Mass Shootings: A Better Solution

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

poing

Inactive
Hi Everyone,

I joined the forum to discuss an idea I have to address mass shootings.
Something better than federal legislation or other measures that chip away our Second Amendment rights.

While background checks or red flag laws prevent criminals from legally purchasing firearms, they don't actually address the underlying issue.
The mental health and stability of a gun buyer.

I hope to reach the gun sellers, present my idea, gauge receptiveness, and hopefully find people (in the US) willing to champion the idea. Since I'm and Expat living in Japan.

Plus, I'm hoping someone can articulate and communicate the idea better than I can.

It's still just a rough idea and anyone is welcome to provide input.

It's pretty simple idea and it does not infringe on The Second Amendment rights of the people. The key word there is "people", as in the community.
Although it might blur the line between a collective right versus an individual right.

The general idea is, the buyer of a firearm requires friends (or family members) to condone a purchase.
Firearms with a high capacity/high rate of fire would require the buyer to have more friends condone the purchase.

Consider it a simple way to gauge the mental health of the buyer.
If they are not able to bring friends or family to a (gun shop, gun show, private sale) that will condone a purchase, maybe they shouldn't own certain types of firearms.

The gun seller is not rejecting the purchase, their own community is.

I picture a simple form with check boxes and a personal details block for the condoning individuals. ID's should be always be checked.
Where the firearm buyer would need a friend to condone specific criteria of a firearm.
A different person for each of the following characteristics the firearm meets:

  • Handgun
  • Semi-Automatic
  • Magazine Capacity Over 6 Rounds
  • Magazine Capacity Over 10 Rounds
  • Magazine Capacity of 30 or More Rounds
  • Fully Automatic? Bump Stock?

Anyone would be able to purchase a Mossberg 500, Remington 700, and many other models used for hunting without needing anyone to condone the purchase.

To purchase a Derringer or .357 Magnum "six shooter" one (1) friend would necessary to condone the purchase.
Two (2) would be needed to condone the purchase a Smith and Wesson TRR8.

While the purchase of a Glock 26 w/ 33 Round Magazine -or- AR15 with a 30 Round Magazine would require the buyer to bring in five (5) friends to condone the purchase.
And let's not forget that missing the target using "spray and pray" is a good laugh to be enjoyed with friends.

I hope gun sellers might be willing to voluntarily implement something alone these lines throughout the country.
Instead of waiting for legislation dictating the rules for gun sellers, let the gun sellers bring a better solution forward.




Sincerely,
Brian LaVallee
 
Ok - but - -this is exactly like every other "solution".

The problem isn't guns - nor is it knives, or explosives or large trucks or pump up garden sprayers filled with gasoline/dishwashing liquid mix or gasoline spread on the stairway of an upper floor after hours club and lit with a BIC lighter.....

The problem is - - the whacked out people that commit these acts of sensless violence.

Stamp out the source of the problem and it goes away. Concentrate on the symptoms of the problem & they'll just change to something else.
 
Since this thread is not about any law, existing or proposed, it's off topic for this discussion area.

From the rules for the L&CR discussion area:

Discussions in this forum will be centered upon legal issues as they relate to the 2nd Amendment and other Civil Rights. Constitutional law (which would encompass separation of powers, the impairment of contracts clause, the full faith and credit clause, etc., as well as the Bill of Rights) will also be on topic. Straight political discussions or partisan politics will be off topic. Our primary test for partisan politics in this forum is the mention of candidate's or party names. While some political discussion will necessarily crop up as an adjunct to the civil rights issue(s) of the individual thread(s), we expect that this will be a much smaller part of the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...
 
Welcome to TFL, poing!
poing said:
. . . .It's pretty simple idea and it does not infringe on The Second Amendment rights of the people. The key word there is "people", as in the community.
Although it might blur the line between a collective right versus an individual right. . . . .
Click to expand...
Aaaand you've already lost me.
poing said:
....
The general idea is, the buyer of a firearm requires friends (or family members) to condone a purchase.
Firearms with a high capacity/high rate of fire would require the buyer to have more friends condone the purchase....
Click to expand...
That's not "blurring the line" between collective and individual rights. While it does not (at this point) appear to be a governmental mandate, it subjects my rights to the whims of those in my social circle.
poing said:
....Consider it a simple way to gauge the mental health of the buyer.
If they are not able to bring friends or family to a (gun shop, gun show, private sale) that will condone a purchase, maybe they shouldn't own certain types of firearms....
Click to expand...
Or maybe they're perfectly stable, but have a thoroughly despicable personality. Some days, that describes me.

poing said:
. . . . . Instead of waiting for legislation dictating the rules for gun sellers, let the gun sellers bring a better solution forward....
Click to expand...
A seller would get exactly one chance to tell me that I need my friends' permission to decide how I spend my hard-earned money. I'd go to a different seller and never look back.

With all of that said, AB is right. Off-topic and closed.
 
