Yet another school shooting.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How feasible do you think it is to remove all guns (or even a vast majority of them). People that already possess an illegal weapon aren't going to give them up. And currently law-abiding citizens generally aren't too keen on their property getting taken away because of the actions of criminals.

No one is suggesting this is an overnight solution....plus if you pass laws making gun ownership illegal these "law abiding citizens" would surely give them up since following the rule of law is so important to them.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

No one is suggesting this is an overnight solution....plus if you pass laws making gun ownership illegal these "law abiding citizens" would surely give them up since following the rule of law is so important to them.

And then there's that darn pesky 2nd Amendment. Good luck with getting that changed.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

And then there's that darn pesky 2nd Amendment. Good luck with getting that changed.

This entire discussion is predicated on changing the 2A.

I wonder how many people said the same thing when women were fighting to vote?

[Lathum]

dola- I took an edible about an hour ago and its kicking in. Future replies will probably even more nonsensical than usual.

[NobodyHere]

When then this discussion is simply fantasy then. Like the Lions winning a playoff game.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

When then this discussion is simply fantasy then. Like the Lions winning a playoff game.

I think we all know that and thats the issue. They are called amendments for a reason, and a large portion of the population is fine sacrificing some innocents on a daily basis to keep it from changing.

[GrantDawg]

My former brother-in-law posted on Facebook he had renewed his carry license. He was immediately jumped on by his gun-owning friends. "You don't need that anymore" posted over and over again (Georgia no longer requires them). He pointed out that he kept he travels to states that do require them, and he can use it as a background check when buying a gun. This just angered the posters further. " Buy private. You never need a background check."
Ugh.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This doesn't answer the question at all except to admit that indeed removing guns would reduce the number of gun deaths significantly. Apparently though your constitutional rights are more important to you than the safety of school children.

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

Huh?

Your question is

Quote:
So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

And I answered

To answer your question ...

I am not saying banning all guns will not solve the problem of no more gun killings. Logically it will. Other developed nations have significant gun restrictions and bans and therefore gun deaths have declined significantly.

This does not answer your question that I agree with you that other countries ban on guns have prevented significant mass shootings?

Be very clear with me. What is it in your question above that I did not answer? Maybe it was a trick question and I missed the nuance?

The remaining sections explain why I still believe what I believe.

Just like for me, logically removing criminal elements and mentally unstable will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths. (This is apparently a point of debate from Grantdawg and Flere, I've not had a chance to look through their sources yet. But until then, this is my default assumption)

Do we want law abiding citizens to give up their privilege & constitutional right to own any guns because criminal elements and mentally unstable are the cause of the majority of gun deaths? The other developed nations used as examples never had a constitutional right to own guns.

Where we differ is

1) I'm not willing to give up my privilege & constitutional right to own guns with significant controls (e.g. my previous example of 7 of 10) as a law abiding citizen with no significant mental health challenges.

It seems many of you are willing to abandon this privilege at this point in time. We'll agree to disagree.

2) For me to even consider this, I want the authorities to ban & remove all/most guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first. Then let's see where we are in 3-5 years. The gun death rates may be so significantly lowered that it's not as pressing of an issue anymore.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

Originally Posted by kingfc22

EXACTLY. If you’re good with a musket have at it. If we’re going with what the founders had in mind because that would be the literal interpretation at the time.

Sure it was written way back when. It was reaffirmed in 2008. Is that recent enough for you?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any U.S. state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.[3] This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

[tarcone]

You expect me to protect your children with my life and even carry a gun in school, yet you do not trust me to teach a curriculum.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

My former brother-in-law posted on Facebook he had renewed his carry license. He was immediately jumped on by his gun-owning friends. "You don't need that anymore" posted over and over again (Georgia no longer requires them). He pointed out that he kept he travels to states that do require them, and he can use it as a background check when buying a gun. This just angered the posters further. " Buy private. You never need a background check."
Ugh.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Thank your former BIL for being reasonable and moderate.

With that said, my carry license has expired. I have not renewed it because I didn't see the point and was lazy. But he is right, I should renew it if for anything, to be compliant in states that require it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- I took an edible about an hour ago and its kicking in. Future replies will probably even more nonsensical than usual.

