Real gun law changes to be done?

[Victorian Gray]

Contrary to what our President has to say, we rank lower than numerous advanced countries. I just don't see it even on the radar as one of our most pressing problems.

 

[TheVrolok]

It's not if you can think further than two steps ahead.

Only for those that can only see the world in black and white, like yourself apparently.

 

[fskimospy]

Only for those that can only see the world in black and white, like yourself apparently.

He's a psycho, I mean look at his other posts. Trying to reason with that level of mental illness is a waste of time.

 

[Zorkorist]

Of course it wouldn't be required. Where do you get these ridiculous ideas in your head?

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Part of the "Bill of Rights."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

-John

 

[TheVrolok]

He's a psycho, I mean look at his other posts. Trying to reason with that level of mental illness is a waste of time.

It's sad, really.

 

[Zodiark1593]

After Sandy hook.. 75% of gun owners in America were open to gun restrictions against loony bins. But 75% of gun owners didn't get past the power of the gun lobby.

This is just more proof, and unfortunately it'll be the same, the gun lobby will obstruct.

There is also the practical limitation of restricting firearms to those with mental issues. Unless a person has been involuntarily committed, as far as the law is concerned, they are of little threat, and even with mental health problems, more intelligent individuals have been able to conceal symptoms from those around including trained psychologists, and thus retain the right to firearms. In addition, there is no mandatory obligation to recieve mental health treatment or evaluation if, for example, a person learns he's a schizo. Again, they are still legally allowed firearms until proven to be a danger.

 

[fskimospy]

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Part of the "Bill of Rights."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

-John

You do not understand the constitution.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I don't know if he really said this, but this statement points to a big part of our problem...

Life is cheap these days. Couple that with the issue of how we handle the genuinely mentally ill and you can account for the vast majority of the violence in our country. Guns just make it a bit easier. Take away the guns and those bent on doing violence would find other means.

how do you define loony bins? anyone who suffers from depression and is on some kind of medication? only those who display violent tendencies? those whose doctors think are at risk? how do you assess the risk?

there are already prohibitions on people who have been forcibly committed - that's one of the questions on the DROS/background check form that you fill out during firearm purchase.

many times mental health issues go unreported to NICS, which is the background check system. other issues include doctor/patient privilege, funding, and liability on the part of the doctor.

unfortunately, not an easy problem to solve - but i think we should be asking more than the basic question of "how do we stop this from happening again?"

as in, why do people do these things in the first place? not just how do we prevent those particular people from (legally) obtaining a firearm - but what makes people want to do this sort of thing to begin with? and as i've seen a few people comment - why is it always a male who perpetrates these sorts of acts?

 

[edro]

Guns are too accessible in the US.
Any retard can walk into a Wal-Mart and walk out with the ability to easily kill 10 people in a single event.
(by retard I mean any mentally unstable person, like the mass shooters of recent years)

There is really no other way for a retard to reliably kill 10 people without guns.
Stabbing? No. Need good skill and tough guy can hold you back.

Poisoning? No. Too hard to acquire potent chemicals.

Driving through crowd? No. We have examples of this and only 1-2 die.

Explosives? No. Too hard to acquire, build and deliver. McVeigh stopped the availability of fert bombs. Even Boston Bombers could only kill 3 people.

 

[michal1980]

Guns are too accessible in the US.
Any retard can walk into a Wal-Mart and walk out with the ability to easily kill 10 people in a single event.
(by retard I mean any mentally unstable person, like the mass shooters of recent years)

There is really no other way for a retard to reliably kill 10 people without guns.
Stabbing? No. Need good skill and tough guy can hold you back.

Poisoning? No. Too hard to acquire potent chemicals.

Driving through crowd? No. We have examples of this and only 1-2 die.

Explosives? No. Too hard to acquire, build and deliver. McVeigh stopped the availability of fert bombs. Even Boston Bombers could only kill 3 people.

What other rights do you want to restrict? Most of the anti-gun nutters are the same crowd that wants abortions for all, no voting reforms, etc etc.

