What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (3 Viewers)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Full disclaimer. 

I'm not a gun owner and never have been. I have lots of friends and family who are and I think I understand the pro gun ownership side of the issue pretty well.

I am in favor of more Gun Control Laws. I've never bought one myself, but my perception is the current laws are not too tough. 

I had a friend post this today:

Without being snarky or dismissive because it's thehill.com, what is the rebuttal? This doesn't sound true to me. But I'm also not knowledgeable on current laws. 

In a civil way, what is a good rebuttal?

What if there were serious gun controls?

After the Las Vegas murders, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) urged Congress to “take a stand against gun violence by passing common-sense gun safety laws.” On Monday, after the mass murder in Texas, he wrote, “A simple idea: Anyone convicted of domestic abuse should see their rights under the 2nd Amendment severely curtailed.” On Tuesday, Sen. Jeff Flake(R-Ariz.) announced that he and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) are writing a bill “to prevent anyone convicted of domestic violence — be it in criminal or military court — from buying a gun.

In the spirit of these proposals, here are some ideas for tough federal gun laws — most of which should have been enacted years ago.

For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

For decades researchers have found that many Americans do not understand how strict gun control laws already are. Some elected officials and journalists are similarly misinformed. Widespread ignorance about existing law makes things easier for anti-gun lobbyists who always insist that every notorious crime proves that we need more gun control laws.

David Kopel (@DaveKopel) is research director for the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver, Colorado. Joseph Greenlee (@Joseph_Greenlee) is an attorney in Steamboat Springs.





10

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Full disclaimer. 

I'm not a gun owner and never have been. I have lots of friends and family who are and I think I understand the pro gun ownership side of the issue pretty well.

I am in favor of more Gun Control Laws. I've never bought one myself, but my perception is the current laws are not too tough. 

I had a friend post this today:

Without being snarky or dismissive because it's thehill.com, what is the rebuttal? This doesn't sound true to me. But I'm also not knowledgeable on current laws. 

In a civil way, what is a good rebuttal?
“If, today, the government had unlimited funds and the will to do so, could all of these laws be enforced fully and quickly? If not, is it because there’s no registry for weapons that tells you who has them?  Do the restrictions on mental illness go far enough? Because getting confined to a mental institution meant something very different before the 1980s - now it’s a very high bar. 

Background checks have a blank spot.  Everyone acknowledges it.

And what you are saying about “assault rifles” is disingenuous.  It was once the definition.  Now there’s is another one in the public sphere, one which was the basis of an assault weapon ban that has expired and not been renewed.  It should come back.

No one thinks we have no gun laws.  But they need to be modernized.  As your own post shows, they haven’t been in a long time.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You essentially have to create one set of rules for the entire country (like other countries do). e.g. the strictest rules in the US (is that NY or CA or?)

Then enforce them equally in all states.

From there you build on new rules, which could be magazine restrictions, restrictions on modifications, tests/training to be able to buy etc.

ETA: and as Tim mentions, close the loopholes in private sales/gun shows

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My rebuttal has several points: 

1. There is a loophole on almost all of the restrictions listed above- private sales of firearms. Also known as the “Gun Show loophole”, because a lot of these sales take place at gun shows by people who are unliscensed. Asccording to law enforcement, roughly 40% of all gun sales are through private sales and no background checks are required. All attempts to remove this loophole has been defeated by the NRA and it’s allies in Congress. 

2. AR-15s are an assault rifle, used in Parktown and in several other mass shootings, and they are very legal. They were banned previously but Congress allowed that ban to expire and did not renew it thanks to the NRA. 

3. Persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor are NOT on any kind of background check restriction from purchasing guns- it has to be a felony. Gun control advocates have long tried to get this changed, to no avail. 

4. In Florida the restriction on 18 year olds applies to handguns (you have to be 21) but not to AR-15s. That’s how Cruz, 19, was able to purchase one. 