Acknowledged

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Agreed. If you can't even logically understand the above contention then we're operating on different planes of rhetorical existence right now.

Agree. Appreciate us keeping this civil

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Kind of a chicken and the egg problem there, though, IMO. I know my interactions with police officers have changed considerably since I was a kid growing up in the 80s, and they have not changed for the better (nothing dramatic, I've never had even so much as a moving violation).

I would say it's not one or the other, but both. I can tell you there has been a big change in the communities I'm familiar with just on the fundamentals of society level. There is definitely the police side of things but even apart from that, there has been a big shift whether you look at it in polling, anecdotally, or whatever, away from even the idea of supporting the rule of law as a foundational concept or something that's good. There's a lot more anarchism and similar around, a lot more disrespect for laws and authorities themselves as a concept.

[Brian Swartz]

On the comparisons to other countries bit ... I think that gets taken too far. No doubt we could reduce gun violence by banning guns, but again American culture is different. Demographics are different from other countries. The same laws put in place in significantly different societies with significantly different starting points are not going to end up with identical results, or even results that are necessarily all that similar.

I think the world has simply changed since the days when having guns for self-defense & resistance to tyranny was a viable way to approach life, just as economic policy, immigration policy etc. that made sense 250 years ago doesn't make sense now. To that degree the second amendment is simply obsolete, but that doesn't mean the constitutional argument based on it is nonsense. It means that amendment should be revoked. Unfortunately that pesky 'will of the people' thing will get in the way as there are still far too many who don't want that to happen.

[Edward64]

FWIW, in a May 2022 Gallup poll but survey conducted late last year to Jan. So it missed the latest series of shootings.

It looks like those who want a total ban are the outliers.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gall...ward-guns.aspx

Gallup has measured public support for a complete ban on handguns in the U.S. for all but the police and other authorized persons since 1980. Over that period, support has not exceeded 43% and has been below 30% since 2008. The latest reading found 19% favoring such a ban in October, down six points from 2020 and the all-time lowest on record.

And regarding more gun control, blame the independents for it falling 5% but still a majority at 52%.

In October 2021, Americans' support for stricter gun control fell five percentage points from October 2020 to 52%, the lowest since 2014.

The decline in support for stricter gun laws was owing mostly to a 15-point plunge among independents. Democrats' desire for more restrictive gun laws ticked up six points to 91% and Republicans' was essentially unchanged, at 24%, after dropping 14 points in 2020.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You expect me to protect your children with my life and even carry a gun in school, yet you do not trust me to teach a curriculum.

this

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This goes back to what was discussed a few pages ago - there are the "typical" gun deaths, and then there are mass shootings.

I've noticed a thing going around the GOP talking points when a mass shooting occurs that essentially equates the fact of committing such a crime to being mentally unstable. "Someone who would murder 19 children must be mentally ill."

Except, that's not usually the case.

I think this is a fair topic of discussion. I'm obviously not a psychiatrist or as well read in this area but TBH I do believe majority of mass shootings are cause by people that are mentally unstable. I have been using the phrase "mentally unstable" and can concede this term is not precise enough. Willing to alter terms if better.

Here's a study that found that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness.

Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core

I'm thinking its fair to say the jury is still out on this. I've found other current research which indicates otherwise or is less definite it their conclusions.

Behind a paywall but who's kidding, I'm not qualified to read it all and thoroughly digest so happy for the synopsis.

APA PsycNet

Prior research suggests that approximately two-thirds of public mass shooters exhibit signs of mental illness. This study analyzed whether that means there are 2 psychological types of perpetrators (some mentally ill, some mentally healthy), or whether almost all perpetrators are likely to have mental health problems.

Using a database of 171 public mass shooters who attacked in the United States from 1966 to 2019, we tested for statistically significant differences between perpetrators with and without diagnoses or signs of mental illness.

We also closely examined the most lethal perpetrators since 2012, and the most “mentally healthy” perpetrators according to prior coding. Correlates of mental illness were approximately equally common among perpetrators, whether they were believed to be mentally ill or not.

Of the variables we examined, data availability provided the best explanation for coding of mental illness, not any trait or life experience. Further evidence suggested that even the most “mentally healthy” perpetrators could be recoded as having signs of mental illness or suicidality, or were clear outliers, or may not qualify as public mass shooters.