 

[Zodiark1593]

I wonder with elections being so close...that we might see hard lines softening on getting some type of limp wristed gun legislation enacted.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/obama-gun-control-change-in-attitude/index.html


I have a hard time though...seeing the blood of grade school children did absolutely nothing when it came to being even slightly proactive about trying to figure out who should get guns and who shouldn't.

And let's be honest...we really only care about preventing mass shooting incidents by crazy people. Criminals will always have guns. You know what criminals don't do? shoot up churches and schools. Only crazy people do that shit. Criminals at least have some damn respect to worry about.

I don't even know where to start though. I think one good step would be preventing those with extremely violent convictions and violent mental health tendencies to be barred from purchasing a firearm absent a court order.

One radical thought I will throw out there(i dont even really support though), make owners of assault style weapons enroll in a citizen-state based militia. That would maybe justify the whole 2nd amend. argument of a well trained militia and also weed out lazy gun owners who just want an AR-15 for the cool factor.

We don't just get to own and operate vehicles as a right. Why do we not treat guns the same way?

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

The 2nd ammendment never stated a militia has to be formed. Rather, it means firearms are a necessity to even form a militia in the first place.

A key difference between a right and a privilege lies in the burden of proof. In the case of firearms, the burden in on the governing body to prove that an individual is unfit to own a firearm. In the case of driving however, the burden in on the applicant to prove he is worthy of a driver's license.

 

[Blanky]

Guns are too accessible in the US.
Any retard can walk into a Wal-Mart and walk out with the ability to easily kill 10 people in a single event.
(by retard I mean any mentally unstable person, like the mass shooters of recent years)

There is really no other way for a retard to reliably kill 10 people without guns.
Stabbing? No. Need good skill and tough guy can hold you back.

Poisoning? No. Too hard to acquire potent chemicals.

Driving through crowd? No. We have examples of this and only 1-2 die.

Explosives? No. Too hard to acquire, build and deliver. McVeigh stopped the availability of fert bombs. Even Boston Bombers could only kill 3 people.

although guns are very effective killing machines your other facts are dubious. Just last week a guy in Austria killed 3 and injured 34 by driving into a crowd and then stabbing people.

Explosives are easy to get. Boston bombers didn't kill many because they were not very good at what they were trying to do. Anyone can buy a ton of fireworks without any background check. Or black powder for black powder guns. Or standard powder for people who reload their rounds. Do you know what tannerite is? Look up tannerite huge explosion on YouTube. That stuff can easily be bought at many gun stores.


I agree that guns are the easy way to kill a lot of people but their absence absolutely does not prevent mass killings.

 

[edro]

although guns are very effective killing machines your other facts are dubious. Just last week a guy in Austria killed 3 and injured 34 by driving into a crowd and then stabbing people.

Explosives are easy to get. Boston bombers didn't kill many because they were not very good at what they were trying to do. Anyone can buy a ton of fireworks without any background check. Or black powder for black powder guns. Or standard powder for people who reload their rounds. Do you know what tannerite is? Look up tannerite huge explosion on YouTube. That stuff can easily be bought at many gun stores.

I agree that guns are the easy way to kill a lot of people but their absence absolutely does not prevent mass killings.

You supported my point.
Only 3 were killed in the car/stabbing.
And again, even a duo of terrorists could only kill 3 with bombings of household items. A single retard wouldn't even be able to do that.

Of course a smart terrorist or mass murderer could pull off a mass murder without guns.
My point is that a common retard CAN do it WITH guns.

This is why I am starting to side with more gun restrictions.
(as a life long gun enthusiast)

 

[unokitty]

Pew Research

...the overall trend on whether it is more important to control gun ownership or protect gun rights has edged back in the direction of gun rights. And when it comes to the importance of gun policy as a voting issue, gun rights supporters have the advantage.

Uno

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[thraashman]

What other rights do you want to restrict? Most of the anti-gun nutters are the same crowd that wants abortions for all, no voting reforms, etc etc.