After some discussion among the moderating staff, we have moved this discussion to "General Discussion" because the topic isn't appropriate in 'Law and Civil Rights," and we have re-opened it for discussion.
 
Thanks for reopening this thread. It's a bit "off beat". But we do need to expand our thinking and conversations. Lord knows offering "thoughts and prayers" and more "restrictive laws" is not getting us anywhere. All ideas should at least be heard; not necessarily endorsed. I propose an immediate ban on "Gun Free Zones".
 
Are friends/family exposed to any liability? Would friends/family be authenticated? Would it be illegal to pay someone? Would it be possible to form a "buyer's club"? Would employees of a particularly large FFL be excluded?

Are derringers or "six shooters" used in less crime? Are $1329.00 (MSRP) TRR8's used in so much crime that we need more people to vouch for their buyers?

How many buyers would it take for a Glock 26 without a magazine? 2 or 5? Is that excessive for a subcompact?

Why are full autos included? It's so difficult and expensive to lawfully own fully automatic firearms that they have only ever been used in a small single-digit number of crimes. Does that matter?

How are bump stocks included? They are generally illegal for a common person to own and have only one been used in one, single, very high profile crime. Are you now proposing some degree of legalization if I can round up some shooting buddies?

Why aren't the number of required patsies proportional to the amount of crime?
 
Well, I'm sure any gang member will have enough
"friends" to accompany him/her to the store to
vouch for the purchase of just about anything. :eek:

And a well-to-do gent/lady should be able to pay
enough people to swear he/she is fit as a fiddle. :p

Can you imagine the sight at a gun store, however
large or small, where 20 people are each crowded
around a dozen gun buyers at a time. :)
 
I do appreciate discussions about "thinking outside the box" ideas. When someone just says "ban ARs" or "ban guns" in general, the discussion is done before it started.

That being said, I can't support this idea. As already mentioned, this proposes your ability to own guns is based on how your social circle is. You can be a completely sane and would never hurt a fly, but are just not very socially skilled. Or people think you're weird. That is not a good reason to deny someone their right to bear arms. And it could be easy to just gather some strangers to be your "friends" for the day.

Even if you take away the friend aspect and make it just family members, there are a lot of people who don't have any family or are not in favor of their family.

So what would be the work around for those with no friends or family that can vouch for them? I'm sure one would say they can get a psych eval from a shrink to say you're sane enough to own a gun. I'm against that too by the way. Shrinks are human too and not all are the same. You could be stuck seeing a shrink who secretly hates guns and will be less likely to call people sane enough to own a gun.
 
Last edited:
TrueBlue711 said:
That being said, I can't support this idea. As already mentioned, this proposes you ability to own guns is based on how your social circle is.
Click to expand...
Or where you live.

I'm a senior citizen and a widower. My only daughter (adopted) is an adult who lives in another country. I am a "gun guy" (of sorts) who has the misfortune of living in a town that is a suburban liberal enclave, one in which the mayor has gone on record in a public meeting with the statement, "We don't like guns here." She got reelected, so people must agree with her. The town attorney didn't even know that the laws of our state allow the use of deadly force in self defense; he stated at a public meeting that the law did not allow the use of deadly force for self defense. [Note: it does.]

The people I knew from high school have pretty much all died or moved out of the state. My brother and sister live in other states. People move into and out of town so often these days that I only know one of my neighbors, and we're not friends -- we're just neighbors who have each other's phone numbers if we need to call about something affecting the neighborhood.

So where am I supposed to find even one person to vouch for me if I just want to buy a .22 caliber plinker? Where am I supposed to find four or five people to vouch for me if I want to buy something uber-deadly? Can I 3-D print them?

You introduced this notion by saying that it "might blur the line between a collective right versus an individual right." I disagree. It doesn't blur the line. You don't understand the line. You appear to think that the reference to "the people" in the Second Amendment is a collective reference to the population. That view has been discredited for many years, and it was shredded and eviscerated by the decision in the Heller case, in which the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the RKBA in the Second Amendment is an individual right.

You also say that your proposal "does not infringe on The Second Amendment rights of the people." [Your emphasis] Please explain how this does not infringe my rights. Today, I can call up my FFL, order pretty much any firearm I want (as long as it's not a full automatic "machine gun"), and pick it up in three or four days when he calls to tell me it arrived. You want me to have to have five people (whom I have zero chance of finding) to go with me to a gun shop and sign a paper attesting that I am not a danger to society, so I should be allowed to buy my new toy. Aside from the problem of what liability this might create for those hypothetical five people I have zero chance of finding ... HOW IS THIS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF MY RIGHTS?

If you think this is not an infringement, I respectfully suggest that you get out a dictionary and look up the definition and etymology of the word "infringe."
 
The problem is EVERYBODY gives a damn about random acts of mass killing. They are like a plane crash horrible but a statistical anomaly.

