Las Vegas Shootings

[mjr]

How many of the other rights involve instruments that can easily kill dozens of people?

Couldn't you also say irresponsible media practices are dangerous?

That said, personally speaking, I don't think licenses/permits are the answer. I think we need mandatory training for purchasers, proper enforcement of laws preventing the mentally ill from buying guns and stronger limits on gun purchases for convicted felons.

Felons, I believe, already can't own firearms -- at least legally. And do the "mental illness" thing, again, all the gov't has to do is re-define what "mental illness" is. Take an anxiety med? Sorry, you're mentally ill. Take something for ADD? Sorry, mental illness. Take anything that might alter brain chemistry (even as a side effect)? Sorry, mentally ill. You actually WANT to buy a gun? Sorry. Mentally ill. We can't let you do that. And there are laypeople who already believe that if you want to purchase a firearm you're mentally ill.

If I tell you you can only own up to 10 guns is that infringing? You can still buy guns, you can still own guns, you can still use guns, there's just a slight limitation on it.

Why 10? Why not 20? or 5? Or 1? "Bald Man" paradox.

So when do we start limiting 4th and 5th Amendment rights? Whether people like it or not, the Constitution still exists in my car and in my house.

I don't personally own a firearm, but what if I did, and I had a conceal carry, and I'm driving along, miss my exit, and wind up in another state that doesn't have conceal carry? I'm in major trouble then. Just because I missed an exit.

Whether you like her or not, Dana Loesh has said recently she's been threatened by "gun control advocates" to the point where she has had to move, and her kids have been threatened. Call it fake news if you want, it's ironic that a group that doesn't want violence uses violence and threats (Antifa comes to mind -- fight "fascism" with actual fascism).

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

So, to go slightly askew, would you all be OK with having to have a license to be a journalist? Or getting a license to protest? Or get a license so the police can't search your house whenever you feel like it?

How many of the rights enumerated in our Constitution do/should we have to get licenses/permits for?

How many of the other rights involve instruments that can easily kill dozens of people?

That said, personally speaking, I don't think licenses/permits are the answer. I think we need mandatory training for purchasers, proper enforcement of laws preventing the mentally ill from buying guns and stronger limits on gun purchases for convicted felons.

But above all, we need to figure at what point do any proposed restrictions reach the point of "infringing" on the right to own guns. If I tell you you can only own up to 10 guns is that infringing? You can still buy guns, you can still own guns, you can still use guns, there's just a slight limitation on it.

[mjr]

So, to go slightly askew, would you all be OK with having to have a license to be a journalist? Or getting a license to protest? Or get a license so the police can't search your house whenever you feel like it?

How many of the rights enumerated in our Constitution do/should we have to get licenses/permits for?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Hey, I'd be perfectly ok with a court appointed psychologist clearing a person who wants to buy a gun. You have to see one if you want to transition as transgender. Plenty of jobs require it. It also gives the "system" someone to go after whereas right now, no one really vouches for anyone. Hell, if the 2nd amendment starts with the phrase "A well regulated Militia" at its beginning and unless I missed something, military service OFTEN requires them.

I know that's not what you meant, but frankly it's generally not the people who voluntarily went off and got checked out that concern me. It's the OCD/anxious/paranoid types that refuse to.

Long story short - I hate to say it, but many of the gun true believers I've met have had a heavy, heavy dose of narcissism (that someone gives a shit they're packing), paranoia (that we're coming for it), and obsession (they can't let the topic go.) Seriously - think about the inordinate amount of some people talk about it vs. the amount of time they actually have had a functional use for a gun. True you could say that about politics in general, but I hate to break it to everyone - most psychologists would find an inability to deal with politics in a healthy manner a sign of a problem as well.

Do I think George Zimmerman would have had a gun with one? Probably not. Do I think many people on anti anxiety meds could with one? Damn straight - it's called having your shit together.

[Tanasi]

Yes, but I think you may be slightly misunderstanding my point, or I am not being clear.

What I'm saying is that if law is enacted restricting the "mentally ill" from legally obtaining a firearm, it then becomes easier (and yes, I know this is the "slippery slope" argument) to expand on that. All that has to happen then is to get a re-definition (or expand the definition) of "mentally ill". Then you have people who are taking anxiety medications who are unable to get firearms. Or people who are taking ADD medications, or any sort of medication that might alter brain chemistry.