5. Only a tiny minority of mentally ill people are ever committed to a mental institution. President Obama issued an executive order expanding background checks to those who received prescriptions from the government for mental illness- still a minority but better. Congress and Trump passed a law last year which reversed this. 

There’s probably a lot more. 

 
How do you enforce a ban on specific types of guns? Is there a buy back? Are LE officers going door to door looking for weapons? I mentioned in the other thread AR's can be disassembled into multiple parts. The lower receiver is the part that is regulated by age requirements. Does it become illegal to own a barrel? Or the stock? Or the upper? There will be millions of unregistered guns being separated and hidden until there is no longer a ban or they choose to sell it on the black market. (especially if there is no incentive to turn the gun in to authorities)

I also see a lot of this matching what we currently do in our war on drugs. Placing limitations on importers will only force things further underground. Stiff fines or prison sentences don't seem to be deterring drug use in this country. 

 
How do you enforce a ban on specific types of guns? Is there a buy back? Are LE officers going door to door looking for weapons? I mentioned in the other thread AR's can be disassembled into multiple parts. The lower receiver is the part that is regulated by age requirements. Does it become illegal to own a barrel? Or the stock? Or the upper? There will be millions of unregistered guns being separated and hidden until there is no longer a ban or they choose to sell it on the black market. (especially if there is no incentive to turn the gun in to authorities)

I also see a lot of this matching what we currently do in our war on drugs. Placing limitations on importers will only force things further underground. Stiff fines or prison sentences don't seem to be deterring drug use in this country. 
First off when we had the ban before we didn’t go around seizing weapons already owned. That’s unrealistic. We can’t do anything about the AR-15s already out there. But we can make their sale or transfer illegal. 

Yes there will still be some black market sales, much like drug sales. But there is a major difference here- unlike illicit drug users, the vast majority of gun owners are very law abiding people and will not risk criminal penalties to sell their weapons to whoever if it becomes against the law to do so. Studies from the previous ban suggest it was effective in reducing gun violence in general and it had a significant effect on mass shootings- to cite one example, at Columbine the shooters wanted to use AR-15s but had no way to purchase them, so they used hand guns instead. The carnage would have been far worse with AR-15s, so the ban saved lives. Most of these crazies are not sophisticated enough to buy weapons from the black market. We’ll never stop them all, but making AR-15s illegal again would go a long way in stopping some. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think as a baseline we have to establish the fact that - like every other law - no sensible gun legislation will be perfect.

Speed limit laws don't eliminate speeding. But we don't throw our hands up and do nothing or try to come up with every possible scenario where someone might still speed. To the contrary, we have decided as a society what are reasonable limits. We argue about whether 65 is reasonable and some will say it should be 85. We set an imperfect limit and we punish those who violate those limits. Some people will still speed and they'll cause wrecks that will kill people. But it's still a good idea to have speed limits, right?

 
I think as a baseline we have to establish the fact that - like every other law - no sensible gun legislation will be perfect.

Speed limit laws don't eliminate speeding. But we don't throw our hands up and do nothing or try to come up with every possible scenario where someone might still speed. To the contrary, we have decided as a society what are reasonable limits. We argue about whether 65 is reasonable and some will say it should be 85. We set an imperfect limit and we punish those who violate those limits. Some people will still speed and they'll cause wrecks that will kill people. But it's still a good idea to have speed limits, right?
Fair point. But, why don't we put regulators on cars that limit them to 70 mph? Seems like it would be an easy thing to do and would save a lot of lives?

 
KCitons said:
Fair point. But, why don't we put regulators on cars that limit them to 70 mph? Seems like it would be an easy thing to do and would save a lot of lives?
Those are both fair points. And when you think about it, a good example of how what feels like common sense can work.

The ends of the spectrum may be "70 mph throttle limits on cars" vs "drive whatever speed you want".

But in reality, we seem to work this out as a society pretty well. The Corvette guy and the Prius guy can coexist. 

It's sort of a "you do what you do as long as it doesn't hurt me" thing. 

Now if people racing Corvettes at 140mph were killing a bunch of bystanders regularly, the discussion would be different.