NOBODY gives a damn about the thousands of folks killed in St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Memphis etc. in a given year.

You want to make a REAL difference? Dump money into local PDs. Train them, equip them and put lots of boots on the beat and SUPPORT THEM. Aggressively police, especially violent crime. Shots fired? RUN IT DOWN. Attempted assault RUN IT DOWN. Assault RUN IT DOWN. Don’t wait to dump your resources into actual murder just because Jonny Neck Tattoo hasn’t managed to graduate to actual killing doesn’t mean he’s not on his way. Stop him BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

As for the anomalies crazy does what crazy does. You just had a nut job burn 30 folks to death. So, maybe have 20 friends sign off that you can buy a couple Jerry cans of fuel????

Also we need to look at these folks and see what medications they were on if any. Is there a correlation that bears further research.

Point is if all the folks around me say I am crazy as a loon and I am just looking to kill folks chances are denying me a firearm isn’t gonna make me less crazy and it probably won’t stop me from taking out a bus full of nuns should I desire.

NOTE- DEAR NSA. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO TAKE OUT A BUS FULL OF NUNS NOR DO I THINK I AM CRAZY. AT THE VERY LEAST I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HURT ANYBODY. :)
 
You want to make a REAL difference? Dump money into local PDs. Train them, equip them and put lots of boots on the beat and SUPPORT THEM. Aggressively police, especially violent crime. Shots fired? RUN IT DOWN. Attempted assault RUN IT DOWN. Assault RUN IT DOWN. Don’t wait to dump your resources into actual murder just because Jonny Neck Tattoo hasn’t managed to graduate to actual killing doesn’t mean he’s not on his way. Stop him BEFORE IT HAPPENS.
Click to expand...
rant on
While all well and good, it doesn't mean anything when the justice side of the equation pleads them down or out of jail with basically zero consequences for their actions all because "it costs too much". Runs the prisons like they do in third world countries and maybe no one will ever want to go back. Want to eat? Your family better bring you food. No tv, weight sets, libraries; prison is SUPPOSED to be a PUNISHMENT, not a temporary stay on their criminal career path.
Rant over
 
It's pretty simple idea and it does not infringe on The Second Amendment rights of the people. The key word there is "people", as in the community.
Click to expand...

The community doesn't get a say about your, or my individual rights.
The idea may fly in a more collective minded society, such a Japan, or socialist Europe, but the US is much, much more focused on the rights of the individual.

The Heller vs DC Supreme Court ruling clearly stated that the right to arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, and exists independent of the collective right.


Your idea about needing 1 friend for this gun, and 5 for that one, or worse for the just magazine for that one, are completely arbitrary, and doesn't make sense to me. Also, I know people who have many friends and are not "safe. stable" people who can legally possess firearms. I think the principle is flawed and unworkable in practical terms. Better take a dozen people with you when you put gasoline in your car, so they can sign a document saying you won't, in their opinion, use the gas to commit arson, its the same principle.

Read the Bill of Rights. Look at the places and ways the term "the people" is used. It is used to refer to INDIVIDUAL people's rights.

You don't have free speech only in a group. You don't need to have friends to choose which church, if any, you attend. You don't have to be part of a group to have legal protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or self incrimination. Etc., etc...

Community standards of what is, and is not acceptable behavior are fluid. Some things remain constant, like rape and murder being bad things, but other things change, and sometimes change rapidly and radically.

We see this all the time, in varying degrees about all kinds of things. Relying on community opinion to determine your rights is, essentially, mob rule.

It may seem kinder and gentler than a shouting angry mob with pitchforks and torches, but that just the surface appearance.
 
Not meant to be a joke, but what of the wife that thinks you have enough firearms, or the family member that is anti 2A (I have one)? They easily achieve their agenda by saying you're unfit. What's the next step? Confiscation, because you're unfit to purchase a gun, now makes you unfit to own the ones you have?
 
This type of process actually exists already, but in a different gun related scenario. I can't join any local gun clubs without an NRA membership. I also need a sponsor, and my application has to be approved by a committee.

However I still have access to other ranges that have different requirements. In other words I have choices.

Imagine applying these rules to the 1st Amendment. What if you had to bring a group of friends somehow to create your own blog?

Or what if you had to bring at least one friend or family member with you when you voted? This slope is so slippery it belongs in a waterpark.
 
Mainah said:
This type of process actually exists already, but in a different gun related scenario. I can't join any local gun clubs without an NRA membership. I also need a sponsor, and my application has to be approved by a committee.
Click to expand...
Bad example. A gun club isn't the government, and joining a gun club is not a constitutional right. A gun club is, at its root, a private social organization that happens to share an interest in firearms and shooting. In terms of organization, it's no different from a bowling club, a darts club, or a drinking club. Members get to decide on the rules pertaining to their club. If they want to make NRA membership a prerequisite, that's their right. If they want a majority of current members to approve new members, that's also their right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top