderful plan you have. Ever heard of a speed loader.