" Common Sense Gun Laws "

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Search CSGL and there is a lot if use of the Phrase, little definitiion of what Progresives want or intend to implement

Without Fantasy Speculation and Scientific Wild ASSED Guessing ...

How Would

  1. Closing the Gun Show Loop Hole [private party 3rd person sales] either of the 2 House Bills
  2. Increasing Mental Health Spending or tightening reporting
  3. Red Flag Laws [ Unconstitutional Though They Maybe ]
Stopped ANY of the Latest Shootings [feel free to go back a month, 6 months, 6 years]


as a side discussion :

After Va Beach Shootings Northam Proposed:

  • Universal background checks
  • Child access prevention
  • One gun a month limits
  • Banning assault weapons, including bump stocks
  • Requirement to report lost or stolen guns
  • Allowing localities to ban guns from municipal buildings
  • Red flag laws

Does 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' Make Sense As a Response to the El Paso and Dayton Shootings?

The elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these. The most frequently mentioned policy, "universal background checks," is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating "strong background checks," as President Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.

Democrats also reiterated their support for a federal ban on "assault weapons," and the conservative New York Post editorial page agreed. That policy is at least superficially more relevant, since both of the rifles used in these two attacks would qualify for that label. The El Paso shooter seems to have used a WASR-10 rifle, a civilian, semi-automatic version of the AK-47, while the Dayton shooter used an AM-15, a semi-automatic rifle made by Anderson Manufacturing that's similar to the Colt AR-15.

The focus on such "military-style" rifles is puzzling for a few reasons. In 2017 all rifles combined—only a subset of which would qualify as "assault weapons"— accounted for just 5 percent of gun homicides where the type of firearm was specified, while handguns accounted for 89 percent. Handguns are also the kind of firearm chosen by most mass shooters (whose crimes, it is worth remembering, account for just 1 percentof gun homicides).


Unrelated Chart From NPR:

139621
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
How Would

  1. .
  2. Increasing Mental Health Spending or tightening reporting
  3. .
Stopped ANY of the Latest Shootings [feel free to go back a month, 6 months, 6 years]
This is the only one I think has merit. We know for certain that mass murderers are mentally ill. It's in the definition of the ability to do it.

Given that, we know that mental health is one of the basic drivers of the problem, therefore helping with mental health issues will help alleviate the problem.

Implementation of such a thing will take at least a couple of generations, and MUST be done without limiting a citizen's right to keep and bear arms though.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
maybe our good comrade would care to compare rates of violent gun deaths in the US to other first world countries?

You know, make a relevant comparison instead of an irrelevant one?

Odd how our resident bot claims such a prodigy like level of critical thinking capability, yet, can't understand that comparisons like the one posted above are generally worthless.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
maybe our good comrade would care to compare rates of violent gun deaths in the US to other first world countries?
If you are referring to European nations.... There aren't any that respect the right of self-defense.

No comparison can be accurately made.
 

Tech

Well-Known Member
If you are referring to European nations.... There aren't any that respect the right of self-defense.

No comparison can be accurately made.
Love the racist that cite the so called safe 90% white European countries.
The crazy that shot up the Jacksonville gaming championship had a Maryland HQL despite having mental issues, the shrink didn't report.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
maybe our good comrade would care to compare rates of violent gun deaths in the US to other first world countries?

You know, make a relevant comparison instead of an irrelevant one?

Odd how our resident bot claims such a prodigy like level of critical thinking capability, yet, can't understand that comparisons like the one posted above are generally worthless.
I think we should compare gun death rates (are there non-violent gun deaths?) across the US - places where strict gun control laws exist vs. open gun laws (you know, constitutional laws).

Would you like to do that?
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
Love the racist that cite the so called safe 90% white European countries.
The crazy that shot up the Jacksonville gaming championship had a Maryland HQL despite having mental issues, the shrink didn't report.
Although I understand the potential abuse of red flag laws, especially in places like MD, if someone is a genuine whack job I'd want them off the streets for many more reasons than gun purchase.
 

Tech

Well-Known Member
Although I understand the potential abuse of red flag laws, especially in places like MD, if someone is a genuine whack job I'd want them off the streets for many more reasons than gun purchase.
Just read Baltimore County settled for $1M on a case where someone died after becoming violent while being taken in for emergency evaluation.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
maybe our good comrade would care to compare rates of violent gun deaths in the US to other first world countries?

You know, make a relevant comparison instead of an irrelevant one?

Odd how our resident bot claims such a prodigy like level of critical thinking capability, yet, can't understand that comparisons like the one posted above are generally worthless.
Why would I give two shits about what any other country is doing? Its not my business and its not My country. If those countries have such model programs why dont you move?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
maybe our good comrade would care to compare rates of violent gun deaths in the US to other first world countries?
Which European Couintry has a 2nd Amendment Right ?