Am I on the right track there?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those are both fair points. And when you think about it, a good example of how what feels like common sense can work.

The ends of the spectrum may be "70 mph throttle limits on cars" vs "drive whatever speed you want".

But in reality, we seem to work this out as a society pretty well. The Corvette guy and the Prius guy can coexist. 

It's sort of a "you do what you do as long as it doesn't hurt me" thing. 

Now if people racing Corvettes at 140mph were killing a bunch of bystanders regularly, the discussion would be different.

Am I on the right track there?
Here’s my personal take:

someone driving a Corvette 140 mph can be stopped, arrested, and have his driver’s license taken away without ever getting anywhere near a pedestrian. 

Someone carrying a gun is doing nothing illegal whatsoever until he points it at someone.  These mass shooters can’t be touched until they open fire.  

There needs to be a legal framework to stop these before the killing starts. 

 
Those are both fair points. And when you think about it, a good example of how what feels like common sense can work.

The ends of the spectrum may be "70 mph throttle limits on cars" vs "drive whatever speed you want".

But in reality, we seem to work this out as a society pretty well. The Corvette guy and the Prius guy can coexist. 

It's sort of a "you do what you do as long as it doesn't hurt me" thing. 

Now if people racing Corvettes at 140mph were killing a bunch of bystanders regularly, the discussion would be different.

Am I on the right track there?
I think so. Not sure what the numbers are in regards to auto related deaths. This is one article that seems to see a rise in deaths due to speed. But, the question (as it relates to guns) is why do you need a car capable of going over 70-80 mph? Much the same way people ask, why do you need a gun that can hold more than 10 rounds. By comparison, there is nowhere (other than a race track) that you can legally drive at high speeds. 

It would make things a lot safer if every car had a gps with an app that would not allow your car to exceed the speed limit. If you're in a school zone, you'd max out at 25. 

 
Roll out a ban a ban on assualt rifles, determine what makes are in this category. Government sponsered buy back program of these weapons. After this has occurred severe gun laws if you posses one.

Follow Australia’s plan, tweak to fit our country. Give the NRA a seat at the table if they don’t want to make changes, too bad.

The majority of Americans want restrictions to happen at least at some level.

Australia’s plan: Link

 
Here’s my personal take:

someone driving a Corvette 140 mph can be stopped, arrested, and have his driver’s license taken away without ever getting anywhere near a pedestrian. 

Someone carrying a gun is doing nothing illegal whatsoever until he points it at someone.  These mass shooters can’t be touched until they open fire.  

There needs to be a legal framework to stop these before the killing starts. 
But our freedom allows a person to drive at 140mph. The crime doesn't take place until this occurs. Yet the ability is always there. 

 
AR15 style weapons are not a equivalent to a Corvette. It would be more like having Batman’s car available for about a grand at WalMart.

 
AR15 style weapons are not a equivalent to a Corvette. It would be more like having Batman’s car available for about a grand at WalMart.
It's the ability of both to do things that other cars or guns can't is what makes them equivalent. Would you suggest we ban BB guns that hold 30 rounds? No, because it can't do the same damage as an 30 AR15 rounds. 

The corvette argument is relative because there is no need for someone to have a car that can go 140 mph. It's a "cool factor", but serves no practical purpose when misused. 

 
Yeah, my post was not an attempt to equate cars to guns. They are very different.

My post was to illustrate that -- and lawyerguys please correct me -- no laws are perfect and they're not designed with the notion that they'll eliminate 100% of an undesired behavior.

 
Yeah, my post was not an attempt to equate cars to guns. They are very different.

My post was to illustrate that -- and lawyerguys please correct me -- no laws are perfect and they're not designed with the notion that they'll eliminate 100% of an undesired behavior.
Of course.  But they’re designed to stop people from getting hurt.  Driving 140 mph is a crime, running over a pedestrian is a second crime. 

Murdering 17 people is a crime, many people would like something to stop that before it starts. Not 100% of the time, but more often than currently. 