The Second Amendment, like any other right within out nation, can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument of the First Amendment is the best example. It's also why you're not going to be able to walk around the corner and buy an RPG. It's interesting to see how your thought process goes though that you acknowledge the rights restrictions you support and mock them while trying to make your point about the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd ammendment never stated a militia has to be formed. Rather, it means firearms are a necessity to even form a militia in the first place.

A key difference between a right and a privilege lies in the burden of proof. In the case of firearms, the burden in on the governing body to prove that an individual is unfit to own a firearm. In the case of driving however, the burden in on the applicant to prove he is worthy of a driver's license.

The language of the 2nd Amendment is pretty explicit that the right to bear arms is dependent on the first part of the sentence. Read the link in my sig for a breakdown. But we currently have several of the most constitutionally ignorant USSC justices (Thomas, Scalia, Alito) in the history of the US, so they interpreted it otherwise. I accept that regardless of how wrong I am aware of them being, their ruling stands. There still can be things done that can curb the gun culture issue we have in this nation.

I don't know if he really said this, but this statement points to a big part of our problem...

Life is cheap these days. Couple that with the issue of how we handle the genuinely mentally ill and you can account for the vast majority of the violence in our country. Guns just make it a bit easier. Take away the guns and those bent on doing violence would find other means.

I disagree that it's just people who don't hold life as sacred. It's this culture of the gun we have here. This might makes right, let me get my gun and see if you'll say that again, culture we have. The terrorist hate group known as the NRA does it's best to push a gun nut culture instead of a reasonable gun owner culture and they get people like that Cat Scratch Retard to open his big, hate-filled, crazy as shit mouth to speak for them. I've known quite a few gun hoarders in my lifetime and to the last one, every damn one of them has been racist as shit. And it's groups like the NRA that feed that behavior. Remember Wayne LaPierre's comment a couple months back "Eight years of one demographically symbolic President is enough". Right there he managed to make a short sentence show the racist and sexist mentality the NRA is supporting.

 

[trenchfoot]

It's sad, really.

In a way it's all a matter of perspective. No offense meant to Boomerang, but on some other websites musings similar to his are considered normal or dare I say even highly regarded?

 

[Fenixgoon]

The Second Amendment, like any other right within out nation, can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument of the First Amendment is the best example. It's also why you're not going to be able to walk around the corner and buy an RPG. It's interesting to see how your thought process goes though that you acknowledge the rights restrictions you support and mock them while trying to make your point about the 2nd Amendment.

The language of the 2nd Amendment is pretty explicit that the right to bear arms is dependent on the first part of the sentence. Read the link in my sig for a breakdown. But we currently have several of the most constitutionally ignorant USSC justices (Thomas, Scalia, Alito) in the history of the US, so they interpreted it otherwise. I accept that regardless of how wrong I am aware of them being, their ruling stands. There still can be things done that can curb the gun culture issue we have in this nation.


I disagree that it's just people who don't hold life as sacred. It's this culture of the gun we have here. This might makes right, let me get my gun and see if you'll say that again, culture we have. The terrorist hate group known as the NRA does it's best to push a gun nut culture instead of a reasonable gun owner culture and they get people like that Cat Scratch Retard to open his big, hate-filled, crazy as shit mouth to speak for them. I've known quite a few gun hoarders in my lifetime and to the last one, every damn one of them has been racist as shit. And it's groups like the NRA that feed that behavior. Remember Wayne LaPierre's comment a couple months back "Eight years of one demographically symbolic President is enough". Right there he managed to make a short sentence show the racist and sexist mentality the NRA is supporting.

and there are other professionals who have argued that grammar does not require that people be in a militia: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


the single complete thought in the sentence is "the right shall not be infringed".

whose right? (the right of) the people
what right? to keep and bear arms
why? a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state


i agree that the NRA is off their rocker though.

 

[Jaepheth]

Makes Antarctica look like a real hell hole.