The most lethal perpetrators exhibited signs of mental illness or suicidal intent (or both) in all cases. When people engage in concerning behaviors that suggest a mass shooting risk, their mental health should be carefully assessed alongside other warning signs. However, it is important to avoid treating people with mental illness like criminals, because social stigma reduces the likelihood that they will ask for, and receive, the psychological help they need. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Another article

The Facts on Mental Illness and Mass Shootings - FactCheck.org

Relatively little is known about mental illness and mass shootings or other acts of mass violence because their infrequency makes them hard to study in a rigorous way.

“While they happen far too often, mass shootings are statistically rare events,” said Beth McGinty, a mental health and substance abuse policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, in a phone interview. “When you don’t have many shootings, it’s very difficult to disentangle patterns in what the individual cause of those shootings are.”

Unfortunately, the type of detailed epidemiological information that the ECA study and others provide about mental health disorders and general violence isn’t available in cases of mass murder. “[G]iven how infrequent an occurrence it is,” said Columbia University forensic psychiatrist Paul Appelbaum in an email, “I am not aware of any serious studies looking at the contribution of mental illness.”

Instead, most of the data about mental illness and mass shootings remain anecdotal or based on statistics assembled from various reports, some of which rely on secondhand information.
:
Researchers say these types of studies, which are suggestive but also at times contradictory, should be treated with caution.

How many times have we seen histories on these people where they had a few relatively minor run-ins with the law, or were underage when some underlying activity occurred, but were otherwise, up until the moment they decided to try to slaughter people in a school/church/grocery store/public building, "a good guy with a gun"?

Often times anecdotal as the 2nd article I linked said, but I'm thinking vast majority of them had history of mental instability e.g. I cannot fathom how someone can kill young kids seemingly without remorse. For those mass shootings that are racially motivated, I would still ask if they had past history of mental instability.

The angry loner or hot-headed guy who always got pissed at work but has a clean record is still a "good guy," right? Until he's not. Then he goes directly from good guy to the deranged/sick/mentally ill pile, and we need to do something about these deranged people who shoot their families, or target workplaces, or indiscriminately shoot up a public place. Forget that he was the "good guy" yesterday.

I will concede there are likely examples of people that seem mentally stable, law abiding that goes off their rocker and commits homicide. This gets back to 1 of my 3 questions below but I don't think we have stats for this. If it can be shown that law abiding citizens (up to the point of the homicide) and/or their weapons (e.g. stolen) are the cause of the majority of gun killings (vs criminal elements and mentally unstable), I will rethink my current position.

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

So let's hear your immediate solution for reducing the availability of guns to the criminal element and the mentally unstable then.

There's reality and there's blue sky. I'll go with blue sky so we don't have to talk legalese and constitutional rights.

Overall

1) Have a law that says 2 strikes and you're out if guns are in use. For the most egregious, let's just have 1 strike. And when I say you're out, I mean "with extreme prejudice" and quickly (yeah, get them out of the gene pool)

2) Upgrade our gun control laws from (how I categorized level 4 to 7, see post Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Yet another school shooting.)

For criminal elements

3) Pull a Duterte and use what means necessary to raid any criminal elements. Do a sustained series of round up, toss the guns, toss the criminal elements. Obviously a legal hurdle but is there anything a President can do and damn the political consequences. Do we really need to have an undercover cop in the Mongols for 2 years to build a case?

Pull up the database of all criminals (prioritize the biggies first). Then raid them and look for guns. Rinse and repeat.

BTW to do this, need to have a massive change campaign to inform the law abiding public on why, what, how etc. and the benefits they get. Need to be sure to tell them law abiding citizens won't have their guns tossed.

4) Need more police, more judges, and prob national guard for this. Better stop the defund the police. Instead, actually fund more and give them more training etc.

For mentally unstable (primarily for suicides), I'll concede there are more ideas out there that likely better than mine, but without having to do a lot of googling, top of mind include ...

5) In addition to #2 above, a good step is to remove all loopholes to background checks and make sure all mental history is in the background check database (this includes < 18 history which I think is currently not the case).