Because let's be honest: how many people actually think Donald Trump should be walking around with a gun? People that think he's crazy probably don't think he should be. And as I said before, there are laypeople who believe that the mere fact that you want a gun makes you unfit to have one.



I agree, but the problem in these cases is that you're not notified when you're put on the list, and for what reason.

Regardless of medication someone shouldn't be put on a no-buy list without having their day in court. Does having anxiety or ADD make someone insane??? Not many years ago homosexuals, trans, and similar were considered as having mental deficiencies. I understand the changing of definitions, before Bill Clinton a civilian AR-15 was just a semi-auto rifle then the banners decided they were assault rifles even though not a blamed thing changed except the politics of it all. What I'm saying is until someone does something that disqualifies the or a judge adjudicates them being deficient regardless of the politically correct definition no one should be put on a no buy list.
Lots of people say crazy and stupid things, until they act it's all talk, lots of folks regardless of their politics fall into that heck I'd say everyone has said something equally crazy or stupid, the difference is for a lot his words carry more weight. BTW did you know Trump is one of the very few people in NYC that has a firearms carry permit. In the Democratic People's Republic New York City the most perfectly run city in the USA could have made a mistake in granting him a carry permit?

[Greenday]

No, I was saying it might not have as big of an effect as intended.

Yet it will have a positive effect so we should do it anyway.

[TheHuckster]

So should we just not try and save people that first serious attempt where they might back out and finally get help?

No, I was saying it might not have as big of an effect as intended.

[Canarr]

While I think it would reduce those rates, I don't think it would reduce them by that much. People struggling with suicide don't have these impulses just once. It will only protect them from their first impulse. After that, they've got the gun already.

Same goes for crimes of passion. If even once in your life you are so serious about evening a score that you'd actually purchase a gun, chances are you are going to have that urge a second time.

Actually, that's not quite right.

The change in gas used for cooking in the UK saved lives, because the natural gas used after 1958 contained virtually no carbon monoxide, while coal gas that was used before that contained 10-20%, making it fairly lethal.

One author has estimated that over a ten-year period, an estimated six to seven thousand lives were saved by the change in domestic gas content (Hawton 2002)

[Greenday]

While I think it would reduce those rates, I don't think it would reduce them by that much. People struggling with suicide don't have these impulses just once. It will only protect them from their first impulse. After that, they've got the gun already.

Same goes for crimes of passion. If even once in your life you are so serious about evening a score that you'd actually purchase a gun, chances are you are going to have that urge a second time.

So should we just not try and save people that first serious attempt where they might back out and finally get help?

[mjr]

Could not the same thing be said about anything that could be used as a weapon???

Yes, but I think you may be slightly misunderstanding my point, or I am not being clear.

What I'm saying is that if law is enacted restricting the "mentally ill" from legally obtaining a firearm, it then becomes easier (and yes, I know this is the "slippery slope" argument) to expand on that. All that has to happen then is to get a re-definition (or expand the definition) of "mentally ill". Then you have people who are taking anxiety medications who are unable to get firearms. Or people who are taking ADD medications, or any sort of medication that might alter brain chemistry.

Because let's be honest: how many people actually think Donald Trump should be walking around with a gun? People that think he's crazy probably don't think he should be. And as I said before, there are laypeople who believe that the mere fact that you want a gun makes you unfit to have one.

It's similar to being put on the no fly list, some faceless bureaucrat puts you on it and it's nearly impossible to get off. Shouldn't a citizen on either list be able to fight going and getting off???

I agree, but the problem in these cases is that you're not notified when you're put on the list, and for what reason.

[TheHuckster]

Or just institute a 48-72 hour wait period before you can actually get the gun. Would reduce a lot of crimes of passion and suicides.

While I think it would reduce those rates, I don't think it would reduce them by that much. People struggling with suicide don't have these impulses just once. It will only protect them from their first impulse. After that, they've got the gun already.

Same goes for crimes of passion. If even once in your life you are so serious about evening a score that you'd actually purchase a gun, chances are you are going to have that urge a second time.

[Tanasi]

Tanasi I read an article the other day. The writer of said article felt that guns should not have to be registered by their owners. A lot of people in the comments agreed. No I habe never purchased a gun from a dealer.