 
It's the ability of both to do things that other cars or guns can't is what makes them equivalent. Would you suggest we ban BB guns that hold 30 rounds? No, because it can't do the same damage as an 30 AR15 rounds. 

The corvette argument is relative because there is no need for someone to have a car that can go 140 mph. It's a "cool factor", but serves no practical purpose when misused. 
I see what you are saying but IMO the car analogies just become a distraction.

 
I see what you are saying but IMO the car analogies just become a distraction.
I don’t know.  Lots of car manufacturers have governors on their vehicles to avoid lawsuits. 

Seems relevant since we passed a law to make it so gun manufacturers wouldn’t be forced to take any measures like that to limit lawsuits. 

 
Sure, but we don’t make driving 140 mph a crime because it hurts someone.  We make it a crime because we want to stop them before they hurt someone. 
Correct. I was just using the comparison when it comes to a total ban. Regulating is different. 

 
Forget about controlling guns for a moment. How about we start with limiting children and the mentally ill from having access to assault weapons in the first place? The Florida shooter was able to purchase his guns legally, despite being expelled from school and being flagged as someone who is mentally disturbed. How hard would it be to create a system that would limit people like him from having easy access to weapons?

You get expelled from school? You and your family get put on the "No Buy" list, and you have to turn over your weapons until you pass a mental health exam.

Nothing is going to prevent a determined individual from killing people, but something like this seems like a no-brainer to me.

 
I see what you are saying but IMO the car analogies just become a distraction.
I think the car analogy works because it's a good example of how we've been able to basically solve the problem and find a mostly happy medium between what both sides want. 

Of course it's not a perfect match. But I think it's one people can understand and get their minds around.

 
Forget about controlling guns for a moment. How about we start with limiting children and the mentally ill from having access to assault weapons in the first place? The Florida shooter was able to purchase his guns legally, despite being expelled from school and being flagged as someone who is mentally disturbed. How hard would it be to create a system that would limit people like him from having easy access to weapons?

You get expelled from school? You and your family get put on the "No Buy" list, and you have to turn over your weapons until you pass a mental health exam.

Nothing is going to prevent a determined individual from killing people, but something like this seems like a no-brainer to me.
Meh. I’ve got 3 students of mine that are probably going to be expelled on Wednesday for bringing and using a marijuana vape pen to school.  They’re actually good kids who did something really stupid.

 
I think the car analogy works because it's a good example of how we've been able to basically solve the problem and find a mostly happy medium between what both sides want. 

Of course it's not a perfect match. But I think it's one people can understand and get their minds around.
It starts breaking down when you compare an AR15 to a Corvette.

 
I don't know much but I do know what teenagers think about guns and our failure as a country to do anything at all to curtail mass shootings.  They are outraged and I do believe they will be the change this country needs in due time.  Our generation and other generations have failed them and they will force change as soon as they can.  I believe that.  They won't listen to the ridiculous rhetoric that nothing can be done.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joy Reid brought up something else to consider in this debate:

Joy Reid‏ @JoyAnnReid 12m12 minutes ago

At some point American warlordism and the presence of so many AR-15s in the hands of God knows who is going to impact tourism to the U.S. and reduce the number of foreign students willing to come here. People around the world have other choices where there aren't guns everywhere.

Maybe when it becomes an economic issue for tourism-desiring but gun-soaked states like Florida or Arizona and Virginia, or our universities see their bottom lines impacted by reduced foreign student (read "full tuition") enrollment, politicians will wake up.

It's bad enough that the Trump administration's anti-immigration mania and the general rot in his government is turning the world away from us. The world also must think of this country as a gun gallery madhouse.

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/965633944854126592

 
This discussion is impossibly old & static. Obviously something has to budge in Congress or the states or the courts. Or we authorize the FBI or locales to start locking people up for mental health issues and that probably runs afoul of the 1st & 4th amendments. It's indescribably sad and a major challenge to our democracy.