6) Get serious about catching mental health situations early. Maybe start a change management campaign to remove stigma and create the necessary infrastructure & staff up to really support. Maybe take some of the $230B est cost for the $10k loan forgiveness for this? Or use the loot (drugs, guns, cars, gold chains etc.) from #2 above to help fund it? Or maybe ask the Pharma's to contribute some from their ED ad budget?

I personally like #3 as the main driver. Just my 2 cents.

(BTW - let me head off the series of "oh, this is all BS and so unrealistic" commentary that is likely from some on this board. Let me say there have been plenty of unrealistic thoughts discussed in the past 3 pages so why not some more).

[GrantDawg]

Multiple fatalities in a plant outside Baltimore. At least three dead, 4 more shot. We have to restrict doors to businesses now. Those f-ing doors killing all these people.

[BYU 14]

Jesus, we can't even go a week anymore

[PilotMan]

The next argument will be that these are all communists and socialists and nazis trying to kill enough people so that they can pass legislation to take your guns. It's literally anything they want it to be. It doesn't need to make sense.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I personally like #3 as the main driver. Just my 2 cents.

As a non-gun owner, the suggestion that we should further militarize the police and begin raiding anyone with a criminal record sounds doesn't exactly sound like a great compromise.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

As a non-gun owner, the suggestion that we should further militarize the police and begin raiding anyone with a criminal record sounds doesn't exactly sound like a great compromise.

Reality (vs my blue sky musing) means this will never happen in the US with all the legal ramification. But I'd think there is a fair % who will be okay with more aggressive action against criminals and guns. Start with criminals with multiple priors and have used guns before and go down the list. Definitely start with street gang members also.

The original premise was instead of taking all/most guns from law abiding citizens, why not start with criminals (and mentally unstable) first. Definitely a great alternative IMO if the choice was only between take guns away from law abiding citizens or take guns away from criminals.

[thesloppy]

Sliding into a fascist state is definitely a great alternative to being the "Land of the Free".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Sliding into a fascist state is definitely a great alternative to being the "Land of the Free".

Call that fascist state level 4. Taking away all guns from law abiding citizens as fascist state level 9

[JPhillips]

You do realize that under these rules most of the developed world is fascist state levels 7-9.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You do realize that under these rules most of the developed world is fascist state levels 7-9.

And the irony is we are far closer to a fascist state then many of those other nations.

[NobodyHere]

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...

I am on board with both of these, but there is no way in hell the gun lobby would allow either to pass, and the second one still gives a lot of wiggle room. Such as having a trigger lock is considered secure, put if you leave that gun in an unlocked car and it is stolen, the lock can obviously be compromised.

So to me, the best bet here is to somehow get universal background checks through, and the argument against them is feeble. Why a gun store owner needs to do a background check, but he can take some of his wares to a gun show and sell them without it as a vendor is ridiculous.

But I digress, with universal background checks you can then lay the hammer down on anyone that sells a gun without doing one. (And if we issued "gun licenses" to people, simply swiping their card, or entering the ID into an online database would make this manageable)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

The law of supply and demand. They will demand guns to commit crimes, but since there is no supply, they will have to resort to less lethal methods.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

When then this discussion is simply fantasy then. Like the Lions winning a playoff game.

Are you new here?

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...

No tearing apart, I agree with all of these. They're very common sense.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

I'm hoping this would target black market sellers, straw purchasers and "gun show loophole" sellers as these are the main ways criminals get their guns. Perhaps maybe sellers would think twice about who they sell to.

I also wonder if any gun owner should be held partially responsible if they had their gun stolen from them and that gun is used in a crime. This one would only be enforced against people who didn't reasonably secure their guns. For example if you had a gun locked in a safe then you're not responsible. But if you left your gun on the front seat of the car and it gets stolen, then you could held partially responsible if that gun gets used in a crime.

Just a couple thoughts you guys will tear apart in seconds...

Those are suggestions I made a good while back in this thread. The party that always cries about accountability doesn't want any gun owner to ever be accountable for anything.

I have said this before as well, I am in and out of peoples homes on a regular basis. It amazes me how many people keep loaded guns out in the open on their bed-side table and loaded rifles and shotguns sitting next to their windows. WITH KIDS IN THE HOUSE!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

And then there's that darn pesky 2nd Amendment. Good luck with getting that changed.