 

[Blanky]

You supported my point.
Only 3 were killed in the car/stabbing.
And again, even a duo of terrorists could only kill 3 with bombings of household items. A single retard wouldn't even be able to do that.

Of course a smart terrorist or mass murderer could pull off a mass murder without guns.
My point is that a common retard CAN do it WITH guns.

This is why I am starting to side with more gun restrictions.
(as a life long gun enthusiast)

You said

There is really no other way for a retard to reliably kill 10 people without guns.

Actually, how often do mass shooters kill 10 or more with a gun? Very, very rarely. So it's not reliable at all. If you truly want to kill a lot of people and you have the brains to do it, you don't use a gun, as mcveigh showed us, as we saw on 911.

 

[Fern]

I've not heard a single feasible gun control law suggested that would have made a difference in the church shootings.

I think we have two basic 'gun problems':

1. Criminal gang type violence such as one sees in inner cities like Detroit etc. The "stop and frisk" policy seemed to help but Liberals screamed and it's been dropped. No one seems to have a suggestion for a solution. Suggestions such as "ban all guns" are about as realistic and helpful as suggesting we pass laws banning gravity in retirement homes to prevent injury to the elderly from falls.

2. Mental problems. Sandy Hook, Co. theater, this church shooting etc. Taking away a person's constitutional right(s) is difficult, and for good reason. If we can deny a person their 2nd amendment rights for mental health reasons shouldn't we also take away their right to vote or their right to free speech?

Medical info privacy laws are also an impediment here. Balancing rights (privacy vs gun) is difficult.

Obama had the right idea when he provided additional funds to make our background checks more effective (increased federal/state coordination). Too many examples of a warning by psychiatrist etc that were made to a state database but weren't recorded in the federal database.

Most gun deaths are suicides. I don't believe gun control laws can be effective here. Take away guns and it'll just be another method of suicide.

IIRC, another big chunk of murder by gun is domestic violence. Aside from laws restricting gun purchases in specific circumstances (e.g., for those convicted of domestic violence) and maybe 'cooling off' periods not much to be done here. Even if you get rid of guns knives, strangulation etc are all too easily available and will be employed in the absence of guns. Domestic violence is usually about rage and often whatever is handy will be used.

Senseless gun deaths like this church shooting are horrible, but politicizing it and using it as a platform to promote all sorts of unhelpful and/or (constitutionally) impossible gun laws is beyond tiresome.

Fern

 

[Fern]

and there are other professionals who have argued that grammar does not require that people be in a militia: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
-snip-

This line of thinking (the one proposed by the poster you were responding to) is useless.

The SCOTUS has already clearly ruled that the 2nd doesn't mean what he suggests. I.e., you don't need to be a militia to have gun rights.

It's settled. Period.

Fern

 

[Blanky]

I've not heard a single feasible gun control law suggested that would have made a difference in the church shootings.

Me, neither. Stephen King today has spoken out about gun rights again, blaming this on a "30 round clip". The guy was not using a 30 round mag, so immediately we can discount, if not King's emotional validity, the validity that he knows what he's talking about. And I think it is quite important that people pushing for legislation have a moral responsibility to know what they are talking about.

I knew as soon as this shooting happened that an AR was not involved because nobody mentioned the gun until hours after the event.

It seems this guy didn't have a history of mental illness, though he had some criminal past, but he passed a background check.

 

[mizzou]

Guns are not the problem, it's our lack of education, enforcement, and medical care.

I completely agree, but you have to admit the extreme prevalence of guns makes it quite an obstacle. The reason guns are chosen over knives, etc., is that it's so damn easy to get one.

But either way...we should probably hold our judges accountable for not suitably enforcing our current laws. They bend for some reason when it comes to people arrested for violent crimes with guns. If they were more hard ass about it, perhaps people would think twice about robbing a store or person with a gun.

 

[Zorkorist]

Knives are easier to get than guns, duh.

They are also quite deadly.

-John