 
I think it does help. The people like me clamoring for more restrictive gun laws while others are saying we already have those laws in place is a pretty important topic. That gets easily lost in the bigger thread in my opinion.
I think that is simply lazy and egocentric.

There is a specific thread titled Common Sense Gun Control Reforms

How is this thread any different?

That thread has a number of responses that are well presented and discussed on either side of the issue.

 
This discussion is impossibly old & static. Obviously something has to budge in Congress or the states or the courts. Or we authorize the FBI or locales to start locking people up for mental health issues and that probably runs afoul of the 1st & 4th amendments. It's indescribably sad and a major challenge to our democracy.
What is a mental health issue?  Or maybe more precisely, what things should get people red flagged in terms of mental health and gun ownership?

 
Thats not really having a conversation, now is it?   How is this thread different?  And, why shouldn't it be merged?
Because I think the distinct issue of "We should have way more strict gun laws" contrasted with "You guys don't even know how strict the gun laws we already have are" is worth it's own thread. If you think that's "egocentric" or wrong, we'll just have to move on and disagree. That's not a conversation I'll have. I believe knowing when to stop the conversation is a big part of having a conversation. No hard feelings but not sure what else to tell you. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the analogy starts working when you contrast the AR15 to a Corvette. 

It allows you talk about how things might be different if kids were regularly murdered by Corvettes. 
I feel like I see it used more often to say “well if a Corvette can do 150 and people get killed so why aren’t they banned” or something to this effect.

 
KCitons said:
How do you enforce a ban on specific types of guns? Is there a buy back? Are LE officers going door to door looking for weapons? I mentioned in the other thread AR's can be disassembled into multiple parts. The lower receiver is the part that is regulated by age requirements. Does it become illegal to own a barrel? Or the stock? Or the upper? There will be millions of unregistered guns being separated and hidden until there is no longer a ban or they choose to sell it on the black market. (especially if there is no incentive to turn the gun in to authorities)

I also see a lot of this matching what we currently do in our war on drugs. Placing limitations on importers will only force things further underground. Stiff fines or prison sentences don't seem to be deterring drug use in this country. 
There aren't stiff fines or sentences for the most part. If you make possessing an AR-15 an automatic 20 years, I'm pretty sure you'd see them disappear.

We somehow keep RPG's (et al) out of consumer's hands. 

 
I feel like I see it used more often to say “well if a Corvette can do 150 and people get killed so why aren’t they banned” or something to this effect.
I see that too. And that's the perfect time to introduce the "If kids were getting regularly murdered by Corvettes, do you think we'd do something?"

The other thing I like about it is it's a real live example of how opposing sides are currently existing. 

Another common thing I see is the "slippery slope" argument. I understand it. It's a real thing and the government doesn't feel trustable by many. People will say, "If they limit one type of gun, they'll keep pushing for more and more". My answer to that is a speed limit. They set the speed limit to 65. If people feel good about that, there is no real push to move it to 50 then 40 and then 30. It stabilizes. I think we'd see the same with guns.

I think most people in favor of gun control aren't looking to eliminate every single gun. Most just want something that feels reasonable to them. 

 
I think the analogy starts working when you contrast the AR15 to a Corvette. 

It allows you talk about how things might be different if kids were regularly murdered by Corvettes. 
When analogies require one to consider things that aren't happening in order to compare them to things that are happening, then you are comparing fantasy to reality. The argument that is being built on the analogy cannot be realistic, because it's based on fantasy. 

 
I see that too. And that's the perfect time to introduce the "If kids were getting regularly murdered by Corvettes, do you think we'd do something?"

The other thing I like about it is it's a real live example of how opposing sides are currently existing. 

Another common thing I see is the "slippery slope" argument. I understand it. It's a real thing and the government doesn't feel trustable by many. People will say, "If they limit one type of gun, they'll keep pushing for more and more". My answer to that is a speed limit. They set the speed limit to 65. If people feel good about that, there is no real push to move it to 50 then 40 and then 30. It stabilizes. I think we'd see the same with guns.