You don't need to change it. While the constitution grants access to guns, it also grants broad powers over the militia. Congress would be well within its right to require all gun owners who are part of the militia (any male between 17 and 44 years in age if we're being a good originallist), to attend a month-long training session.

So just make the month-long training part of militia duties.

[RainMaker]

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/im-r...ry?id=85208670

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/im-r...ry?id=85208670

This really hits home. My daughter is going in to fourth grade and has a friend who is a bit that she has loved since kindergarten. We have become best friends with the parents because of it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You don't need to change it. While the constitution grants access to guns, it also grants broad powers over the militia. Congress would be well within its right to require all gun owners who are part of the militia (any male between 17 and 44 years in age if we're being a good originallist), to attend a month-long training session.

So just make the month-long training part of militia duties.

Yeah the well regulated militia thing has become the twisted part of the 2nd amendment. There's absolutely no way of arguing that a random guy with guns in his home for "protection" that goes to the gun range once a week or so is part of a well regulated militia. The closest thing we have to a well regulated militia nowadays would be the National Guard.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

There's absolutely no way of arguing that a random guy with guns in his home for "protection" that goes to the gun range once a week or so is part of a well regulated militia.

Sure there is. The 'militia', as understood in the context of the time, was literally everyone. The entire population. The world regulated did not mean what we mean by it today. Survival skills, including the use of guns, had a much more prominent role in society than they do now. You can't look at our modern concept of what words like 'militia' and 'regulated' mean in the 21st century and backport those to the understanding of the people who wrote the Constitution and end up with something that makes sense.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

3) Pull a Duterte and use what means necessary to raid any criminal elements. Do a sustained series of round up, toss the guns, toss the criminal elements. Obviously a legal hurdle but is there anything a President can do and damn the political consequences. Do we really need to have an undercover cop in the Mongols for 2 years to build a case?

Pull up the database of all criminals (prioritize the biggies first). Then raid them and look for guns. Rinse and repeat.

BTW to do this, need to have a massive change campaign to inform the law abiding public on why, what, how etc. and the benefits they get. Need to be sure to tell them law abiding citizens won't have their guns tossed.

I'll just say that I think this is the proposal - definitely respect and approve of the spirit in which it was offered - that you've made on my entire time on this forum that I disagree with most stringently.

The President needs funding for federal agencies to take a major boost to make this happen, and for that he needs Congress. For good reason. This absolutely should not be in executive order territory.

But that's a minor point. As messy as our legal system can be, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing was a pretty good idea IMO - unless you're not being as literal with the Duterte comparison as it appears? The 4th Amendment has a few things to say about the idea of just raiding all known criminals, to say nothing of the number of people who would not easily be classified into either 'criminal element' or 'law-abiding citizen' categories.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Should there be a law that makes the person who sells a gun to buyer at least partially culpable for gun crimes committed using said gun? This would basically affect anyone who sells a gun to someone without doing a background check on the buyer.

Hard no from me. Culpable for selling a gun without adhering to all relevant laws requiring them to do their due diligence on the sale itself? Yes. Strict and severe penalties for failing to do so? Yes.

The slightest bit liable for what someone else does with the gun after you sold it? No way.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll just say that I think this is the proposal - definitely respect and approve of the spirit in which it was offered - that you've made on my entire time on this forum that I disagree with most stringently.
:
But that's a minor point. As messy as our legal system can be, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing was a pretty good idea IMO - unless you're not being as literal with the Duterte comparison as it appears? The 4th Amendment has a few things to say about the idea of just raiding all known criminals, to say nothing of the number of people who would not easily be classified into either 'criminal element' or 'law-abiding citizen' categories.

I did preface by saying and added

There's reality and there's blue sky. I'll go with blue sky so we don't have to talk legalese and constitutional rights.

The original premise was instead of taking all/most guns from law abiding citizens, why not start with criminals (and mentally unstable) first. Definitely a great alternative IMO if the choice was only between take guns away from law abiding citizens or take guns away from criminals.

I understand there are significant hurdles and this won't happen.