You know, make a relevant comparison instead of an irrelevant one?
Like Yours ?

Odd how our resident bot claims such a prodigy like level of critical thinking capability,
Ah yes there there is Ad Hominem Attack

yet, can't understand that comparisons like the one posted above are generally worthless.
Yes your call for a comparison of the US to ANY European Country is worthless because NONE of those countries have a Constitution Like The US
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
To Stop Mass Shooters, Trump Says, We Should Make Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Easier. No, We Shouldn't.

Because psychiatrists are terrible at predicting violent behavior, the wider net would catch lots of harmless people.


Mulvaney thereby demonstrated the malleability of psychiatric diagnoses and the danger of letting them determine who shall be free and who shall be subjected to "involuntary confinement." Under current law, shaped by civil libertarian concerns about that danger, states generally have to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that a candidate for commitment, because of mental illness, poses a danger to himself or others.

A belief in white supremacy, or any other abhorrent ideology, is not enough to meet that test, even though it might occasionally motivate murderous violence. The risks of going down that road should be obvious to anyone who values freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

While Trump seems to think it should be easier to lock people up and forcibly subject them to psychiatric treatment, the "clear and convincing" standard of proof is, according to the Supreme Court, required by the Fourth Amendment. The thing to be proven, however, varies from state to state, so there is some room for adjustment there.

Under Florida's Baker Act, for example, the state has to show by clear and convincing evidence that there is a "substantial likelihood" a candidate for commitment will, because of mental illness, "inflict serious bodily harm" on himself or others "in the near future." Alabama similarly requires "a real and present threat of substantial harm to self and/or others." Massachusetts, by comparison, requires "a substantial risk of physical harm" to self or others, without reference to timing. New York's standard is similar.



Is someone just eccentric, weird or just plain odd ... do you jail [or take away their 2nd A Rights] them for that just because you feel uncomfortable ?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The upshot is that people can be stripped of the constitutional right to armed self-defense even when they almost certainly would not have used a gun to harm themselves or anyone else. "All the pressure is on the other side," says Orlando attorney Kendra Parris. "There's absolutely no downside to just going ahead and issuing the order."

Parris has represented a college student who did not own any guns, had no history of violence, and had never threatened anyone but who nevertheless was an early target of Florida's red flag law because he said some stupid things about mass shootings on Reddit. Another client was slapped with a gun confiscation order because he criticized teenaged gun control activists online and posted a photo of an AR-15 rifle he had built.

David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute in Denver, thinks properly designed red flag laws can have a positive impact. But he emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards that states have largely failed to adopt.

"It's a great idea on paper," says Dave Workman, senior editor at the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington. In practice, however, "you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent."



https://reason.com/2019/08/07/red-flag-laws-leave-gun-owners-defenseless/
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I think the red flag laws are like a lot of government initiatives. They may have a noble purpose and sound good on paper, but in the end the implementation gets perverted and abused. When a first grader gets in trouble because he formed his PopTart into the general shape of a gun, then one would have to be worried about real abuse for perceived issues. If I wanted to criticize someone online or post a picture of "something" I shouldn't have to worry about some authority applying their logic and potentially having me subjected to provisions of a red flag law.

I suspect if I were to communicate a direct threat against someone or something today, I would expect someone would investigate that to see if it were credible. And that would be done without a Red Flag law. It's always easier to apply 20/20 hindsight and look back at someone's action and deduce there were signs, but that's like completing the jigsaw puzzle with the benefit of knowing what the end picture is supposed to look like. Imagine having a 1000 piece puzzle and not knowing what the picture was supposed to be...someone dedicated to finishing that would likely complete it, but it would definitely take longer to accomplish. Imagine have to do 1000 of those puzzles every day...
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
How about if we just lock up the ones that have proven themselves to violent? It's like the legal system would rather give them a cookie than lock up someone who's a certifiable whack job. I've got a neighbor who's attacked half a dozen people over the years yet the states attorney keeps coming back with nolle pros.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Common Sense Gun Laws
The problem is that most people have no common sense. They believe everything they are told. Have no critical thinking skill set. And question nothing. Aka, lemmings.

We already have laws against murder and harming people, regardless of method used. So common sense would seem to be gun laws are not required. It's funny though .... We have laws that charge people with using a firearm in the commission of a felony/crime, and yet, not so with using a knife or a bat or a beer bottle or a fork, etc.. Common sense would dictate that all these other 'weapons' should have laws written against the use of them as well, in the commission of a felony/crime.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
They won't be done until we are down to the 2nd amendment only covering a single shot shotgun that has both keyed and combination locks before it can be discharged. Oh, and you can buy shells 3 at a time. Because the 2A is about hunting and muskets, you know.......
 
Top