I think most people in favor of gun control aren't looking to eliminate every single gun. Most just want something that feels reasonable to them. 
There is a conundrum when trying to reason with fear.  Fear is often so unreasonable.

Change is coming.  I hope it is reasoned and I hope it leaves behind some semblance of the Constitution I cherish, which, BTW, and by definition, could include a Constitution with the 2nd amendment repealed, so long as done by the Constitutional process.  When the change happens, far too slowly will be my guess, I hope that I am wrong in my belief that the disenfranchised, the alienated, the sick, angry, and lonely will prove to be proficient tools users and will find other tools to accomplish their goals. Maybe they will not. I mean they are copy cats right now and copy cats are not particularly imaginative or inventive.  Lets just hope that nobody puts out a new deadlier paradigm for them to copy.

Right now so many persons of goodwill seem to think that some form of regulation will effect change that I think that side needs to have their day.  They may, after all, be correct, and if so that needs to be known.  I just wonder what happens if the change proves ineffectual, will that path be abandoned to pursue other premises, perhaps mental health avenues, or will we double down, invested in the premise to the point that we cannot evaluate the efforts objectively.  History seems to indicate that there will be investment that needs to be protected.  Political capital will be on the line.

By the time political wrangling allows for different options to be tested to find the one, or more likely the combination of efforts needed, how many children will be killed , crippled and/or psychologically shattered?  The real killer here is our love for partisan wrangling instead of cooperative problem solving.

 
What is a mental health issue?  Or maybe more precisely, what things should get people red flagged in terms of mental health and gun ownership?
I don't know, that's what I mean. Take these instances:

  • VaTech
  • Gabby Gifford
  • Aurora CO
Those all seemed like obviously "crazy" people diagnosed with severe psychiatric conditions. If I'm not mistaken the SOB Cruz had been getting psychiatric care. IIRC the Columbine kid were on medication as well. - This could be taken very specifically, like at VATech and Aurora, or really broadly (depression? ADD/ADHD? Anxiety?) but obviously the privacy rights of many would have to be violated.

And I'm just saying every public official from President to governor or sheriff or mayor have the same menu of options on the table:

  • Restrict the manufacture or sale of all or certain guns outright  - hello, 2nd Amendment.
  • Restrict the rights to buy based on mental health (something like that was created under Obama). - Privacy rights, HIPAA.
  • Restrict the rights to buy based on past behavior, like say internet postings or criminal charges. - 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment.
How are we going to do this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know much but I do know what teenagers think about guns and our failure as a country to do anything at all to curtail mass shootings.  They are outraged and I do believe they will be the change this country needs in due time.  Our generation and other generations have failed them and they will force change as soon as they can.  I believe that.  They won't listen to the ridiculous rhetoric that nothing can be done.  
Alec MacGillis of ProPublica kind of agrees with you (and maybe I do, too). He thinks (1) those of us who favor more stringent controls keep giving up too easily, (3) the percentage of Americans with guns has actually been in decline (has sorta leveled off, though) and (4) a whole new generation of opponents is coming through the electorate, along with a MADD-type groundswell from mothers around the country. I don't need to remind anyone here that that group has had significant impact on society already. 

What if Millennials don't like guns? I mean, really, really don't like guns. I wouldn't want to be on the other side of that debate. What if, like football, guns are just another part of traditional American culture that kind of fades away?

 
I think there should be a national registry of guns and if a crime is committed with a gun that was not re-registered after a sale then the previous owner is charged with the crime the gun was used in.  When I sell a car on craigslist I notify DMV to release my liability.  Failure to register a firearm should carry stiff penalties.
I am unclear how this would effect these types of incidents, these tragedies.  To my understanding it is a rare event that the perpetrator could not have obtained the weaponry under such a scheme and the instance I can think of where that would not have been the case, the Columbine shooters, Klebold and Harris, well they already had impediments.  I am not arguing against your provision, just trying to understand how it would work other than just as a general encumbrance on ownership which might eventually dissuade some due to the paperwork.  Me, I hate paperwork.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top