I do know that my dad didn't have to annually register his firearms like he did his car. Nor did anyone buying one of his guns.

It's harder to track a shooter to hold them responsible for the crime if the current owner isn't registered to the gun.

On a federal level to purchase from a dealer the buyer in my state you have to fill out a DD4473, give thumb print, fill out a handful of other paper work as well as get approval by my state similar to the federal NIC check. In addition to paying for it.
Buying from a private citizen varies from state to state. In my state it's as simple as handing over the money and the firearm. We're not required to perform any kind of check, nor is there any legal method of doing so outside of involving LEOs or dealers. In my state there isn't any kind of registration and I really doubt there will ever be one unless the Democrats get back in charge.
Some states are very much stricter, my brother-in-law lived in CA and moved to NY a few years ago. He could bring his long guns with him but had to leave his handguns behind to be transferred only to later learn his handguns weren't on the "approved" NY list. He can't even have them transferred to me without him being there to do in personally.
As far as a list or registry goes yeah it might make things easier for LEOs but usually the primary use for such lists is taxation confiscation which both CA and NYC have done. The Canadians tried to create a firearms registry but eventually gave up on it as they found it impossible to implement.

[Tanasi]

My point is, that it could be considered a form of "mental illness" to want to own a firearm (there are laypeople who already believe this) and so since you are "mentally ill", you can't own one. All you really have to do is broaden what "mental illness" is. Say, for instance, could someone who takes an anxiety medication get a firearm? What about someone who takes a medication for ADHD? What about someone who takes a medication for something completely unrelated to mental health, where a side effect might be depression?

See where I'm going here?

Yes, I know it's circular. But how often do we commit logical fallacies in our daily lives? How many laws can you think of that are based on logical fallacies?

Could not the same thing be said about anything that could be used as a weapon???
Since when does being depressed mean also being suicidal??? A few years ago when I was sick and in between the hospital and nursing home I was depressed but I wasn't suicidal.
No one should be put on the no buy list unless they've had their day in court and adjudicated by a judge. A friend the is a veteran is fully disabled and receives a railroad pension as well as a pension from Uncle Sugar because he was exposed to Agent Orange (and the other various agents) while in RVN. Mentally he's all there physically he like me has mobility problems. He had his wife designated as the person who can also receive and handle his financial benefits. Because of this the VA turned him into the no buy list because some faceless bureaucrat decided he was mentally deficient. He had to spend a lot of money and time to get that reversed and he's still trying to get his attorney fees paid.
It's similar to being put on the no fly list, some faceless bureaucrat puts you on it and it's nearly impossible to get off. Shouldn't a citizen on either list be able to fight going and getting off???

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

First of all, I do think the "well regulated militia" component of the 2nd Amendment needs to be included in any discussion of it. Those three words are there for a purpose, if they had no purpose, they wouldn't be there. The concept was that citizens would be part of a properly trained and organized militia. They could own guns and keep guns at home so if they needed to be called into action they could mobilize quickly.

Secondly, I don't think the people who wrote the Amendment every envisioned things like laser scopes, AR-15s with high capacity clips or bump stocks.

The oft quoted part of the amendment states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

To me, I think the question is: What constitutes infringement? If we limit a person to 3 assault rifles, 3 shotguns and 10 handguns is that infringing anything? You can still buy guns, you can still own guns, you can still use guns, there are just some limits on how many of each type you can have. I'd even be in favor of exemptions for collectors and firing ranges. Want to fiire an AR-15 with a bump stock? Go down to your local range and do it in a safe place under supervision.

I do think we should, at minimum, be able to agree that anyone who buys a gun has to take some basic firearm training. There is after all that "well regulated militia" part of the amendment. Obviously militias aren't quite as big a thing anymore, but point being even as originally written the 2nd Amendment conceded that some training and organization was vital for responsible usage and ownership of guns.

[jackfaire]

Tanasi I read an article the other day. The writer of said article felt that guns should not have to be registered by their owners. A lot of people in the comments agreed. No I habe never purchased a gun from a dealer.

I do know that my dad didn't have to annually register his firearms like he did his car. Nor did anyone buying one of his guns.

It's harder to track a shooter to hold them responsible for the crime if the current owner isn't registered to the gun.