But if given the only choices between (1) take away all guns from law abiding citizens and (2) going Duterte and taking away all guns from criminal elements ... yeah, I'd pick #2.

[Brian Swartz]

That's fair, and I did forget the preface you put in there so that's on me.

I do think it does end up not making a difference though since it ends up at pretty much the same place. I don't see any useful way to take away guns from 'criminal elements' without that ultimately hitting all of society anyway. It might start with a different motivation but it'd end up the same.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I have said this before as well, I am in and out of peoples homes on a regular basis. It amazes me how many people keep loaded guns out in the open on their bed-side table and loaded rifles and shotguns sitting next to their windows. WITH KIDS IN THE HOUSE!

In college, I went home with a roommate. He lived out in the country with his mom, just the 2 of them. They had loaded .22 rifles in many rooms. He was probably 19-20 at that time so not a "kid" but I'm sure it was that way when he was growing up. But yeah, I can see the need for the mother to secure all weapons in a gun safe.

On a side note, I remembered we went into his room and crawled out on the roof. OMG the stars you can see away from city lights. It was glorious.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In college, I went home with a roommate. He lived out in the country with his mom, just the 2 of them. They had loaded .22 rifles in many rooms. He was probably 19-20 at that time so not a "kid" but I'm sure it was that way when he was growing up. But yeah, I can see the need for the mother to secure all weapons in a gun safe.

On a side note, I remembered we went into his room and crawled out on the roof. OMG the stars you can see away from city lights. It was glorious.

There really isn't anything like the night sky without absent of light pollution. It is glorious.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Sure there is. The 'militia', as understood in the context of the time, was literally everyone. The entire population. The world regulated did not mean what we mean by it today. Survival skills, including the use of guns, had a much more prominent role in society than they do now. You can't look at our modern concept of what words like 'militia' and 'regulated' mean in the 21st century and backport those to the understanding of the people who wrote the Constitution and end up with something that makes sense.

Yet in those days everyone couldn't own a gun, most states/colonies regulated gun ownership, some states/colonies required registration of guns, and some states/colonies even went to homes to inspect registered guns. Public transport or carry of guns wasn't allowed.

Also, post revolutionary war the colonies confiscated guns from those that supported the British government and those that refused to be fight in the militias that were stood up to act as our army in the revolutionary war.

The reality is in many ways we have less gun laws now than we did in 1791.

[NobodyHere]

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Sure there is. The 'militia', as understood in the context of the time, was literally everyone. The entire population. The world regulated did not mean what we mean by it today. Survival skills, including the use of guns, had a much more prominent role in society than they do now. You can't look at our modern concept of what words like 'militia' and 'regulated' mean in the 21st century and backport those to the understanding of the people who wrote the Constitution and end up with something that makes sense.

There is no "at the time". It is plainly written and we've had recent rulings that have confirmed that it still means the same thing.

All able-bodied men are part of the unorganized militia. Congress has the power to expand that too. And they have plenary authority to regulate and discipline the militia as they see fit. Technically, the Constitution gives Congress the power to require all gun owners in the militia to take on militia training.

Now that's an originalist interpretation, which most of the Supreme Court pretends to be. And I'm aware that those members are not consistent and do a lot of mental gymnastics when it comes to 2A. But if they were to be consistent, Congress could legally do that.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There really isn't anything like the night sky without absent of light pollution. It is glorious.

One of the reasons I love the mountains.

[Thomkal]

Wasn't sure what thread to put this in, but this seemed the most appropriate.


There was a Pride Festival going on in Idaho, and thank god an alert citizen saw something suspicious about a U-Haul truck nearby and reported it to police. Police pulled it over and inside were 31 members on the Patriot Front white nationalist group were inside, all dressed in riot gear and with riot equipment, and on their way to the Festival. Don't know if there were guns or not.



Police: 31 members of Patriot Front group arrested in Coeur d'Alene - KXLY

[Atocep]

Every single one of them wearing a mask when they were arrested but fought against wearing masks for Covid.

It's sad, I look at these guys and they're dads and/or uncles of kids somewhere and have this much hate in them.

[GrantDawg]

I read this was actually halted by an FBI operation following their communication. The FBI was actually directing the police on the scene.